Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Washington Post Update: What Elephant?

I've blogged several times (see here and here for examples) about the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about -- the unsolved anthrax attacks five years ago, which involved "weaponized" anthrax of domestic origin according to the FBI. The attacks were deadly, frightened the entire nation, and played a bigger role in whipping up war hysteria against Iraq than all that flimsy stuff about nukes and mushroom clouds. And we still don't know what happened. We should be talking about it, but we don't.

Now the Washington Post reports that the FBI has a new guy in charge of the investigation and that it turns out the anthrax was not weaponized after all -- and not domestic in origin, either. In other words, there is no elephant in the room.

BooMan has an excellent discussion and comments.

There's one part of the post's article that especially intrigued me (emphasis added):
As a result, after a very public focus on government scientists as the likely source of the attacks, the FBI is today casting a far wider net, as investigators face the daunting prospect of an almost endless list of possible suspects in scores of countries around the globe.

It all worked so well last time: The anthrax attacks helped tip the balance during the run-up to the Iraq war. Everyone knew Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past. There were hints that the anthrax traced back to Iraq. And Colin Powell told the UN that Iraq had mobile weapon labs making the stuff by the tanker truckload.

So far, the buildup to an attack on Iran has been "deja vu all over again" -- the halfhearted attempt to get UN sanctions, the nuclear fear mongering, and the refusal to rule out the use of force as a "last resort."

Is it just a coincidence that we're once again considering the possibility that the 2001 anthrax attacks were foreign in origin? Will there be another anthrax incident? Will fingers point at Iran?

Can you spell October Surprise? Or more likely, November Surprise? (After Republicans win another Diebold-assisted election?)

No comments: