New at Reason

August 19, 2004

The Ron Bailey poll brings bad news to Crawford.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Wine With Food? Not in New… | Main | It's the Furriners, Stupid! →

See all 37 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Steve in CO|8.19.04 @ 6:00AM|#

Wonder if the odd's makers have factored in any 'October Surprise?'

Steve in CO|8.19.04 @ 6:01AM|#

Wonder if the odd's makers have factored in any 'October Surprise?'

|8.19.04 @ 6:07AM|#

Good question. Bush was a fairly solid favorite on sportsbook.com several months ago, but the odds have now pulled to even.

|8.19.04 @ 6:12AM|#

Here's the problem: I too 'trend away' from Bush because he has disappointed on almost every issue Ronal Bailey points out, plus a few he didn't. Remember, he actually SIGNED campaign finance reform. Yes, some say it was a political maneuver where Mr. Bush figured all would be overturned by the Supremes. SEEPRISE! That still doesn't make me happy. I'm old fashioned (and admittedly not Political Office Matieral(tm)) but if you're against something that comes accross your desk, don't sign it, don't vote for it. But I digress...

My problem is this: Kerry doesn't offer me a port in the storm. Kerry has a dismal record on the protection of civil libs (remember, folks, he VOTED for the Patriot act) and there's plenty of evidence that Kerry is a purely political animal: he acts for expediency.

So yes, we trend away from Mr. Bush. But so what? Trending away does NOT indicate what you're trending TOWARDS instead.

And this is the puzzle that is american politics with our winner take all political system. There comes a moment where you have to pull a lever. You can't pull the 'trend away' from Bush lever. You either support Kerry 100%, or Bush 100% (or some third party candidate 100%).

Paul

|8.19.04 @ 6:23AM|#

My anecdote. My brother is a wealthy lawyer, staunch R. He's voting for Kerry. Another staunch R buddy, young Ayn Randian, is voting Kerry. I know no Dem buddies who are changing their minds - they're voting Kerry.

|8.19.04 @ 6:28AM|#

Paul-

I don't think Bailey was endorsing Kerry in that article. He was simply predicting that Bush will lose. One might predict a politician's defeat without believing that it will be in the best interests of the country.

|8.19.04 @ 6:47AM|#

Uh, Ron... National polling data is relatively meaningless. Remember that Gore won the national vote last time. It's that damn Electoral College thing.

I'm not a Bush fan, but I have to go with Tim C. on the predictions. You have to factor state-by-state.

The overwhelming support for the Missouri gay marriage amendment convinced me that a lot of the so-called "battleground states" really aren't all that much.

I'm especially disgusted with Bush playing politics with other people's freedoms, but if I'm going to bet money on November, smart money says Bush.

The Lonewacko Blog|8.19.04 @ 6:47AM|#

Warning! Outside link ahead: "Aliens program costs Bush"" ..."Right now, there are 30,000 people on our e-mail lists who are planning to write in Tom Tancredo," said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform..."

I doubt whether too many will be voting against Bush due to the Law of the Sea Treaty or him inviting international election observers, but those are valid reasons. Some others might vote against him to send a message that "compassionate conservatism" is a loser or to try to prevent Jeb or George P. from continuing the dynasty.

|8.19.04 @ 6:57AM|#

Thoreau:

Sorry to convey that, I didn't actually think he was endorsing kerry. Here was my point (which I admit may have been lost).

A group of people (in the article's case, Bailey's college friends) all of which voted for Bush who now trend away. Arguably (apart from the 'well off' part) I fit into that category. Conservative/libertarian leaning, disappointed with Bush (gravely, I'll add), and am now 'trending away' from Bush.

Speaking for myself- I don't even know what that means. I am STILL not at a place where Bush WON'T get my vote. Because, and this was the point I was trying to make: I'm NOT trending TOWARD Kerry. I'm merely trending AWAY from Bush. And that's the weakness of polls. "People trending away from Bush" is merely the taking of a lukewarm political temperature. Trending away from Bush does not, in my opinion, tranlsate as a Kerry crossover vote.

Paul

|8.19.04 @ 7:43AM|#

Paul is right: there's a lot of dissatisfaction with Bush on a lot of issues, but most of that doesn't translate into Kerry support. Kerry is not an attractive candidate in a lot of ways, and I think his Vietnam resume inflation is going to hurt him, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to ignore the whole issue. Remember: Democrats and the media have been picking through Bush's record and past for five years now. Kerry is only now starting to get intense national scrutiny. I'll bet more stuff gets revealed that turns off swing voters.

