By Cliff Kincaid

         Media coverage of the anthrax investigation is starting to resemble the chaotic state of the investigation itself. Jerry Seper of the Washington Times began the circus by reporting that the FBI had narrowed its probe to one person – a former U.S. scientist who worked at a government laboratory. One day later, Seper said the former scientist is the “focus” of the FBI investigation. But the FBI said it doesn’t have a prime suspect. The Times story was said to be “erroneous.”  

Mail handlers at the U.S. Army Reserve Command headquarters found a suspicious package there and said initial field tests indicated that anthrax could be present. The building was locked down with about 200 people still inside, and stricter security measures were imposed. Six people who handled the package were sent to a hospital for further examination. The building was closed, and people were asked to remain in their offices. But tests determined that the substance was not anthrax.

Desperately searching for leads in the anthrax investigation, the FBI has asked the U.S. Postal Service to distribute a flyer about the case to more than 500,000 people in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The FBI also doubled the reward to $2.5 million for information leading to the capture of whoever sent the anthrax-tainted envelopes that terrorized the nation and killed five people last year.

            The Christian Science Monitor reported last November that although the FBI still has not ruled out the possibility that Al Qaeda may be involved, certain experts were convinced it was probably domestic. The paper claimed the targeting of Senator Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, pointed to an attacker with “strong domestic political views in line with certain right-wing extremists.”

            That was typical of the FBI attitude under Clinton, when the bureau warned that right-wingers might be planning violence for Y2K. None occurred. But a terrorist linked to Al Qaeda was caught trying to cross the Canadian border into the U.S. to bomb Los Angeles airport. The FBI had no role in catching him. That was due to an alert border guard who noted the terrorist was sweating in cold weather. That led to a search that found bomb-making materials in his trunk. 

            One thing we know is that the anthrax letters appeared to have been written by a foreigner. Another thing we do know is that documents referring to anthrax vaccine-maker Bioport Inc. were found in the possession of the Al Qaeda in Kabul, Afghanistan. Two Pakistani scientists were arrested in Kabul and had the documents in their possession, according to published reports.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Edward J. Epstein noted that Bioport’s owner has had dealings with Saudi Arabia, where the hijackers came from, and has an interest in biowarfare. A spokesman for Bioport confirmed that the documents found in Kabul were about “laboratory renovations” and were not a "how-to" manual on making the vaccine. But why would Pakistani scientists in Kabul be interested in the plant? Did they or their agents have access to it? Why won’t the media pursue answers to these questions? The answer may lie in the FBI’s so far fruitless search for a right-wing culprit. 

The Washington Times story by Jerry Seper about the FBI supposedly having a prime suspect in the anthrax attacks generated attention nationally. He claimed his sources were “law enforcement authorities” and “leading biochemical experts.” But you had to read deep into the article to discover his main source for this charge – Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, who was described by Seper as “a microbiologist at state University of New York who heads the biological arms-control panel for the Federation of American Scientists…”

The Village Voice, a left-wing New York weekly, noted that the Seper story “more or less repeated her report” – that is, Rosenberg’s report. Interestingly, the Federation of American Scientists now promotes Rosenberg’s report on its own Web site by saying,  “This report by Dr. Barbara Rosenberg prompted media reports that the FBI has a prime suspect in the anthrax attacks.”

            Readers are entitled to know more about Rosenberg and the Federation of American Scientists. The Times neglected to mention that this is a group with a left-wing orientation that believes in the sanctity of international arms control agreements. Its Web site has stories attacking the Bush Administration’s withdrawal from the flawed ABM treaty.

            Near the end of Rosenberg’s own report, she tips her hand, saying, “The recent anthrax attack was a minor one but nonetheless we now see that it was made possible by a sophisticated government program…secret US programs may have been the source of that support…US government insistence on pursuing and maintaining the secrecy of elaborate biological threat assessment activities is undermining the prohibitions of the Biological Weapons Convention and encouraging biological weapons proliferation in other countries…”

That’s her way of attacking the Bush Administration for resisting a protocol to an international agreement supposedly banning biological weapons. She believes that if it is proven that a former U.S. government scientist is behind the anthrax attacks, then that makes the case for having an international treaty mandating inspections of government facilities. The U.S. fears that rogue nations would circumvent the treaty and our secrets would be exposed to the world.

John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, says the protocol would endanger the viability of biological warfare defense programs because its inspection provisions could enable countries with offensive programs to learn about national defense programs and devise countermeasures. Bolton has identified Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria as countries with offensive programs. But Barbara Hatch Rosenberg would rather talk about some alleged and anonymous former U.S. scientist.

Rosenberg may be right, but questions about the possible foreign connections haven’t been asked, let alone answered. (30)

 

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.