“Well at least you and ZackandPook have something in common - you both believe the FBI have performed superbly in their task to solve the anthrax case.”
Consider that you come across a tribe in the woods, TrebleRebel.
The tribe consists of two squads: one is wearing is white moccasins, one is where black moccasins.
The Chief advised them to single-mindedly adopt opposite conclusions. If you asked one what the weather looked like, he’d say “Looks like rain.” If you asked the other, he’d say “Looks like sun.”
The one squad (”looks like rain”) was NOT dealing with classified information.
The other squad (”looks like sun”) was dealing with classified information.
So if the nearby settler’s farm leaks, is it likely to leak when it is raining or when it is sunny?
And why should the farmer bother to fix the leak when it’s not raining?
And so that’s why I have such a sunny disposition.
For example, what purpose would it serve to second-guess Agent Fitzgerald from the behavioral unit for his conclusion in October 2001? Everyone was on a learning curve. The profile was fine. Ari F’s limited comments were on the mark.
Is it that you wouldn’t want them to exhaustively pursue alternative theories?
As for Director Mueller’s integrity, Mrs. Ashcroft didn’t stick her tongue out at him. She stuck out at Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Card. But I’m sure even they have acted in good faith.
As for silica, as Dr. Alibek has explained in the Washington Post chat, the issue is not nearly as important as you and Ed think. Your raging debate, without the benefit of the forensic analysis, has been a distraction from the true crime facts. As was the Hatfill civil matter. Your failure to address non-silica issues is a much greater failing in analysis. Ken’s approach, on the other hand, is sound, in focusing on things like: “who was standing in front of the mailbox that day.”
As for the civil claim, I argued more mightily than anyone that there was no evidence suggesting he was guilty — thoughout 2002 and 2003. By which time, any objective observer should have abandoned the theory.
The problem is that because the FBI has been (appropriately) so secretive, the void has been filled with a lot of nonsense like the Boyle and Ed’s First Grader and Zack and bioevangelist theories. There was never a Bruce Hoffman or Cannistraro or Scheuer or Clarke who rose to the occasion and did a creditable job at the analysis. And the one published in Hoffman’s journal was by well-intentioned newbies.
The bioscare establishment was more interested in funding than in solving the crime. Their heart is true blue but their school colors are green.
And of course, as for an Iraq theory, the folks who thought Saddam was responsible rather than the Salafists perhaps contributed to the most significant foreign relations mistake in the history of mankind.
It might appear so if he can say something like this:
"And people died just from touching it."
and he repeats it with this:
I’m a little sensitive on this one, because two people died touching an envelope I was supposed to open.
If all you want to look at is the "fact" that he has been personally briefed by the FBI and, as a Senator, should know a lot more about anthrax than the average person, then I suppose those sentences should be accepted as gospel.
On the other hand, if you look at ALL the facts you will see that what he's saying is total crap. The two postal workers probably never touched the envelope, and even if they did, touching it did NOT kill them. And it's irresponsible to say it did. The postal workers died from inhalation anthrax. That means they breathed in spores.
Furthermore, Daschle's secretary DID touch Daschle's envelope, and she didn't even get sick, because she was quickly given antibiotics.
So, just as we saw with AFIP, sometimes people with powerful credentials and unique access can still say things that are total crap.