Frankly, I'll be surprised if Kerry gets more than 45% in November.

|8.19.04 @ 7:48AM|#

kmw writes:
Uh, Ron... National polling data is relatively meaningless. Remember that Gore won the national vote last time. It's that damn Electoral College thing.

I'm not a Bush fan, but I have to go with Tim C. on the predictions. You have to factor state-by-state.

The interesting thing is that Kerry's slight lead in national polls translates to a rather more clear-cut lead in electoral votes. So on that basis Kerry should be a bigger favorite than he is based on polls measuring the popular vote.

I think the reason the electoral markets seem overly confident in Bush based on polling data is that Bush has a couple of opportunities to increase his support coming up: the Republican Convention and the 9/11 anniversary, which he'll of course play to the hilt. If he's still trending after those two events, he better hope for some big mistake from Kerry in the debates or he's done for.

Paul writes:
Kerry has a dismal record on the protection of civil libs (remember, folks, he VOTED for the Patriot act) and there's plenty of evidence that Kerry is a purely political animal: he acts for expediency.

Kerry isn't particularly great in this regard, but he smells of roses when compared to Bush - generally Kerry's saving grace in this election. Kerry wants to amend the Patriot Act by introducing tighter control by judges. You may not be satisfied with that, understandably, but it's more than you're going to get from Bush.

(That's without considering the "locking people up for years in Gitmo without letting them see their lawyers" thing, the "executive branch should be allowed to torture people" thing, etc.)

|8.19.04 @ 7:50AM|#

kmw writes:
kmw writes:
Uh, Ron... National polling data is relatively meaningless. Remember that Gore won the national vote last time. It's that damn Electoral College thing.

I'm not a Bush fan, but I have to go with Tim C. on the predictions. You have to factor state-by-state.

The interesting thing is that Kerry's slight lead in national polls translates to a rather more clear-cut lead in electoral votes. So on that basis Kerry should be a bigger favorite than he is based on polls measuring the popular vote.

I think the reason the electoral markets seem overly confident in Bush based on polling data is that Bush has a couple of opportunities to increase his support coming up: the Republican Convention and the 9/11 anniversary, which he'll of course play to the hilt. If he's still trending after those two events, he better hope for some big mistake from Kerry in the debates or he's done for.

Paul writes:
Kerry has a dismal record on the protection of civil libs (remember, folks, he VOTED for the Patriot act) and there's plenty of evidence that Kerry is a purely political animal: he acts for expediency.

Kerry isn't particularly great in this regard, but he smells of roses when compared to Bush - generally Kerry's saving grace in this election. Kerry wants to amend the Patriot Act by introducing tighter control by judges. You may not be satisfied with that, understandably, but it's more than you're going to get from Bush.

(That's without considering the "locking people up for years in Gitmo without letting them see their lawyers" thing, the "executive branch should be allowed to torture people" thing, etc.)

|8.19.04 @ 8:04AM|#

Conservative/libertarian leaning, disappointed with Bush (gravely, I'll add), and am now 'trending away' from Bush

That accurately describes me as well. Aside from cutting my taxes, and launching the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I can't think of one thing Bush has done that I've liked.

But I still can't vote for Kerry. Even if his conduct during his protester days hadn't made it plain that he was an amoral dirtbag, the simple fact of the matter is that there is no way in which he represents an improvement over Bush. He's just as bad on civil rights and far worse on the economy and foreign affairs. So this election I'm either voting for Bush or simply staying home (since I live in California, the end result will be the same either way).

|8.19.04 @ 8:06AM|#

Bloody hell. I post once; the server gives me an error message; I return to the original post and refresh to make sure my comment didn't go through; it didn't, so I post again; I see I've double-posted.

Anyway, PapayaSF writes:
I think his Vietnam resume inflation is going to hurt him, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to ignore the whole issue.

There hasn't been any Vietnam resume inflation - unless you think that saying you did something in December when you did it in January is inflation - but I'm afraid the mainstream media is failing to make that clear. Expos�s on the SBVT's lies are nice, but too many media outlets are beholden to the "he says/she says" reporting style, where they fail to research the credibility of what has been said. For example, all too rarely do they bother to point out that Navy records are consistently on Kerry's side of the ledger. They also fail to offer relevant background, such that the Swifties' main funders are big-time Texas GOP donors like Bob Perry and the Crow family or that they have ties to Republican operative Merrie Spaeth (who was also involved in the ugly smears against John McCain in 2000).

Tim Cavanaugh|8.19.04 @ 8:12AM|#

Aside from cutting my taxes, and launching the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I can't think of one thing Bush has done that I've liked.

Those are three pretty big things. What a high maintenance voter.

|8.19.04 @ 8:12AM|#

I did a state-by-state analysis of the tradesports market a few weeks back, and Kerry was up 30 votes in the electoral college.

I agree, Kerry is an expedience man. It goes without saying that he would have signed the Patriot Act, and I think that Gore would have too. The best we can hope for in 2004 is Kerry to win, because I do believe a divided Washington will slow the march toward an eviscerated Constitution. My position: to effect change, vote Kerry in 2004, and work hard for a viable alternative to both parties in 2008. For a start we could revive Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, and see where that takes us. Clearly, any Lib. party candidate is doomed to be a bigger loser than a Democrat in rural Alabama.

Tim Cavanaugh|8.19.04 @ 8:19AM|#

Paul is right: there's a lot of dissatisfaction with Bush on a lot of issues, but most of that doesn't translate into Kerry support.

But it could translate into lower turnout for Bush, which is the real issue. My cryptic advice: Turnout is everything this election. Not a single vote will change between now and election day. Turnout will decide it. (And I expect that turnout, no matter whom it favors, will be huge.)

|8.19.04 @ 9:48AM|#

TJ writes: " It goes without saying that he would have signed the Patriot Act,"

Ah, but the Patriot Act was largely a product of the Ashcroft Justice Department, was it not?

A Gore or Kerry justice department might have produced a Patriot Act, but it might have been different.

Also, consider that with a Democratic president, a GOP-controlled Congress may have given it more scrutiny. They wouldn't want to hand Hillary the keys to the dungeon.

So Kerry or Gore probably would have signed a "Patriot Act", but it would probably be a different bill in significant ways.

|8.19.04 @ 10:05AM|#

I participated in a poll to predict the closing price of Google after its first day of trading.
The plurality of "experts" predicted below 80.
I said 80-100.
Damn! Off by 34 centavoes.

Does that still allow me to forecast November?

I'm thinkin' Kerry wins by about that slim a margin. All Hell is breaking loose in Iraq. Duh. Bad news for W.

Both should be impeached before November, but we're concentrating on pure predictions here.

By the way, I don't, as an anarchist, actually vote. It just encourages the bastards. I recommend youse do the same.

|8.19.04 @ 10:44AM|#

It's not too surprising that Kerry's slight lead translates to a 50-100 electoral vote lead; the projections for his popular vote lead are several times larger than Gore's so it makes sense several more states would shift Kerry's way.

|8.19.04 @ 11:04AM|#

Hey Ruthless,
Have you seen this article on anarchists debating on whether or not to vote. Some feel that Bush is such a bad choice that anarchists shoul go out and vote for his ouster. My guess is that you remain a traditionalist.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040816_302.html

|8.20.04 @ 1:03AM|#

"why not just vote for badnarik?"

well, in battleground states it'd be a wasted vote (unless you weren't going to vote for either anyway), but in landslide states i'd say it's a good idea, even though some might say that Badnarik is a "lunatic". (As if the other options weren't)

|8.20.04 @ 8:59AM|#

Mo,
Wouldn't you know those crazy anarchists would hold a "convergence" so close to me and fail to tell me.

Yes, I'm a compassionate conservative anarchist, meaning I AIN'T votin'!

|8.20.04 @ 9:27AM|#

Happened to see this in today's New York Times talking about folks sending shivvers up Republican spines:
"Part of the difficulty in discerning which ideas floated for disruptions are real and which are not is that the anarchists, a subculture that includes young people disaffected with political parties and graying adherents to a political philosophy at least a century old, are far from a monolithic group. They pride themselves on organizing in collectives and "affinity groups" that operate autonomously and make decisions by consensus, eschewing hierarchy or any whiff of commands from on high."

