Actually, the September 2006 Washington Post article titled Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats says:
The FBI even came to speculate that Timimi, a doctoral candidate pursuing cancer gene research, might have been involved in the anthrax attacks.
But the article then goes on to say:
On a frigid day in February 2003, the FBI searched Timimi's brick townhouse on Meadow Field Court, a cul-de-sac near Fair Oaks Mall in Fairfax. Among the items they were seeking, according to court testimony: material on weapons of mass destruction.
There was, in the end, nothing related to that in the house. And yet, as the investigation proceeded, officials learned that some of Timimi's followers had indeed been practicing for possible armed jihad during their paintball games.
So, the FBI investated and found NOTHING to connect Al-Timimi to the anthrax attacks. Why do you leave that part out? If you have to distort facts in order to make them support your beliefs, that just proves your beliefs are FALSE.
You say,
That is why Dr. Alibek and Dr. Meselson apparently did not see silica in the images they were shown. This is why FBI Director Mueller was upset at the leak about silica — because it pointed to this method and the line of investigation they have been aggressively pursuing all along.
Your speculations are not facts. All you are doing is trying to twist facts to make them fit your beliefs. But, of course, you say the same thing about me.
The FBI is travelling to Afghanistan, Asia and the Middle East in Amerithrax precisely because unlike Ed, they credit an Al Qaeda theory.
So, you're suggesting that if the FBI didn't believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks they wouldn't travel to Afghanistan, Asia and the Middle East to look for signs that al Qaeda might be working on Weapons of Mass Destruction? Really?
Even if it wasn't part of their job to look for possible threats upon this country, wouldn't it still be part of their job to check out ALL theories about the anthrax attacks, even those which they do not particularly believe? They certainly demonstated that with their search of that pond in Maryland and with their investigation of Dr. Berry.
The fact that the FBI is looking at al Qaeda doesn't mean that al Qaeda did it any more than the fact that they were looking at Dr. Hatfill. It's called an "investigation" because they investigate all reasonable leads.
And you really should try to contact Senator Grassley who seems to believe that the FBI is only looking at domestic suspects and it NOT looking at al Qaeda. He's pushing the FBI to look at al Qaeda.
An example of Ed’s treating his assumptions as what he pedantically calls “FACTS” is when he says that militant islamists would not warn in connection with the use of nonconventional weapons.
Did they warn about attacking the World Trade Center? I don't recall that. Or is flying airliners into sky scrapers and killing thousands of people something you consider "conventional"?
Plus, if the letters were a "warning", what happened to the actual attack? Yes, I know you can rationalize a response in many ways, you can say it will come SOMEDAY. You can say they were sidetracked and didn't follow up. You can rationalize all sorts of explanations for why the FACTS do not fit your beliefs, but it just proves that your beliefs are not supported by facts.
Ed’s central argument against an Al Qaeda theory has always been that the hijackers were “dead, dead, dead.” That’s correct. They did not mail the anthrax — nor did they process the anthrax. ...
So the investigation has focused on finding the processor and mailer and they appear to be coming close to some sort of resolution. Everyone should support the FBI and CIA in their efforts on this as we are not in a position to second-guess them
No one should second guess them? Except you, of course.
You seem to be suggesting that if someone doesn't support your belief that al Qaeda was behind the attacks, then they are somehow helping al Qaeda.
Do you really feel it is totally impossible for the FBI to BOTH hunt for the anthrax killer AND hunt for al Qaeda members in the U.S. and around the world? Do you believe they should they drop everything and focus ONLY on hunting for al Qaeda members?
By posting your beliefs everywhere you can find on the Internet, even endlessly pestering me to put them on MY site, you are showing that your beliefs are in the area of an irrational obsession. If you believe that anyone who does not believe as you believe is somehow helping al Qaeda, what do you plan to do to these people if you cannot convince them to accept your beliefs?
This morning, Ross Getman has another article on-line, this time on the Mens News Daily web site.