It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Merinda
So it werent the Taliban whom mailed Anthrax from Afghanistan to America?
1) "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", a study group led by Richard Pearl
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
Wiki, so you know it's real..
en.wikipedia.org...:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
Neocon Middle East Policy: The Clean Break Plan Damage Assessment
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is a definitive Middle East Policy strategy authored and implemented by operatives in the highest levels of the US government. There is just one problem. The plan was a strategy for Israel, not the United States of America. Neocon Middle East Policy reviews strategies and consequences of the "Clean Break" plan authored by Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith in 1996. It analyzes the core assumptions of the policy, cost of tactics that have already been implemented and discusses the likelihood others will be executed in the future. Neocon Middle East Policy then turns to the most difficult questions of all, "Can a policy crafted for a foreign government and presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu serve as a blueprint for US regional policy? At what cost in credibility, blood, treasure and American integrity? At what cost to Israel?" Neocon Middle East Policy is a must-read for anyone concerned about the convergence of US and Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East.
www.amazon.com...
2) Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the transformative event; Elements of a National Policy.
by Philip D. Zelikow, December 1998
belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu...
www.youtube.com...
Here are Zelikow's 1998 words.
An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.
It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.
Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.
Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."
The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."
Philip D. Zelikow, December 1998
"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."
While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."
More here: The Official Story - by Philip D. Zelikow
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You may note how his language found it's way into this policy report by Dick Cheney..
3) Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.
A Report of the Project for the New American Century
September 2000
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
Signatories to Statement of Principles
Elliott Abrams[5]
Gary Bauer[5]
William J. Bennett[5]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[5]
Richard B. Cheney[5]
Eliot A. Cohen[5]
Midge Decter[5]
Paula Dobriansky[5]
Steve Forbes[5]
Aaron Friedberg[5]
Francis Fukuyama[5]
Frank Gaffney[5]
Fred C. Ikle[5]
Donald Kagan[5]
Zalmay Khalilzad[5]
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[5]
Norman Podhoretz[5]
J. Danforth Quayle[5]
Peter W. Rodman[5]
Stephen P. Rosen[5]
Henry S. Rowen[5]
Donald Rumsfeld[5]
Vin Weber[5]
George Weigel[5]
Paul Wolfowitz[5]
Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports[16]
Elliott Abrams[10][12]
Kenneth Adelman[54]
Richard V. Allen[20]
Richard L. Armitage[12]
Gary Bauer[20][54]
Jeffrey Bell[20][54]
William J. Bennett[10][12][20][54]
Jeffrey Bergner[10][12][20]
John Bolton[10][12]
Ellen Bork[54]
Rudy Boschwitz[20]
Linda Chavez[54]
Eliot Cohen[15][20][54]
Seth Cropsey[20]
Midge Decter[20][54]
Paula Dobriansky[10][12]
Thomas Donnelly[15][20][54]
Nicholas Eberstadt,[20][54][55]
Hillel Fradkin[20][54][56]
Aaron Friedberg[20]
Francis Fukuyama[10][12][20]
Frank Gaffney[20][54]
Jeffrey Gedmin[20][54]
Reuel Marc Gerecht[20][54]
Charles Hill[20][54]
Bruce P. Jackson[20][54]
Eli S. Jacobs[20]
Michael Joyce[20]
Donald Kagan[15][20][54]
Robert Kagan[10][12][15][20][54]
Stephen Kantany
Zalmay Khalilzad[10][12]
Jeane Kirkpatrick[20]
Charles Krauthammer[20]
William Kristol[10][12][15][20]
John Lehman[20][54]
I. Lewis Libby[15]
Tod Lindberg[54][57]
Rich Lowry[54]
Clifford May[20][54]
John McCain[58]
Joshua Muravchik[54]
Michael O'Hanlon [59][60]
Martin Peretz[20][54]
Richard Perle[10][12][20][54]
Daniel Pipes[54]
Norman Podhoretz[20][54]
Peter W. Rodman[10][12][20]
Stephen P. Rosen[15][20][54]
Donald Rumsfeld[10][12]
Randy Scheunemann[20][54]
Gary Schmitt[15][20][52][54]
William Schneider, Jr.[10][12][20][54]
Richard H. Shultz[20][61]
Henry Sokolski[20]
Stephen J. Solarz[20]
Vin Weber[10][12][20]
Leon Wieseltier[20]
Marshall Wittmann[20][54]
Paul Wolfowitz[10][12][15]
R. James Woolsey[10][12][54]
Dov Zakheim[15][62]
Robert B. Zoellick[10][12]
en.wikipedia.org...
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
Sunday Herald - 15 September 2002
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
By Neil Mackay
[MUST READ!] cryptome.org...
NewAgeMan
Why did Bruce Ivins commit "suicide" if it wasn't his anthrax..?
The first accused individual, Steven Hatfill, ended up being rewarded a multimillion dollar settlement from the government for being wrongly accused before any evidence was presented against him. The subsequent accused individual, Bruce Ivins, allegedly committed suicide while the FBI was trying to break him into confessing.
Ultimately, the FBI asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to verify its evidence pointing to Ivins as the main suspect. Instead, the NAS concluded that the DNA in the anthrax sent in the mail was in fact not a match to the anthrax Ivins worked with.
"In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them," said Richard O. Spertzel, former deputy commander of USAMRIID.[62] "And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good."[62] The spores in the Daschle letter were 1.5 to 3 micrometres across, many times smaller than the finest known grade of anthrax produced by either the U.S. or Soviet bioweapons programs.[62] An electron microscope, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, would be needed to verify that the target spore size had been consistently achieved.[62] The presence of the anti-clumping additive silicon in the anthrax samples also suggests a high degree of sophistication as specialists working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory were unable to duplicate this property despite 56 attempts
SubTruth
reply to post by NewAgeMan
For anyone who considers yourself a Democrat or Republican ask yourself why both sides were trying to cover this up.....WHY.
MarioOnTheFly
here is a little interesting bit:
"In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them," said Richard O. Spertzel, former deputy commander of USAMRIID.[62] "And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good."[62] The spores in the Daschle letter were 1.5 to 3 micrometres across, many times smaller than the finest known grade of anthrax produced by either the U.S. or Soviet bioweapons programs.[62] An electron microscope, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, would be needed to verify that the target spore size had been consistently achieved.[62] The presence of the anti-clumping additive silicon in the anthrax samples also suggests a high degree of sophistication as specialists working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory were unable to duplicate this property despite 56 attempts
IVINS wiki
So to make this stuff...you just can't do it in your own basement. High quality stuff apparently. Specialists tried to duplicate it...56 times...without success.
Let's make our own conclusions as to what does that mean...
originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by NorEaster
but since they were unable to replicate the strain...doesn't that mean it can't be a "lone nut"...it takes expert helpers, a high quality lab, and many many tries obviously to produce the thing of such high quality.
Who has such resources ? Lone nuts ? terrorists ?