Wonder where the ANTHRAX MAILINGS came from? The US.
- From: iksnizsakdet@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 31 Aug 2005 23:41:57 -0700
"And Iraq is the only nation in the world, other than the United States
and Russia, to have developed the kind of sophisticated anthrax that
appeared in the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle."
Because we sold it to them.
So, was the Anthrax mailing a scheme by these NeoCons
to blame this also on Iraq?
===============================
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Getting Serious
By Robert Kagan , Kristol William
Weekly Standard, November 19, 2001
Reprinted with permission from the Weekly Standard, November 19, 2001
IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION really getting serious about fighting the
war on terrorism?
On the one hand, there was still plenty of happy-talk flying fast and
furious this past week. President Bush's speech Thursday night was
upbeat and spared him media attacks for not addressing the nation on
homeland security. But the American people don't really need to be told
how to lead their lives. They need to see their government doing its
job, both at home and abroad.
What they've seen too often instead are government agencies spinning
madly to make it look like they're on top of the situation. The FBI,
which has run itself into a brick wall in the anthrax investigation,
has been declaring confidently that it has "a plan" and is sticking to
it. The fact that the FBI hasn't the vaguest clue who sent the anthrax
letters hasn't stopped it from leaking like mad the implausible
"theory" that it may have been the work of some domestic extremist.
Meanwhile, on the day President Bush gave his "Let's Roll" speech,
Attorney General John Ashcroft embarrassingly declared that the United
States had "emerged victorious in the opening battle in the war on
terrorism." Why? Because "two periods of extremely high threat have
passed" without an additional attack. Sorry, but glad as we are that a
couple of weeks have gone by without another terrorist catastrophe,
that is not a "victory."
On the other hand, there are hopeful signs. As this magazine goes to
press, there are indications that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's
efforts to increase the pace and violence of the American offensive in
Afghanistan are beginning to bear fruit on the ground. The Northern
Alliance seems to be making progress in its effort to capture the
northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif--a key stepping stone to removing the
Taliban government in Kabul.
Until now, top American military officials, despite Rumsfeld's
prodding, have been slow to escalate and have been resisting the call
by civilian officials for a wider ground war. The commander in the
region, General Tommy Franks, has seemed more interested in preserving
what he recently called "the easiest exit strategy we've had in years"
than in crushing the Taliban. According to our sources, deputy national
security adviser Stephen Hadley recently expressed deep frustration
with the military brass for its slow-as-molasses approach to the war.
There is reason to believe he was reflecting the views of his boss,
Condoleezza Rice. But four-star generals don't take orders from deputy
national security advisers, or even from national security advisers.
When will President Bush step in and find himself a Grant to take over
from the McClellans?
Another sign of seriousness on the part of the administration would be
greater urgency in planning for a military campaign against Iraq. The
New York Times reported this past week that Saddam Hussein maintained a
secret terrorist training camp for Islamic radicals from other
countries, and that among the lessons taught at the terrorist school
was how to hijack a passenger plane without weapons. We know that the
mastermind of the September 11 attack, Mohamed Atta, held meetings a
few months before with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. And
Iraq is the only nation in the world, other than the United States and
Russia, to have developed the kind of sophisticated anthrax that
appeared in the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. What
will it take for the FBI and the CIA to start connecting the dots here?
A signed confession from Saddam?
The good news is that the winds appear to be shifting within the Bush
administration on the Iraq question. While Secretary of State Colin
Powell continues to promise the Arab world that the administration has
no plans to go after Iraq, Condoleezza Rice seems to be throwing her
considerable influence on the side of the hawks at the Pentagon. Rice
said publicly last week, referring to Saddam's continuing efforts to
build and stockpile weapons of mass destruction, that "there is plenty
of reason to watch Iraq." Unlike Powell, she did not rule out any
response. Privately, we have learned, she's even tougher. Rice recently
told a visiting diplomat that the administration would deal with Iraq
"at the right time" and that "we don't need a smoking gun" before
taking action.
Further evidence that Rice may be separating herself from the Powell
State Department came in her remarks rejecting a meeting between
President Bush and Yasser Arafat at the United Nations. Arafat cannot
claim to be a help in the war on terrorism, Rice warned, while he
continues to "hug" Hezbollah and Hamas, two terrorist organizations
that until recently the Bush administration had pretty much ignored in
the interest of preserving Powell's Arab coalition. Although she has
kept a low profile, the national security adviser probably remains the
most influential person on the president's foreign policy team. Her
recent statements are the best sign yet of the administration's
increasing seriousness about fighting this war.
Finally, there is the question of the defense budget. We leave it to
President Bush and his advisers to determine the best way of building
our defenses while controlling pork barrel spending. But one thing is
painfully obvious: There will have to be significant, sustained
increases in spending on the armed forces. The United States is likely
headed into a ground war of some size and duration in Afghanistan. The
odds that we may soon be at war in Iraq grow daily. And the United
States has other important security interests and obligations elsewhere
in the world, especially in East Asia. Right now we simply do not have
enough troops or weapons to carry out these missions. We will need to
recruit more soldiers and procure more weapons--or risk losing the war
on terrorism. But more troops cost money. As Thomas Donnelly of the
Project for the New American Century has noted, recruiting, training,
and equipping an additional 50,000 active-duty soldiers for the Army
alone will cost an additional $15 billion per year. Right now, the
president's total request for an increase in defense spending is $20
billion. There will have to be much more.
It's now two months since September 11. The administration's response
has been in certain respects serious and impressive, in other respects
uncertain and tentative. President Bush set a high standard for himself
last Thursday when he closed his speech by invoking the memory of Todd
Beamer and his fellow passengers on United Flight 93, saying, "Let's
roll." It's a call the administration should heed.
Copyright © 2005 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All
Rights Reserved.
URL:
Created by Matrix Group International, Inc. ®
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wonder where the ANTHRAX MAILINGS came from? The US.
- From: Chuck P Adams
- Re: Wonder where the ANTHRAX MAILINGS came from? The US.
- Prev by Date: By Robert S. McNamara
- Next by Date: Re: Wonder where the ANTHRAX MAILINGS came from? The US.
- Previous by thread: By Robert S. McNamara
- Next by thread: Re: Wonder where the ANTHRAX MAILINGS came from? The US.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
