August 6, 2004 by s.z.

There Are No Terrorists but Islamists, and Saddam is Their Supreme Overlord The story about Kenneth Berry has me remembering back to late October 2001, and an argument I had with with my brother about the probability that the anthrax letters were sent by a native-born American with something to prove.  My brother insisted that I was wrong, and they had to be the work of Arab terrorists because the letters made reference to Allah, were dated 9/11, and besides, nobody else would be so evil and stuff.  While my brother gets most of his news from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, I did a Google search to see if there was anywhere else that he might have picked up his certitude that the letters, which targeted members of the media and Democratic legislators, were from al Qaeda or Saddam or some other brown-skinned foreigner.  I found some interesting stuff (which my brother probably wasn't aware of) which demonstrate how some of us thought back then.  And, sadly enough, still do. 1.  This guy claims that the stamp used on the letters (which looks like a standard pre-stamped envelope to me) is an IRAQI stamp featuring an IRAQI eagle, proving that Saddam was behind the anthrax attack, and probably 9/11 too.  He corresponded with Laurie Mylroie about his theory-- she said that the childish block printing used to address the letters looks like that used by the guy who masterminded the '93 World Trade Center bombing.  But it wasn't him, because he's in jail.  However, the fact that both he and the anthrax letter writer used block printing proves Iraqi involvement in the attacks. 2.  Kathleen Parker also arrived at the Iraqi connection, which she outlines in her column from Oct. 29, 2001: According to another expert, only three nations are known to have the technical capacity to create this form of anthrax - the United States, the former Soviet Union and - no! - Iraq. Gosh, do you think Saddam Hussein could be behind this? Using the same logic and common sense that we might have applied to the postal workers handling contaminated mail (i.e. if point B receives a contaminated letter from Point A, might we reckon that Point A could be infected?), we might wildly guess that we have a clue after all. Let's see: If Russia is an ally and we are the United States, and Iraq is a known enemy with a gargantuan grudge against us, particularly against the son of you-know-who, might we suspect that, indeed, we do know the source of these antrax letters and that we, in fact, do know who our enemy is? Yup, Russia is our friend (and, as we know, they never sold bioweapons to anybody else), and we ARE America (so nobody here would do such a thing), so Saddam must be behind everything.  Besides, he hates the manly George Bush.  Q.E.D. 3. In June 2002, Instapundit posted a "chunk" of a memo purportedly sent to the FBI (and presumably written by an Instapundit reader who had cracked the case and wanted to share his findings with the Bureau and Glenn): Analysis of Anthrax Letters and Envelopes Executive Summary The letters were written and sealed prior to September 11 by Mohammed Atta. The letters to the Post and Brokaw were given to one individual or organization to mail. The letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle were given to another individual or organization to mail. These individuals did not know the contents of the letters nor whom the letters originally came from. The anthrax was smuggled into the U.S. by one of the September 11th hijackers and represents all the anthrax smuggled in at that time.  The "analysis" consists of reasoning like this: Sometimes things are just what they seem to be. The letters are all dated 09-11-01. It is not unlikely that they could have been written on September 10th by someone who knew the plans for September 11th and dated the letters accordingly. And Atta knew of the plans for September 11th on September 10th.  See how it all fits together! Insty's comment on this memo? I'm not sure about this -- but I remember a flurry of information about the likelihood that Atta and some of the other 9/11 hijackers actually had anthrax symptoms at the time of the hijacking. We certainly haven't heard much on this subject lately. So, Glenn posts a kooky but compelling (to war blogers) theory on his site, saying that it MIGHT be true, but refusing to commit himself to it, in case it's not.  So, typical Instapundit. Anyway, that concludes our blast from the past.  And those who refuse to learn from it are condemned to repeat it --  or at least condemed to reading TownHall, Instapundit, and Laurie Mylroie for the next four years. 10:38:22 AM

Prophetic Statements You're no doubt aware of this story: An upstate New York home and a Jersey Shore cottage owned by a doctor and self-described bioterrorism expert were searched yesterday by federal agents investigating the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks, but there was no apparent breakthrough in the long-running case. [...] Dr. Berry is the founder and chief executive of Preempt, an organization that advocates specialized training for medical professionals to respond to chemical and biological attacks. His organization's Web site describes him as an expert on bioterrorism and a consultant to the Pentagon on unconventional weapons. But the Defense Department has thousands of consultants, and Jerome M. Hauer, a director of the New York City Office of Emergency Management during the administration of former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, recalled Dr. Berry as a self-appointed expert at bioterrorism conferences. "Many of us felt he was looking to do more for himself than for bio-defense," Mr. Hauer said. "He came out of nowhere as an alleged expert on bio-defense, but none of us in this area knew him."  