How to Botch a Crisis
Abel Malcolm
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 23, 2001
You hate to start pointing fingers in the midst of tragedy.
But what on Earth were these people thinking?
Two more dead, and a lot more questions than answers.
All anyone in Washington is talking about these days is anthrax - and, in
light of the latest fiascos, it's hard to blame them.
An anthrax-stricken postal worker from the Brentwood postal facility shows
up in an emergency room at Southern Maryland Hospital - and he's sent home
with what's diagnosed as the flu. The next day, he's dead.
The Senate receives an anthrax-tainted letter that affects more than two
dozen staffers. Such a letter, presumably, had to pass through the post
office. So what do authorities do? They hold a press conference at the
Brentwood postal facility that serves the Hill, drawing all manner of big
cheeses and hotshot reporters. Then they shut down the building, discover
it's contaminated and direct everyone who was at the session to get tested
for anthrax. A second postal worker from the Brentwood facility also dies.
Thanks a lot, guys.
It's not like this anthrax thing hasn't been in the news, you know.
While part of the country is overreacting (flights being grounded because of
powdered coffee creamer), some folks are clearly underreacting.
You have to wonder at this point about the future of mail delivery, a
massive, decentralized operation that suddenly seems so vulnerable to
terrorist attack.
We move 680 million pieces of mail a day - how do you protect all the people
who handle the stuff? E-mail suddenly seems so much easier and safer, if
you're not waiting for magazines or the occasional check.
The New York Times delivers the depressing postal news: "Officials said
today that two Washington postal workers had died under 'highly suspicious'
circumstances, and while they did not immediately attribute the deaths to
anthrax, they left no doubt that they thought it was the cause.
"The deaths of the two workers, who were not identified, were announced this
afternoon by Mayor Anthony Williams and Dr. Ivan C. A. Walks, the chief
health officer of the District of Columbia. . . . Surgeon General David
Satcher said it was 'highly probable' that the deaths were from anthrax.
"The two who died saw their doctors on Sunday and died not long afterward
following difficulty breathing, Tom Ridge, the director of homeland
security, said at a briefing this afternoon. . . .
"The postmaster general, John Potter, who appeared at the briefing with Mr.
Ridge, left no doubt about his feelings. 'Our postal family is deeply
saddened by today's news and shaken by the thought of terrorists using the
U.S. mail as a tool for their evil,' Mr. Potter said."
The Washington Post examines the series of screwups: "When a letter
containing anthrax spores turned up in the offices of Senate Majority Leader
Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) on Oct. 15, workers at a Northeast Washington
postal facility grew worried. Because the Brentwood Road center processes
letters destined for Congress, the workers wondered whether they should take
antibiotics and other precautions.
"Their bosses told them that the risk of exposure to the bacteria was
minimal and that there was no need for antibiotics. Underscoring the point,
the nation's postmaster general held a news conference at the facility
Thursday and said there was little chance that spores had escaped from the
Daschle letter.
"'That letter was extremely well-sealed, and there is only a minute chance
that anthrax spores escaped from it into this facility,' Postmaster General
John E. 'Jack' Potter said at the time.
"But in the end, the workers' fears were justified. Yesterday, two Brentwood
postal workers were dead, probably because they had inhaled anthrax spores.
At least nine other Brentwood employees are infected or have shown symptoms.
More than 2,000 workers were offered screening and antibiotics, and the
facility was closed for environmental testing and cleanup.
"The problems in assessing the threat at Brentwood - and at a mail
processing facility near Trenton, N.J. - show how health officials'
assumptions about anthrax have been shaken by events."
Some media outlets try to calm people in a crisis, while others. . . .well,
here's the New York Post:
"The terrorist behind the murderous anthrax epidemic will strike again - and
the next round of attacks could be even deadlier, a former top FBI profiler
told The Post.
