No, you would just let people publish garbage on you without rebutting it. Great strategy. I haven't checked up on what Rosenberg's been pushing in a week or so, but I do see that Rosenberg's accusations have been spread far and wide across the web even into the international realm, and have been added to and embellished with some of the most far-out, repugnant, Larry Flynt-style nonsense I've ever heard. The web is thick with her 'research,' and anonymous information, much of it in left wing circles, even Cuba's agitprop outlets, and all over usenet. Chances are since the last time I looked the Rosenberg 'info-virus' has spread exponentially. He's probably been seen burning mosques and synagogues and baptist churches, pulling wings off of flies, and driving an SUV through pristine rainforest riverbeds. Rosenberg has even hinted at yet another potential 'suspect,' a guy named Pickering, I think. Top dog kind of guy, if she can paint him, then there will be no one with the technical knowledge of the US anthrax program to exhonerate anyone, much less Hatfill. That would be very convenient for Ms. Rosenberg's agenda, wouldn't it? His accusers I wouldn't trust to babysit a pet rock. That's why I'm so suspicious of them; he on the other hand, comes from my part of the country, same place I grew up, he was raised there, and his actions are not 'weird.'
I thought the whole thing was weird--his spokesmouth introducing in such a fashion that I expected Bob Barker to bound out onto the stage of "The Price is Right," Hatfill giving this long statement but wouldn't take questions, and his lawyer filling the air up with hot air blather.
If I had been so accused I would act no different. Taking questions would be pointless because you are restricted from answering some questions due to your security clearance; if a reporter knows you can't answer such certain questions by law, he's going to ask anyway just to catch you having to clam up. It's also an open investigation, no lawyer in his right mind would let you hold a wide-open press conference. Any individual under suspicioun would be wise NOT to give out information that the person and the lawyer hadn't agreed on before hand. One off the cuff answer, or name, could lead to a dozen of your friends being harassed by reporters for any scrap of information to damn you. Not ONE of those reporters will be looking for info to exhonerate you.
Even his statement was weird. Why did I need to know that a friend of his lived in a "modern, three-bedroom" house or apartment?
IT wasn't weird to anyone who has been following the case. You needed to know because the many slandarous comments about him were making him sound like the unabomber (another one whose FBI profile didn't match reality), as if he was some redneck hiding drums of anthrax out in the woods.
But heck, that's minor. If he's a "person of interest," why call the FBI incompetent,
Why not? It gets the attention of the press. If the FBI went around New Jersey neighborhoods showing one picture of him, rather than a selection of pictures including people known not to have been in those neighborhoods or even the state, as well as harmless people who have been there recently, then they ARE being incompetant. Showing one man's picture would be like having a one man lineup, or two guys who looked nothing alike, and asking the victim who mugged them. You have to put in 'placebos' to see if the eyewitness is competant, otherwise people tell you what they think you want to hear.
give the names of the FBI agents who he claims are harassing his girlfriend,
He gave the names of the agents who told his girlfriend that they had info on Hatfill. That's much more serious than ust harassing a suspect's friends. That's extremely unprofessional behavior for FBI agents- they're not supposed to talk about a case.
PO Ashcroft,
He isn't POing Ashcroft, he said he was gratified when Ashcroft was selected. He is giving the left-wing media the only info he can to get their attention, because they are ALL damning him. If he says something about Ashcroft, it will get Ashcroft's attention and will also stand a better chance of getting heard and repeated in the press.
say the FBI has met his demands for giving him a blood test
He's pointed out the obvious: the FBI is trying to investigate a case without taking care of some simple checks first: a simple test that can tell them right away whether or not he's had a recent vaccine, would also be useful to clear other 'persons of interest,' not just him. That they haven't done such a test suggests that they are either not operating scientifically, or they are just wasting time for some reason. Perhaps that last thing, time, is the answer, and the idea is to use Hatfill as a distraction or to stall.
but also wants methodology released to the press
A sensible precaution. The same sort of precaustion you should check up on when reading poll data. What was the question's wording? Who did they call, etc?
BUT also holds up a book that questions the competentcy of the FBI labs?
Wouldn't you question them a little, with all the leaks and security breaches in government? Wouldn't you question some of the conclusions from the Ron Brown case, for example?Some third party labs should be used to confirm the data of the FBI lab. A sensible precaution; it beats giving the blood sample to the Federation of American Scientists, the same group that keeps telling us missile defense wouldn't work, the majority of them not even hard science professionals. If all the labs agree that he's had the right sort of vaccine recently, it would be damning, so why would he suggest it? If the results are different, it may indicate moles or incompetance in the FBI lab. We KNOW the FBI is compromised. Heck, even the NSA was compromised by Ana Belen Montes, arrested just a few days after 9/11 for spying for Cuba. We had FBI agents nailed for insider trading, linked with an arab guy who shorted stocks on 9/11. We have the FBI looking for a leak in the Senate. Would you trust one lab?
If that's the case, why bother with the blood test if he thinks the FBI will botch the test?
See my above comments. I wouldn't trust just the FBI lab either, alone. I would want the testing to take place at separate labs too, but I'd still want the FBI lab to run the test to see if their conclusions are even close to the conclusions of other labs. If they aren't, there is a problem for all of us. Hatfill could simply not suggest the testing at all, then the FBI couldn't get evidence of any kind from a blood sample. But Hatfill has suggested the test and pushed for it. (You'll note that Clinton NEVER revealed his health records. He wouldn't take the chance.)
I mean if anyone wants the FBI to come down on him like a ton of bricks--even more than it has--give a press conference like he did.
The squeaky wheel is more likely to stay alive. If Hatfill is innocent, it is to his advantage to be noticed by Ashcroft. But it is suicide to remain silent while Rosenberg continues to peck away at him with her conspiracy theories, and while lesser jokers appointed by who knows who get to run the show unchallenged.
He's either excessively stupid or excessively arrogrant or both.
Or, he is innocent and is sickened by the slander. I'm been slandered. It is the most hideous experience anyone can go through; you lose your marginal friends and those who are closest to you. Even those who believe in you, stay away to protect themselves. It is like having leprosy. To be slandered in front fo the whole world, rather than a small town, is a living hell. To have people do it when you haven't even been nailed for any crime, not even speeding, is obscene. In a small town case, you can leave. But in the case of the international press, the only way to fight it is to get in front of the cameras. Even then, the damage is done. There is no way to clear one's self; only if the real perp is caught will you be cleared.
I suspect the Hatfill business is being orchestrated for a reason, and not by him. The forewarnings to the press, to make sure they are all on-scene, are just too convenient. The NY Times being a big outlet for news on him, is also suspicious becuase leaks to the Times are often used to sway foreign opinion, not US opinion. The case reminds me of Somalia, when the press was there, prepositioned on shore watching the marines make an amphibious landing. Or how Aidid's location was always given to the press in advance of any operation so they could be on hand.
I agree with you on this point. But who'd doing it and why?
BTW, there is a man in the Princeton area--he either works for the Borough or Township--that looks like Hatfill, or at least looks like the picture of Hatfill that was being shown in & around Princeton (Nassau Street & Palmer Square). There was an article about him right after the story broke about anthrax being found in the mailbox on Nassau street. I believe it was in the Trenton Times.