The secret U.S. stockpile meant to save us all in a bioterror attack

At the federal level, republicans, and at the local level, democrats. There's plenty of blame to go around without being partisan.

Was all of Hurricane Katrina’s after math the local government’s fault too? Was not properly helping 9/11 first responders into the next decade the local government’s fault?

Agree. While the government keeps citizens safe on one side, it is also actively involved in unlawful act of weaponizing pathogens. The first article in this magazine about mycoplasma gives us a briefing on this topic: http://www.betterhealthguy.com/images/stories/PDF/PHA/2009_0...

> In real life, however, many Mondays and many party congresses passed after Perimeter was created. So why didn't the Soviets tell the world, or at least the White House, about it? No evidence exists that top Reagan administration officials knew anything about a Soviet doomsday plan. George Shultz, secretary of state for most of Reagan's presidency, told me that he had never heard of it. [...] The silence can be attributed partly to fears that the US would figure out how to disable the system. But the principal reason is more complicated and surprising. According to both Yarynich and Zheleznyakov, Perimeter was never meant as a traditional doomsday machine. The Soviets had taken game theory one step further than Kubrick, Szilard, and everyone else: They built a system to deter themselves. [...] By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis.

https://www.wired.com/2009/09/mf-deadhand/amp

I find it irritating that Washington Post removes the url and replaces it with their homepage so that I have to go back and find the url and open it in a private tab.

I think I'd switch to the browser that allows a per-site setting "always open in a private tab"

The entire analysis starts from the assumption that any administration goal is inherently either a fabrication or misguided.

"efficiencies" is clearly just code word for destroying all things good, obviously, and totally not worth even considering whether there is any meaning to the idea. I mean, if Trump wants it, it must be bad amirite?

Occasionally, they quote folks, like Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University in support of Trump. But every time, they carefully treat the quote and the person as obviously either stupid or corrupted, surrounding the quote with statements like "But critics say it will allow biotech companies to lobby for more of their specialized, and often more expensive, drugs to be included[...]"

Direct quote from an expert, treated as obviously worthless, followed by a weasel-words "some critics" which is treated as the clearly superior refutation of the idea from the actual knowledgeable person.

It's almost like they started with a narrative of "Trump is trying to kill us all by destroying our disease preparedness" and then sat down to write an article that looked like journalism but actually just told that story.