"Clint Van Zandt, who helped crack the Unabomber case, predicts the anthrax
killer 'has a message to get out' and will not disappear. That's the case,
he said, whether the anthrax is being mailed by a lone domestic terrorist
piggybacking on the World Trade Center tragedy - which he said is likely -
or by a state-sponsored international terror group.
"'I don't think this person will quit,' Van Zandt said. 'He enjoys this. He
is making a statement. He has a message. He enjoys hearing himself, and he
enjoys being heard.' Worse yet, the method used to deliver the anthrax will
probably become more direct and dangerous, exposing victims to deadlier
amounts of the virus, said Van Zandt, a former member of the FBI's crack
'Silence of the Lambs' serial-killer unit."
People are upset, all right - in part with the media, USA Today finds: "Most
Americans are edgy, but not panicky, as anthrax scares ripple across the
country, a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.
"Meanwhile, public support for President Bush and his prosecution of the war
against terrorism, even as ground troops move into the fray, remains high
[88 percent]. Moreover, increased reports of civilian casualties in
Afghanistan show no sign of eroding that support: 85% say the casualties are
an unavoidable aspect of war; 13% say the casualties could be avoided. . . .
"More than half of those polled, or 52%, believe the recent U.S. incidents
of anthrax-laden letters signal the beginning of a sustained anthrax
campaign against the country. But 60% think that the media are overreacting
to the threat, possibly giving terrorists what they want."
Only 60 percent?
As for that other war, the state of U.S. progress remains unclear. On the
one hand, says the Wall Street Journal, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
signaled that the U.S. is prepared to have Northern Alliance rebels take
Kabul, as U.S. forces pounded Taliban strongholds outside Afghanistan's
capital city.
"At the same time, a senior defense official said U.S. special-operations
commandos have begun operating with Northern Alliance troops to spot Taliban
fighters outside Kabul and the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif and call in
airstrikes on their positions.
"With little chance of a broader post-Taliban government being organized
quickly and no international force prepared to take on the job, another
senior official said the U.S. has decided it has little choice but to allow
the Alliance to advance on Kabul. Because the Alliance represents only a
small minority of Afghanistan's people, though, such a move could cause
serious problems later."
But the Boston Globe finds a very different situation on the ground:
"General Abdul Samat, commander of 3,500 troops of the rebel Northern
Alliance, would like nothing better than to march his men 25 miles south and
capture the northern Afghan city of Taloqan from the Taliban. He's delighted
that the United States is cheering him on, and well aware that much of the
world is watching, waiting for his victory.
"But a closer look at Samat's position reveals not a battle-ready force
waiting for the order to attack but a bedraggled outfit that, if challenged,
would be hard-pressed just to defend the territory it stands on. Indeed, it
appears the Northern Alliance troops as they now exist may not be capable of
dislodging the Taliban on the ground - no matter how much the United States
helps by dropping bombs on the Taliban's front lines, as it did yesterday. .
. .
"Samat's outfit appears to be typical of the Northern Alliance's army. It
consists of poorly trained, poorly armed fighters stretched out over a front
35 miles long. Of his rickety collection of Soviet-built tanks, only 15 are
in fighting condition. And those tanks are on the wrong side of the rapids
of the Kokcha River. To advance, his men would first have to build a
bridge - if only they had material with which to build one."
The New Republic's Michael Crowley defends House leaders accused of
wimpiness:
"Given the choice between exposure to anthrax and being declared a 'wimp' on
the front page of a major newspaper, a lot of politicians might find
themselves torn. Anthrax, after all, can be treated and cured. A
public-relations debacle can become a chronic condition that haunts you for
the rest of your career. And sadly, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt are now battling a severe case of
humiliation.
"After shutting down the House of Representatives this week while the Senate
remained open, the two men were rewarded with a Thursday New York Post cover
displaying their faces above the headline 'WIMPS: THE LEADERS WHO RAN AWAY
FROM ANTHRAX.'
