As for admitting the anthrax mailings, you are right they initially denied the 1998 embassy bombings, 911 etc. The anthrax mailings would be awkward thing to admit given that so many have yet to go to trial, such as the London-based Vanguards of Conquest spokesman Yassir al-Sirri whose extradition is sought.
In the Spring and Fall of 1999, the Blind Sheik’s assistant, Post Office employee Sattar, was in telephone communication with Deputy Military Commander Mustafa Hamza, the blind sheik’s successor Taha, London Vanguards of Conquest spokesman Yassir al-Sirri, and Cairo attorney Montasser al-Zayat. Yesterday, KSM’s assistant, al-Hawsawi, has now apparently been asked to be represented by an Egyptian lawyer, apparently Montasser al-Zayat. (He has also asked the assistance of a London counsel). The blind sheik supporters spoke on conference calls about the blind sheikh’s withdrawal of his support for the cease fire. Although suspecting his phone was wiretapped, Post Office Sattar continued to talk vaguely in code about these issues with these people, all of whom were closely connected to al-Zawahiri. This was the period Zawahiri moved forward his anthrax planning and there was a public dialogue between Bin Laden and a London cleric’s call for a holy biowar.
In 1999, US Post Office employee Sattar was frustrated with attorney al-Zayat, who he believed was spreading a rumor that Sattar worked for the CIA. Testimony from December 14, 2004 in the trial USA v. Sattar, involving co-defendant Lynne Stewart, described the position of Mustafa Hamza that the Islamic Group had no dispute with the United States so long as the Blind Sheik was released. Because of the pressure and electronic surveillance by Egyptian security services, Islamic Group was dysfunctional. For example, Hamza had first learned that he had been named military head of Islamic Group after he heard it on the Voice of Israel radio. While any representation allowed by Al-Zayat of al-Hawsawi might be similarly constrained (and dysfunctional) assuming he is not allowed access to classified evidence, Al Zayat nonetheless (from a legal defense perspective) would be a powerful and welcome addition to the defense team in a historic prosecution. I suspect he would advise any client or long-time friend to not admit to being the anthrax mailer, no matter what other friends or connections the mailer has.
If the exchange posted there happened, that is one damn bizarre and cryptic exchange in my book! I'm curious as to your take on it.
I find it amusing that he cites "classified information" as though that's sacred to him, as the Leaky one has never let that stop him from spilling the beans in the past.