Why I Think Bush Is The Anthrax Terrorist

By Alllie

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I believe that George W. Bush is the anthrax terrorist, that he, as president, ordered or approved the mailing of weaponized anthrax produced by the CIA, Fort Detrick, Dugway or some other secret U.S. germ warfare program, that he personally selected some or all the targets and that he did so as a kind of Operation Northwoods meant to justify an invasion of Iraq but also to get the Patriot Act passed and to further implement his unconstitutional seizure of power. I also believe his choice of targets show not just callousness but personal vengeance and was an attack on the constitution and on American democracy itself.

I think back to the weeks after 9/11 when there were rumors of a bioweapons attack by terrorists. First a photo-editor who worked for American Media got sick with anthrax then another American Media employee as well. Then postal workers. Some lived. Some died. The Bush White House pointed at Iraq and I bought it. Why wouldn't I? Like almost everyone else I was still reeling in shock from 9/11 and willing to believe anything. But time went by and more and more information came out that pointed, not to Iraq, but to the US military establishment and the CIA, evidence that eventually, I think, came to point back at the Bush administration and at Bush himself.

Let me run down the facts that let me to this conclusion:

  1. US bioweapons programs used the Ames strain of anthrax. Iraqi weapons program used the vollum strain. Despite this and other evidence that Iraq was not he source of the anthrax used in the attacks, the Bush administration tried to use the attacks as justification for war with Iraq. (See Operation Northwoods.)

  2. DNA analysis of the anthrax used in the attacks revealed that it was not just the same general Ames strain but was genetically identical to reference strains from Fort Detrick or Dugway. If it had been separated from the Detrick strain by more than 3 years, there would be genetic differences. There were none. So it was not a strain sold to Iraq 15 or 20 years ago. It was not an old sample stolen 10 or 20 years ago.

  3. The anthrax was made within 2 years or less. Again, this shows it was not an old stolen sample.

  4. The purity of the material was such that no person could have produced it outside a very sophisticated lab. It could only have been grown in a Level 3 Biosafety Containment facility and weaponized in a Level 4 Biosafety Containment.

  5. The anthrax used in the attacks contains the same additives used in to make weaponized anthrax in the US bioweapons program. This was a secret, classified recipe known only to the very few scientists who worked in the program. Few things in the world were (or are) more secret than this formula.

  6. Very few people in the world had access to the strain of Ames anthrax present in the anthrax attacks, access to a Level 4 containment facility and knew the secret US method for weaponizing anthrax. The number of people who could produce it has been estimated to be as few as four to six people and no more than 20. They have all been investigated and their movements tracked, their homes, cars, workplaces tested for anthrax.

  7. The CIA has refused to reveal, even to the FBI, what programs they have that have grown and weaponized anthrax spores. Everyone else has been investigated.

  8. The White House braced for an anthrax attack BEFORE any anthrax attack, like they knew it was coming.

  9. There were attempts to set up Steven Hatfill as a scapegoat.

  10. The use of the FBI and the entire mechanism of the government to cover up this obvious conclusion and devise, develop SOME WAY the attack did not originate with the US bioweapans programs

  11. The combination of targets would only have been chosen by George Bush.

So why do I think this all happened? I think from Day 1(and before) of the Bush Administration, there was a plan to attack Iraq. I think the Bush Administration had had weaponized anthrax produced and that on 9/11 it was ready to use. They didn't choose antibiotic-resistant anthrax. They didn't intend a lot of additional deaths and they wanted to make sure that their butts were safe. After 9/11 they had everyone in the White House put on Cipro and went ahead with the plan to use the anthrax as an Operation Northwoods, as a war pretext* to justify invading Iraq, but they still had to decide on targets. So they asked Bush: Who should we send it to?

"You [expletive] son of a bitch," Hunt quotes Bush as saying. "I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this."

They say the first target of any serial murderer is always the most personal so Bush reached into his heart and chose the first targets, personal targets. Bush chose the photo-editor on the tabloid that printed the "Drunk Jenna" picture and then the editor of the tabloid that had done story after story on the Boozing Bush Twins. Other cabal members, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove, may have chosen subsequent targets but I have no doubt that Bush personally chose the first two and chose them out of the malevolence of his heart.