I'm a respecter of both persons and property myself! Anarchists that don't are more accurately labeled as commies.

|8.20.04 @ 9:27AM|#

Anarchists, can't count on em fer nothin' ...

|8.20.04 @ 9:28AM|#

"I did a state-by-state analysis of the tradesports market a few weeks back, and Kerry was up 30 votes in the electoral college"

You probably did that in mid-July. I've been looking in on Tradesports about weekly since late June, and the electoral college vote has favored Bush by 10 or 18 points, except for a short time in mid-July (I have Kerry up by 44 on 7/16).

But Bush's slight edge is precarious; if he fails to win both Florida and Ohio, he's out.

My prediction is that it'll be close.

|8.20.04 @ 9:46AM|#

My decisions are Bush or stay home. I am 'trending away from Bush' and toward my couch and a stiff drink.

A few things might still drag me to pull the lever, though:

1) I don't believe the split government is sustainable to the degree that I want to risk Dems running the whole show. If they do, we WILL have a national health system, there will be no movement toward social security reform, the assault weapons ban and worse will rear its head again, and the international situation won't change one bit. The debt will still grow though the spending might be different, and taxes on investments will be higher. There is not a magic wand that Dems have to make everyone want to help us more than they already are.

2) I think the next four years are going to be misery for whoever is in office. In some ways, this makes me prefer a second term guy. If tough decisions about spending or entitlement reforms have to be made, only a second termer can do it.

3) Most, if not all, of the Kerry would be better line is speculation that in many cases explicitly ignores stuff coming out of his mouth. We are all playing this game that starts with, "Okay, you can't trust elephants to reduce small government," and somehow ends up with, "Dems SAY they want more spending and that they supported the war, but that doesn't really mean they do." If I can't trust what candidates tell their constitutents, I have no information to go on at all. I have no reason to believe Kerry would be better than Bush on ANY front, including civil liberties, if that is the case. It just seems that there is a lot of selective listening going on by small government types leaning to Kerry.

I hate them all.

|8.20.04 @ 10:22AM|#

Two points, Jason....

There is not a magic wand that Dems have to make everyone want to help us more than they already are.

Eh, yes and no. Chances are Kerry wouldn't be (policy-wise) much different, 2004-08. But the sheer personal animosity the world bears our current president could mean that (even absent some policy change) a symbolic leadership change might make a difference.

Most, if not all, of the Kerry would be better line is speculation that in many cases explicitly ignores stuff coming out of his mouth.

This is to some extent true of any politician... these guys live and die talking out of both sides of their mouths, and we voters are constantly playing a little game trying to figure out which faction of the polity they're lying to. For what it's worth, I think that Kerry's pandering to trade protectionists is false. Deep down, I think he groks free trade.

|8.20.04 @ 11:34AM|#

Jason:

"My decisions are Bush or stay home. I am 'trending away from Bush' and toward my couch and a stiff drink."

Good call. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth. The only thing, though, if Bush wins, you can count on Hillary in '08.

|8.20.04 @ 12:20PM|#

why not just vote for badnarik?

|8.20.04 @ 12:49PM|#

yeah. And if he doesn't, you can count on Jenna in '32.

Andrew D. Todd|8.21.04 @ 6:32AM|#

RE: Paul (August 19, 2004 06:12 PM):
I don't think it means very much that John Kerry voted for the USA Patriot act. I beg to point out that virtually the entire Congress voted for the USA Patriot act, because they were under an anthrax attack at the time, seemingly mounted by foreign terrorists. It was only afterward that the attack was traced back to the Unites States Government. It was only afterward that the administration failed in extravagant efforts to implicate its chosen scapegoat, Steven Hatfill. The Supreme Court may very well eventually declare the USA Patriot act null and void because it was enacted under duress.

Imagine if the President was, say, a tavern owner whose commercial rival had been fire-bombed, and whose employees had been charged. In that case, George W. Bush would long since have been "asked to assist the police with their inquiries."

The number of people, either in Congress or the press, who displayed any kind of active courage in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is terrifyingly small. Patrick Leahy (VT) and Russ Feingold (WI) in the senate; Barbara Lee (Peoples' Republic of Berkeley) in the house; Virginia Postrell (Reason, etc.) and Lewis Lapham (Harpers) in the national press. I cannot think of any other examples.

|8.21.04 @ 10:41AM|#

Andrew Todd, you gotta post something to back a charge like that up. Seriously, if you just leave the assertion just sitting there that the U.S. Government carried out a germ attack on sitting Senators, postal workers, and media companies, you're going to look like a kook.

|8.22.04 @ 1:20AM|#

Andrew-

It's been a while since I followed the anthrax case. Could you provide links to evidence showing that

1) The origin of the pathogen has in fact been narrowed down to a specific vial at a gov't facility
2) The people who had access to it have in fact been narrowed down to Hatfill plus a bunch of straight arrows?

