I like Biden and have always stated that I would support him as a POTUS candidate, in fact I think that in many respects Biden is one of the smartest people in the Senate.

I think McCain trashing Biden will alienate moderates.

This is really an interesting development, vote traditionally independent and conservative ticket and get a neocon instead? Support USNA grads and that traditional vote and get another administration that trampled civil rights?

Or go with your gut to Obama-Biden?

I swore never to send another cent after what club for growth did in the MD congressional 1st.

I can say this, Biden is probably the most qualified candidate for the VP spot and the ad should be by McCain, I wish he were on my ticket as VP.

You start the mud machine on Joe you will alienate Delmarva and their sensibilities.

Posted at August 23, 2008 7:29 AM in response to New McCain Ad Hits Biden, Airs Footage Of Him Saying He'd Run With McCain

I think that Senators receiving letters with bio weapons enclosed in them deserves a more thorough explanation than what has been put forth, especially if it was sent from the military stockpiles.

This is something that happens in unstable countries, like regimes that are in constant overthrough like Pakistan, petty regimes in South America and Africa.

This speaks poorly of the worlds largest democracy.

Posted at August 19, 2008 7:41 AM in response to FBI Agrees To Release More Details From Anthrax Probe, Backpedals On Key Elements

Pardon me but I do this to keep the news "sticky" on the internet. TPM is a top-tier site and will archive the content which is an important issue.

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/special-repor-2.html

Special Report:
Ivins Anthrax Case Another Black Eye for Network News

While cable news dutifully devotes nonstop coverage to the latest random criminal cases -- kidnappings, shootouts, murderous love triangles, car chases -- it's telling when a supposed break in one of the biggest manhunts in FBI history, for a terrorist who murdered and poisoned multiple American citizens with anthrax, takes a backseat to nearly every other story. That is, if it's mentioned at all.

Even as details, leaks and a burgeoning list of questions bubbled to the surface last week, demanding serious scrutiny, the big three broadcast networks were equally blasé. Some nights skipping mention of the unfolding story altogether, as did last Tuesday's editions of CBS Evening News and ABC World News (though both that evening reported the eminently newsworthy story of a thrill-seeking English couple who married while being strapped outside separate airplanes). On the same night, Brian Williams afforded 39 precious seconds to the anthrax investigation on NBC Nightly News.

In covering one of the most historic criminal investigations in our nation's history, the worst bioterrorism attack on U.S. soil, the overall tenor and quality of network reporting (as well as much of the work in mainstream print media) has been nothing short of disgraceful. A dearth of circumspection and paucity of competent investigative work that mirrors the most feckless moments of the last eight years. This coverage, delivered in an Orwellian bubble world where our brazenly criminal administration still earns the benefit of the doubt, is all the more indefensible when you factor in the reality this is a Bush administration investigation, one which had already dragged on for almost seven years, during which time the government was forced to cough up nearly $6 million to settle with a previously wrongly accused man whose reputation and personal life it had destroyed.

As the story unraveled, coverage almost invariably failed to not only address questions that would be obvious to fictional adolescent sleuths Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys but also showcased a breathless zeal to help the Department of Justice prosecute Ivins through unfiltered and uncorroborated leaks -- from accusations of "therapist" Jean Duley (Ivins was a homicidal killer who threatened her life and planned to kill all of his colleagues in a final "blaze of glory"), a woman known to have a fairly lengthy police record (news that failed to reach national mainstream outlets until the day the FBI/DOJ publicly aired their case, before disappearing again; plus, to my knowledge, Duley's police record has yet to receive network airtime), whose depth of experience appeared at least suspect (she was still attending Hood College as of last year and, while various media reports called her a "psychiatrist," "psychologist" or "social worker," it turns out Duley is actually an "addictions counselor") and whose affidavit, including the misspelling "theripist" and manic, haphazard penmanship, appears as if it were written by either a second grader or an unstable adult (investigative journalist Larisa Alexandrovna has more on Duley); to a leak last Monday courtesy of the Associated Press -- quickly largely debunked by an update of the same article and then further dispelled by a New York Times piece Tuesday -- which claimed, around the time of the anthrax attacks, Ivins had been visiting and harassing members of a Princeton University sorority located near one of the mailboxes used to send the envelopes; to another leak portraying him as both a porn-obsessed sicko because he received adult videos to a P.O. box and a raging alcoholic who, nonetheless, managed to retain his security clearance to work with some of the most lethal substances on the planet.

While ABC World News ignored the case on Tuesday's August 5 broadcast, its previous night's coverage proved no report might be preferable to a poor one. A segment called "A Closer Look" (video of this segment online included the headline "Closing the Anthrax Case") focused on the break in the anthrax investigation. It's a piece of journalism that might be described as anti-investigative work. As the online headline suggested -- with exception to a one-sentence quote from New Jersey Representative Rush Holt ("After seven years of blind alleys and false accusations, we have to ask, well, has the FBI once again let their zeal replace evidence") -- this "closer look" was nothing more than a stenographic replay of the FBI's storyline, including those damning quotes from Ms. Duley, a present wrapped in a bow to the FBI, the Department of Justice and the Bush administration. But a grave disservice to journalism, victims of the anthrax attacks, the American people and, quite possibly, the Ivins family. There was nothing remotely closer about this look.

Then there's those 39 seconds NBC Nightly News dedicated to the Ivins' case the following evening. Another example of a report imparting more heat than light, complete with an exclusive leak to NBC News from the Justice Department, seamlessly delivered by Brian Williams:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Federal officials are telling our justice correspondent, Pete Williams, they will reveal a possible motive tomorrow as to why they believe Dr. Bruce Ivins, the former Ft. Detrick bioweapons expert, sent the anthrax letters, including the one here to NBC. They say he felt badly stung by the criticism that the anthrax vaccine he helped develop for the armed forces back in the first Gulf War could've contributed to what's now know as Gulf War Syndrome. He may have sent the deadly letters, they believe, to generate renewed interest in anthrax as a threat which would cause demand for an approved vaccine, one that he later, by the way, worked on.

Neither Brian Williams nor his justice correspondent posed any questions regarding this fresh allegation. Failing to demand evidence supporting this new leak or to question its legitimacy before passing it on to millions of viewers and the rest of the media, the dynamic Williams duo acted not as responsible journalists who either considered or cared that government officials might be using them -- something any competent and ethical journalist must be on guard against in such situations -- but as willing mouthpieces, blithely abdicating their role as members of the Fourth Estate, no more circumspect than White House spokespeople.

Even New York Times journalist Scott Shane, one of the more reliable reporters covering this case, had an odd appearance when he visited PBS' NewsHour on Monday's August 4 broadcast. (Yet it was arguably as much or more the fault of NewHour senior correspondent Margaret Warner.) Earlier in the day, Shane published a Times article with the headline "Anthrax Evidence Is Said to Be Circumstantial" (later edited online to "Anthrax Evidence Called Mostly Circumstantial"), in which he reported in the opening paragraph "a person who has been briefed on the investigation said on Sunday" that "evidence amassed by F.B.I. investigators against Dr. Bruce E. Ivins....was largely circumstantial." But somehow in a lengthy discussion with Shane, neither he nor Warner raised this highly relevant point, each with ample opportunity to do so.

While possible, it seems unlikely on the same day Shane writes a major article around this finding -- the case being brought against Ivins will be predominantly circumstantial -- that it would later, on the very same day, completely slip his mind. What's more, as regular newscast segments go, Warner conducted a pretty extensive interview. So even if, for the sake of argument, Warner failed to do her homework prior to the interview and missed Shane's article (more believable), one would still expect Shane to point out the case's top-heavy circumstantial nature, if not immediately, then at some time during the discussion. Did NewsHour censor Shane? Did they agree beforehand not to mention that, by Sunday August 3, the case against Ivins was already believed -- by a very credible source close to the investigation -- to be built upon "largely" or "mostly" circumstantial evidence? It's certainly a curious omission, one that, intentionally or not, helped to buy the government more time to leak negative information about Ivins before playing its hand on Wednesday.

