[lit-ideas] Re: Anthrax

  • From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:31:57 -0400

M. Duchamp wrote: "Well, at least you get to read my drafts as well as the final post. Someday this will be in the archives at Mutton."

That's pronounced Moo-tawn, is it not?

What strikes me about the competing claims to the anthrax story is that the al-Qaeda thesis best explains all the facts. It shows MEANS. Unlike the other accounts, it shows MOTIVE (the other accounts don't explain why Senators Leahy and Daschle were targeted) and it shows OPPORTUNITY. In fact, it documents these to a degree unparalleled by the other theses.

The other accounts are plausible but don't explain much. For example, the anthraxinvestigation.com site Robert posted suggests that the attack was instigated by a US citizen trying to alert the country to the danger of bioweapons. That isn't a satisfying motive, and even if it were, it wouldn't explain why Daschle and Leahy were targeted, why the Florida newspaper was targeted, the significance of the dates of the attacks, and so on.

I wonder if we ever will know for sure what happened.

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: