Letters to the Editor
thelastnamechosen
Published Letters: 136
-
Don't trust Beecher
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
The Douglas Beecher article is contradicted by many reports which states that the anthrax was "weaponized" using silica.
http://www.afip.org/images/public/nl081002.pdf
“Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”
While still trying to blame Iraq, we at least have someone on the record talking about specific tests.
Beecher's information is sourced to "Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters..." Beecher's footnote refers to "Matsumoto, G. 2003. Bioterrorism. Anthrax powder: state of the art?" which is available here:
http://cryptome.org/anthrax-powder.htm
Matsumoto's information originates with "According to sources on Capitol Hill..." None of this is any better than ABC.
This is an important post you have written because the anthrax attacks were used, along with yellow cake and the aluminum tubes, as part of the march to war but using the unsourced Beecher article to knock down the Iraq connection is problematic at best.
These unsourced reports came at a time when the advanced techniques used to weaponize the anthrax were being used as an argument that the anthrax must have been produced by the US military or someone with military training.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Beecher is at the center of the anthrax investigation, I am not sure why he is relying on an article written by an investigative journalist quoting unnamed sources.
I am familiar with Lake's work, but if you can find a source on his page that does not rely on Beecher or Matsumoto I would be grateful.
I agree that the bentonite claim is almost certainly false, but the question of silica has not been resolved in my mind. While silica has no bearing on the ABC report, using unnamed sources to knock it down certainly does.
-
No problem
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I concocted that moniker, it was originally thelastnametaken but I thought "chosen" had more of a cooperative, free will aspect.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are relying on unnamed sources to debunk unnamed sources. If you are using Lake instead of Beecher, you need to point to your source. Telling me to do your research is quite a thin argument. I gave you a named source who may be misquoted or may be lying, but it is a named source.
Lake has done some excellent work on this subject, but he is only as good as his sources. Lake made his name debunking nude celebrity fakes (the lord's work as far as I am concerned) but he is not an authority outside of his excellent research skills. His research should be quoted not his opinion. I understand the desire to rely on a report that there were no additives at all because it makes your point without having to worry about the actual details. The problem is that the claim is unsourced and it seriously diminishes your criticism of ABC's use of anonymous sources.
It is a big hole in an otherwise excellent post.
William C. Patrick's quote does not address additives and the contradictory statement about the gray area between "requires sophisticated equipment" but not "weapons grade" is merely an opinion that is not backed up by any scientific testing.
To repeat my rather simple point. You are relying on unnamed sources to debunk unnamed sources.