US bioweapons programs used the Ames strain of anthrax.

By Alllie

What, you might ask, is a strain of bacteria? Think of it, at the broadest level, as like breeds of dog or races of people. Rottweiler or Pomeranian they are all still dogs, but they have different characteristics that allow us to tell them apart. Different breeds of dogs even have different susceptibilities to disease. So with it is with human races, we are all still people but with some different characteristics. Not all of these characteristics can be seen on the outside. In humans different races have different disease resistance. For instance, when exposed to Yellow Fever up to 90% of Europeans/Caucasians will die but only 10% of Negroes. With smallpox the mortality rate for Europeans/Caucasians is about 33%, Negroes about 50%, and Native Americans up to 95%. So it is with different strains of anthrax. Different strains have different characteristics. Some of them are more infectious, more deadly, some less so. Some strains are easily killed with common antibiotics. Some are antibiotic resistant and are deadly regardless of any medical treatment. Different states have attempted to weaponize different strains depending on the characteristics they want in a weapon.

After the anthrax attacks the White House and the Bush administration repeatedly tried to pin the anthrax attacks on Saddam and use it as a pretext for attacking Iraq. There were a few voices pointing out that the evidence did not support that conclusion that Iraq was involved but there was one, UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

Actual facts. Ritter seemed to be the only person in possession of them and willing to lay them out for us. He knew the strain of anthrax Iraq had used and knew that it wasn't the strain sent in the anthrax attacks. The repeated attempts to link Iraq turned out to speculation at best and lies at worst. It also became clear that only a state could produce and weaponize anthrax in this manner. So the question became...which state?


Another mitigating factor is purely scientific: Iraq procured the Vollum strain of anthrax from American Type Culture Collection, a company based in Rockville, Maryland, which provides commercially available viruses - such as anthrax [sic] - to consumers worldwide. While Iraq had investigated other strains, including those indigenous to the country, it was the Vollum strain that Iraq mass-produced for weapon use. It is a unique, highly virulent form of anthrax, and its use would represent the kind of link needed to suggest Iraq as a likely source. That is not to say that the presence of a Vollum strain would automatically indict Iraq, or that a non-Vollum strain clears Iraq. However, federal investigators currently think that the anthrax used in New York and Florida is the same strain, most probably the Ames strain, a variety native to the US. The strain used in Washington is as yet unidentified, but it has been assessed as non-weapons grade and responsive to antibiotics. Based upon this information, it would be irresponsible to speculate about a Baghdad involvement.

There is also the political factor. Despite the ongoing efforts of the US and Great Britain to maintain economic sanctions, Baghdad has been very successful in developing a political and diplomatic momentum to get them lifted since weapons inspectors left three years ago. The events of September 11 brought this anti-sanctions momentum to a halt. It makes absolutely no sense for Iraq to be involved in a bio-terror attack that, in one fell swoop, undermines what has been Iraq's number one priority over the past decade: the lifting of economic sanctions. ..Scott Ritter

Ritter laid out some facts at a time when the Bush White House was trying very hard to pin the anthrax attacks on Iraq when the evidence did not support that conclusion.

U.S. Inquiry Tried, but Failed, to Link Iraq to Anthrax Attack
Shortly after the first anthrax victim died in October, the Bush administration began an intense effort to explore any possible link between Iraq and the attacks and continued to do so even after scientists determined that the lethal germ was an American strain, scientists and government officials said.

"We looked for any shred of evidence that would bear on this, or any foreign source," a senior intelligence official said of an Iraq connection. "It's just not there."
The focus on Iraq was based on its record of developing a germ arsenal and also on what some officials said was a desire on the part of the administration to find a reason to attack Iraq in the war on terrorism.

One discovery early in the inquiry seemed to undercut the foreign thesis. The anthrax used in the first attack, in Florida, and in subsequent attacks turned out to be the Ames strain, named after its place of origin in Iowa. While investigators found that this domestic variety of anthrax had been shipped to some laboratories overseas, none could be traced to Baghdad.

Nevertheless, government officials continued pushing the Iraq theory, scientists and officials involved in the inquiry said.

Perhaps the whole justification for the attack was to give the Bush Junta a reason to attack Iraq. Of course in the end they attacked without reason.

On Oct. 14, the London Observer published one of the now familiar—and totally false—propaganda scare stories, entitled "Iraq 'Behind U.S. Anthrax Outbreaks.' " The story gave credence to the ravings of "American hawks" who say there is "a growing mass of evidence that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the Sept. 11 suicide hijacks." If confirmed, said the Observer, "the pressure now building ... for an attack [on Iraq] may be irresistible." One of these "hawks," an unnamed U.S. "administration official," told the Observer that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a "faithful ally" in the war against terrorism and that "if it means we are embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, then that's what we are doing" (emphasis added).

The "next Hundred Year's War"? Who are the U.S. maniacs who use such language, and are they not as dangerous as Osama bin Laden's jihad?

This cabal is MORE dangerous than Bin Laden and seem determined to lead us into a 100-years war, a war that would only benefit weapons manufacturers and Isreal.

Here we will name the names of the fanatics in this anti-Iraq grouping who have become known as the "Wolfowitz cabal," named after Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the New York Times, which published a leak about their activities on Oct. 12, this grouping wants an immediate war with Iraq, believing that the targetting of Afghanistan, already an impoverished wasteland, falls far short of the global war that they are hoping for. But Iraq is just another stepping stone to turning the anti-terrorist "war" into a full-blown "Clash of Civilizations," where the Islamic religion would become the "enemy image" in a "new Cold War."

The Times revealed that a key section of the "Wolfowitz cabal," is the 18-member Defense Policy Board, which met for more than 19 hours on Sept. 19-20 to "make the case" against Saddam Hussein. The meeting pushed for a renewed war against Iraq as soon as the war against Afghanistan had concluded its initial phase. It discussed overthrowing Saddam Hussein, partitioning Iraq into mini-states led by U.S.-funded dissidents who would steal the proceeds from the Basra oil revenues for their quisling government. The meeting discussed how to manipulate information so as to pin the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States on Saddam Hussein. (Read more...)

Since all this has happened and Iraq is being broken up into ministates (the better to steal their oil), it become more and more credible that parts of the US government were behind the anthrax attacks

Reader Response
email alllie with any responses


Chatters Page
Contact Us
Food 4 Thought
(Chatter Recipes)
The Garden Party
911: Looking Back
Media Links
Newsgarden Compost
Off Center
The Poet's Garden
Server List
Techie Tips
What's new
Words of the Wise

Search the Site

Articles of Interest

Bush and the Assassination of JFK by Paul Kangas

ANNALS OF DEMOCRACY : COUNTING VOTES by Ronnie Dugger (Nov 7, 1988)

Computerized Systems for Voting Seen as Vulnerable to Tampering by David Burnham, The New York Times (July 29, 1985) plus emphasis, links and comments

A Real Protest (April 9, 2003)
Who's to Blame (Feb 20, 2003)

Listening to the Lies (Sept.12, 2002)
White Storm (August 2, 2003)
!!!Fight!!! (September 9, 2003)
Happy Endings: A Theory of (November 16, 2002)
It Just Isn't Fair
(December 11, 2003)
Every Picture Tells a Story (January 23, 2004)
Who Do You Trust? (April 17, 2004)
The Criminal - Fiction (May 8, 2004)


Return to Top