"That assessment was as unfair as it was brutal. It's true that in their
public comments during those uncertain hours on Wednesday, Hastert and
Gephardt sounded less than fully informed. Hastert in particular made a fool
of himself by flatly stating that 'this stuff has gotten into the
ventilation system, it's going through the tunnels.' But he also made the
incredibly reckless observation that he is 'not somebody who's qualified in
the areas of communicable diseases or contagious diseases' - clearly, since
anthrax is not a contagious disease and the distinction is enormously
important for keeping the public calm and informed about the proper threat.
. . .
"Still, it seems fair to say that Hastert and Gephardt were sucker-punched.
Gephardt had first learned about the anthrax when a shaken Daschle called
him at home Tuesday night telling him there were 'serious reasons to believe
[anthrax] might be in the Capitol' - not just in the Hart Senate Office
building where a Daschle staffer opened the letter that touched off this
week's chaos. At a security briefing the next morning - attended by
Congressional leaders, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney - the
Capitol Police recommended that both the House and Senate be shut down for a
thorough security sweep. Gephardt, Hastert, and Daschle agreed. So did Bush,
according to one congressional source. Only Lott resisted. But Hastert and
Gephardt left with the distinct impression that everyone had ultimately
agreed to play it safe."
Salon's Laura Miller sounds disgusted: "I hadn't questioned our gumption,
until about two weeks ago. In the days following the body blow of Sept. 11,
my faith in our nation's ability to behave with grace under pressure seemed
to be borne out. It wasn't just the firefighters and police officers; it was
the volunteer rescue workers, the people standing in line for four hours to
give blood at the hospital on my block, the citizens from other states who
got in their cars and drove day and night to reach us here in New York so
they could offer their help in any way. The corresponding slogans - 'United
We Stand,' etc. - were cheesy, but they didn't seem outright delusional.
"All it took to explode that dream were a couple dozen contaminated letters.
Now, doctors are besieged with requests for Cipro prescriptions by patients
who have no reason to think they've been exposed to anthrax. The government
is planning to blow a huge chunk of the public health budget on this
probably unnecessary drug. The House of Representatives closed up shop in a
paroxysm of what the media politely called 'jitters' - the New York Post was
alone in calling them 'wimps' - after Senate majority leader Tom Daschle's
office received an anthrax-laced letter.
"Columnists like the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and the Washington Post's
Sally Quinn write of frenzy among the chattering classes (make that the
teeth-chattering classes), leading to runs on gas masks, canned goods and of
course, more Cipro. Paranoid Americans who think they've been exposed to
bioterror are threatening to cripple the healthcare infrastructure that
would be our first line of defense in the event of a serious attack. The
thin, high whine of panic is in the air.
"It's worth reiterating right now that exactly one person - the first person
diagnosed, before we even realized his infection was intentional - has died
of anthrax so far [the death toll is now two]. . . . Salmonella has probably
killed more people in the past two weeks than anthrax has, and I'm sure that
more have died in automobile accidents. So why don't we all stop eating, and
resolve to walk everywhere we go?
"It's depressing and demoralizing to see a nation that two weeks ago was
congratulating itself on its 'unity' dissolve into a collection of gibbering
hypochondriacs."
War is taking its toll on all of us. Here's an observation by Joshua Micah
Marshall: "One of the persistently interesting aspects of the war on
terrorism story is how much information ends up getting published in the
British or other foreign press, but never seems to see the light of day in
the United States. Here's one example from The Times of London about the FBI
considering tactics that border on torture to get a few key suspects to
talk. Sounds grizzly; but the moral stakes involved are quite complex, and
tricky."
Marshall links to the Times of London piece:
"American investigators are considering resorting to harsher interrogation
techniques, including torture, after facing a wall of silence from jailed
suspected members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, according to a
report yesterday."
But - get this - the British article is attributed, right there in black and
white, to a story in Sunday's Washington Post.
Never mind.
Talbot v. Sullivan (Con't.)