As it turned out, when the Justice Department held its big press conference two days later, it confirmed Shane's Monday scoop had been correct. If anything, the report's characterization of the evidence seeming "mostly" or "largely" circumstantial turned out to be generous. The case against Ivins appears, thus far, completely circumstantial: they couldn't tie him directly to the anthrax envelopes, prove he made the trip to Princeton around the time the envelopes were mailed, detect the type of anthrax mailed on his body or in his home or car, present any eyewitness accounts putting Ivins in his lab on those nights in late September and early October, or confirm many other colleagues hadn't used the same flask that federal prosecutors call "effectively the murder weapon."

Following this far from airtight presentation, journalism professor and author Ted Gup wrote in the Washington Post:

Such evidence, even when seemingly overwhelming and conclusive, is the very sort of circumstantial argument that pegged Richard Jewell as the Atlanta bomber, that linked Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield to the Madrid bombings, that fingered Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee as a spy, and that cast biodefense expert Steven Hatfill as the original anthrax suspect. In each of those investigations, the news media were largely complicit, conveying incriminating details of the government's case as if they were the gospel.

And yet, in each of those cases, the government was wrong -- shaking public confidence even as it eroded individual civil liberties, produced groundless prosecutions and diverted precious time and resources in pursuit of bogus cases. [...]

In June, the government agreed to a settlement with Hatfill valued at $5.8 million. Neither it nor the press, which was only too eager to link arms with the Justice Department in carrying the stories that stripped Hatfill of everything he had, has offered an apology or conceded wrongdoing.

Against this background, who could be blamed for imagining that an innocent Ivins was hounded to his death? Can we discount the accounts that suggest the government repeatedly harassed Ivins's family, offering his son a reward and sports car if he would turn his father in?

Gup went on to say:

To their credit, in reporting the Ivins's case, the media now appear somewhat chastened and more inquisitive than inquisitorial. It may well be that, absent a trial, it will fall to reporters to aggressively test the solidity of the case against Ivins. Perhaps they can restore a measure of credibility to their profession and to the government.

Hopefully he was not holding his breath.

If you turned on CNN and MSNBC the day after Wednesday's FBI/DOJ presentation, you would've found no mention of the Ivins' case. Paris Hilton's scantily clad political spoof? Yes. A child kidnapping ring? You bet. Bret Favre's trade to the NY Jets? Touchdown. Questions about a case involving the worst bioterrorism attack in U.S. history? Nothing.

On the same Thursday afternoon, a look at their websites found the Ivins case only made MSNBC's "Other Top Stories," coming in fourth behind -- you guessed it -- Bret Favre's trade to the NY Jets. Of CNN's 18 top stories, the Ivins case was absent -- of course, Favre's trade is there, as is "Did Caylee's mom pose as mystery sitter?", "Owners cuddle, dress pets...then fry them," "Paris did ad in 4 takes -- from memory!", "McCain, Obama agree on 'Dark Knight'," and "Lawyer: Morgan Freeman, wife divorcing."

And while ABC, CBS and NBC national nightly newscasts covered the DOJ's case against Ivins on Wednesday, they hardly appeared "chastened" or felt compelled to "restore a measure of credibility to their profession."

In the CBS Evening News report, introduced with a graphic of a Justice Department file opened to an illustrated report titled "Anthrax Case CLOSED," anchor Katie Couric and justice correspondent Bob Orr repeated the pattern of laying out the government's case with little or no questioning of the quality of evidence provided.

Orr framed his segment, saying, "Newly released FBI evidence makes a strong circumstantial case that bioweapons researcher Ivins was a delusional sociopath who had the opportunity, motive and means to be the 2001 anthrax killer." Interspersed with U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor's comments from the press conference, Orr's performance is closer to a co-prosecutor on the DOJ's behalf than as a journalist assessing the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence, including the flask on which the alleged matching anthrax spores were found: "The most damning evidence," asserted Orr, "a flask of anthrax spores recovered in 2004 from Ivins' personal workspace at Ft. Detrick, the Army weapons lab where he worked."

