Skip to comments.Hatfill Gives Press Conference
Posted on 08/25/2002 11:33:25 AM PDT by at bay
click here to read article
You have been misinformed. Hatfill claims he has never met the inimitable media darling, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, and has no idea why she would accuse him.
But, then, he's only the fourth guy she's accused...
The Good Guy's
DOJ/FBI.....Track record--Ruby Ridge,Waco,TWA 800,Whitey Bulger,Robert Hanssen,Aldrige Ames,Wen Ho Lee, White House Files,Richard Jewell, missing 449 guns and 184 computers,Elian Gonzales,Potts-gate,New Orleans Brothel,Moussoui,Walker-Lindt.
The Bad Guy.
Hatfill....Offers blood test, hand writing sample, lie detector interview.
Hmmm! Hatfill must have something to hide.
Hehe. Seeing where she is at, I'm not at all surprised :). Who were the other three?
The Dems don't want this issue. It serves their purpose that the anthrax perpetrator be a.) American, b.) white, c.) connected to the defense/intelligence establishment.
For them, Hatfill is the perfect patsy. That the anthrax should have come from another source (like, say, Iraq) is what gives Daschle, McAuliffe & Co. the willies...
Rosenberg, by the way, is one of their "true believers"...
Yes, well.. it has been violated. Not only this doubtful accusation which stops just short of being an actual accusation, but it's also a fact that for the last year anyone - anyone - identified as being a bio-weapons expert seem to be in mortal danger, seeing as they're bumped off with boring regularity. For Hatfill, remaining squarely in the center of the spotlight may at this point be what saves his life. Maybe the FBI had thought that by dropping his name out there, he would have been dead by now, and they could have closed the Anthrax case as "cleanly solved".
If so, and any of them are picked up, they are going to rat these guys out.
That's why the FBI is working so hard on diverting investigative resources AWAY from the real pepetrators and toward a guy who they know is innocent of the charge.
From the very beginning of this issue I had thought it was an AlQeada agent in the investigative arm that was misleading everybody, then Barbara Hatch Rosenberg came out with her attack on various un-named disgrunteld white American federal government male employees. Then the FBI fell in line, and it's just been one piece of BS after another.
Remember, the last organized, armed and dangerous group to attack the United States Postal Service before the anthrax attack was the Young People's Socialist League (YPSL), and you'd better believe the undercover former Soviet spies still in the FBI as well as their gumbah, ol'Barb, know more than their fair share of these guys.
Names escape. But the first one was a guy who, at one time, had worked for Battelle Institute (a known CIA contractor)...another was a retired Army officer who was supposed to be trying to frame an Egyptian colleague at AMRIID...another was a guy with a drinking problem, who they eventually ran down in Milwaukee.
Rosenberg's description of the "suspect" changes with each dismissal of the preceding "suspect". At some point, she claimed she had an inside source (whether DOD, CIA or DOJ was unclear).
The media, of course, loves her -- because she tells them what they want to hear: "The anthrax attack unequivocally came from somebody in the military/intelligence community. Trust me."
Media reports invariably describe BHR as a "microbiologist".
She is a professor of environmental sciences at the Performing Arts branch of SUNY. She has never done research and she actually no longer teaches.
Instead, Rosenberg is a full-time activist for the UN treaty on biological weapons.
And, for reasons of her own, she has helped aim the media crosshairs at Hatfill...
An Israeli "Jericho" surface-to-surface ballistic missile landed near a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser in the eastern Mediterranean last month, according to a Washington Post report. During most of its flight, the missile appeared on the cruiser's air-warning sensors as aiming for the U.S. ship. However, the missile landed some 65 kilometers away from the USS Anzio, which was cruising 350 kilometers west of the Israeli coast.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the incident occured when Israel carried out a test launch of a Jericho-1 medium-range missile on April 6. The USN Aegis cruiser, a dedicated air-defense ship, was at the time accompanying the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower and another cruiser on their way to conducting joint exercises with Israeli forces. One Defense Department official said that the customary "Notice to Aviators and Mariners" was not given prior to the test. According to the Americans, this marked the third time that no such warning was given to a U.S. warship during the last two years.
While the matter is being handled through diplomatic channels, relations between Israel and the U.S. Navy have not been good since the sinking of the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War by Israeli aircraft and gunboats. Israel paid compensation to the families of the 205 casualties.
Israel has never made available any information on the development and production of the Jericho missile. According to foreign publications, the Jericho comes in two basic forms: Jericho-1, like the one test fired in April, carries conventional and nonconventional warheads over distances as long as 750 kilometers; and its big brother, Jericho-2B, has a much longer range and higher accuracy.
The missiles were developed with French help during the 1960s at the peak of close ties between Israel and France. The firing of an Egyptian-made surface-to-surface missile in 1962 is estimated to have been the catalyst for the decision to develop the weapons.
The new version of the Jericho-2 missile reportedly includes most neighboring countries in its range, and its accuracy is considered to be very good. The U.S. National Security Agency has monitored the test program of the Jericho-2 and has recorded several test firings over the Mediterranean. According to the Federation of American Scientists **, test firings of the missile at ranges in excess of 1300 kilometers have been conducted in South Africa.
According to the organization, the capability of Israel's ballistic missiles has been estimated to be far greater. Based on calculations derived from the Shavit rockets carrying the Ofek satellites, Israel's ballistic missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear payload across ranges in excess of 5,300 kilometers. But experts at the Pentagon estimate that an Israeli missile with a 7,200-kilometer range is possible. Another estimate was given in July 1990 by University of Maryland physicist Steve Peter, who calculated that the Shavit rocket has a range of 4,000 kilometers with a maximum payload of 775 kilograms. All these assessments place the whole of the Middle East within the range of Israel's ballistic missiles.
No one advocates anarchy on this website, but the history of the Fumbling Bumbling Investigators reveals a flawed and out of control organisation with little or no oversight.
1. Ruby Ridge, a grevious wrong. They went after this guy, a white supremacist, for a weapons violation. Not that I believe in white supremacy, it's kooky, but the FBI wound up shooting and killing his son and his wife. No one was punished, not even admonished.
2. Waco. This is too fat a target. The execution of the plan was a debacle. It has been proved that David Koresh could have been picked up outside his compound on numerous occasions before the siege. The bottom line, a lot of innocent folks died. In any case, the designers of the plan should have been fired for incompetence. No admonishments in this one, either.
3. Richard Jewel and the Olympic bombings. RJ saved lives. He was the initial discoverer of the bomb and got people away from it. Later he was pointed out as the bomber himself. This was not true. Now they say Eric Robert Rudolph did it. Where is Rudolph, anyway?
4. Oklahoma City. I do believe it was done by Timothy McViegh, but in the end the FBI "forgot" about two huge boxes of files they failed to give his defense attorney. This could have been used by McViegh to hold off his execution, perhaps forever. As far as I know, no admonishments for anyone involved at the FBI.
Throughout my military career, I have seen a number of low, middle, and high-ranking individuals sacked for incompetence and failure. The good of the country is at stake, and no one's career can and should come first. My impression of the FBI is that careers are job one, and crime prevention job two. The FBI needs to get its house in order.
We surely need an FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, etc. It's a tough world out there. But my fear is as long as incompetency is allowed or buried in these agency's then their missions are at risk of failure.
Recall that, rather early in this wild goose chase, Rosenberg claimed to have "a knowledgable source" inside the government.
She has not repeated this claim lately. But it gives me to wonder just who was leading who...
What I don't understand is Hatfill's need to have two full-length press conferences a week apart. 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.
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? But heck, that's minor. If he's a "person of interest," why call the FBI incompetent, give the names of the FBI agents who he claims are harassing his girlfriend, PO Ashcroft, say the FBI has met his demands for giving him a blood test but also wants methodology released to the press BUT also holds up a book that questions the competentcy of the FBI labs? If that's the case, why bother with the blood test if he thinks the FBI will botch the test?
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. He's either excessively stupid or excessively arrogrant or both.
Not to my knowledge. It's been in no news reports and, were she, it would have likely been deemed newsworthy.
Though, with today's "journalists", one might wonder...
Ashcroft has not been impressive.
Why did the Bush administration go to the mat for him while letting Linda Chavez twist in the wind?
His accusers, both in the New York Times and in the American Federation of Scientists, do seem to have a credibility problem.
The NY Times gets info for one reason, however: when someone wants to put out some information for FOREIGN consumption, they do so by leaking to the NY Times.
Wrong. Hatfill has stated emphatically, at both his press conferences, that he has never met Rosenberg. I'm sure that he wouldn't lie about something as easily disproved as that, in his position.
Rosenberg is a leftie, and she's going after rightwinger Hatfill for ideological reasons. I'm really disappointed by how many people on this thread seem to accept the lies of the FBI and the media.
The Times were trying to leave the impression he was a "Unabomber" type going to a remote wilderness location. He then described this "shack" (or whatever the phrase was...I don't recall).
give a press conference like he did.
If he kept his mouth shut, would you then say, "What's he afraid of?
If I were innocent, I would shout it from the rooftops!"?
He's shouting from the rooftops....
and I am listening.
As credible as Juanita Broaddrick.
And I believe Juanita with all my heart.
Since 9/11 I've been quietly (and often not so quietly) burning up with anger and rage to see Islamic fundies (not Arabs or Muslims, but those who publicially hate us and call for our deaths, destruction, etc) get punished for what they did. Going after "right-wingers" is not my idea of making this nation safer. Go back and read Clinton's remarks about the right vis-a-vis Oklahoma City and talk radio, for example. He said that he feared the radical right more than any other terrorist group. Unfortunately he was not talking about neo-nazis and white supremacist militia groups, but active, lawful conservatives (unless you think Rush is a terrorist).
Has this attitude befallen the FBI? I don't think so, but it has allowed incompetence to walk freely as long as the targets where of the wrong political stripe or group.
This brings me back to my point above. FReepers should challenge this, even if big media, in their hatred and zeal against conservatives, won't. I see nothing wrong at all for true patriots criticizing the government or agencies thereof (including law enforcement) when they are wrong.
He's trying to stay alive, is what. As for FBI coming down on him harder: it would probably be better for him if they would allow him his day in court. There's a whole lot more that has gone down here that has NOT made the papers, or the press conferences, but will likely be brought up by his lawyers.
For now, I think, his best chance of not ending like the other couple dozen microbiologists who have died in the last few months, is to stay right up front in the public eye.
Oh, and the blood test. He obviously wants that done, and if he's suspicious of what the FBI is up to (as am I at this point) it stands to reason that he would want an audit trail of both the test AND the methodology. That would help establish if a test was good, botched with a wrong method or errors in procedure, or deliberately crashed. Remember that he is, himself, competent to sign off on the methodology log.
Republican president, so they see no evil, hear no evil etc etc.
Some conservatives are republicans, all republicans here are not conservatives but rather partisans first.
I understand that--and but I'd bet that he's probably already had a blood test, an interpretation of the results, either by the lab or by Hatfill himself or both. So why the push to have the blood test done by the FBI lab, except to show that the FBI lab is incompetent.
If my premise is correct, it sounds more like Hatfill is laying the grounds for a criminal defense rather than trying to exonerate himself.
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.
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.
No, it was more than just saying that the FBI leaks haven't stopped. It was a reiteration of the 1st press conference; it was detailing the investigation, how his girlfriend and his friends and associates are being treated, how he's being followed, and harsh criticism of the FBI and AG Ashcroft. Unfortunately, the more he talks, the more the FBI and Ashcroft are going to put pressure on him.
I understand that his lawyer is a civil attorney. A criminal defense attorney would've told him to keep his mouth shut.