Andrew Sullivan responds to what he calls a "jihad" by Salon Editor David
Talbot:
"A simple question. What does my birthplace (England), sex-life (gay and
active), or the medications I take for HIV (testosterone replacement
therapy) have to do with my views on this war? Last time I checked, nothing.
Still, David Talbot takes me to task on these grounds in Salon.
"Since it's twenty years since I graduated high-school, I won't respond to
these slurs. The ad hominem attacks seem to me to be a sign of intellectual
desperation, which in Talbot's case, is understandable. Still, he makes a
couple of points that are worth addressing. The first is the notion that I
have criticized some individuals, including Talbot, for lack of patriotism.
This is simply untrue. I challenge Talbot to prove it.
"Sure, I've seared some writers on the left for defeatism, illogic and
escapism for not having anything constructive to say since September 11, and
I have seized a chance to discredit their view of the world. I have also
pointed out that there are enclaves on the decadent left whose nihilism runs
so deep they want terrorism to win. Maybe Talbot should take a trip to
Berkeley or Amherst to fact-check this.
"What I haven't done is attack any named individual for lack of patriotism.
I cannot look into someone's soul and say she is not a true patriot. All I
can say is that her version of patriotism is, to my mind, deeply misguided,
foolish and immoral. That is my exercise of free speech - and in America,
most do not say that immigrants cannot contribute to that free speech. When
Talbot says, 'It's repellent to be lectured about my commitment to America,
which is deep and true, by an arrogant and self-important Brit,' he is
engaging not only in a fantasy - I did no such thing - but in a nativism
that shames him."
What, No O.J.?
O.J. Simpson testified at his road-rage trial yesterday - and none of the
cable networks carried it!
CNN (which spent weeks carrying Simpson's civil trial six years ago) briefly
showed him on the stand as anchor Aaron Brown said: "Here's why it doesn't
matter a whole lot. . . . A few minutes ago another body was found at Ground
Zero." End of coverage.
How Dumb Are Journalists? (Con't.)
Check out this Syracuse, N.Y., Post-Herald report, courtesy of
MediaNews.org: "The two top editors at The Oneida Daily Dispatch were fired
this week over an editorial that some readers deemed anti-Semitic.
"The paper Thursday printed an apology, saying the Sept. 19 editorial about
the reasons behind the World Trade Center attack was 'offensive, poorly
reasoned and based on flawed facts.'
"Fired Wednesday were Associate Editor Dale Seth and Managing Editor Jean
Ryan. Seth, who had worked at the paper for 13 years, declined to comment.
Ryan said in a statement that she did not write the editorial.
"'I am not working at the Oneida Daily Dispatch as of yesterday because of
repercussions from allowing the Sept. 19 editorial to be published,' she
wrote Thursday. 'I am not anti-Semitic, and anyone who knows me knows that.
I did not write the editorial. I have always enjoyed a reputation for
working hard to improve the papers for which I worked and for being fair and
evenhanded.'
"Publisher Ann Campanie would not discuss the paper's apology or the firing
of the two editors."
Ever notice how journalists who demand that everyone else talk clam up when
they're in the midst of controversy?
Grinch
wrote:
> .........
>The Washington Post examines the series of screwups: "When a letter
>containing anthrax spores turned up in the offices of Senate Majority Leader
>Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) on Oct. 15, workers at a Northeast Washington
>postal facility grew worried. Because the Brentwood Road center processes
>letters destined for Congress, the workers wondered whether they should take
>antibiotics and other precautions.
>
>"Their bosses told them that the risk of exposure to the bacteria was
>minimal and that there was no need for antibiotics. Underscoring the point,
>the nation's postmaster general held a news conference at the facility
>Thursday and said there was little chance that spores had escaped from the
>Daschle letter.
>
>"'That letter was extremely well-sealed, and there is only a minute chance
>that anthrax spores escaped from it into this facility,' Postmaster General
>John E. 'Jack' Potter said at the time.
>
>"But in the end, the workers' fears were justified. Yesterday, two Brentwood
>postal workers were dead ....
