Replies

Your unremarkable theory doesn't hold water for at least two reasons. First, a theory is no longer a theory when everybody knows it. Even Joe Biden says: "The real value that such weapons have for Saddam, Biden suggested, is their deterrent effect — that they would protect him from being attacked by the United States."

Huh? You're not making any sense. What's your point? Strikingly, even though the White House just confirmed to us that 9-11 operational commander Mohammed Atta flew to Prague to meet with Iraqi intelligence before knocking down the World Trade Center -- something they've known for ten months -- we still haven't laid a hand on Saddam Hussein. This very strongly supports my theory.

Second, Steven Hatfill, who is taking a public beating, would have to be in on the ruse, or the Feds would be leaving themselves open for lawsuits and perhaps criminal action after the ruse has been revealed. Of course, if the ruse is never revealed, we will never know and that is the beauty of conspiracy theories.

My assumption is that Hatfill is high enough up the food chain to understand the big picture. Notice he's not giving interviews. Just kicking back with his girfriend, on $150K paid leave. If Rosenberg is right, he's not talking to the press because he's guilty. If Rosenberg is wrong, then there has to be some other a reason why he's not talking to the media, despite this storm of negative publicity. His silence strongly favors either Rosenberg's theory or my theory, but it doesn't do much for anybody else's theory.

My theory is the mirror image of Rosenberg's because we're both responding to the same elephant in the room: the fact that the government is stalling us on the source and meaning of the post-911 anthrax threat campaign.

U.S. vulnerability to a biologocal attack has been known for years as is the deterrent effect against U.S. attack of Saddam's WMD. The Bush administration has already said it wants a regime change in Bagdad, which creates the risk of WMD use (the Samson effect). The U.S. needs to prepare for the eventualities of war, which requires time and effort. All this is well known, so there is nothing new about the basis of your argument.

There are numerous other reasons to "stall", to use your term, like clean out Afghanistan of al-Qaeda and Taliban first, rally any potential allies, plan operations and logistics for war and its aftermath etc.

Of course the Bush Administration wants to link 911 and the anthrax attack to Saddam Hussein in order to justify a regime change by force if necessary.

There is no need for the elaborate ruse now involving, as you suggest, the complicity of Steven Hatfill in his own destruction. There is no need to justify "stalling" and no need or in fact desire by the Administration to risk its credibility by deliberately lying to the American people and the world at the very time it is asking the same to believe its arguments and gain its support for a regime change in Bagdad.