0
   

How McCain tried to tie anthrax scare to Iraq

 
 
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 08:42 am
Anthrax Suspect's Suicide Recalls Ambiguities In Lead Up To Invasion Of Iraq: Glenn Greenwald
August 1, 2008

The New York Times' blog, The Lede, asks what might happen if the case were to be closed following this death, especially since the FBI has already been successfully sued for false accusation in this case by another suspect, Dr. Steven Hatfill.

The echoes between Dr. Hatfill and Dr. Ivins seem to resonate, leading some to wonder whether the government was once again jumping to conclusions in the case. "Is this going to be Hatfill-2?," Brad Garrett, a former F.B.I. agent who worked the anthrax case, asked ABC News.

With the Justice Department officially mum for the moment, the questions will only grow louder. It falls to the department to say whether that question at the top of this post ought to be repunctuated into a statement -- but an unnamed official told The Associated Press today that the department had not yet decided whether to declare "Case Closed."

If it does so without further explanation, at least one detail will be gleanable from the outcome. "If the case is closed soon," an official told the A.P., "that will indicate that Ivins was the lone suspect."

Prompted by the apparent suicide of Bruce Ivins, the FBI's lead suspect in the anthrax mailings that followed 9/11, Salon's Glenn Greenwald extensively reexamines the case today, and how the attacks were used by lead the American people to support the invasion of Iraq.

The 2001 anthrax attacks remain one of the great mysteries of the post-9/11 era. After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency. One could make a persuasive case that they were actually more consequential. The 9/11 attacks were obviously traumatic for the country, but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event. It was really the anthrax letters -- with the first one sent on September 18, just one week after 9/11 -- that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years after. It was anthrax -- sent directly into the heart of the country's elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokow, and other leading media outlets -- that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.

On a related note, John McCain was among the first politicians to link the anthrax letters to Iraq, as a clip from the October 18, 2001 Late Show with David Letterman, where McCain appeared as a guest, reveals.

ThinkProgress has the story.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/

Video Transcript:

LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

MCCAIN: I think we're doing fine .... I think we'll do fine. The second phase -- if I could just make one, very quickly -- the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq.

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that's when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,813 • Replies: 59
No top replies

 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:15 am
Yes, so I see:

Quote:

On October 18, 2001


So, a month after 9/11, seven years ago, McCain said that there might be a connection. Wow, what a liar!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:18 am
Brandon
Brandon9000 wrote:
Yes, so I see:

Quote:

On October 18, 2001


So, a month after 9/11, seven years ago, McCain said that there might be a connection. Wow, what a liar!


Have you forgotten John McCain's reputation as a "wink wink" liar?

BBB
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:32 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Yes, so I see:

Quote:

On October 18, 2001


So, a month after 9/11, seven years ago, McCain said that there might be a connection. Wow, what a liar!

The anthrax may also have come from the monkeys that fly out of my butt every night.

The point is that McCain likely didn't know anything about it, and just opportunistically mashed Iraq and anthrax together.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:34 am
Re: Brandon
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Yes, so I see:

Quote:

On October 18, 2001


So, a month after 9/11, seven years ago, McCain said that there might be a connection. Wow, what a liar!


Have you forgotten John McCain's reputation as a "wink wink" color=darkblue]liar[/color]?

BBB

I'm waiting for you to give me something McCain said which suggests that the anthrax events were tied to Iraq. This is what you've accused him of. I see no evidence he made a significant attempt to convince people that the anthrax came from Iraq. A single statement that there could be a connection a month after 9/11 is insignificant. Please give me something that he actually said or wrote. Do you even care if the things you accuse people of are true? What word describes people who make false accusations against others?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:45 am
for Brandon
I recall that the anthrax letters were not sent to Republicans. McCain was one of many Republicans trying to tie the anthrax attack to Iraq and/or terrorists to support their proposed invasion. They are not running for president; McCain is.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:54 am
He didn't specifically blame Iraq, but he did say Iraq had to be attacked because of such things.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:54 am
Re: for Brandon
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I recall that the anthrax letters were not sent to Republicans. McCain was one of many Republicans trying to tie the anthrax attack to Iraq and/or terrorists to support their proposed invasion. They are not running for president; McCain is.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/

The new link contains a repetition of the original quote in the other link. Lots of people probably speculated about possible ties between these events in the days immediately following 9/11. It appears to me that there is much more evidence that you made a serious accusation which you can't back up, and that you don't really care whether its true, than that McCain tried to convince people that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 09:55 am
edgarblythe wrote:
He didn't specifically blame Iraq, but he did say Iraq had to be attacked because of such things.

