What do you think about that terrorist attack that occurred in the U.S. involving WMD? Whenever I ask somebody that they don't know what I'm talking about. Which is what they are supposed to do. It served its purpose. I am talking about the Anthrax letters, which killed several people, and was a textbook example of state sponsored terrorism. Anthrax is a WMD isn't it? Isn't that why we've killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq? Because Saddam Hussein didn't have a stockpile of anthrax but since it was claimed he did by our government that was good enough, to go kill, invade, and stay there?
The anthrax attacks and the terrorist attack of 9/11 are part of the same event. The only way you can possibly separate the two is if you believe a person was watching his TV on 9/11 and suddenly realized that the anthrax he had been making in his multi million dollar bioweapons research facility and was coincidently just now being perfected for delivery can now be sent out and blamed on anti Israel anti-American Muslim fanatics. That is a bit far fetched I think you would have to agree. Take a look at the actual anthrax letters themselves:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/102301.htm and
http://www.postalworkersonline.com/anthrax.jpg
"The anthrax letters attack was classic terrorism in that rather than designed to kill as many people as possible, was designed to terrorize as many people as possible. The choice of a variety of media as targets seems to have been cleverly designed to ensure a broad spectrum of publicity about the attacks. The choice of Senators Daschle and Leahy suggests that the perpetrator may lean to the political right and may have some specific grudge against those Senators.” {b}
Every letter says 9-11-01, which BTW is the western (American) style of writing dates, and is showing its link with the event. The first letter was mailed on 9-18-01. This is absolute proof, that the anthrax letters and 9/11 are part of the same event. "In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them," said Richard O. Spertzel, chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998. "And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good." {a} I think he might be a little off, in his estimate of 4 or 5 people but not much, according to a former defense scientist the number of defense scientists with hands-on anthrax experience and the necessary access is under 50. {b} That should narrow the suspects down if the evidence points in this direction and it clearly does.
There was only one week between Sept 11 and Sept 18, when the first two letters (and probably another letter, never found, to AMI) were postmarked. This suggests that the anthrax was already in hand, and the attack largely planned, before Sept 11. {b} The perpetrator was ready before Sept. 11 and simply took advantage of the likelihood that Sept. 11 would throw suspicion on Muslim terrorists.
So, lets figure out who was behind the anthrax attacks. I think you would agree that if Iraq did not have any anthrax, and had shut down their bioweapons facilities, it would be impossible to blame them right? Al Qaeda doesn't have the means to make it.
A classified report dated February 1999 discusses responses to an anthrax attack through the mail. The report, precipitated by a series of false anthrax mailings, was written by William Patrick, inventor of the US weaponization process, under a CIA contract to SAIC. The report describes what the US military could do and what a terrorist might be able to achieve. According to the NY Times (12 Dec. 01) the report predicted about 2.5g of anthrax per envelope (the Daschle letter contained 2g) and assumed a poorer quality of anthrax than that found in the Daschle letter. {b} So the intelligence agencies of the United States had already conducted a hypothesis of what a terrorist attack using anthrax mailings would be like, isn't that interesting?
"Authorities aren't even certain the anthrax cases are connected to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- believed to be the work of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- but the Bush administration is certainly suspicious of a link." "I wouldn't put it past him, but we don't have hard evidence yet," President Bush said of bin Laden. {c} Nope no evidence, not yet and he never has and never will, because the anthrax that was sent was the most potent ever released into society and could only be made by a nation state, and guess what we found out when we invaded Iraq? It wasn't them. Not even close. "Officials acknowledge that the strains of anthrax seem to be from the same source. In the case of the letter sent to Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), weapons-grade anthrax was detected. Weapons-grade anthrax is a chemically altered form, which makes the disease able to survive in the air. Some experts argue this type of bacteria comes from only three countries: the United States, Russia and Iraq". {d} The anthrax spores that contaminated the air in Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle's office had been treated with a chemical additive so sophisticated that only three nations are thought to have been capable of making it, sources said. "The United States, the former Soviet Union and Iraq are the only three nations known to have developed the kind of additives that enable anthrax spores to remain suspended in the air, making them more easily inhaled and therefore more deadly, experts said yesterday".
