[Shermy]

December 2, 2001 entry

"...Richard H. Ebright, a microbiologist at Rutgers University who has followed the anthrax case and has read the Rosenberg paper, said he found it provocative but unconvincing. "This is one extreme in the theorizing," Dr. Ebright said. "There are elements that are reasonable, but elements that are not. I’m confident that she started with the insider conclusion and then selected the facts."

[Khan Noonian Singh]

<< I’m confident that she started with the insider conclusion and then selected the facts. >>

Two conspicuous disinfo campaigns - 1 is the Hatfill accusations and 2 is the Iraqi WMD claim and counter-claim. Disinfo campaign 1 targeted primarily the left, disinfo campaign 2 targeted primarily the right. How? Like this -

1 - Hatfill accusations - End consequence is everybody is too skittish to pursue any domestic leads. Why? Look what is happening to Kristof and the New York Times and so on.

2 - WMD in Iraq 'lies or intelligence failures' - End consequence is everybody is too skittish to pursue foreign leads. Why? Look what is happening to the neocons and the CIA and Bush for publicly giving creedence to Iraqi WMD.

1 and 2 - Summary end consequence is everybody is too skittish to pursue any lead, foreign or domestic. Investigation grinds to a halt. Who benefits? Whoever is the mailer.