OK, now ...are we all still *sure* we want government employees and
government managers who show such great acumen taking over airport
security too? Instead of using private airport security forces as
they do across Europe and in Israel?
SemiScholar
wrote:
We're using private airport security forces now. They're a joke.
That's part of the problem.
James Hogan
"Abel Malcolm" <AbelM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1fd22d4.01102...@posting.google.com...
> How to Botch a Crisis
>
>
> By Howard Kurtz
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, October 23, 2001
>
>
> You hate to start pointing fingers in the midst of tragedy.
>
> But what on Earth were these people thinking?
>
> Two more dead, and a lot more questions than answers.
>
> All anyone in Washington is talking about these days is anthrax - and, in
> light of the latest fiascos, it's hard to blame them.
Exactly. When this started it was about 19 people hijacking jumbo-jets and
crashing them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Amazing, isn't
it, how the focus has shifted from that criminal act to one of bio-chemical
warfare? D'ya think that the two are related, perchance?
Does anyone remember why we are bombing Afghanistan? Or more aptly, can
most people even find Afghanistan on a map? Does it matter?
In every news report that I've seen, the source of anthrax is domestic.
Something is rotten here.
But that's not the important thing. What is important is who directed the
flights into the WTC and the Pentagon. It is very difficult for me to
believe that 19 people, many of whose identities were known to the various
intelligence services, were able to infiltrate the US, conduct flight
training, and were able to execute their mission without someone knowing
about it. It is unbelievable.
There are some indications that there are foreign intelligence services at
work here. One of the hallmarks of diversion, a key indicator of the
invovlement of a foreign source, is the planting of stories that have the
effect of leading the public in the wrong direction.
For example, there is the story that has made the rounds of the wire
services to the effect that some of the hijackers rented out prostitutes on
the night before the attack. This has been published in some of the Boston
newspapers. Consorting with prostitutes is prohibited, and is punishible
by death to the close adherents of the brand of Islam that the attackers
presumably followed. But we are asked to believe that that the pious Muslims
who allegedly committed this heinous act spent their last night on Earth in
the lap of a whore. Does not compute.
As far as I know, no one has ever found this alleged prostitute.
There is another story that has received widespread coverage that says that
several "middle-eastern" looking men were in a bar engaging a "lap-dancer"
on the night of Sept 10. They were said to have boasted that "tomorrow
America will bleed," (or words to that effect .) These same men allegedly
gave the bartenter a credit card to pay for thir escapade. Now I'm not a
spy or anything like that, but doesn't that seem to be a ridiculous thing to
do, if you wanted to to remain anonymous?
As far as I know, no one has ever interviewed these men. If they have, their
identities have been kept secret.
Then there is the story of 5 Jewish men on top of a building in New Jersey,
close to the WTC. Their neighbors had reported them to be dancing and
reveling in the destruction of the building, while viedotaping the scene.
Media reports since then reflect the discontent of the media with the
treatment of these 5 men. It seems that they had been "interrogated"
severely by the FBI and others.
Why would anyone regale in the death of others?
Which leads back to the lead story: Who was responsible for the attack on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Who could have known of this
conspiracy?
The people closest to it could have known. Who were they? The people who
were closest to the mujahadeen. These were the same people who we (the US)
used in the Balkans. We (the US) used them in Macedonia, in Kosovo, in
Croatia and in Bosnia. There is ample evidence that we used them , or at
least knew of their use, in Chechnya. There is ample evidence that we knew
of their use in Kashmir. "Plausible deniability" is good only so far as it
goes.
So why would any group decide to let such an undertaking as the wholesale
slaughter of US citizens take place, presuming that such a group knew about
it?
If you think that the answer is oil, that is the wrong answer. True, there
are billions of barrels of oil to be extracted from the central Asian
region, but that is not the answer.
The answer is more powerful than that. It is religion. The only force that
is strong enough to permit such a horrendous act to occur is a religious
belief.