And you can criticize me, but don't criticize my children and don't criticize my daughters-in-law and don't criticize my husband, or you're dead...Barbara Bush   http://www.cnn.tv/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/22/lkl.00.html

Is this a family trait?

Next we have Tom Brokaw doing the unthinkable: putting an interview with Clinton on the evening news. The White House called up to rant and object (probably Rove) but Brokaw went ahead and broadcast the interview.

"You [expletive] son of a bitch," Hunt quotes Bush as saying. "…. We're not going to forget this."

That evening the third anthrax laced letter entered the mail stream, addressed to Tom Brokaw. Brokaw had not obeyed and had made them mad. So they decided to get even with him.

I think the press knows or suspects that the Bush administration was the source of the anthrax, saw how easily any of them could be targeted, and so, though they have been disgustingly docile for the last years, I cut them a little slack. Their lives could have been in danger if they acted as real journalists. I remember the fates of Steve Kangas and James Hatfield and I cut them a little slack.

The next two targets require the least explanation. They were the most obvious and in some ways the most troubling: Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle and Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the two Senators who attempted to slow the passage of the US Patriot Act. The anthrax was postmarked October 9th, during the fiercest debate. After the anthrax was received Daschle and Leahy accepted a more repressive version of the bill, a bill that was passed without the members of the House even being allowed to read it.

The atmosphere of terror in Congress was expressed by Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio: ". . . a state of siege trap[s] us in a state of fear, ill equipped to deal with the patriot games, the mind games, the war games. . ." He lamented the physical and psychological disruption and disorientation of lawmakers at a time when calm objectivity was required for wise decisions. No doubt, the terrorized senators accepted an anti-terrorism bill more threatening to the rights and well-being of citizens than they otherwise would have. They granted more power to the President than they otherwise would have.

By the time anthrax was mailed to Daschle and Leahy on October 9th photoeditor Bob Stevens had died and many other individuals had been infected so the cabal knew the material was deadly. This wasn't a feint, it was a deadly attack, an attack with a Weapon of Mass Destruction against the heart of American Democracy. Dozens of senators and their staffs might have sickened and died. I believe the target of this attack was not just Daschle and Leahy, not just the Senate, but American democracy itself, that it was an attempt to end it.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)

It nearly worked. The House voted to adjourn indefinitely leaving Bush with the power of the purse. Minority Leader Lott proposed that the Senate do the same.


"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said. -- Business Week, July 30, 2001

There is a curious coincidence between what Lott proposed and the decision by the Bush administration after the September 11 terrorist attacks to establish a shadow government in secret bunkers which would provide continuity in the event of a nuclear/chemical/biological attack that destroyed Washington DC. The shadow government was also limited to the executive branch, making no provision for the safeguarding or reconstitution of an elected legislature.

The political consequences of the anthrax terrorism and the Bush administration's plans for a shadow government dovetailed completely. Both would have shut down the legislative branch and left the executive branch with virtually unrestricted power. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/anth-o24.shtml

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush -- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

But Daschle wouldn't play. He refused to allow the Senate to adjourn indefinitely leaving any of its powers to the Bush Administration. They tried to murder him and for all he knew they might try again but he wouldn't cave. When, someday, they look back at October of 2001 and make a list of the cowardly and the complicit, Tom Daschle will not be found to be either. If he had agreed, instead of seriously wounded, democracy might be dead in America right now, Bush might very well openly be dictator. Tom Daschle is my hero.

Go Tom!

But where does this lead? I believe that sending Daschle and Leahy anthrax proves that the Bush cabal was willing to kill them. So they were willing to kill Senators. What Senator died in 2002? Senator Paul Wellstone-in a plane crash. Was it sabotage? We'll probably never know but it certainly makes it possible. It puts it in the realm of things they would do. If they were willing to kill Senators with the anthrax attacks, why wouldn't they be willing to kill one in a plane crash.

Declassified CIA Assassination Manual: For secret assassination…the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.

When they sent anthrax to Senators, when they made an overt attack on Congress, on Democracy, they showed they were willing to bring it down. But was that the first attack on Congress?

