The argument that the anthrax letters "were actually more consequential" than 9/11 is indeed going too far.

Not hardly. During the 1980s and 1990s there was an maxim about terrorism: "Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead."(I believe it started with Phillip Jenkins at RAND, but I can't be sure) That encapsulates the overriding goal of a terrorist: to terrorize, to undermine, and to plain-out scare everyone.

Unlike 9/11, which was limited in both duration and geography, the anthrax letters could be sent to everyone and anyone in the country over the course of years. The fear of such attacks reached deep into the country, even though the actual attacks were again limited to specific targets within specific geographical locations.

The Bush administration was in a state of confusion after 9/11 and did not push the anthrax matter very hard.

Granted.

Also the choice of targets immediately raised a red flag, indicating that the culprit was a right-winger - why would Islamic terrorists target "liberal" news media and members of Congress?

High-profile targets hit with unconventional weapons delivered by wholly conventional and mundane means? Hard to get better publicity than that. Terrorism has logic and strategy behind it, even when it seems senseless.

But it is really inconceivable that the Bush administration has not known more than they have let on, probably from the very beginning. How could it possibly take almost 7 years to assemble evidence on something which was initially viewed as a possible national danger?

Dis-interest. Laziness. The fact this Administration can't do shit.

Which is a greater national danger now, more 9/11's or more anthrax attacks and Oklahoma City bombings? At best, the Bush administration has been totally uninterested in preventing the latter.

I'd argue the greatest national danger is the messianic nihilist in the Oval Office with "The Football" within arm's reach. But yes, this Administration has unquestionably made things worse and left us more vulnerable than we were on September 10th, 2001.

Ultimately I'd argue that the anthrax letters were indeed more responsible than 9/11 by itself for the climate of fear we've (as a country) only recently started shaking off. Every corner of the country receives mail six days a week, and given the person or persons responsible for the original attacks has yet to be caught, who's to say whats lurking in your mailbox?

It's remarkable, literally incredible, that Cohen's Slate piece has this: "I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it." He doesn't see the obvious inference? It doesn't occur to him what the source of the Anthrax might be, even as late as March 2008?

And sysprog's citation of the Mooney review of Meyer's book has this: "On Oct. 18, 2001, a White House alarm went off indicating that sensors had detected dangerous levels of radioactive, chemical or biological agents. According to Mayer, anyone who had entered the White House situation room, including Cheney, had been exposed.

'They thought Cheney was already lethally infected,'

said a former administration officer who had kept the White House secret until now, according to the book."

This "secret" is especially suspect if the anthrax originated from a US bioweapons lab. It seems as if the rollout of disinformation continues apace.

Who benefits from this event?

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/UStriedfailediraqanthraxlink.html

Source: New York Times, December 22, 2001.

U.S. Inquiry Tried, but Failed, to Link Iraq to Anthrax Attack

By WILLIAM J. BROAD with DAVID JOHNSTON

Shortly after the first anthrax victim died in October, the Bush administration began an intense effort to explore any possible link between Iraq and the attacks and continued to do so even after scientists determined that the lethal germ was an American strain, scientists and government officials said.

But they said that largely secret work had found no evidence to back up the initial suspicions, which is one reason administration officials have said recently that the source of the anthrax was most likely domestic.

The Iraq inquiry also looked for chemical clues. An early focus was bentonite, a clay additive that is one of the few substances identified publicly that can help reduce the static charge of anthrax spores so they float more freely and potentially infect more people.

Richard O. Spertzel, a retired microbiologist who led the United Nations' biological weapons inspections of Iraq, told investigators that Iraq had explored using bentonite in its germ weapons programs. But Maj. Gen. John Parker of the Army's biological research center at Fort Detrick, Md., said in late October that tests had turned up no signs of aluminum -- a main building block of bentonite.

"If I can't find aluminum," General Parker told reporters, "I can't say it's bentonite."

like the Prague meet-up and the Niger yellowcake ...

Did Nick Kristoff ever divulge his "special source" for his columns fingering Hatfill? Another ambitious NYT "special access" WH-groomed disinformation agent or just a dupe?

I don't remember. Anyone?

about how the military itself perpetuates the false Iraq-Anthrax connection through its anthrax vaccine program. The website for this program is very telling. Link in sig. Click on "The Threat". Anthrax is tied together neatly with Iraq and 9/11.

..that the anthrax letters were supposed to be the dreadful terrorist attack on America that would be the Pearl Harbor the neocons wanted--only to be trumped by Osama Bin laden.

(blogged it, too: http://homepage.mac.com/petergillis/iblog/C209902511/E20080324212238/index.html )

It explained all sorts of things: what foreign terrorist would target Tom Daschle and Pat Leahy? Why the silence--the utter silence--afterwards? It might even explain W's bewilderment on 9/11--he was all set to act like the President under Terrorist Attack--but it was about three weeks too early? What was going on? It was a perfect instrument for a false-flag attack: dreadful and fatal, great for paranoia (anybody can get one of those letters!) but containable and not subject to breakout. The evil They set it in motion--only to have OBL throw planes into the WTC and the Pentagon while they were waiting for the letters to arrive. It could even explain W's dismissive attitude towards the PDB--quiet, boy, we got an evil plan to hatch!)

I'm a comic-book writer--and as such skeptical of my own theory as altogether too cool and pulp-like. It was a good thing to trot out at a party.

But while this shakes my tale a little--the boots-on-the-ground culprit should have been in the Caribbean somewhere--it doesn't by much.

And it gives it another nasty turn: the timing of this. With the prospect of Democratic AG intent on digging up the dirt on the last eight years, this could not be an open case--not with naked cables leading to the White House and all. It had to be closed--and closed decisively. A convincing case and a dead culprit--case closed. Nothing to see here.

It's too Ludlumish for me to really believe it--the world doesn't run that way, as far as I can see--but I gon't know. There's a creepy air of possibility about it.