[dead]

The heads of the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ answer to you. The press hangs on your every word.

There’s the problem with your theory.

There’s plenty of people (Clinton holdovers and others) in those agencies who are not fans of the president. They would happily leak any embarrassing information they got their hands on.

And the press would trip over themselves trying to get out any story that would embarrass “the right wing.” It wouldn’t even have to be true. It’s true they “hang on Bush’s every word” because they don’t want to miss a gaffe or a inaccuracy that they can use to embarrass or smear him with.

I have no idea what the deal with Hatfil is, but I don’t think they have anything concrete on him. And nobody in the media or the government wants to discuss the fact that there is substantial indications that at least one of the hijackers may have had anthrax.

[The Great Satan]

And the press would trip over themselves trying to get out any story that would embarrass “the right wing.”

And how would pinning 9-11 on Saddam Hussein embarass the "right wing," exactly?

Bush has leveraged the prejudices of the left to pursue his own policy objectives, the #1 objective of the past year being to buy time to deal with the anthrax threat. That's what Hatfill is all about. And, if you remember, before the "rogue right-wing Army scientist" theory, who were we supposed to think the FBI was focused on? Right-wing militias. And who started that story? Bob Woodward, confidante of Cheney and Powell, in the quintessentially liberal Washington Post.

But now it appears that we are ready to move on. All of a sudden, for some reason nobody understands, everybody is talking about what to do about Saddam Hussein -- and all the commentators are saying, "Well, I'd be for it, but's where's the connection to 9/11?" And, over the next few days, the "domestic perp" mythology is going to be very publicly discredited. And then what will everybody suddenly, magically be talking about? Why, gosh, darnit, who did send those anthrax letters, anyway?

See how this works?

[Wolfstar]

"...one of the hijackers...was treated...for a severe black lesion...the doctor...is now convinced that al-Haznawi had anthrax...[he] asked an anthrax expert, Dr Tara O'Toole, director of the Centre for Civilian Biodefence at Johns Hopkins University ...to look at al-Haznawi's file. She did, then passed it on to a colleague...also a germ expert. Both concluded that the 'most probable and coherent' diagnosis was anthrax. If that could be proven, then the outbreak would almost certainly be linked to events on that day."

I don't know why the opinions of the doctor and the experts who reviewed the file are not considered evidence and given the weight they deserve. If al-Haznawi had lived, been arrested, and went to court, the prosecution most definitely could use their testimony in building the circumstantial evidence portion of the case. The overwhelming majority of criminal convictions are obtained largely with circumstantial evidence.

Atta and at least two other hijackers had the:

• Opportunity — they lived in Florida not far from the American Media building and rented an apartment through the real-estate-agent wife of an AM executive.
• Demonstrated interest in potential bio-weapons delivery systems — looked into use of crop dusters.
• Motive — if the kind of hatred demonstrated by the hijackings doesn't prove motive, nothing will.
• Peculiar physical problems — (a) Atta and one other hijacker in the pharmacy looking for something for what the pharmacist thought looked burned hands. (b) al-Haznawi's leision.
• A probable link to Iraq (and its weaponized anthrax) — the Prague meeting between Atta and the Iraqi intelligence officer.

While none of the above absolutely nails the case, it sure presents a boat-load of curious circumstances. They're certainly a heck of a lot more concrete that the very slim stuff that's been made public about Hatfill.