Tables Turned In Anthrax Investigation

You still don't get it. So, let's go over it one more time.

1. The enemy planned a really major action ~ the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

2. They failed ~ and you're the one going over the reasons they failed. I simply noted they failed to accomplish what they set out to do.

3. You want us to stay "hushed up" about the attempt to kill all those people, with me among them.

Foolish person. The attack failed to accomplish its goals; we can recount numerous reasons why that is so; but the cat is out of the bag regarding the effectiveness of CIPRO in containing the threat.

It's not like anyone is keeping an atom bomb type secret.

BTW, the lady in Connecticut may have been infected by as little as one spore carried as contamination on a piece of mail having nothing to do with the attack. All of that is public information ~ hardly the sort of thing the discussion of which is going to cause panic in the streets.

The enemy planned a really major action ~ the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

So we've gone from tens of millions to tens of thousands. Well I suppose that's an improvement.

You want us to stay "hushed up" about the attempt to kill all those people, with me among them.

You misunderstand. No one wants anything but screamingly shockingly blatantly false information hushed up.

BTW, the lady in Connecticut may have been infected by as little as one spore carried...

She may have been infected by aliens from the Planet Zorg using a technology that we do not yet possess. She may also have been infected by a stray Wildebeast that galloped through her bedroom while she slept. But to say that one single spore carried on an envelope is actually within the real of probability is complete and utter bullsh**.

This show has ALWAYS slanted their info to the left to accommodate their liberal agenda.

I think this is the first "60 Minutes" I've watched in decades. And I only watched the 13 minutes and 13 seconds about anthrax. So, I don't know what their political agenda is. I would assume it is "left-leaning". People who deal with facts instead of beliefs tend to be "left-leaning."

I have my own problems with the way the investigation ran under Ashcroft's DOJ, but for CBS News, the temptation is just too strong not to pinch him at the exclusion of all the other actors that were in play.

I agree. Ashcroft may have been totally incompetent, but he wasn't micro-managing the anthrax investigation. He was just responding to reporters' questions as any incompetent would -- by saying the wrong things.

Also the hound dogs reacting to Hatfill's apartment. No mention was made as to what type of scent the dogs were "keyed" on to begin with.

According to the Newsweek article, "Agents presented the canines with 'scent packs' lifted from anthrax-tainted letters mailed to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (long since decontaminated), hoping some faint, telltale trace of the perpetrator's smell still remained months after the fact."

But when one looks at the facts, it's clear that that is absolute nonsense. It was just a story made up by the FBI to cover up what they were really doing. As it says in my book and on my web site, the FACTS say that the FBI had lost their tail on Dr. Hatfill when he was driving from Louisiana back to Maryland. The FBI was using the dogs to find out where Dr. Hatfill had been during the time he'd been "missing". They began their search at the Denny's restaurant in Louisiana where they'd last seen him, they checked his storage locker in Florida, they checked to see if he'd visited with William Patrick III (the "other scientist" mentioned on "60 Minutes") and they probably checked other places we don't know about. Then they took the dogs to Dr. Hatfill's apartment so the dogs could "find" him. It helps the dogs stay motivated if they "find" what they have been looking for and are given a treat for doing so. The FBI probably used some T-shirt or underwear belonging to Hatfill as the source scent for the dogs.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

CBS still hopes it to be a domestic scientist so they can say, "see, right wingers are more dangerous then those on the left".

Exactly. Usually, 60 Minutes are good reliable pitbulls when it comes to going after the government and questioning their motives and competence at every turn (especially in days like these).

But it just so happens that the Barbara Hatch Rosenberg/FBI profile of the anthrax perp coincides well with the 60 Minutes profile of a "bad guy". It's the exact same profile, really. And as a result, the pitbulls turn into cute, compliant little poodles.

If Steven Hatfill's name had been something like Wen Ho Hatfill or el-Muhammad-al-Hatfill, you can be sure we'd be seeing a lot more of these reports, and the nature would be drastically different.

"People who deal with facts instead of beliefs tend to be
"left-leanong"."

Well I'll dwell in the subjective for a moment or two as
well.

It has been my experience to the opposite. That liberal
types tend more to highlight or overemphasize certain facts
within a situation at the expense all the facts within the
scenario.

The argument over tax rates and brakes are a perfect
example. The left claims that higher tax rates are needed
to offset the discrepancies between rich and poor. That
public entitlement will improve education, job training
and employment prospects.

The evident track record tell another story however. Higher
taxes discourage business and slows down the economy with
losses of jobs at the bottom of the economic rung.

Tax cuts encourage new business enterprise, stimulate
the economy and produce new job start ups across the
board.

The democrats' war on poverty has gone on for a number of
decades with only an increase in poverty rates to show for
it.

Liberals tend to be idealists that chase rainbows and
create bureaucracies as their solutions for the world's
woes.

