Letters to the Editor
-
@Ondelette
It seems to be a dark conspiracy that a government lab would be researching offensive biological weapons.
Why? I would assume that to be the case, for any fairly large and/or rich nation. First, without researching OBWs, how can you develop defenses? Your opponents aren't publishing their research. Second, if the treaty restrictions break down, whoever is capable of unleashing OBW would be at a huge advantage.
I'd be surprised if it were a large program - that would be difficult to hide. But a small program? I'd expect that many would see not doing the research as irresponsible. There are so many classified research programs, that hiding a small OBW program wouldn't be difficult, and there are sufficient researchers who wouldn't see it as unethical.
The DOE is big-time into bio research nowadays - that's where I'd put it.
-
A Bavarian connection?
L.W.M said:
Neo-Nazi websites, including the largest umbrella organisation, the National Alliance, show support for al-Qaeda. Billy Roper, the alliance's membership coordinator posted a message within hours of the 11 September attacks, reading: 'Anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill Jews is all right by me. I wish our members had half as much testicular fortitude.' Another group, Aryan Action, praised the attacks of 11 September, saying: 'Either you're fighting with the Jews against al-Qaeda or you support al-Qaeda fighting against the Jews.' Others outwardly support the anthrax mailing.
One message, entitled 'No Sympathy for the Devil', was posted in several chat rooms by right-winger Grant Bruer, whose racist writings are circulated among supremacist groups. It reads: 'Is there not a single person who has received these anthrax letters that isn't an avowed enemy of the white race? Tom Brokaw, Tom Daschle and the gossip rag offices have all been 100 per cent legitimate targets. Who among us has the slightest bit of sympathy for these pukes?'
I think this is significant because it shows that Bavarian groups had a clear understanding who the significance of the targets, where as I, like Ed Lake, seem to think that the profile of the anthrax attackers is significantly different than Atta's "Hamburg Cell" most often associated with 9/11. Is it possible that a group of Bavarians crossed path with Atta at the Technical University of Hamburg? Could the anthrax attack have been a "piggy-back" operation designed to take advantage of the hijacking. I think the lead time required for the anthrax attacks implies that they too were being formulated while Atta's group was in Hamburg.
-
I wish those crackerjack ABC newsers
would tell me if it was Saddam or Clinton put the bentonite in the dog food that killed old Shep.
-
@jojo+++
Agreed, almost. Who said anything about hiding it? As late as 1990, they were doing it out in the open, that was years after the treaty, so why hide it now?
-
@Ondelette
Who's doing it in the open? I haven't seen any published paper, but then I'm trapped in my own little discipline.
-
@jojo++
The Army was. Possibly Sandia too. Like I said, that was 1990. Don't know about now. But its apparently not a guarded secret that if you want to build something that couldn't be built in 1990, you go to Dugway.
-
batman valentino
I admit, as does everyone, that the war in Iraq is a catastrophe, but it was not our intention to create a catastrophe, and everyone wants to fix it or get out, as soon as we can find a way. This link was not helpful, and was more dishonest than the ABC links discussed
How do we know what the intentions are or were? The rationale for the war has changed so many times I can't keep it straight any more.
-
The Lincoln production and the Haliburton contracts
The basis upon which we made the case was admittedly completely deceitful. I think the Valerie Plame case demonstrated that. But when Bush did the “job well done” on the Lincoln, I think he thought it was over. The last thing Cheney and Bush would want to see was their baby, Haliburton involved in a devastating failure like the rebuilding of Iraq. If disaster had been the original plan, Haliburton would have been left on the sideline.
-
Glenn
I don't believe there was any bentonite and I don't believe Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks.
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).
You are relying on Beecher's anonymous sources that say there were NO ADDITIVES PERIOD to prove there was no bentonite. Beecher is directly contradicted by this:
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.”
A named source who has done actual scientific testing on the anthrax in question.
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.
They are unnamed sources. If Beecher and the NYT are named sources then Ross and ABC are named sources. Laundering an unnamed source though a named reporter does not create a named source. That should be obvious.
Beecher - Anonymous sources contradicted by Mullick
NYT - Same as above
Lake & his sources - still waiting for a cite
Gray - ????
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION - cite please
Repeating from a previous post-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.
My argument is that there was NO BENTONITE -- and all credible sources say that. Are you aware of any which claim otherwise?
There is so far no evidence of bentonite, except unnamed sources. While we can infer there was no bentonite, I have yet to see any science that makes that claim. Would I be surprised if there was no bentonite? No.
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.
Maybe I misunderstand your criticism of anonymous sources and of journalistic sourcing in general. If Beecher and Lake are sources for no bentonite then surely Ledeen is a source for WMDs in Iraq.
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?
Making what up? What is he supposed to be saying here? That not "weapons grade" means no additives? If so, that is a pretty big leap. Are you saying that Patrick did any actual testing or is basing his opinion on any actual testing?
Every source -- named source, including with first-hand knowledge - say there is no bentonite.
If Beecher is your source with first hand knowledge, his statement "Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters..." and then footnoting Matsumoto is a strange way to say first hand knowledge.
Damn, you are almost as stubborn as I am.
I have an idea, why don't you get someone who has done actual testing to speak on the record and say there is no bentonite instead of arguing with me.