“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.
So according to you the whole case has been solved already, the terrorists all locked up, the evidence of the anthrax pointing directly at them. But they forgot to tell us, and they just pull Leahy’s leg every time they brief him.
Although I don’t have a link to the Postal Mag editorial handy, in the meantime here is the analysis that Charles Tetzlaff should study for Senate Leahy. For that matter, Senator Arlen Specter, who has Leahy’s confidence, also would be fully capable of analyzing the anthrax mailings from the point of view of an experienced prosecutor.
As for Senate office staff, in light of what came out in the trial of the blind sheik’s attorney, staff should search their old emails from the 2000 and 2001 for the word “MLAT.”
As for Leahy’s chief of staff’s predisposition in June 2002, it is perfectly understandable. Everyone has their preconceptions and worldview. That’s why the dispassionate analysis of a Tetzlaff or Specter would be so helpful, provided they have time to study the matter.
I think they should make the time for an old friend.
“Why US Senator Leahy Was Targeted With Anthrax,” Scoop.nz.co, April 17, 2007
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00263.htm