Well, there must be a reason that somebody connected with the CIA is choosing to leak this now.
The CIA has been quietly building a case that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were in fact the result of an international terrorist plot.
"Quietly"...seems a journalistic invention here, or a code word? Gives the story a storyline of sorts, and unfortunately reminiscent of the Risen NYTimes piece last year how Havel "quietly" informed Bush there was no Prague/Atta meeting...that piece of disinformation was rapidly disposed.
The article mentions "milled" but not the findings of Matsumoto's article, so the writers are FReeper like afficiandos. :)
As for the CIA, I suppose the threat of turning over the investigation to them, or another agency other than the FBI is inferrable from the event of mid-2002, around the time of the Van Harp/BHRosenberg/Senate staffers meeting...immediately thereafter came the very publicized Hatfill exposure. I think, and have opined here, that the "mad (lone) scientist" theory came from 1. "profiling" that relied on prior hoaxers, 2. people with an agenda, hoping it was an American, 3. dictated by economic interests - seeking to soothe the public with the "he won't strike again, he actually just wants to warn us" theory. Hatfill, to the degree he fit the patsy potential, wasn't, IMO, part of a strategy, but an anomaly that popped up, that the FBI wasn't interested in framing him, but due to the pressure of the Senators who wanted results, and informed by BHR's (others?) "profile" which filtered into the "respectable" press (remember Mr. Z?), the FBI, for bureaucratic turf and other reasons, wanted to seem like they were taking action. Which is why they made it public. Or they were forced by higher ups in the Justice Dept. convinced by the BHR oeuvre.
I can't forget an early Ashcroft TV appearance, seemingly assured that an arrest (Hatfill) would be made, seemingly reliant on three or four smug-like lawyers standing behind him. Hatfill's public speech quieted them quickly. But hey, many have been fooled by the BHR thesis...and were other "respected" scientists playing along? BHR mentioned, not by name, 3 or 4. (To some degree BHR was responding to the FBI's "lone scientist" profile.)
< /ramble> As for this article, is the intended audience the Senate? All very interesting...I'm getting some popcorn.