Yet he failed to mention the gaping hole in this "most damning evidence": it was already known by then that many of Ivins' colleagues also had access to the same flask. Moreover, on the day of the FBI/DOJ's press conference, Paul Kemp, Ivins' attorney, told the media that the number of people with access to it was far greater than previously reported -- not 10 or 20 or 30 people but hundreds. The government soon admitted, by its own count, that more than 100 people could've used the flask.

Orr similarly treated other weak strands of the DOJ's circumstantial evidence, including the alleged "striking" likeness between the threatening letter sent with the anthrax envelopes and the email Ivins wrote to a friend. Orr called Ivins' email "chilling." But Ivins' words aren't chilling. Nearly everyone in the Bush administration and in the GOP-led Congress, as well as many in the media, often made similar post-9/11 comments. Rather, it's what Ivins believed Osama Bin Laden might do ("...Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas..." based on what Bin Laden had said ("...he [Bin Laden] just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans") that might instill fear. Without further proof, it's a specious piece of semantic contortion and misappropriation that crumbles under scrutiny.

Moreover, Orr omitted the obvious: Where's the handwriting analysis? And if one was performed, why aren't the results being presented to us?

After Orr's de facto co-prosecution, he ended his report with what should've been his lede:

ORR: While the FBI believes it's now solved the case, the evidence does not directly connect Ivins to the anthrax letters and does not directly tie him to the New Jersey postbox where they were sent out. But with the suspect now dead, the government will never have to prove that case in court.

Which is exactly why Ted Gup noted in his WaPo op-ed, "It may well be that, absent a trial, it will fall to reporters to aggressively test the solidity of the case against Ivins." Imagine how Professor Gup would grade Orr, Couric and CBS for this report.

NBC Nightly News justice correspondent Pete Williams' framed his report somewhat more responsibly, noting upfront, "But this is a circumstantial case with no absolute proof that he did it." Yet he prefaced this comment with an FBI assertion that, according to the evidence presented, is false on its face: "Amy, the FBI says it can trace the anthrax used in the attacks directly to Dr. Ivins and it says he repeatedly tried to mislead investigators." Whether or not he misled investigators (unproven as well in the evidence proffered), again, the flask sitting in Ivins' workspace in a shared lab three years later, to which so many colleagues had access -- including former employees, like Philip Zack, who were no longer employed at Ft. Detrick when they frequented the lab and worked on unsanctioned, unknown projects -- does not "directly" link Ivins to the anthrax used in the attacks. Like CBS' Orr, Justice Correspondent Williams then proceeded to state the other main points of the Justice Department's case without question.

Inclusion of a statement from Ivins' lawyer was the only substantive difference in this report: "Tonight, a lawyer for Dr. Ivins says the FBI never found anthrax in his house or in his car or anything else directly linking him to the mailings." But Pete Williams, presumably an expert in covering federal criminal cases, offered no educated assessments of his own on the government's evidence. As with Orr, Williams did little more than parrot the FBI/DOJ presentation, in a segment edited in such a way that only added coherence and credibility to the government's case. Similar to Orr as well (and Couric's "Anthrax Case CLOSED" opening graphic) he also punctuated his report with an air of futility and premature closure: "And without a trial, we'll never hear what Dr. Ivins would've said in his own defense."

Essentially identical to Orr's and Williams' reports was justice correspondent Pierre Thomas' segment on the FBI/DOJ's presentation for ABC World News, another reiteration of the evidence edited in a such a way as to lend more heft and seamlessness to the government's case while omitting obvious disconnects and holes.

To its credit, however (if we were grading on effort and not execution), World News then followed this segment with another titled "Anthrax Investigation Debunked," in which Gibson spoke with legal correspondent Jan Crawford-Greenberg:

CHARLES GIBSON: Well, with Ivins' death, this case will actually never go into a court of law. But would all that evidence have stood up in court? Our legal correspondent, Jan Crawford Greenburg, is joining us from Washington. And Jan, I know you've seen the evidence. I want to read you part of a statement that came from lawyers today. They said what the FBI presented with that evidence was all heaps of innuendo, contorted to create the illusion of guilt. How conclusive was it?

JAN CRAWFORD-GREENBERG: Well, Charlie, certainly, there was enough evidence to get an indictment from a grand jury, as Pierre just reported. You know, we saw that he had control over that [sic] anthrax spores, had been linked to a flask in his lab through all of that scientific - that new scientific testing. That we saw his behavior growing increasingly erratic. And of course, he even tried to mislead investigators to say another researcher had control over that anthrax. But this was not an open or shut case by any means. Defense lawyers would have had a lot work with. For example, there was no DNA, actual DNA, linking Ivins to the anthrax on those letters, his own DNA on those letters. You know and then even when you look at the scientific evidence in that flask, the anthrax spores that were in that flask, Charlie, a lot of researchers in that lab also had access to it.

Yet, once again, there's no direct evidence Ivins "had control" over those specific anthrax spores or that he solely "had been linked" to that flask in his lab. Quite the opposite. In fact, Crawford-Greenberg went on to contradict the strength of this evidence and her own act of inflating its worth by subsequently noting "even when you look at the scientific evidence in that flask, the anthrax spores that were in that flask, Charlie, a lot of researchers in that lab also had access to it."

Gibson then posed a question that can't be asked too much, but his legal correspondent's response could've come straight from the FBI or DOJ:

CHARLES GIBSON: So it might have been a dicey case for the FBI and for prosecutors in court. But whether or not he could have been convicted, this was obviously a rather quirky fellow. What was he doing dealing with deadly toxins?

JAN CRAWFORD-GREENBERG: Well, Charlie, this was someone who had worked in this lab nearly 30 years. He was highly respected, highly regarded by his colleagues. It was only in the later years that his behavior became more erratic. Now we saw some congressmen today calling for more screenings of scientists who handle these dangerous drugs, but there's no indication that that would have picked up any of his erratic behavior at all.

With so much of the government's circumstantial evidence resting on Ivins' alleged ever-deteriorating mental state, purportedly going back at least as far as July 2000 and maybe even to his undergraduate college days, it's hard to believe his colleagues and supervisors (not to mention to his friends and family) would've remained so oblivious or unconcerned about such a chronic basket case, specifically one whose job entails handling substances that could potentially unlock a genocidal Pandora's Box. Moreover, according to the case against him, "his behavior became more erratic" seven years before they revoked his security clearance.

Maybe World News deserves some credit for actually attempting to give this evidence "a closer look" this time. Or maybe it intended to only appear as if it were doing so. Regardless, Crawford-Greenberg's responses did more to muddle the government's evidence against Ivins than it did to present viewers with a clear and candid legal assessment.

Compare Gibson and Crawford-Greenberg's discussion to MSNBC's Countdown segment aired on the same night, in which investigative journalist Gerald Posner, speaking with host Keith Olbermann, exposed many aspects of the government's case without mincing words or glossing over its discrepancies and disconnects.

OLBERMANN: The flask of anthrax with identical spores, ostensibly, their strongest piece of evidence. What do you make of this?

POSNER: That's what they make it sound like, but it's not. Let me tell you, the late public hears this, they think that's the evidence. Those are the spores that got people sick, sent out from the envelopes, not true. That was liquid anthrax in that flask.

Even if the FBI can tie it to that flask, they can't explain how it was then made into this extremely sophisticated type of weapon with small milligramage with electric charges to it, with polyglass on top of the coating, all to go deep inside the lungs, to spray into the air. This was weaponized, military anthrax. They cannot explain how it went from that glass flask in a liquid form into the form that was sent out in the envelopes. That they don't have the evidence on.

OLBERMANN: What, if anything they presented today, is the strongest evidence? What do they got going for them?

POSNER: Well, they threw out this machine, what they called the lyopholizer, they say that can make wet anthrax into dry anthrax, but I talked to six different microbiologists today and people involved formerly in weapons programs in the United States and in Russia, who say that the machine that the FBI talks about can't do that. [What a novel journalistic technique -- speaking with other experts to confirm the credibility of the government's case.]

