[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:
