As a cautious
partisan of the domestic whacko explanation
of the Anthrax attacks, I was quite interested to see this article in the Washington Post
, which states unambiguously that the FBI and the CIA don't think the attacks are connected to Al Qaeda
Having said that, they don't provide a great deal of new evidence to support the argument beyond quotes from intelligence sources. Come to think of it, they don't provide much evidence at all, beside quotes from intelligence sources. But it's certainly worthwhile to know what these intel folks think since presumably they have access to much more information which they can't divulge.
Anyway, the new wave of reportage seems to be tipping the scale against an Al Qaeda connection and giving some credence to those of us who've been raising questions about the whether this had the look of an Al Qaeda operation.
The most interesting hypothesis (not necessarily valid, of course, but interesting) is the 'have your cake and eat it too' theory mentioned in the Post article. That theory says that it could be both! The work of some new Rightwing Racist Freak - Islamic Terrorist Freak alliance. Or perhaps just some domestic Aryan Nations types acting in sympathy with Al Qaeda goals. Who knows?
Now let's touch on another point: Bob Woodward, the fella who's got a co-byline on the article. I always see Woodward brought in on a byline when the big story gets run even though the other writer has been writing on the subject for weeks or months, really a ton of articles, and clearly has developed all sorts of good sources and expertise. Does Woodward actually bring anything to these articles? Or has he become more like the journalistic equivalent of a DC rainmaker? The mover and shaker who gets brought in at the last minute to make one phone call, sprinkle some holy water, set up the key lunch date? And most important, does this sort of comment mean I won't get picked up in Howie Kurtz's media column any more?????