The strongest evidence they have going for them is also their Achilles' heel and that's his psychological profile. That fact that he's very unstable, that he was someone who was an alcoholic, that he might wanted to have the vaccine continue to go along, but that's also the fact that he could have been set up as a cutout, a patsy, or used by a group of people who wanted the anthrax out there.

They also knew about his weak psychological profile. How was he employed with the most secret biological warfare lab in the United States with this type of background that we now hear about that they should have known about from day one? The Defense Department should hang its head in shame.

OLBERMANN: Right. Thirty-five years of murderous intent and nobody knew about it, and they let him in to the germ warfare lab. As to motive, they mentioned it but almost as if it were in passing. Is that a weak part of the case? Do they offer anything that made any sense?

POSNER: Boy, I'll tell you, I thought it was a weak part of the case. I listened to the press conference today and then sort of at the end as though they thought they had to throw something out, they said, “Oh, by the way, let's give you the reasons to why we think he sent out and went on this homicidal rage.”

And the motive they said was, “Well, he helped develop a vaccine for anthrax, he probably wanted to continue to see that developed so that by killing people, by having come up with some unknown way of this high military grade anthrax. We would keep the vaccine program going.”

That was pretty weak, and, you know, I thought they just literally were fishing. They don't have a good motive, unfortunately, for them and their prosecution. But as you said in the lead into this, they don't need to because the primary suspect, the only suspect, is dead. They're going to close this case.

OLBERMANN: But the declaration that he is the only, it's not just a question of proving a dead man did this or was part of this, but the insistence is he did by himself, the lone, mad scientist thing. Did they get anywhere near confirming that?

POSNER: No. As a matter of fact, Keith, that's my major problem with this. You know, if you look at it and you say, “He‘s involved, he‘s got a role in it, he‘s done something.” That, the evidence, I'm waiting to see that and they may nail that down. But I spoke to enough experts in the last few days who have convinced me, who know how this process works, that these spores that were sent out, were not the work of one lone scientist and that, I believe, is the case.

Nevertheless, this story disappeared from network news studios by the following morning. No mention on TV Thursday on CNN or MSNBC, nor on NBC, CBS or ABC's national nightly newscasts. Nor did it warrant any further network coverage Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

Dr. Bruce Ivins is dead. He may have been the anthrax killer and acted alone. He may have acted with others. (Based on the known evidence, both of these two scenarios seem less likely with each passing day.) He may have just been a convenient fall guy. (As Gerry Andrews, microbiologist and former longtime colleague of Ivins, wrote in a New York Times editorial yesterday: "After the anthrax attack, Dr. Ivins himself worked directly with the evidence. The F.B.I. asked Dr. Ivins to help them with the forensics in the case by analyzing the contents of suspicious letters. And he did so for years, until the authorities began to suspect that the anthrax spores used in the mailings might have originated from his lab. [Awfully convenient, no?] Dr. Ivins, for instance, was asked to analyze the anthrax envelope that was sent to Mr. Daschle’s office on Oct. 9, 2001. When his team analyzed the powder, they found it to be a startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparation, the likes of which had never been seen before by personnel at Fort Detrick.") The person or persons who murdered and poisoned Americans with those anthrax letters may even have framed him. The FBI may have also driven Ivins to take his own life after relentlessly hounding him and his family for a crime he never committed.

But the FBI and DOJ wanted this case closed. Now. And in one of the most important criminal investigations in our nation's history, for the deadliest bioterrorism attack on U.S. soil -- which our government, with help from Brian Ross and ABC News' curiously sourced false reporting, initially used to build support for invading Iraq -- the networks (Olbermann's Countdown coverage notwithstanding) have thus far refused to substantively question this historically corrupt government's circumstantial case against a dead man who will never have his day in court.

By the way, have you heard that John Edwards cheated on his wife?

Posted at August 14, 2008 9:42 PM in response to FBI Appears To Change Theory In Anthrax Case

I don't have an axe to grind with the DOJ, my worry is that the person who sent these letters is still on the loose.

