The Bush administration is quite happy for the FBI to be led around by Barbara Rosenberg -- for now.
Look very carefully at the interestingly-named "Amerithrax" investigation.
I recommend everyone check out the FBI's Amerithrax web site thoroughly; follow the links, read the text, look at the pictures, play the WAVs. It won't take you very long. Then ask yourself: what is the real purpose of Amerithrax?
The Amerithrax investigation is in the process of being very publicly discredited. Almost every big-name paper in the country has now run an editorial deriding the FBI and the apparent attempt to "Jewell" Dr. Steven Hatfill. The Amerithrax crew -- two men and a dog, basically -- has been putting on a brave show, flashing Steve Hatfill's picture around Princeton, NJ, asking residents if they remember seeing him mail a letter ten months ago.
Nothing will come of this, of course.
Louisiana State University, which hired Hatfill last month on a DOJ-funded contract as a $150K/yr bioterror response trainer, put him on one-month's paid leave on August 2, promising to review his status at the end of that period. On or before that date, the matter of Steven J. Hatfill will become a dead issue. Which means that the "rogue scientist" myth will be dead, for all intents and purposes.
Which means that the question people will be asking themselves is, who gave Mohammed Atta the anthrax?
On September 2, just over a week before the orgy of retrospectives and navel-gazing which will accompany the 9/11 anniversary, President George W. Bush will return to Washington, rested from his one-month vacation in Waco, TX. It may be anticipated that one of the first items on his agenda will be to establish the context for the next phase of the War on Terrorism, including fulfilling his promise to "make the case" for his stated goal of removing Saddam Hussein, by any and all means necessary.
The White House served notice a few days ago that "making the case" will involve "talking more" about the disputed story of Mohammed Atta's visit to Prague to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent. What does "talking more" about this incident mean? Will this be a generalized, airy-fairy, philosophical discussion about the impossibility of knowing anything for certain? Or will it be something else?
Hands up who still can't see where this is going. Anyone?
Remember Ahmed Abdel Sattar, who carried messages between Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and other leaders of the Islamic Group and was a Staten Island postal worker? While the government certainly hasn't said anything about him being involved in the anthrax mailings yet, I won't be surprised to learn he was involved. And we know there was an Iraqi agent working with Rahman in the first WTC bombing.
And then there were the Atta meeting in Prague and the reports of him and one of the other hijackers being treated with cipro.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Ms. Rosenberg or one of her cohorts gave out the weaponized anthrax on the same theory that Clinton gave the PRC all our missle & nuclear technology: that giving all our enemies our secrets would dispel their fear, provide parity, and make us all friends.
It's Rosemberg's fingerpointing at this guy that leads me to believe he's innocent. Otherwise, Rosenberg would be holding him up as a hero...
"Talking more" can only mean they will begin to connect the dots for the public.
The way they lay out the case will be extremely interesting. I suspect President Bush has a very strong case to make, but that the case is explosive. We simply cannot accuse Iraq of involvement in either 9-11 or the anthrax attacks without already being ready to do something about it.
The White House has also said we now have enough force in place to remove Saddam at any time. Could just be to keep Saddam underground, but I think we mean it.
Israel is urging us not to wait.
Nations throughout the Middle East are getting ready for war.
The weather will start to turn in our favor soon.
The peace at any price crowd is suddenly going wild.
The only thing I see that argues against an impending attack is Bush's statement that he will not launch an "October surprise". Does that rule out September?