The US Constitution, in the body of the Constitution, commands that "no
religious test shall ever be administered as a condition of holding office
or public trust in the United States."
The First Amendment commands that " Congress shall make no law respecting
the freedom of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." That
means that the state shall be the unbiased referee, to keep the religions
from killing each other in the name of their Lord. It has worked pretty
successfully for about 225 years, at least in the US.
There is no provision, however, for a religious state run amuck in the
country. That, unfortunately, is the present state that we find ourselves
in. We find ourselves in a state that is dominated by enemies of one of our
enemies. How much of what they say is true is an open question.
It is a pervasive question. Are you for Israel or or you for Muslims, is the
familiar question. If the polls are to be believed (in the questions they
ask) then Israel is the choice of most Americans.
So I wonder after my fellow Americans, whether or not they will follow their
biblical instincts or whether they will follow their heads. I don't know
the answer now, but I suspect that I will shortly.
<snip>
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nogctt8fo0vc01dhn...@4ax.com...
Yes, we are.
Private security in this country means spending as little as we can, to
protect the bottom line. Airport security has sucked for years; it is by
pure dumb luck that the tragedy of 9-11 took so long to happen.
OTOH, the FBI and CIA have managed to foil most terrorist attacks in this
country. The CDC has kept the spread of disease to a minimum. While they
clearly fucked up with regard to anthrax, it's still not a widespread public
threat; certainly not as big as the media would love for you to believe. So
far a few dozen people may have some form of it, and 3-4 deaths can be
attributed to it. Considering these are the first cases in a quarter
century, it is understandable that they were caught off guard at first,
although their follow-up is puzzling in its ineptitude.
Overall, the question is, do I trust federally-trained law enforcement over
$6 an hour rent-a-cops?
Um, yeah. Duh.
Hank
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
"James Hogan" <jhog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:QfuB7.2850$3l1.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
And it also underscores the need for greater, more coordinated oversight
with regard to flying in the US. And the most logical entity to do that is
the federal government. I simply don't understand the controversy over
replacing $6 an hour fast food refugees with federally trained law
enforcement officers.
>
> There are some indications that there are foreign intelligence services at
> work here. One of the hallmarks of diversion, a key indicator of the
> invovlement of a foreign source, is the planting of stories that have the
> effect of leading the public in the wrong direction.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The CIA would have a major fuck-up on its hands, had
Brokaw, Rather or Daschle been infected and died. They would cease to exist
pretty quickly, had that ever been uncovered.
As for the media, there is only one reason for perpetuating this story;
ratings and money. The WTC bombing is over, and there isn't much to report
at "Ground Zero", and they aren't being allowed to look at what's going on
in Afghanistan. (Of course, why they're not reporting more on the news
blackout, I don't know). So, all they have left is the public hysteria over
anthrax. Never mind that you have a better chance of winning PowerBall than
getting anthrax from your mail; it's a story that never ends. One more
person is exposed; you get to parade more experts.
>
> For example, there is the story that has made the rounds of the wire
> services to the effect that some of the hijackers rented out prostitutes
on
> the night before the attack. This has been published in some of the Boston
> newspapers. Consorting with prostitutes is prohibited, and is punishible
> by death to the close adherents of the brand of Islam that the attackers
> presumably followed. But we are asked to believe that that the pious
Muslims
> who allegedly committed this heinous act spent their last night on Earth
in
> the lap of a whore. Does not compute.
Gee, imagine that.
Good Muslims also wouldn't blow up a building they knew was chock full of
women, children and other Muslims. The mistake is in thinking they blew up
the buildings because they're "good Muslims". They weren't.
>
> As far as I know, no one has ever found this alleged prostitute.
Oh, sure; like they're going to plaster her name all over the news.
