The first one to make a “bioevangelist” argument in the MSM was Frances Boyle, legal advisor to the PLO and counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina. BHR was a high profile one. But there were numerous others working email. It is misconceived focus to dwell too long on BHR. Her focus on the strain and weaponization (and the apparent connection to the US program) was sound. On Postal Inspectors, my own view is that we needed more involvement by the CIA, not a greater role for the Postal Inspectors. In another post (perhaps another thread) you mentioned some investigator, formerly CIA, who gave incorrect insights to the Task Force. Who were you thinking of? On the sourcing of the LA Times article, my reaction was that the agents named retired years ago. I think one retired in June 2002 as I recall.
“Not surprising Daschle’s staffers were less than happy to deal with the FBI.”
As Ed points out, it was the input by the political staffers that perhaps put the investigation on tilt. But the staffers did nothing wrong. BHR did nothing wrong. (She was just wrong). The FBI had an investigation to conduct and we are not in a position to judge it or second-guess it except to the extent we can see that the leaks of the bloodhound and pond stories were stupid and improper. The media is not even to blame — who else should they rely on if not the fellow receiving reports from the head of the investigation? The folks to blame are those who are strident in their criticism and yet not do not digest that the infiltration of US biodefense here that occurred is as egregious and obvious as that which occurred with Ali Mohammed, OBL’s former intelligence head who was a US Army Sergeant, FBI informant and once worked for the CIA. See Peter Lance’s XXX. That includes most everyone — Holt, Leahy, Daschle etc.