I'd be particularly suspicious of the second assertion, however. You can never be sure that a person not on the list of "authorized users" didn't find a way to slip into a room late one night and help himself to a small sample of something he shouldn't have. Particularly if that person had been trained to get into places where he isn't supposed to be.

|8.22.04 @ 5:37AM|#

Some data:

Apparently the Leahy letter was mailed on October 9 and didn't reach him. A similar letter was mailed to Daschle that day and reached him October 15.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/detect/antdetect_letters_a.htm

Apparently the Senate passed the original form of the Patriot Act on october 11, 2001. It was passed in its final form on October 24, 2001. On October 11 it passed 96-1. The only nay vote was Feingold. Thurmond, Helms, and Domenici didn't vote.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR3162:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN01510:

Leahy was not one of the people voting against it in its original form. The Senate did not receive any anthrax until AFTER the bill was passed. The bill was originally introduced on October 4, so I suppose it's possible that Leahy expressed some opposition before ultimately changing his mind on October 11, and that opposition could theoretically have motivated somebody to send anthrax on October 9, but that seems dubious.

Also, although most of the people who had access to the anthrax seemed to be straight arrows, that doesn't mean that they were in fact honest. Sometimes traitors put on a very by-the-books appearance at work (e.g. Robert Hanson, spy inside the FBI). So it's possible that somebody other than Hatfill could have done it without receiving orders from the White House.

So I give no credence to the conspiracy theory, barring new evidence coming forward.

Andrew D. Todd|8.22.04 @ 10:35AM|#

There is a man by the name of Ed Lake who has been making a systematic collection of materials pertaining to the anthrax case. I don't agree with his conclusions, but no bricks without straw...

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/

Now, look at the case from two aspects: opportunity and motive.

In the first place, opportunity. The attack anthrax has been genetically fingerprinted to the point that they've probably identified the vial it was taken from. The remaining question is who could have gotten into the vial over a couple of years. There are about a couple of dozen possible candidates, the "persons of interest." As nearly as can be determined, these consist of Steven Hatfill and a bunch of straight-arrow, boy-scout, good-soldier types, who would never release weaponized anthrax without an order from the president, and maybe not even then.

The basic fact is that Hatfill was vouched for, guaranteed, by the American security apparatus. If he is guilty, his conduct reflects badly on the FBI and on the United States Army. They are not supposed to give crackpots access to weapons of mass destruction. Naturally, everyone at the FBI would greatly prefer the culprit to be some arab, using material that never went near Ft. Detrick. If they come down on Hatfill as a scapegoat, it can only be because the alternative is still more distasteful. In accusing Hatfill, they are pleading guilty to negligence and dereliction of duty, and that is not something people commonly do for their own amusement. This leaves very little room for doubt that the anthrax did in fact come from Ft. Detrick, and that it in fact has to have been provided by one of a tiny number of persons of interest.

In the second place, motive. The intended targets, the people to whom the letters were addressed, were not people whom the arabs would have had anything in particular against. They were liberal newsmen, Democratic Senators, and American Media, the tabloid publisher whose sole venture into anything political was to print scandal about the president's daughters, treating them as honorary movie stars. The only plausible reason why anyone should have targeted Sen. Patrick Leahy was that he was blocking the passage of the USA Patriot act. He did not even do so consistently, just during the "launch window." Very probably, he had eaten a beefsteak that morning. Courage is often a matter of having had a good breakfast.

What we are looking for is someone who combines the political fanaticism of a G. Gordon Liddy or an Oliver North (at root, mistaking the President for a king, and political opposition for lese-majestie) with highly specific government weapons laboratory access. There are two ways to gain this access. One can either be a person of interest, or one can be in a position to give orders to persons of interest. The FBI has worked the first hypothesis to exhaustion. They have focused on Steven Hatfill because he is apparently the only person of interest who might possibly be a covert political fanatic. However, exhaustive investigation has yielded nothing.

The alternative hypothesis is to ask who could have induced the weapons scientists at Ft. Detrick to prepare and hand over weaponized anthrax. Would the weapon scientists have needed to know the targets, or could they have been told that the target was some enemy in the Middle East?