>
> There is another story that has received widespread coverage that says tha
t
> several "middle-eastern" looking men were in a bar engaging a "lap-dancer"
> on the night of Sept 10. They were said to have boasted that "tomorrow
> America will bleed," (or words to that effect .) These same men allegedly
> gave the bartenter a credit card to pay for thir escapade. Now I'm not a
> spy or anything like that, but doesn't that seem to be a ridiculous thing
to
> do, if you wanted to to remain anonymous?
Why? They planned on being dead within 12 hours.
>
> As far as I know, no one has ever interviewed these men. If they have,
their
> identities have been kept secret.
Well, yeah...
Um, no.
It is power. Most of the people in the world are religious. Almost none of
them blow up buildings because of it.
>
> The US Constitution, in the body of the Constitution, commands that "no
> religious test shall ever be administered as a condition of holding office
> or public trust in the United States."
>
> The First Amendment commands that " Congress shall make no law respecting
> the freedom of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." That
> means that the state shall be the unbiased referee, to keep the religions
> from killing each other in the name of their Lord. It has worked pretty
> successfully for about 225 years, at least in the US.
Yes, it has. Unfortunately for your "thesis", most of these people faked
identities, used aliases, and said they were from places they were not. They
are not knowingly affiliated with any state. My bet is, the only reason bin
Laden has been able to stay in Afghanistan, is because of significant
payments to the Taliban.
>
> There is no provision, however, for a religious state run amuck in the
> country. That, unfortunately, is the present state that we find ourselves
> in. We find ourselves in a state that is dominated by enemies of one of
our
> enemies. How much of what they say is true is an open question.
>
> It is a pervasive question. Are you for Israel or or you for Muslims, is
the
> familiar question. If the polls are to be believed (in the questions they
> ask) then Israel is the choice of most Americans.
>
> So I wonder after my fellow Americans, whether or not they will follow
their
> biblical instincts or whether they will follow their heads. I don't know
> the answer now, but I suspect that I will shortly.
The above makes no sense, probably because it's based on a false premise.
Claiming that these people were acting in the name of Islam is like claiming
that the KKK acts in the name of Christianity. Neither one can be supported
by facts.
Hank
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
Bryan J. Maloney
"James Hogan" <jhog...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> In every news report that I've seen, the source of anthrax is domestic.
> Something is rotten here.
I have not seen a SINGLE identification of the source of the anthrax.
The letters came from us mailboxes, but the source of the anthrax has
not been identified. You are obviously a liar or privy to news that the
rest of the world has never seen.
> flights into the WTC and the Pentagon. It is very difficult for me to
> believe that 19 people, many of whose identities were known to the
> various
> intelligence services, were able to infiltrate the US, conduct flight
> training, and were able to execute their mission without someone knowing
> about it. It is unbelievable.
It is very believable if you have any familiarity with the way US
federal police and "intelligence" agencies run their affairs.
Number one priority: Make it to pension.
Number two priority: Protect your agency's turf from other agencies.
Number three priority: Think about actually performing your mission.
Furthermore, it has been illegal for any agency with an overseas mission
to share information with a domestic agency. Thus, even if the CIA had
complete plans and a timetable, they were forbidden to share it with the
FBI. Instead, it had to go all the way up to the president (if it made
it through the bureaucracy that far) and then go down from him.
Furthermore, the Clinton information would often refuse to hear
unpleasant intelligence regarding our "good friends" in Saudi Arabia...
> work here. One of the hallmarks of diversion, a key indicator of the
> invovlement of a foreign source, is the planting of stories that have
Afghanistan is a foreign source.
> The US Constitution, in the body of the Constitution, commands that "no
> religious test shall ever be administered as a condition of holding
> office
> or public trust in the United States."
You are either a liar or an idiot to make such a claim. Specifically
WHERE in the Constitution is this stated? Where in the original
document or in what amendment is this?
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Bryan J. Maloney
oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> OK, now ...are we all still *sure* we want government employees and
> government managers who show such great acumen taking over airport
> security too? Instead of using private airport security forces as
> they do across Europe and in Israel?
