Replies

Its always been a curious point to me that the Ames strain was used, which is from an American source, but it was weaponized to a high degree with silicates that allowed it to remain airborne for long periods of time.

This isnt the American way to weaponize anthrax. I sounds more like Iraq and Dr Deaths way to weaponize these strains.

Thats why I have always believed Iraq was behind it.

Although some people claim it had to be American, I still stand behind the point that American methods were not used to weaponize it.

"Its always been a curious point to me that the Ames strain was used, which is from an American source..."

Don't be misled by an assumption that, because it's Ames, it has to have come from the U.S. That's like saying that Spanish influenza can only exist in Spain.

The Ames strain was shared with several other countries -- both as a biowarfare possibility (to military labs) and as a serious animal husbandry threat (to vet med schools).

Thus, the sample that was cultured in volume by the Iraqis could have come via any of many possible sources. And it was chosen for weaponization, not because of its American origin, but because of its virulence.

Greetings judicial meanz, FReepers, et al:

Expert sources from my hazmat training assert:

(1) Anthrax previously produced by lunatic fringe groups never met weaponized grade of agent. Much like comparing Icarus wings against the space shuttle for aviation.
(2) The 2001 subject agent is a weaponized grade of anthrax. Very few countries in the world are capable of producing this grade of agent.
(3) While no "proof," many skeptics can not dismiss the possibility the subject agent was smuggled into the USA via many means, including diplomatic pouch.

My personal spin. Use the pedophile wannabe Ritter theorem:
Ask Scotty Ritter if Iraq was responsible. If slimy Scotty claims Iraq was not responsible, Iraq most certainly was responsilbe.

'I have always believed Iraq was behind it.'
>>>>>>>>>>>.
I have always believed this, too and think the administration turned their focus to Iraq in earnest after the anthrax was sent here in the US. I suspect they have always known he was behind it, but to publicly state it [since it was an actual use of weapons of mass destruction provided to terrorists by a nation state]would have required a swift and terrible response. That could have brought us to a 'brink of world war' senario very quickly just from the sheer ferocity and the need for everyone to immediately choose sides - perhaps in the heat of political and religious fervor and too quickly for thoughtful response and good judgement.

I think the administration prefered to handle this with a methodical step by step approach that would allow us to better prepare our Clinton scaled back military and weaponry and handle Iraq on our terms and in our own time.

Our administration has talked many times about Saddam being able to hand off WMD to terrorists without leaving personal 'fingerprints' and I think these statements have not been based on hypothethical situations but on one we have already experienced. Someday I am expecting to see evidence that Atta set this up to happen as a follow up to his demise in the bombing. The only reason it was not worse was because these guys did not have a good understanding of how best to deliver the agent they were able to obtain from Iraq. We were very blessed they didn't.

Next time we will probably not be as fortunate and there will be a next time. This is why we WILL soon deal with Saddam no matter what.