Anthrax cannot be weaponized by terrorists, and it could probably never be used successfully as a military weapon. It has to be converted to spores suspended in the air, which is technically very difficult; and the lethality is nowhere near the terror that it is made out to be. To use anthrax as a weapon, it must be converted to a powder, which can be inhaled. Only the US and Russian militaries have succeeded in doing that. Even Iraq used anthrax in liquid form, which is totally ineffective. The first requirement would be to aerosolize the spores. The spores would have to be converted to a dry powder, because a liquid would create globs, which would fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air. How do workers clean the equipment without getting spores everywhere? A likely procedure would be to enclose the equipment in a pressure chamber and steam sterilize it for several days. Such an operation costs hundreds of millions of dollars, considering related facilities and development. Only countries do that, not radical groups. In fact, military and UN inspectors only found two Iraqi warheads with anthrax in them (in liquid form). If Iraq had anthrax in an effective form, it would have had it in hundreds of warheads, as they did with nerve gas. So Iraq knew its anthrax was useless. {f} Terrorists cannot weaponize anthrax. The weaponized powder came from the US weapons labs, as demonstrated by a chemical that was on it. Some weird loner didn't make this stuff in his basement.
But lets look at what the US Government was doing as far as bioweapons research in the time leading up to 9/11, since it is looking more and more like it was from this source it came from, and the anthrax had to have been prepared before the 9/11 attacks. What the US Government was doing was withdrawing from the Bioweapons Convention and refusing to go along with inspection teams to enforce the treaty.
"Although the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) prohibits the acquisition and possession of biological arms, it lacks a formal inspection system to ensure that the treaty’s 144 member-states are complying with their obligations. Instead, Article VI of the BWC offers only the ineffective option of appealing to the United Nations Security Council in cases of suspected noncompliance.” {h} Wasn't so ineffective against Iraq though, and they were actually innocent. Was, and is, the US as innocent as the country it invaded? (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
It was decided years ago that inspection teams from the countries could monitor each other as a deterrent. Executive order 12735 issued by former President Bush (our current Presidents' father) even authorized them, but negotiations for exactly how they would work this out were on going in 2001 when the current administration withdrew altogether. An article 2 weeks before 9/11 had this to say... "Six years of negotiations to add enforcement provisions to the 1972 treaty outlawing biological weapons have halted. The reason: The Bush administration vetoed going ahead with a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would have given states the right to obtain information about and inspect sites where biological weapons were suspected of being developed, produced, or used".
Then there is an article 7 days before 9/11 where the NY Times exposed "Project Clear Vision" and "Project Jefferson,” which shows the CIA and DoD were working on potent forms of anthrax. Also, from this article dated Sept 4, 2001..."Earlier this year, administration officials said, the Pentagon drew up plans to engineer genetically a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax, a deadly disease ideal for germ warfare.” It's interesting to note that one of the authors of this article is Judy Miller, who was writing cheer leading articles about invading Iraq who's main source within the administration was D Cheney’s' chief of staff convicted criminal Scooter Libby, sounds like he might blab a little to much to his media friend. No wonder Bush Jr. didn't want to enforce his father’s executive order. And BTW, Clinton was guilty of expanding these programs during his time as well but uses the excuse he knew nothing about them. "Over the past several years, the United States has embarked on a program of secret research on biological weapons that, some officials say, tests the limits of the global treaty banning such weapons".-NY Times 9/4/2001.
On June 5 2001 an expert testified before a house subcommittee and said "US military experts, and studies by many non-governmental experts, agree that, at present and for some time to come, terrorist groups are highly unlikely to have sufficient expertise and resources to succeed in a mass attack with biological weapons. Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese terrorist group, had plenty of both but failed in nine attempts to mount a biological attack. Although the United States has so far concentrated on preparations for mopping up after a bioterrorist disaster, it would be foolhardy to ignore the more important goal of cutting off the source by preventing the proliferation of biological weapons. That is not something the United States can do unilaterally. The first step must be international, and strengthening the BWC is the available tool. That is why our European and other allies are so angered and dismayed by the US stance.