Here we go further into darkness.

The Germans say that their investigation of 9/11 revealed that the target of Flight 93 was the Capitol building. If Flight 93 hadn't sat on the runway, delayed for almost an hour, if the passengers hadn't found out about the attacks on the WTC and tried to take the plane black, if nothing had delayed or stopped Flight 93, would it have plowed into the Capitol with the House and Senate in session? Would that have been a first attempt to end democracy in the United States? Was that what Bush was waiting for as he sat doing nothing in a classroom in Florida? Was he waiting for the destruction of the legislative branch of government leaving all the reins of power and pocketbook in his hand? Did we come close to losing democracy? Twice?

Now there are plenty of websites that will lead you down the 9/11 path and show how it points back to the Bush cabal but a good starting place is the comparatively more moderate article by Micheal Meacher: "This war on terrorism is bogus". Meacher served on Tony Blair's cabinet for 6 years.

Many of the 9/11 sites make it more complicated than I can accept, with remote controlled planes, faked phone calls, explosives set in the WTC towers, a missile striking the Pentagon with the real plane crashed into the ocean.

Even though they often make good points it all gets too convoluted for me. I have a simpler theory, one that is based on the '91 Gulf War. If a ruler wants war and wants his country's allies and his own people to support it, how does it he arrange it? He gets his target to attack him or an ally. When Bush41 wanted a war with Saddam how did he manage it? He knew that Saddam was in debt and desperate for money. He knew Saddam was angry at Kuwait for slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. So he sent Ambassador April Gilespie to tell Saddam that America didn't care if he invaded Kuwait. Then when Saddam did, the Bush41 administration had liars go on TV and lie about what was happening. Remember the "nurse" who testified behind a screen about babies removed from incubators and left to die on a concrete floor? A lie. The "nurse" was the Kuwaiti ambassador's 16 year old daughter testifying behind a screen so no one who knew her would give the lie away, lying about something that never happened, lying to sway the American people.

How do you start an open-ended war that the American people will support? You arrange a "Pearl Harbor."

According to Brzezinski, the USA is such a "increasingly multi-cultural society" and the average people are not inclined to support any more Vietnams, the only thing that will motivate massive emotional support for foreign wars is something like "the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." America will likely "find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

So, if you were the Bush Cabal and you wanted a "Pearl Harbor" attack on the United States, how would you arrange it, if you were a traitor? First you couldn't just order it. Believe it or not I don't think there are many people under the command of the president who would attack the US killing thousands of Americans. You would have to engineer the attack so the military, the government, perhaps even the CIA didn't know what you had planned because any of them might have blocked such an attack.

Let's start with the concept of the agent provocateur, a secret agent who prods individual(s) into carrying out an illegal action. Turns out there is a whole task force to do just that:

The Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), brings together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception. Among other things, this body launches secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.

Al Qaeda had been making attacks on US Embassies, on the Cole, Clinton had been responding with missiles aimed at where Bin Laden had been just a few hours before. For them to know where to send those missiles they had to have agents in Al Qaeda. It had been known since 1996 that there was an Al Qaeda plan to hijack airliners and use them as missiles but that it had not been approved. How could they get Bin Laden to set it in motion? How about push him and the Taleban into a corner, send "negotiators" to make threats, to give them the "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" choice, with the golden choice one their religion and their hatred of the west would not allow them to make and which Bin Laden knew would lead to his being pushed out of Afghanistan or killed. Was that the prod that made him authorize Mohammed Atta's plan?

Declassified CIA Assassination Manual: In lost assassination [an assassination in which the assassin plans to die], the assassin must be a fanatic of some sort. Politics, religion, and revenge are about the only feasible motives. Since a fanatic is unstable psychologically, he must be handled with extreme care.

If the CIA has been manipulating fanatics into committing assassination for 50 years, don't you think they would be able to manipulate them into hijacking planes?

