State of the Sponsorship

Scientists at Sandia National Labs have been freed to discuss their detective work on the anthrax mystery and have elaborated on the lack of a silica coating to the spores, suggesting it tends to rule out state sponsorship. Not really.

Indy researcher Ed Lake has always been a lone nut proponent and tends to bristle at those who don't share his view. The following blockquote is his reaction to an email he received from an expert regards the Sandia silica conclusion:

Unfortunately, this is one of those occasions where general terms and suggestions may be more appropriate than universal truths, since the statement seems to have given license to all the people who were previously arguing that the anthrax was weaponized to now argue that the lack of weaponization means nothing, and they can still argue that there was a "state sponsor" behind the attacks. Or al Qaeda could have done it.

While his reasoning is sound (some want it both ways) the spore coating scenario really only made sense if someone stole American or Russian powder (the bentonite-Iraq story was shot down by the White House early on) or if AQ was advertising they'd figured out the process, which was near-impossible.

It's actually worse to think it wasn't weaponized. We'd have to change 'Axis of Evil' to 'Axis of Idiots' to think one of them would have attacked America a week after 9/11 using their own material fingerprint. As the emailer alludes, the lack of a coating doesn't rule out a state from sponsoring a proxy terrorist group by supplying necessary primary ingredients and know-how, leaving their own mark off the product, which has always left AQ in the picture.

That doesn't take Ivins out of the picture--he still looks pretty darn guilty. But on the same token, why would he leave his own material fingerprint by using the RMR-1029 supply then send the FBI a sample of it? Being the killer he'd have known it could be genetically tied back to his stock, even if sent in the wrong format. We'd have to believe he was either overly arrogant and nearly insane or in the least impulsively stupid, which the FBI has been trying hard to prove of late. But some of those constructs also apply to terrorists.

But back to that pesky state sponsorship thing. We know proxies and even lone wolf terrorists like anniversaries. McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal building on April 19, 1995 on the one year anniversary of Waco. But how many knew April 19 was also the anniversary of the creation of UNSCOM to enforce UN Resoltion 687 in disarming Saddam Hussein?

Here's a video that discusses anniversaries (via Jack Cashill). Warning, it's somewhat truther-ish in music and overtones--just watch for the dates:



He left a few out. Yousef entered America in 1992 with a fake Iraqi passport. It had a date stamp of September 11, 1990 on it (refer to Mylroie's "The War Against America" page 53). Why use a fake Iraqi passport with 9/11/90 when he knew Iraqi nationals needed a visa to enter the US, which he didn't have? Andy McCarthy believes it because he wasn't very bright, yet he made his way past immigration and later set off the bomb and almost knocked down the towers (where would Clinton have retaliated for that?).

Evidently he favored that date because years later federal prisoner Yousef sued the Bureau of Prisons for what he called "draconian restrictions" at ADX Florence. The lawsuit was filed on 9/11/98.

The lefties might call these coincidences 'neocon fantasies' and OK, perhaps they are. But the folks who are 100 percent invested in Iraq being harmless and inconsequential to the GWoT--like Barack Obama--will never compromise on this issue. They simply can't. On the other hand, Joe Biden was once a major advocate of regime change and voted yea for the use of force before he started blaming Bush for worldwide terrorism. Maybe the verbal volcano will spurt out some kind of inconvenient truth along the way if pressed regards this issue. Could be fun to watch.