The press reports what it wants to report; in Hatfill's case, the impetus for the reporting comes not so much from the FBI as it came from Rosenberg and the New York Times reporter, and a few others who have bought into Rosenberg's theories for political purposes. Journalists these days spend more time reading the work of fellow journalists and recompiling it that the press generates its own news or even copies ideas from internet forums whose accuracy may be unproven. There are just not that many serious investigative journalists out there, so the press can be 'fed' information with ease.
They report his purported background as if it is 'fact,' when I have yet to see verifiable information on the guy. He worked with missionaries helping poor people while in Africa. Others say racist mercenaries. Others say anticommunist mercenaries. Others say he furthered his biology degree there, and his specialty is ebola research. Who to believe? Or did he work with missionaries and mercenaries, was he a racist mercenary, or was he just an anticommunist one? They're not the same- one fights for racial reasons, the other fights against another form of hate called communism. There were communist black thugs there who were every bit as racist as any whites. There were anticommunists of different races. BUt the truth is so muddled now that even supposedly legitimate sources are repeating conflicting information as truth. Information advertised as fact has turned out to be fiction.
No, it's not the FBI so much as it is Rosenberg's accusations, as filtered through the press. Her agenda is to can the US weapons program and subject US laboratories to inspection by say, Cuban or Chinese inspectors. But because of her accusations, attention was drawn to certain people, and lately it has been Hatfill, though he was by no means the first person she fingered. So the press looked up everything they could on Hatfill and then started watching his house, following him around, and finding out the names of people who had lived nearby, knew him professionally, were related, or so forth. When so many of the media's resources are focused on one guy 24-7, there aren't too many ways to be discrete in investigating him and eliminating him as a suspect. Everything you do looks like 'he's the man' to a rabid press.
And, when the press was focused 24-7 on him because of his getting fingered by a purported 'microbiologist' who turns out to be a political activist instead, they were missing searches of other scientist's homes and property, and missing investigations going on in the case both here and abroad. Their lack of comprehensive coverage made the media focus on one guy all the more glaring, and people have wallpapered over the FBI's oft-repeated statement that "they are not ruling out anything, foreign or domestic."
This is as I predicted. I have already pointed out that the only way Hatfill could deal with the daily presstitute watch on his house, with overly zealous FBI agents harassing his family, and get his side reported on at least a little, was to make a statement critical of Ashcroft and the FBI. There are just enough problems with the FBI to keep the press occupied, and the comment on Ashcroft lessened the press' hostility towards him because they hate Ashcroft more than anything. While they still repeat hearsay about the guy as if it is 'fact,' they have gone on to focus more on bungling at the FBI and that has apparently ended the 24-7 watch. What is more, the public announcements and naming of two particular agents has brought those agents and their bosses into the eye of their Top Boss, Ashcroft, in a way that cannot be ignored or thrown away. A simple letter of complaint to the AG's office could be tossed by an employee before the AG sees it. That likely resulted in the AG taking a closer look at what was going on, and who among the agents may be talking too much to the press.
Please forgive me, but I would suggest to amend your remarks ... that actually Ms. Rosenberg gets too much credit.
She should not be singled out from the operations intelligence work performed by the Federation of American Scientists ("FAS") for the purpose of keeping the "liberal media" up on the features of the U.S.A.'s defense and industrial complex.
So that the Democrat- leftist, socialist, "internationalist," echo-system of "intelligencia" ... are equipped to define all that we do to sustain freedom, as being bad.
The FAS has one purpose, to support "Hate America First," by eroding confidence in common sense about what is right and what is worth fighting for: liberty.
Mr. Hatfill is not the target of Ms. Rosenberg's ambitions; rather, the entire U.S. war department is the target of the FAS.
Hatfill just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time --- making himself an easy target.
Yet Mr. Hatfill does have a serious problem with the U.S. Dept. of Justice, because there are many coincidences un-reported to the public, between his past and the events of September 11, 2001.
There is more about him, which the FAS has on file, and there is more about him that the F.B.I. has on file.
Another one of the coincidences in all this, is the connection between the "White House F.B.I. Files" maintained by Hillary Clinton during Clinton Administration, and the organizations, FAS and PFAW (People for the American Way), the "beneficiaries," you might say, of that information.
Part of the "sustainable development" thing.
The befuddlement for the Justice Dept., is how to prosecute the bad guys, when there are so many roads which lead back to both of the major political parties' fiefdoms.
The FAS and PFAW are major intel ops for the political left. Mr. Hatfill is not a big player, but he has been a popular associate of certain "informed sources" for the political right.
You might say that this is one of those "interesting times" in which Chinese warlords must settle something that is not going to "just go away," and is upsetting the status quo.
Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Hatfill are the gladiators for their respective camps.
Question: What liberals have stepped forward to defend Hatfill?
Question: What conservatives have stepped forward to defend Ms. Rosenberg?
That's all very nice, but then you have John Ashcroft stating on national TV last week that's he's a person of interest, e.g., a suspect (no matter what the phrasing, that's what "person of interest" means to most intelligent people). John Ashcroft should have the decency and ethics to say nothing about a purported "person of interest." By all rights Hatfill should win his suit against John Ashcroft personally.
Fact is, Hatfill's being slandered to a fare-thee-well, while the FACT of Moussouai and Atta attempting to buy cropdusters is being forgotten by this supremely competent "investigative" press.
And what was the strange lesion Atta's buddy displayed to a Florida pharmacist?