Letters to the Editor

• thelastnamechosen:

  [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.

  Again, the point of my post is that there was NO BENTONITE -- I really don't care in the slightest for purposes of this postif there was silica (since, as even Ross admitted, silica is used by a whole slew of countries besides Iraq in anthrax).

  And my sources for the lack of bentonite are NOT unnamed - I cite Beecher, the NYT, Lake, his sources, Gray, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION in both public and private denials, among others. Beecher has first-hand knowledge of the investigation -- he's a scientists in the FBI's lab at Quantico.

  If my argument was that there were no additives at all of any kind in the anthrax (which I am persuaded is true but am not arguing here), then I would have the obligation to go through the disputing sources and demonstrate why the Beecher/Lake/etc., sources are accurate. But that is NOT my argument. My argument is that there was NO BENTONITE -- and all credible sources say that. Are you aware of any which claim otherwise?

  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.

  His site contains, by far, the most extensive and comprehensive compilation of credible source material on the anthrax investigation. He has analyzed it all extensively, laid out his arguments, and reached conclusions. I find those conclusions persuasive because his reasoning is superior to those who reach different results. That's how credibility is determined.

  But again, that's all academic, since that goes to the question of silica, NOT BENTONITE.

  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.

  What do you mean by "unsourced" here? "Unsourced" means the absence of a source. How is Beecher not a source? How is Lake's comprehensive analysis of the pubicly available information not a source? Those ARE sources. You may not like the sources - you may think they are not dispositive - but they are sources.

  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.

  This is what Patrick said in the NYT:

  William C. Patrick III, a scientist who once made germ weapons for the American military and is now a private consultant on biological defense, agreed with the FBI's assessment. “The material was good, but not weapons grade," Patrick said in an interview. "You can't make that in your basement. It requires sophisticated equipment."

  You think he's talking about the grade of anthrax here without having any idea what the tests revealed? He's just making it up?

  To repeat my rather simple point. You are relying on unnamed sources to debunk unnamed sources.

  Even on the question of the silica, that's just not true. On the question of the BENTONITE, it could not be false. Every source -- named source, including with first-hand knowledge - say there is no bentonite. Other than Ross's report, are you aware of anything to the contrary?

  Permalink Monday, April 9, 2007 01:29 PM