Today, there was a
front page story in The Washington Post about new developments in and information about the FBI's investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters. Why is this front page news? It should be front page news just because these developments essentially contradict
all of the earlier reporting on this story, including numerous front page stories from The Washington Post. Also, "The bureau has assigned fresh leadership to the case". Hmm...
WaPo today:
What was initially described as a near-military-grade biological weapon was ultimately found to have had a more ordinary pedigree, containing no additives and no signs of special processing to make the anthrax bacteria more deadly, law enforcement officials confirmed.
WaPo in 2001:
Army and other officials have said the anthrax spores in the letter to Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) were highly concentrated and were produced in a powder made of particles smaller than three microns in diameter -- well into the size range that would make them extremely dangerous if released into the air. They were mixed with silica, an additive.
What happened to those "Army and other officials"--did they just make that up? Incidentally, another front page Washington Post story was titled "Additive Made Spores Deadlier".
In addition, the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned out to be more common than was initially believed, the officials said.
Another front page story: Ames Strain Of Anthrax Limited to Few Labs. Even more damning is this apparent WaPo article--"Capitol Hill Anthrax Matches Army's Stocks"--which oddly does not appear on their website. And that's just the beginning, folks--I could do this all day.
Now maybe it's not fair of me to beat up on the Washington Post like this, although I was surprised at how blatantly this new story contradicts their previous reporting, despite their certitude and their experts at the time, and how little they acknowledge that fact. But what's perhaps more important is that the story has changed, and that--at the same time--there's a new group of people running the investigation now.
So are they trying to get to the bottom of this, or are they trying to cover it up? Is that why they're "casting a wider net"? They've certainly succeeded in muddying the waters, in any case. Were the earlier reports correct, or were all those experts and officials horribly wrong? And perhaps most importantly, why did the Bush administration never take these attacks seriously? Was it because it was likely a domestic terror incident, or because it just targeted Democrats, or because it likely helped pass The PATRIOT Act? Do they know something the FBI doesn't?
As usual, all we have here are a lot of unresolved questions, and much passing of the buck, but no answers.