I missed the Steven Hatfill interview on the Today Show last week but after having watched the replay it's evident he's an interesting study. His stare-down of the Justice Dept was impressive. By the way, you'll need to read the accompanying article to get a better picture of what he actually said due to selective editing by NBC of the video, but his answer to Lauer's question about Ivins' guilt was perhaps the most interesting part of the interview, and Hatfill didn't really answer it.He excoriates the government and their lapdogs in the media for propagating the myth he was the killer and calls America a police state, yet let's not forget he's 5 million richer for his troubles--thanks to the government. In the Atlantic interview he admits being friends with high-level intelligence members and also states he always thought al-Qaeda would be found responsible.
So where does that leave us? Well, we know the left is still interested in this because they think it's evidence of Bush setting the table for Iraq or GWoT initiative and are still hoping for a frogmarch one day. But the question is--why would Obama repel an independent investigation?
After all, if there was any culpability on the part of Bush or Cheney it seems odd he wouldn't go there, at least surreptitiously. Perhaps he's generally convinced of Ivins' guilt based on the evidence at hand. Or perhaps he's not completely convinced but doesn't need a war with the FBI right now over this subject with other fish to fry. Or maybe he's afraid of what might come out and how it might affect his narrative. He certainly knows all there is to know on it.
One thing's for sure, unlike other unsolved mysteries this one DOES have mainstream media attention due to the damage they think it might cause the right. Not that they'll get any answers, just sayin.
MORE 4/25/10
Thinking a bit about Hatfill's admission that all during the ordeal he thought AQ was responsible. Isn't such a statement a bit odd considering the government was going after him? And not just any government, but the Bush government? Perhaps the interviewer, had he any presence of mind, might have asked why he would think the Bush government would want to pin a terrorist attack on a lone scientist when 1) he knew he was innocent and 2) they were in the midst of fighting a war on terror all over the place.
Or was it just a throw-away line?
MORE 4/26/10
Something strikes me from the LA Times article linked above regarding the 2.82 million lump sum and 150K annual annuity that Hatfill will be receiving from the government for settling the lawsuit. Here is that something:
The lawsuit was filed in August 2003, but U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton delayed permitting Hatfill's lawyers to question FBI and Justice officials or news reporters for two more years. The government contended that the depositions of agents and FBI leaders could interfere with the investigation.It's interesting that according to the intrepid Ed Lake's Bruce Ivins timeline, 2005 was the year he believes the FBI finally realized they had their man. According to Lake's data, on July 28th, 2005 the FBI first ran surveillance on Ivins' home to look for suspicious activity, and Ivins first realized he would need a lawyer during further interviews. That was almost two years to the date from judge Walton's 2003 order, meaning Hatfill's lawyers were about to be unleashed on the FBI, DoJ and media figures the following month.
4 comments:
There are several issues here. The first issue is that Hatfill suffered the weight of the entire government; it has unlimited resources and it boggles the mind how thoroughly the government can mess with you. Even the most-stable individual can begin to doubt him or herself. In the final analysis, it killed Ken Lay. Had it pushed this man over the edge to suicide, the government would have reacted similarly … lead investigators and prosecutors would be high-fiving one another and they’d become convinced that they were right all along. After all, if he wasn’t guilty of something, why did he commit suicide? It really is disgusting. It doesn’t present us with a very professional picture of those who ‘protect us.’ It is hard to imagine how Hatfill can ever see our government working toward assuring “liberty and justice for all.”
The second issue is that we don’t know who government is. When someone said, “We don’t do that (apologize),” he was right. They’re just a bunch of functionaries; they don’t make policy, and they aren’t responsible for or care about good public relations. Most look at this as if you must be guilty of something, otherwise you wouldn’t have brought this down upon yourself.
The final arrogance is, “Yeah … here’s your damn money, but we didn’t violate any of your stupid rights.” It makes you wonder … where is the Congresses’ concern about government’s treatment of the people? Meanwhile, the real people responsible for the events of 9/11 and its aftermath are making huge money on the lecture circuit and one day may even have a government office named in their honor. Or they’ll become the CEO of Freddie Mac and make a small fortune in just one year. We must wonder if this what our founding fathers had in mind.
Semper Fi
I really think this is the most important unsolved mystery in our time. If Dr. Ivins did it--and the evidence is strong that he likely could have--then it's just a paranoid reaction to a horrible terrorist attack (possibly designed with the noble intention of bringing more light on bioterror preparedness).
If, OTOH, it wasn't Ivins, and it wasn't Hatfill, or any other scientist for that matter, that leaves rather unthinkable culprits. The govt no doubt considered that and decided to create a bogeyman out of Hatfill while they looked deeper into whether terrorists were involved.
The question in my mind is whether Hatfill was a willing participant, and there's no evidence he was, or someone the govt decided to use 'for the greater good'. After seeing the interview and watching his reactions I think it's the latter. In that regard, his 5 million was the apology and that's all one can expect from a bureaucracy, as you say. In a just world, Ashcroft and Bush would have to apologize, maybe even Cheney. Maybe they will hint about such matters in their books.
Interesting. I missed this. So he still thinks Al-Qaeda is responsible. Would love to hear more on that.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
Debbie, I just pulled out those two comments, I really don't know what they mean. Just found it interesting that he thought AQ was to blame--apparently all the way up until Ivins was fingered. But then, when given a chance to talk about Ivins, he was vague. It may mean nothing. Would like to see the uncut version of the NBC interview.
Post a Comment