If one assumes that the scientists were told that the anthrax was destined for the Middle East, that would explain a lot of things. Why were they not worried about the genetic fingerprints being traced back to them, maybe not that year, but in five years time? Biotech is advancing at Moore's law rates, and one might expect them to be worried about future advances. Why did they not take account of the effect of mail sorting machines? We have all at one time or another received mangled mail, and there was the distinct possibility of killing thousands of people if one of the letters had torn open. If you read accounts by people like Richard Preston (_The Hot Zone_), it becomes apparent that Ft. Detrick scientists treat pathogens in much the same spirit that they would treat a man-eating tiger. If the person who took delivery of the anthrax did not have a scientific education, that would explain how he came to do such a stupid thing as sending anthrax in letters through the mail.

So let us restate the question. What sort of politically fanatical nonscientist would have been in a position to give orders to weapon scientists at Ft. Detrick, and to convince them that he was engaged in carrying out the foreign policy of the United States?

The West Wing of the White House is full of people who meet that description.

Andrew D. Todd

Andrew D. Todd|8.23.04 @ 6:12AM|#

Leahy was chairman of the senate judiciary committee at the time. He delayed the bill in committee for a few days, whereas Ashcroft wanted it passed immediately, within a day or two. That doesn't sound like much, but it was more than any of the others could manage at the time. Of course, one could also assume that Leahy's letter was in the way of a preemptive strike, on account of his office.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn-list/2001/12/00094.html

For evidence about the origins of the anthrax, here is Ed Lake's bibliography:

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/#references

See especially the New Scientist articles, and also the Science article. At one point, Paul Keim, who was doing the genetic analysis gave a press release to the effect that he had isolated something like sixty differences in genetic sequence.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/bioterrorism/bioterrorism.jsp?id=23321700

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992265

http://www.tigr.org/publications/pdf/AnthraxScienceReprint.pdf

We are dealing with basically rather secretive people, and we have to work with fragmentary information therefore. However, given that there are only about half a dozen or so labs that had Ames strain anthrax at all, the reported numbers of genetic differences would indicate a fairly positive identification of the substrain from which the attack anthrax had been taken.

The difficulty for an outsider in stealing the anthrax is that he would need to know where it was kept. He would need to know how the local cataloging system worked, obtain keys for lockers, etc. The fragmentary sources I've encountered suggest that it is normal for the freezers used in laboratories to lock like filing cabinets. Again, there is limited information available about how far Ft. Detrick had gone in handling dangerous pathogens by remote control. However, probable developments would tend to make it comparatively difficult to simply pocket things, eg. if samples were being handled by glove box. My suspicion is that the fancy equipment employed in the level 4 labs ('space suits,' for ebola) would have gotten handed down to the level 3 labs (operating theater-type scrubs, for anthrax). When people begin handling dangerous materials by remote control, they lose whatever familiarity they once had, and become more fearful, not less.

People like Robert Hansen and Aldrich Ames are subject to corruption as an occupational hazard, rather like a police detective trying to investigate the mob. Their work throws them in contact with people whom they are trying to subvert, but who may wind up subverting them instead. Scientists at Ft. Detrick, on the other hand, were in their laboratories, with little occasion to come in contact with agents of a foreign power. The scientists' occupational hazard tends to be exposure to pathogens, not to foreign agents. Ft. Detrick's level 4 isolation hospital was apparently known as 'the slammer,' and scientists who had to be quarantined there were likely to be so traumatized that they subsequently left Ft. Detrick. Given this general climate of paranoia about microorganisms, stealing anthrax would be a little like stealing someones' man-eating tiger.

Again, given the limited numbers of persons of interest, it appears the FBI has been able to take what amounts to a human wave approach to investigating them. It is unlikely that the persons of interest have any secrets left.

Bear in mind that significant numbers of officials in the White House are alumni of the Watergate-era White House and the Iran/Contragate era White House, or the proteges of such alumni. Why should they be given credence above that given to a hitherto-blameless government scientist who has never displayed excessive ambition, or an obsession with great wealth? A place like Ft. Detrick screens people like that out. They go off to a corporation where they can have stock options. There aren't any stock options in either the United States Army or the Federal Civil Service. It is in the lower echelons of the White House that one finds people who dream of power, and are prone to insane ambition.