Whatever Happened to the Anthrax Attacks? Looking at China's Role in Global Terrorism

As President Bush listens to the rambling of the China's President Jiang Zemin, we wonder where the next step in the war on terrorism will take our country. China has refused to quit selling Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to the rouge nations of the world, and laughed off Mr. Bush's call for religious freedom behind the Great Wall with the statement "I don't have religious faith". As China suppresses it's own people, their connection to global terrorism cannot be ignored any longer. China cannot be a partner in the war on terrorism and a sponsor of terrorism at the same time. Enough said. As the war on terrorism is still ongoing, we ask, what ever happened to the Anthrax attacks and the ensuing investigations and how does China fit into the picture?

Last year, in less than thirty days, we were fighting a two-front war on our own soil. I must commend the brave souls that continued to stand up and do their jobs in the mists of such threats. I would like to congratulate the Postal Service for responding intelligently to a problem that grew beyond their ability to even grasp what boundaries it held. Surprisingly, it was the US Congress that acted irresponsibly as they argued about who was the first to deny that they were running for cover in the mountains of West Virginia.

The sources of the bio-terrorism front have two likely culprits, foreign terrorists and some sort of domestic radical group. I know what the Good Book says about a "house divided"; and it is my continued hope that the attacks were carried out by a foreign terrorist. It is possible that domestic opportunists had taken advantage of our post Sept 11th world to draw attention to any wide spectrum of issues. Among these may be continued support for Israel, the recent war in Afghanistan, or even the radical greens. The case citing the domestic opportunists gets stronger as one looks towards the end-user targets, the press and the government. These have always been sore spots with the militia types, a movement that willingly accepts the anti-government and anti-liberal press label. Traditionally the press has been unfriendly to any domestic group that uses terror to advance a social agenda. The notable exception to this is the publicity and media nod of approval to groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), who have been catapulted to near cult status by the talking head box. All other causes get downgraded in the same manner- being portrayed as a deranged little guy with a beef and an assault rifle.

Looking at the chosen targets, the most visible liberal voices were the targets for anthrax attacks. Tom Brokow is so un-American that he wouldn't even wear the American flag on a lapel pin, citing that it may show he is biased towards the United States. The first attack in Congress was the office of Tom Daschle; chief liberal in the Senate. He could have enraged a domestic opportunist in any number of ways.

The fact that the anthrax attacks were not especially effective could lead one to imagine that some lone domestic terrorist had gotten a hold of an anthrax strain and sent it off the best he could. Any smart college student could isolate and produce a low-grade anthrax; it is the creation of an aerosol devise for deployment that is the difficult part to manufacture.

The case for a foreign source for the anthrax attacks, I think is much stronger. The fact that the press and the liberal government leaders were hit first is very interesting. The average Islamic radical wants to wage a jihad. Until the air war was started, there still were considerable dissenters against the prevalent opinion that military action should be taken in retaliation. These voices were the television press and liberal leadership in the US Senate. The major networks took an active stance against the eminent government attacks in the days before the war started. The Senate, while strongly condemning the attacks of Sept. 11, and unifying in the days soon after as a governing body, still contained strong voices against military retaliation. Calls were made for tolerance and understanding, we heard, "let the UN negotiate this". Islamic radicals don't want peace, they want war. A call to jihad creates a soapbox for a wide range of complaints against the infidels.

How do you quiet the anti-war tolerance voices in the press and the Senate, creating a unanimous voice for war? Attacking them personally, behind the scenes, quickly changed their opinions. The calls for tolerance and a microscopic military action from liberal Democrats quickly did an about face, who prior to the anthrax attacks wanted to take the easy, Clintonesque road to conflict resolution.

It was the offices of the National Enquirer were the first to be attacked. We find this to be a move of the utmost calculation. I am sorry to say that there are statistics that show the majority of Americans read tabloid "newspapers", with a great many of them considering the tabloids to be a trustworthy source of news. I have even seen statistics that show a high percentage of Americans use tabloids such as the National Enquirer as their sole source of news. Can you imagine a better way to project terror among the American people? No domestic terrorist is this clever. Besides, the National Enquirer is an excellent medium for propaganda as the paper is so boldly displayed in every supermarket check out line in America.

In the September 11 attacks, the terrorists showed a calculating skill that surprised many. Could the terrorists have also figured out the subtlety of American politics and culture acted upon it? You bet. The Anthrax attacks were the work of Islamic terrorists. You heard it here.

Neutralizing the sources for global terror is the best way to put an end to domestic terror, with the exception the domestic green terrorists, whose agenda so far is (thankfully) independent of international politics. This includes the Chinese government, who by choice continues to be the "Great Proliferator" of weaponry to rouge nations around the world. China needs to be called to the carpet on their belligerent actions. Revoking their most-favored trading status would be a good place to start. Perhaps halting the super computer shipments or increased weapons sales to Taiwan would help the Chinese see the err of their ways.

The treats against America continue to come from across the spectrum. The anthrax attacks have subsided. But the case for a continued stance against the terrorist campaign is now stronger than ever. The death of Daniel Pearl should erase any views of a "tolerant Islam". "Moderate Muslims nations" is an oxymoron.

The war against terror needs to be brought to the countries that have the capability of projecting terrorism not only beyond their own borders, but to those who also wage war against their own citizens. History will be kind to the leaders in the war on terrorism. Conversely it will hammer those who to buried their heads the sand hoping the problem went away. There is a direct correlation to the domestic anthrax attacks, foreign terrorists, and the Chinese government. Selling Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to nations that will use them to harm the world's people or US interests is no different that using them directly against the United States. Let's all treat all terrorists, sponsors and proliferators, in the same manner- as related entities threatening global peace, life, and prosperity.

Stephen A. McDonald Bigtreenews.com