I know it is poor form to copy wapa so I will chop a few nouns and verbs to do an extract:

Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match
Strands From Mailbox in Princeton Are Not From Ivins, Investigators Say

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 14, 2008; A02

Federal investigators probing the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks recovered samples of human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., but the strands did not match the lead suspect in the case, according to sources briefed on the probe.

FBI agents and U.S. Postal Service inspectors analyzed the data in an effort to place Fort Detrick, Md., scientist Bruce E. Ivins at the mailbox from which bacteria-laden letters were sent to Senate offices and media organizations, the sources said.

The hair sample is one of many pieces of evidence over which researchers continue to puzzle in the case, which ended after Ivins committed suicide July 29 as prosecutors prepared to seek his indictment.

Authorities released sworn statements and search warrants last week at a news conference in which they asserted that Ivins was their sole suspect. But the materials have not dampened speculation about the merits of the investigative findings and the government's aggressive pursuit of Ivins, a 62-year-old anthrax vaccine researcher. Conspiracy theories have flourished since the 2001 attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17 others.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it will call FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to appear at an oversight hearing Sept. 17, when he is likely to be asked about the strength of the government's case against Ivins. A spokeswoman for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a vocal FBI critic, said he would demand more information about how authorities narrowed their search.

The House Judiciary panel, meanwhile, is negotiating to hold a separate oversight hearing in September with bureau officials, in a session that could mark the first public occasion in which Mueller faces questions about the FBI's handling of the anthrax case.

Friends and former colleagues of Ivins, who died before he could see the full array of evidence prosecutors had gathered, continue to demand information about the DNA advances that authorities say led them to a flask in Ivins's lab.

Defense lawyer Paul F. Kemp yesterday said he wonders "where Ivins could have possibly stored this anthrax without any employees seeing it, or if he took it home, why there was no trace" of the deadly spores, despite repeated FBI searches over the past two years of Ivins's car, his work locker, a safe-deposit box and his house.

Meanwhile, government sources offered more detail about Ivins's movements on a critical day in the case: when letters were dropped into the postal box on Princeton's Nassau Street, across the street from the university campus.

Investigators now believe that Ivins waited until evening to make the drive to Princeton on Sept. 17, 2001. He showed up at work that day and stayed briefly, then took several hours of administrative leave from the lab, according to partial work logs. Based on information from receipts and interviews, authorities say Ivins filled up his car's gas tank, attended a meeting outside of the office in the late afternoon, and returned to the lab for a few minutes that evening before moving off the radar screen and presumably driving overnight to Princeton. The letters were postmarked Sept. 18.

Nearly seven years after the incidents, however, investigators have come up dry in their efforts to find direct evidence to place Ivins at the Nassau Street mailbox in September and October 2001.

While the editorial is still lame at times at WAPO we still read it in the loop~~

At least they reported the news which ABC has refused to do.

Posted at August 14, 2008 9:33 PM in response to FBI Appears To Change Theory In Anthrax Case

Interesting Kaplan admits being wrong on Iraq, called this one right.

His call to cut consumption of oil is correct.

He is starting to get what Woolsey has been saying for quite some time, I incidently joined Pickens Plan today.

Posted at August 12, 2008 10:16 PM in response to Kaplan Makes Sense on Georgia

If you look at the events preceeding this conflict, this has been brewing for some time. Was this Charlie Wislon's war? No. I saw only today video of Georgian soldier's with surface to air shoulder held weapons and law/rpg's on their backs.

The Neocons have been so dilligently documented that the assumption is that there was a deception behind this recent event as well.

Candidly this ranks up there with Olmert's invasion of Lebanon, a military action taken with results agreed from a military standpoint where the act was foolish in hindsight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian-Ossetian_conflict

I would say that it seems that the reaction by the Soviets was "punitive" and excessive. A debacle when they bombed Dutch newsmen. Of course the GOP took this as a talking points, but all in all, at the end of the day, the Georgians took an initial beating and now are in a position to hand a pyrrhic victory to Russia if it persists.

But Georgia took a beating as well, was this orchestrated?

I don't think so.

