Cutaneous anthrax infections rely on a break in the skin. No cut or scrape = no infection, even if you soak in the stuff. But conversely it doesn't take much to cause an infection once it finds a break in the skin. So I'd assume he had anthrax on his leg because he had a scrape or abrasion on his leg, then walked into a room where anthrax spores were suspended in the air.
"I believe all of the cutaneous anthrax cases from the attacks on postal workers, the NY Post woman, etc. were on the fingers, hands, and arms."
Almost everybody has small breaks in the skin of his hands and arms. This goes double for people who open and handle mail, who routinely get tiny paper cuts. Even an extremely small cut is sufficient for an anthrax infection.
"2) If the guy was handling anthrax and knew he was handling anthrax, why wasn't he already on antibiotics beforehand?"
Either he draws attention to himself by bringing antibiotics into the country, or he draws attention to himself by getting a prescription for antibiotics (they're not available without a prescription, of course). Neither one is good fieldcraft. Better not to become infected, which he wouldn't have if everything had gone according to plan. (See next point.)
"3) If he was handling anthrax, wouldn't someone in the group know this was probably anthrax?"
I'm sure he knew it was anthrax. His handlers probably told him something along the lines of "This is anthrax. Breathe it and die—but you can buy a face mask in any American hardware store that is 100% effective against it. Be sure to wear gloves, because people often have small cuts on their hands that can get infected." Why would he be told more than that?
"He had to have known there would be SOME risk the lesion would be identified as odd, that specialists would be brought in, that someone MIGHT ID it as cutaneous anthrax..."
But in the places these guys were born, raised and trained, cutaneous anthrax and other skin infections are not odd or all that rare, and specialists are not brought in. You walk in, get the penicillin and go home.
"4) ...They'd either have 'Alluhu Akbar' OR 'God is Great' but an Arab wouldn't mix the languages to write 'Allah is Great.'"
Go to Google and enter the phrase "Allah is Great" with the quotes, so that the search only matches that exact phrase. You'll get 6,250 hits. Among the sites are islamicity.com, zawaj.com, nooraliman.com, madinahmasjid.com, madressa.net, naqshbandi.org, et cetera, et cetera, et lotsa cetera. I'm pretty sure that something far short of 100% of those sites were written by crazed right-wing Jewish microbiologists bent on framing innocent, peace-loving Muslim terrorists.
"5) Why were Daschle and Leahy singled out for the 'high quality' stuff?"
Your reasoning relies on the assumption that the attacker believed the letters would actually be opened by (and thus kill) Daschle and Leahy. I maintain that any American smart enough to mill his own weapons-grade anthrax is smart enough to know that Senators have staffers to open their mail. I also maintain that Saddam Hussein believes every other government official is as paranoid as he is. So I think it's pretty clear that, no matter whom one believes to be behind these letters, one must view them as warning shots, not assassination attempts. And in any case, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to tell someone you're trying to kill with anthrax to "take penicillin now." (I don't know about you, but if I ever send an anthrax letter, it'll be disguised as an ad for scented body powder: "Sniff this!")
So, given that, whom does it make sense to warn? Well, Daschle is the head of the Senate—you know, the body that is constitutionally responsible for signing treaties and that with just 41 votes can prevent a declaration of war. He's also the highest-ranking government official who does not belong to the political party headed by the son of George H.W. Bush. So if Saddam is trying to send the message "you cannot stop us, we have this anthrax," Daschle sounds like a pretty good recipient.
Likewise, Patrick Leahy is the head of the Senate Foreign Operations subcommittee. That body oversees the aid we send to Israel, to Turkey and to Iraqi opposition groups. And as far as the media goes, what better way to get a message out than to send it, one week after 9/11, to ever major news outlet in New York?
"If the 9/11 hijackers are clueless enough to think AMI in Florida is an important media company..."
Has it been established that the AMI anthrax was sent in the mail? I haven't heard of a letter. I have heard, however, of a direct personal connection between the AMI photo editor and two of the hijackers. But hey, Florida's a small place, we'll just chalk that one up to coincidence and move on. It's not essential to the theory one way or the other.
"NO Republican or anyone from the executive branch is."
Maybe Saddam assumed that Bush would not permit anyone in his party or his branch of government to voice dissent with his plan to invade Iraq. There's no point in warning people who lack the power to cave in to extortion.
"I've yet to see anyone speculate on what specific policies or legislation the two senators share that would PO someone, and I think it's pretty clear why."
Okay, I'll speculate: The two senators (who, again, were being warned, not assassinated) are the two individuals not under Bush's control who have the most power to prevent action against Saddam Hussein. They were being told exactly what the letters said: "You cannot stop us, we have this anthrax." Why read more into the situation than is really there? Your theory of a crazed right-wing anti-[insert Democratic policy here] extremist must explain away all the known facts; our theory of an Iraqi warning shot simply accepts all the known facts at face value.