So then the Bush Cabal smoothed the way. Just for a start they made it easier for Saudi recruits to get visas to the US, pulled the FBI off the Bin Ladens, blocked FBI terrorism investigations so John O'Neil resigned in protest, and ignored Dick Clarke, who was the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism. They could do all this without their underlings knowing how the pieces fit together. Then they had the regulations for NORAD changed in June 30, 2001 so fighters were not allowed to intercept hijacked planes without the authorization of the Secretary of Defense. Already they could not be shot down with the president's permission. So Atta's plan went forward. Did Atta even know the path was being smoothed for him? So Bush left Washington and New York City to their fates while he went down to Florida into the safety of his brother's dictatorship, a state Jeb Bush quietly put under martial law the week before. Safe in Florida he let it unfold. Safe in the White House bunker Cheney let it unfold. Safe in his office Rumsfeld let it unfold. Waiting for their war pretext. Waiting for the coup de grâce on Congress. Bush sat in that schoolroom in Florida, waiting for it all to unfold.

But something went wrong (or right from our point of view). Delayed, Flight 93 sat on the runway instead of heading toward its target. By the time it was airborne, by the time it was hijacked, it was too late for a surprise hit on the Capitol. Then the passengers started using air phones and cell phones to call home and found out they were doomed. Some of them decided to stop what was happening, to take control of their own fate. They got up to try to take the plane back. The FBI had been listening in on their calls, clued in by their families and the operators they were talking to, the FBI reporting to the White House (do you doubt it?) so when they got up, when they tried to take the plane back, then, only then, did Cheney give the order to shoot down Flight 93? (Cheney has admitted he gave the order but the Bush Administration denies it was carried out. But…the order came only when the passengers got up to try to take the plane back.)

Declassified CIA Assassination Manual: In lost assassination, the assassin must be a fanatic of some sort. Politics, religion, and revenge are about the only feasible motives. Since a fanatic is unstable psychologically, he must be handled with extreme care. He must not know the identities of the other members of the organization, for although it is intended that he die in the act, something may go wrong. While the Assassin of Trotsky has never revealed any significant information, it was unsound to depend on this when the act was planned.

The hijackers had to die in the act. Even if they knew little, their interrogations might have provided information that led, step by step, back to the cabal.

I bet the cabal was disappointed. Congress was still there. So they tried again with the anthrax. Congress made things harder but they finally managed to wrap it around their fingers. Killed Wellstone. Fixed the election in Georgia to get Max Cleland out. Then, while they didn't have perfect control, it was pretty near. They were able to get everything they wanted.

Thus endeth my theory. I pray I am wrong. Let us all pray I am.

* Do a search on "war pretext" sometimes. I will chill you to your bones.

© Alllie, 2004

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by Alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where, this credit is attached, as well as a link back to this page.

Reader Response
email alllie with any responses


Chatters Page
Contact Us
Food 4 Thought
(Chatter Recipes)
The Garden Party
911: Looking Back
Media Links
Newsgarden Compost
Off Center
The Poet's Garden
Server List
Techie Tips
What's new
Words of the Wise

Search the Site

Articles of Interest

Bush and the Assassination of JFK by Paul Kangas

ANNALS OF DEMOCRACY : COUNTING VOTES by Ronnie Dugger (Nov 7, 1988)

Computerized Systems for Voting Seen as Vulnerable to Tampering by David Burnham, The New York Times (July 29, 1985) plus emphasis, links and comments

A Real Protest (April 9, 2003)
Who's to Blame (Feb 20, 2003)
Listening to the Lies (Sept.12, 2002)
White Storm (August 2, 2003)
!!!Fight!!! (September 9, 2003)
Happy Endings: A Theory of (November 16, 2002)
It Just Isn't Fair
(December 11, 2003)
Every Picture Tells a Story (January 23, 2004)
Who Do You Trust? (April 17, 2004)
The Criminal - Fiction (May 8, 2004)
Why I Believe Bush is the Anthrax Terrorist (October 10, 2004)
(If you have any interest in this subject I advise you to save this and all the linked articles to your hard drive. More and more of this stuff is being scrubbed from the web. So save it, so it can NOT disappear. Second, if you agree or think the points are interesting post a link it from your own website.
Or copy it and post it to your own web site.
So it won't disappear.)

Return to Top