Heh. You don't know diddle-doo about rent-a-cops in the USA, do you?
US rent-a-cops are minimum wage drones, and the companies that provide
them often don't even bother checking to see if the addresses they give
on their employment applications actually exist! You think the feds are
bad at security? Rent-a-cops are far worse.
Grinch
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <QfuB7.2850$3l1.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>,
>"James Hogan" <jhog...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>.........
>> The US Constitution, in the body of the Constitution, commands that "no
>> religious test shall ever be administered as a condition of holding office
>> or public trust in the United States."
>
>You are either a liar or an idiot to make such a claim. Specifically
>WHERE in the Constitution is this stated?
Article VI. clause 3.
> Where in the original
>document or in what amendment is this?
Article VI. clause 3.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Time to brush up on our "citizenship studies", eh?
SemiScholar
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <QfuB7.2850$3l1.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>,
>"James Hogan" <jhog...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> In every news report that I've seen, the source of anthrax is domestic.
>> Something is rotten here.
>
>I have not seen a SINGLE identification of the source of the anthrax.
>The letters came from us mailboxes, but the source of the anthrax has
>not been identified. You are obviously a liar or privy to news that the
>rest of the world has never seen.
The TV news this evening said that the anthrax was created using
sophisticated techniques only available in the US, the USSR and Iraq.
And the report was that it looks like it's not from Iraq or the USSR.
Read the papers tomorrow.
ROTFL!!
Article. VI.
"... The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Really, man, youmight want to try knowing a LITTLE something about the
subject before you spout - ESPECIALLY if you're going to be calling
people "liars".
LOL!
Bookmark this site: (and try READING the constitution sometime...)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/constquery.html
Karni
SemiScholar <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:37:00 -0400, "Bryan J. Maloney"
> <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <QfuB7.2850$3l1.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>,
> >"James Hogan" <jhog...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In every news report that I've seen, the source of anthrax is domestic.
> >> Something is rotten here.
> >
> >I have not seen a SINGLE identification of the source of the anthrax.
> >The letters came from us mailboxes, but the source of the anthrax has
> >not been identified. You are obviously a liar or privy to news that the
> >rest of the world has never seen.
>
> The TV news this evening said that the anthrax was created using
> sophisticated techniques only available in the US, the USSR and Iraq.
> And the report was that it looks like it's not from Iraq or the USSR.
> Read the papers tomorrow.
Which means the *source* may be domestic, not that the perpetrators are
domestic terrorists.
I'll give you one guess as to why the Press is floating this balloon,
and it ain't pretty...
--
Kar...@aol.com | NOTE: Remove the "**" from my E-mail
Individuality Hall | to reply to me at Kar...@aol.com
Institute for International | "Don't be taxing my gig so hard core,
Electoral Analysis | Cruster!..."
Freeza's Lover
~Freeza: The King of the Frigidaires!!
SemiScholar
>In article <1c7fttkkpfu04p4ju...@4ax.com>,
> SemiScholar <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:37:00 -0400, "Bryan J. Maloney"
>> <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <QfuB7.2850$3l1.2...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>,
>> >"James Hogan" <jhog...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In every news report that I've seen, the source of anthrax is domestic.
>> >> Something is rotten here.
>> >
>> >I have not seen a SINGLE identification of the source of the anthrax.
>> >The letters came from us mailboxes, but the source of the anthrax has
>> >not been identified. You are obviously a liar or privy to news that the
>> >rest of the world has never seen.
>>
>> The TV news this evening said that the anthrax was created using
>> sophisticated techniques only available in the US, the USSR and Iraq.
>> And the report was that it looks like it's not from Iraq or the USSR.
>> Read the papers tomorrow.
>
>Which means the *source* may be domestic, not that the perpetrators are
>domestic terrorists.
Very true.
>
>I'll give you one guess as to why the Press is floating this balloon,
>and it ain't pretty...
Uhh... I'll bite - what's your guess?