On 10/24/01, Bush said: "I Do Not Have Anthrax" three times ....

[TruthIsAll]

in response to a reporter's question "Were you tested?". I remember seeing this and it bothered me at the time. Why not just answer the question?

How would he know he didn't have the 'thrax unless he was tested? Why did he not just say so? Or was it because he wasn't tested and didn't want to get caught in a lie?

Or maybe there was no threat to the WH after all? In light of what we know now, that Bush will LIE about everything, is it possible they lied about this "attack" to scare us and get support for all followed?

In other words, was this just another diversion?

http://www.newsminute.com/bushanthrax.htm

Bush: I Do Not Have Anthrax

Washington Post
Wednesday October 24, 2001

snip

An hour after White House press secretary Ari Fleischer had announced the discovery at the remote mail facility, Bush held a photo session with lawmakers, and reporters asked whether he had been tested for anthrax.

"First of all, I don't have anthrax," Bush said. "We're having to adjust our thinking. We're a kind nation, we're a compassionate nation, we're a nation of strong values and we value life. And we're learning people in this world want to terrorize our country by trying to take life."

Bush said officials are making sure that the West Wing and the White House are safe. "Let me put it this way, I'm confident when I come to work tomorrow that I'll be safe," he said.

Asked again if he has been tested, Bush said, "I don't have anthrax." Asked a third time, he said, "I don't have it. I'm going to work in the morning, too."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[ret5hd]

1. my bet is that he had been taking cipro...

in other words, he was forewarned and therefor prepared,

[sandnsea]

2. and/or had the vaccine

Which leads to the question why can't the public have it which leads to the fact that it really isn't safe enough to be given to the public at large, which he couldn't really say because that would give credence to military claims, and so it's better to just say 'I don't have anthrax.'

tangled web we weave

[JackSwift]

3. His cryptic and coy answers

send his critics and questioners down numerous dead end paths. It is deliberate.

[FloridaPat]

4. People in the White House started taking cipro

a couple of days after 9-11. The only people that were sent the anthrax was the scandle sheet in Florida and Democratic leaders. At a time Bush was pushing the Patriot Act through congress.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Almost forgot about that

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/ap060902.html

Judicial Watch Sues Bush Administration For Anthrax Documents

The Associated Press
June 9, 2002


Group Says Government Had Braced In Advance For Anthrax Attacks

A conservative group is suing the Bush administration for access to documents about last fall's anthrax attacks, asserting that top officials might have known the bioterrorist attack was coming.

Judicial Watch said yesterday it has yet to receive documents from several agencies after filing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The group says the documents will show who knew what, and when. snip

"We did not know about the anthrax attacks. Period!" said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman.

Johndroe said he did not know why staffers were given Cipro but guessed it was "a precautionary measure in the early hours of Sept. 11 before the situation could be fully assessed."

He said he has not seen the lawsuit and had no comment on whether the administration would release the documents.

more

[RainDog]

7. In addition-

I don't have a link, but this information was in the Fall 2002 edition of Dissent magazine.

Bush also refused to break the patent on Cipro (or rather, use his clout to get that done..which he could have done easily.)

the Canadian govt did break the patent and let manufacturers produce generic Cipro in case their citizens were in danger of an anthrax attack.

However, Bush wilingly exposed Americans to anthrax for an additional seventeen months, in order to allow Bayer to retain their patent and make gazillions.

Now, if we were in danger of anthrax (and it wasn't some job by some dark side intel agent to push through the passage of the U.S.A. so-called Patriot Act, why did Bush allow war profiteering?

Another example of why Bush is not worthy of the office of the presidency.

[CanuckAmok]

6. I'm sure he was talking about the band, as in...

..."(even though many of you know my Administration is intent on imprisoning and/or killing many of your counterculture heroes,) I do not have Anthrax (buried under the White House Rose Garden)".

[newyawker99]

8. TruthIsAll

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.



NYer99
DU Moderator

[whatelseisnew]

9. this has always bothered me

[AP]

10. Bush consistently tries to personalize Republican politics

Clinton did the opposite. He tried to show that he understood people. Republicans have a different strategy. They want to be able to do really awful things and then have people say, "W would never do that...he's a good guy." To achieve that level of confusion among the people, they need to present complicated issues in terms of how Bush relates to them on a personal level.

The issue in October was whether we're all going to get anthrax. By Bush repeating over and over that he didn't have anthrax, he totally swaps the way people should be thinking about the issue. People stop thinking government is about themselves -- the public -- and start thinking that it's all about George.

That's part of the way royalty was able to perpetuate such an inequitable system. But once people realized government wasn't about the personality of the king, and was about the collective corpus of the people, things changed.