While Berry may or may not have had anything to do with the anthrax letters, I found this quote from a 12 December 1997 Reuters article (which I found at a religious nut site, but a reporter with Lexis/Nexis could probably verify that it's accurate) eerily prescient: Dr. Kenneth Berry, President of the American Academy of Emergency Physicians and head of the medical counter-terrorism group PREEMPT (www.preempt.org) contends that the threat of a domestic anthrax attack is very real. "It's our number one national security threat," he said. Berry says military experts believe there is an "over 90% probability of having a major attack in a U.S. city in two to five years." And there was such an attack just four years later!  Well, not a MAJOR major one, but one that sure managed to spook a lot of people, coming as it did so soon after 9/11, which had convinced people that Islamic terrorists with hijacked airplanes were our number one national security threat. But Berry estimates that an anthrax attack on a city the size of San Francisco could kill hundreds of thousands of people, and cost the country nearly a trillion dollars. Any investment we make in prevention now, he says, could save lives and billions of dollars in the event of such a terrorist event. Berry believes such an event "is going to happen, it is going to be devastating, and my message is, let's be ready." But sadly, the federal goverment never made that investment in prevention by awarding  Berry's company a contract for his system to detect anthrax, or hiring him to teach emergency medical personnel how to deal with patients exposed to the spores.  Of course, in 1999 Berry was arrested in connection with the forged will of a deceased former colleague, which might have caused the feds to think that maybe Berry wasn't on the up and up ... But still, he was right, and everybody else was wrong.  You can see why he might come to the attention of the FBI  Obviously this story is still "developing," as Drudge probably said, and after the Steven Hatfill situation, the investigation lost a lot of credibility.  So, it's probably best to keep an an open mind about anyone's guilt at this point.  But speaking of Hatfill, "Berry's father told the Star-Ledger that his son and Hatfill know each other." What does it all mean?  Developing . . . 8:39:16 AM

Nuts o' the Day 1.  First, let's check in with the NRO Corner's low-rent Peggy Noonan, Kathryn Jean Lopez: TERESA! [KJL] She's from Africa. Of course she's heard about the starving children there. (Is it a far stretch for you to read this post in a faux-nagging voice?) And yet...the Powerline blog thinks she ordered this sandwich ("a Limburger cheese sandwich with raw onions and mustard on rye bread") and didn't eat it. Couldn't be, could it? Do the Kerrys ever have an honest lunch? Posted at 02:05 PM Yup, Teresa WASTES FOOD!  Reason right there for you not to vote for her husband.    No, you should vote for a guy who doesn't waste food, and, in his "youth," didn't waste booze either.  So, join Kathryn in downing half a bottle of American bourbon in honor of George Bush's alcoholism. MY (CRANKY) EVIL DEEDS ARE DONE [KJL] ...(I'll be back after a Wild Turkey or two. Why Wild Turkey? I read in Ron Kessler's new book that it was W.'s drink of choice when he was a drinker, of course. I now consider it the Bush-Cheney 2004 Kool Aid, ironically.) Posted at 07:21 PM Next time: KJL finishes off that bottle of Wild Turkey, then takes a 15-year-old out for some more drinking, comes home and rams through some garbage cans with her car, and then challenges her father to a fist fight.  You know, as part of Bush-Cheney 2004's "Party Like the President" grassroots tool.  2.  Bill O'Reilly has a new column.  It's about how Ricky Williams retired from football because he's hooked on marijuana.  Fifty years ago hardly anybody used marijuana. The simple question is: What dynamic has changed in America to account for the drastic increase in the consumption of marijuana?   Fortunately, Bill provides the simple answer: the antiwar movement of the '60s caused white teens to start smoking weed, and the rap music of the '90s is responsible for the drug's use by today's black youth. The ten years between 1992 and 2002 coincided with the rise of the rap industry. Icons such as Snoop Dogg and Ludacris consistently glorified marijuana, and I believe their message fell on willing ears. A generation of Americans kids, of all colors, were (and continue to be) pounded by rhythms and lyrics encouraging a libertine lifestyle with a heavy emphasis on drug use and exploitative sex. How could this not take a toll?  Those damned hippies and rap stars are probably responsible for everything that's wrong with our society -- including that darned divisive media that Laura Bush and Bill talked about a couple of days ago.  O'REILLY: There is political fighting, but I think a lot of it's social. I mean, you've got these issues like gay marriage and pledge of allegiance under god, which split the country, even though the polls say that most Americans come down on the traditional side on all of these issues. The media portrays it as that's not the way it is. BUSH: You gave me a really great idea. Maybe it is the media that has us divided. O'REILLY: I don't think that's far out. It's nice when simple minds find simple answers to all of life's problems. 3.  Jerry Falwell uses his NewsMax column to urge pastors to speak out about politics (he probably read Doug Giles' series of columns on the subject, and thought that more pastors should sign up for that "don't call me after 9:00, and I'm taking the month of August off, because I'm too busy changing society to worry about your petty problems" kind of ministry).  