You are just picking out the words which support your beliefs, while ignoring the facts which do NOT support your beliefs.
The first link you cite also includes this:
Some experts suggested that federal investigators, who have never coped with an anthrax agent as sophisticated as the material recovered from letters to Sens. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), may be feeling their way through the science to discover how difficult the agent would be to make.
"They'd probably want to look at several methods of doing it -- try to make it several different ways to reproduce the end result," said David Franz, head of the Chemical and Biological Defense Division of the Southern Research Institute and former commander of the the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the nation's principal biodefense research center. "It doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea."
The second article you cite includes this:
Scientists said Monday that it is unclear what Mason's revelation means. They say much depends on whether the FBI is attempting an identical re-creation.
There are many ways to create the powders in the anthrax letters. So, you have to duplicate the powder exactly if you want to create evidence for use in court. That means you also have to duplicate the lab contamination.
When you have to distort and leave out facts to make your case, that just shows how WRONG you are.
Ed
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you see perfect consistency in the FBI's statements from year 1, year 2 and year 5.