Conservatives are a bit more planted in reality. They
create industry that strengthen our civilization and does
the most good for those who will strive for prosperity.
Mr. Lake, no matter how piously pure that we maybe believing ourselves to viewing the Anthrax case totally objectively, we all have a certain amount of color tinting to our eyeglasses....JJ61

Speaking of the FBI profile of the perp as you were, let me
just state that I think the Bureau nailed certain aspects
of it perfectly. I just argue with their applicable
interpretation of the suspect(s).

An adult male LONER, that may hold GRUDGES, but is NOT
publicly CONFRONTATIONAL. My goodness, that in no way
describes a Steven Hatfill, but to a tee it heralds the
9/11 hijackers.

Hatfill was known to be outgoing and gregarious. To some
he was even cocky, a braggart and arrogant.

Now the hijackers were a group, but a relatively small one
that acted collectively as a unit. They were individuals
that were codependent and acted as one. The majority of
them kept very low profiles and attempted to blend in to
their environment. This in order to not be noticed. They avoided both stranger and neighbor alike. This is why they
would choose apartments where the neighbors had little in
common and knew little of each other. They were LONERS who
had social interaction with only those they deemed as
necessary.

They certainly held some mighty GRUDGES as their hatred
of this society and their desire to do it harm is what
brought them to our shores. Grudges so large that they
would "buy the entire farm" as retribution.

They were never publicly CONFRONTATIONAL until the
moment that the attacks began on those aircrafts and they
began cutting throats. Yes Mohamed Atta did make some
threatening statement to a female USDA official. But, that
was Atta's bitter arrogance getting the best of him
while he attempted to intimidate "a woman" of power.

Mahwan Al Shehhi, the pilot of flight 175 that hit the
south tower of the WTC, is often remembered as a charming,
good humored fellow who always had a smile for those he
dealt with regularly.

WHEN the FBI finally confirms(as they will in the next
year or two)that it was Al Qaeda that was responsible
for these bio attacks, I doubt if CBS News' demeanor about
the case will change much. There will be little if any
mention of BHR and her red herring hunt for a right wing
domestic, crazy insider. No instead, it will be all about
how foolishly the DOJ under Ashcroft and Bush, allowed the
Bureau to take their "eye off the ball". How they should
have stayed focused on the "obvious" leads for foreign
involvement in the light of 9/11.

Watch and see....JJ61

Mr. Lake, no matter how piously pure that we maybe believing ourselves to viewing the Anthrax case totally objectively, we all have a certain amount of color tinting to our eyeglasses.

While it's certainly true that everything we think and believe is a summation of everything we've learned and that has gone on in our lives since we were born, it is still possible to look at things objectively. The problem is: people who do NOT look at things objectively will say you aren't doing it, either, since you do not agree with them.

If you are looking at things objectively, you cannot use logic which says that, regardless of what the facts say, there could be some information not yet made public which will support a different conclusion. It may be true, but it's really just an excuse for refusing to accept or even look at the facts.

If you are looking at things objectively, you cannot assume that everyone who disagrees with you is lying.

If you are looking at things objectively, you cannot simply look for alternative explanations for everything that does not fit your beliefs.

I had no particular interest in who sent the anthrax when I began doing my research. I was just tired of listening to nothing but opinions and speculation which seemed to totally ignore the facts. So, being an analyst, I thought it might be interesting to look at the facts to see what the facts had to say. And, that's what I did.

But, people who disagree with me can claim that I just twisted things to fit my beliefs, and I cannot prove them wrong. So, I'm immune to opinions and speculation and only change my analysis when confronted with FACTS.

Yes, facts can be twisted to fit any theory. That's why we have courts of law. And that's why we have "scientific method". And that's why I have to rely on MY analysis until proven wrong by solid facts.

Ed at

So the right wing twists more facts than the left wing?

Please continue to ask that as the facts of the "Plame Game"
continues to roll out and beyond the LIES that have been
presented by the LIBERAL MSM.

Valerlie Plame and her husband Wilson CONSPIRED to harm the
Bush Administration.

Clinton fired 123 federal judges. 93 when he as he stepped
into office. An Arkansas Judge that was presiding over the
"WHITE WATER" situation.

At my clock , there are 715 days that have gone on by
since Mister Sandy-Samuel-Berger......Has had ......
had said.....I mean......I mean!!!! HE SAID HE WOULD
TAKE A POLYGRAPH...........HE HAS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As A Requisite...He must!!! APRIL THIRD IT WILL BE
3 YEARS. This for a man who stole and destroyed probably
PERMANTALY government records.

Your statements in many past posts and threads do affirm
that you seem to favor those "on the left" of views.

However, your statement made in the 2nd paragraph of your
post #149, will be both the salvation of your thinking,
postulating, or drive for the truth.

That is after I introduce more truth than you know of.

The subjugation is on me. If you wish to know better, send a private.....JJ61

P.S. Just be prepared to know that SUBJECTIVE info can
be had....JJ61 PPS ppps. Please be aware, that folks on the left are often left looking like the "Pink Code" transvestite that Valerie Plame had looming in her her background....JJJ61

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.