Jerry also invites his fellow men of God to attend his "Super Conference," where they will learn how to stand up to liberal intimidation from the IRS: It is becoming increasingly evident that conservative pastors in America are being targeted for speaking out on political issues that confront our nation. And while it has become fashionable for so-called civil libertarian groups to run screaming to the IRS if a conservative pastor speaks his mind, the fact is that pastors in this nation have a right and a mandate to confront the consequential problems of the day. As I recently reported, Americans United for Separation and Church and State — an organization that seeks the removal of every vestige of religious substance from the American public square — has called for the IRS to investigate a recent column I wrote in which I suggested that conservative Christians almost exclusively favor President Bush in this November’s presidential election [...] In fact, because the political heat is being turned up to intimidate conservative pastors in our nation, I am announcing today that Liberty University will be hosting a special summit for pastors and church leaders this September 26-29. And the good news is that Jerry and his sons Jerry Jr. and Rev. Jonathan will help host this gathering!  It's a festival of Falwells! In the progressively more hostile environment we are witnessing against Christians, I believe it is high time that conservative pastors become enlightened as to their rights in the pulpit. Here is a crucial fact: Pastors may endorse political legislation as long as such lobbying activities do not constitute more than a substantial past of their overall activities. I doubt that most pastors are aware of this fact. No, I bet they aren't.  Even the IRS isn't aware of that fact, since this is what their official guidelines say: To be tax-exempt as an organization  ... it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates. Here's some additional information, just about charitable organizations and lobbying : Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  [...] The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals.  Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy.  However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions. So, I think Jerry must have gotten his tax info from Doug Giles, who, as you will recall, advised pastors that if they lost their tax exempt status it just meant they had to pay sales tax when they bought weenies at Costco. But Jerry has it on good authority that the IRS itself is a bunch of weenies, and it never does anything to errant but courageous pastors: Mr. Staver recently stated: “It is time for pastors and other church leaders to shed their moral laryngitis.” He noted that no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for engaging in lobbying activities.   Really?  Then maybe it's time to use Jerry's church as a test case.  After all, the law is the law (I think that was the phrase I heard used during the Clinton Impeachment Holy Days). Anyway, the "news" part of NewsMax has more on Falwell and his "speak out for Bush" conference for pastors: RICHMOND, Va. – The Rev. Jerry Falwell, beset by groups questioning his ministry's tax-exempt status for backing President Bush, has set up a seminar to train conservative pastors "not to be intimidated by left-wing thugs." Falwell said the September seminar would advise clergy that they can speak their minds on moral issues and weigh in on politics, as long as they don't spend tax-exempt money doing it.  I thought that he said they could so "speak their minds" as long as it didn't constitute a "substantial past" (or "part") of their duties.  In any case, Jerry seems certain that you can tell your congregation they have to vote for Bush or they will go to hell, as long as you don't use the missionary fund to do it, and as long as you mix up your lobbying with some study, exercise, and vacation, like Doug recommended. Robert Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington, said Falwell was "interpreting the law as he wishes it was, not as it is." "Any pastor who would accept legal advice in this area from Jerry Falwell is playing with fire," Boston said, noting that Falwell's "Old Time Gospel Hour" television ministry in 1993 paid $50,000 in back taxes for political activity in 1986 and 1987 that was deemed improper.The "Politics and the Pulpit" conference will be Sept. 26-29 at Liberty University in Lynchburg. Falwell is the school's founder and president.  So, while no church has lost its tax-exempt status for engaging in lobbying activities, there was a ministry that had to pay a lot in back taxes.  Interesting indeed. Oh, and what kind of a Christian would want to attend a university (or scarier still, a law school) whose founder and president gave such stupid (and easily disproven) advice to his fellow evangelists?  4.  Dr. Professor Mike Adams has his imaginary friend Noah (of ark fame) respond to the reply he got from PETA.  Hi Mike. Noah here. I have been reading your recent exchange with the terrorist organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The PETA spokesperson had patiently explained that plants don't have central nervous systems, so PETA doesn't lobby against cruelty to vegetables.  But because she didn't laugh at any of Mike's . . .I mean "John's" best lines (the ones we mentioned last time, which were apparently not actually by George Carlin, but instead from a widely-circulated email which "John" must have never seen), "Noah" gives her some verses from Genesis, then lectures her about abortion.  But we do learn a few interesting things in the last part of the column: Well, Mike, I’ll see you in a few years from now. I hope that you enjoy your deer hunting trip with Doug Giles in October. And stop whining about all of the hurricanes in Wilmington. The rain is nothing compared to the time when…. Well, never mind, I’m sure you know the whole story. Mike Adams is the host of www.DrAdams.org. He isn’t finished with PETA yet.Note: Because John is, in fact, a real person, Dr. Adams will post his entire response to PETA on his website next week.   So, (a) Mike is claiming that "John" is real; (b) Mike is going hunting with Doug Giles; and (c) Mike imagines that Noah has nothing better to do than concern himself with Mike and Doug's attempt to demonstrate their manliness. I can't speak to the truth "a" and/or "b", but I did hear that Noah is not bothered by Mike and Doug's plan to kill innocent deer, since he knows the sportsmen will actually hunt this kind of game: 4:39:12 AM