Like I said yesterday, I would really like to believe that this is not a massive conspiracy to cover up the the real anthrax killers, because the implications of that are pretty horrific. So I have been searching my brain for other explanations.
It seems to me that the FBI - like DoJ, the CIA, and most newsrooms these days (not to mention a few boardrooms and even bedrooms) - is divided into pro- and anti-Bush camps these days, so discernible patterns of behaviour can be confusing.
For example, the FBI quickly refused to endorse the neocon lie (repeated by McCain among others) that Iraq was most like behind the anthrax attacks. If it's all a big cover-up job now, why did they bother doing that back in 2001? It was Mueller who was personally "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings back then.
Shortly after the attacks, Francis A. Boyle, an international law expert who worked under the first Bush Administration as a bioweapons advisor in the 1980s, contacted an FBI Agent called Marion "Spike" Bowman, and told him that only a government lab could have produced this anthrax and he suspected people at Fort Detrick were involved."Soon after I informed Bowman of this information, the FBI authorized the destruction of the Ames cultural anthrax database," the professor said.Why did they do that? A question for Robert Mueller! I think the FBI have already admitted it was a mistake, but who authorized it and why?
(Without getting too side-tracked, this touches on another concern I have about the evidence that remains. It has all been in the hands of the FBI, so who is to say that the evidence has not been tampered with? I mean, assuming that the FBI's credibility is shot here, as seems to be the case.)
And then in 2003, "Spike" Bowman was promoted and given the Presidential Rank Award by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, despite a protest letter from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and despite the fact that Bowman was also the FBI agent who allegedly sabotaged the FISA warrant for access to Zacharias Moussaoui's computer prior to 9/11.
And then there is the media circus surrounding FBI agent Van Harp's original investigations into Stephen Hatfill. News crews with helicopters were beating FBI agents to the scene of new developments! Did Mueller ever try to find out who was tipping off the media about FBI leads? Did he ever fire anyone?
When an FBI case agent Robert Roth recommended a criminal probe of the leaks, Mueller resisted. Why? Roth said Roth said the case file was "an open book," used by "a huge group of people."Mueller testified that he did not recall the episode. He said he had backed at least one other leak investigation but did not know if any action was taken.In fact, Mueller personally instructed Van Harp to brief Daschle and Leahy on the case, in a break with normal strict confidentiality protocol: did the media somehow get access to those briefings? If so how?
Now back to playing Devil's Advocate (not doing a good job, am I?) ... OK, trying a bit harder to defend Mueller...
We live in interesting times and the FBI has a lot on their plate these days.
And sometimes I think that maybe Mueller knows who did the anthrax attacks, and he is just letting the media chase rabbits while the real investigation continues. I mean, he did at least threaten to resign in March 2004, when Bush tried to over-rule the DoJ's ruling that domestic wire-tapping was unconstitutional (never mind that the wiretapping has continued). And there was that crazy episode at Ashcroft's bedside:Mueller arrived just after Card and Gonzales departed. He shared a private moment with Ashcroft, bending over to hear the man’s voice.So sometimes I wonder if there is not a deep, deep undercover FBI team set to blow the lid on the whole Bush administration. You can imagine the scene: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld and a host of others all arrested on the same day. The constitutional republic restored once more! Justice prevails! Hurrah!
“Bob, I’m struggling,” Ashcroft said.
“In every man’s life there comes a time when the good Lord tests him,” Mueller replied. “You have passed your test tonight.”
But then I wake up and realise that Mueller has put his own credibility on the line here, time and again. His agents have hounded one innocent man for years, and driven another man to his death.
The best you could plausibly say for Mueller is that maybe he is just not very interested in this case - but again, that's inexcusable when five people are dead after a terrorist attack on US soil.
Or maybe he is powerless, surrounded by Bush Co. bad guys who are white-anting his reputation and blocking FBI investigations. Is that why he now says the FBI needs even MORE powers (yes, that is a big part of what's happening at these hearings today)? Again, that's very hard to believe, much as one might wish to do so. For starters, why doesn't he go public with what he knows?
Mueller became FBI Director on September 4, 2001, just one week before 9-11. Looking back, a lot of strange things happened in the weeks before 9-11. A few of them, relating to the FBI's decision not to search Moussaoui's computer, are described in the "bombshell memo" from FBI agent Coleen M. Rowley.
IMHO, we have reached a point where you cannot talk about these anthrax letters without also re-examining the official narrative of what happened on 9-11. It's that bad.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Meuller Testifies On Anthrax
Here's me playing Devils Advocate for Mueller on Glenzilla today: