I've long been an admirer of your theory as the most logically satisfying explanation for our behavior since 9/11--though I can't quite bring myself to completely believe in it. Assuming you are correct, though, how do you account for the discipline with which the true situation has been kept hidden? I know the Bush White House is renowned for its lack of leaks, but consider how many other people must possess this information by now. The Pentagon, the Iraqi regime, various foreign intelligence agencies, the FBI, certain Democrats...
Do you really think that all parties are united in wanting to keep the information out of the public domain?
TGS--the above post was intended for you.
I think it's like pushing water downhill. I think most people who follow the Hatfill story understand at some level that it's a charade, that he's in no danger of being arrested, tried, executed, that nobody's going to collect the $2 million reward, etc. But it's a convenient, happy story to pay lip service to. It's kind of like the weapons inspections in Iraq. Consider Bush's words last week: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." If that's a true statement -- and it is a true statement -- then the weapons inspections are a symbolic act, and there is not the slightest chance that we could every disarm Saddam by this method. But for the time being it is convenient for all sides to pay lip service to the process. Most of politics, international relations, and even warfare consists of theater, of symbolism. The basis of government is the ability to inflict unacceptable pain on one's adversaries. Human beings are endlessly inventive in finding new ways to dress up that ugly fact.