Where did he say that Iraq had to be attacked because of the anthrax attacks?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 10:10 am
You don't see it as irresponsible for a senior elected official to speculate in public?

I do....

"Talking around the watercooler" is one thing. Going on national TV to speculate is a bit much, IMO.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 10:17 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
He didn't specifically blame Iraq, but he did say Iraq had to be attacked because of such things.

Where did he say that Iraq had to be attacked because of the anthrax attacks?


It was in black and white in the things BBB posted. You can split hairs to infinity, but that's what his words indicated.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 02:11 pm
DrewDad wrote:
You don't see it as irresponsible for a senior elected official to speculate in public?

I do....

"Talking around the watercooler" is one thing. Going on national TV to speculate is a bit much, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 02:17 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
He didn't specifically blame Iraq, but he did say Iraq had to be attacked because of such things.

Where did he say that Iraq had to be attacked because of the anthrax attacks?


It was in black and white in the things BBB posted. You can split hairs to infinity, but that's what his words indicated.

What he actually said was that if Iraq turned out to actually be responsible for the anthrax attacks, then some tough decisions would have to be made. That's a pretty far cry from saying that Iraq must be attacked because of things like the anthrax attacks. The difference is:

1. He said if they turn out to be responsible.
2. He said tough decisions will have to be made, not we must attack Iraq.

I absolutely believe that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do based on what was known in 2003, but (a) I won't allow that to sidetrack this different topic, and (b) I hold that belief for reasons having zero to do with 9/11 or anthrax.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 02:43 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
You don't see it as irresponsible for a senior elected official to speculate in public?

I do....

"Talking around the watercooler" is one thing. Going on national TV to speculate is a bit much, IMO.

So for you, then, "irresponsible" = "anti-Christ."

Good reasoning, there, I think you got me.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 02:46 pm
I don't think he can be the anti-Christ. Osamabama has that job all locked up.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 03:10 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
You don't see it as irresponsible for a senior elected official to speculate in public?

I do....

"Talking around the watercooler" is one thing. Going on national TV to speculate is a bit much, IMO.

So for you, then, "irresponsible" = "anti-Christ."

Good reasoning, there, I think you got me.

You're focusing on a small detail of what I said as a device to escape from the actual argument. My point was that what he said, given the way he said it, and when he said it amounts to nothing.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 03:43 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
He didn't specifically blame Iraq, but he did say Iraq had to be attacked because of such things.

Where did he say that Iraq had to be attacked because of the anthrax attacks?


It was in black and white in the things BBB posted. You can split hairs to infinity, but that's what his words indicated.

What he actually said was that if Iraq turned out to actually be responsible for the anthrax attacks, then some tough decisions would have to be made. That's a pretty far cry from saying that Iraq must be attacked because of things like the anthrax attacks. The difference is:

1. He said if they turn out to be responsible.
2. He said tough decisions will have to be made, not we must attack Iraq.

I absolutely believe that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do based on what was known in 2003, but (a) I won't allow that to sidetrack this different topic, and (b) I hold that belief for reasons having zero to do with 9/11 or anthrax.


I have to back track on this. I misread some of the information.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 04:40 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
You don't see it as irresponsible for a senior elected official to speculate in public?

I do....

"Talking around the watercooler" is one thing. Going on national TV to speculate is a bit much, IMO.

So for you, then, "irresponsible" = "anti-Christ."

Good reasoning, there, I think you got me.

You're focusing on a small detail of what I said as a device to escape from the actual argument. My point was that what he said, given the way he said it, and when he said it amounts to nothing.

...in your opinion

My opinion differs.

And I stand by my opinion; it was irresponsible for him to speculate on national TV.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2008 06:55 am
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
You don't see it as irresponsible for a senior elected official to speculate in public?

I do....

"Talking around the watercooler" is one thing. Going on national TV to speculate is a bit much, IMO.

So for you, then, "irresponsible" = "anti-Christ."

Good reasoning, there, I think you got me.

You're focusing on a small detail of what I said as a device to escape from the actual argument. My point was that what he said, given the way he said it, and when he said it amounts to nothing.

...in your opinion

My opinion differs.

And I stand by my opinion; it was irresponsible for him to speculate on national TV.


So then you would also agree that it is wrong for ANY politician to speculate about anything on national TV?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2008 07:23 am
He was feeding into the hysteria that led to the bogus war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How McCain tried to tie anthrax scare to Iraq
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 06:22:10