Ossetia will start badgering Russia about independence and become a new Cuba or N. Korea.

A hole to pour aide dollars down, and Georgia will reap aid as well.

To the best of my thinking, I think that unless there was a "mouse that roared" strategy involved, that this situation just bubble over.

The Neocons caught the religion of international law, etc.. this has been interesting to watch, but at a stalemeate with Russia accruing the PR damage and Georgia a miltary black eye.

Neither side better off for the endeavour and I bet that Poland and Ukraine buy some SAM LAW RPG equipmemt as well.

I see this as a stalemate and the ruins of these cities terrain to launch attacks from similar to the tactics used in lebanon

Posted at August 12, 2008 8:01 PM in response to Georgia: What happened in the lines of communication?

You know as a consequence of the FBI asssertions of the mental state of their suspect, we have a hegalian reaction where lawmakers want to revisit vetting and credentialing procedures.

The point is this, you cannot vet all people with bio-backgrounds, I mean if you believe the assertion that the attacks were carried out by one man, then why can't other loan wolfs reproduce the results?

Second the review that is suggested leads to an atmosphere where workers will be discouraged to seek help, if there is a subsatnce abuse issue (alcohol), or an issue where there is a divorce and allegations are made by a spouse, (where counseling is sought), where teens make an employee's life hell, (insanity is genetic, you get it from the kids), or where there is also real-world issues where mental health is an issue.

I don't think discouraging people who were hired due to their expertise in biology should be sub sequentially discouraged from seeking mental health care by a qualified doctor.

I don't see how this fear of seeking medical health care will make America safer.

If anything I think it will lead to making the circumstances worse.

While people who hear voices are not candidates for hire in sensitive positions, nonetheless going on a witchhunt for people who are utilizing mental health care, as a consequence of a circumstantial case as described by the FBI, will not increase security, it will in fact be counter productive.

I think hearings around the manner in which the FBI conducted the investigation, along with the procedures associated with handling materials, chain of custody, video of work; etc, is going to add more to security than scapegoating the adjudication policy of disclosing and seeking mental health which it seems that the employee did with his seeking counseling.

Again, discouraging employees seeking mental health care will not improve security.

Posted at August 12, 2008 11:28 AM in response to The Daily Muck

I would hope that the IG would be asked to look into this as well...

Don't get me started askin questions...

The circumstantial case against Irvins given what we know, frightens me that there could be any claim that this is "case closed."

Putting aside the appeal to the circus readers.. why was a crazy man allowed to work there, etc.. based on "facts" I find the FBI case lame at best.

From a vetting standpoint if the person admits and follows physician care, then mental health is not adjudicated against, NOR should it be.. that is not an indicator of disloyalty.

I think in retrospect even the hard science will eventually have the FBI asking again... whodunnit as they offer another settlement to the family of the dead scientist that committed suicide.

Posted at August 11, 2008 9:22 PM in response to Scientsts Continue To Question Anthrax Investigation And Case Against Bruce Ivins

Monday, Mar. 02, 1998
Catching a 48-Hour Bug
By TAMALA M. EDWARDS

The talk of anthrax had been in the air for days as America focused on Saddam Hussein and his germ-making factories: of how quickly the bacteria could kill, how widely the havoc could spread, how easily the deadly spores could be obtained. And the nightmare seemed to materialize on American soil last week after the FBI arrested two men at a medical complex in Henderson, Nev. In their possession were eight to 10 flight bags containing what federal agents believed to be anthrax. More troubling was the fact that one of the men was Larry Wayne Harris, a self-styled microbiologist with white supremacist sympathies who, after an arrest in 1995 in connection with the possession of three vials of bubonic-plague bacteria, had been under a federal probation order forbidding his "conducting any experiments with or obtaining any infectious diseases, bacteria, or germs." The criminal complaint that cited the prohibition also noted that Harris had told an unidentified group last summer that he planned to release bubonic-plague germs at a New York City subway station. Tabloids in Manhattan promptly blared headlines like SUBWAY PLAGUE TERROR and FEDS NAB 2 IN TOXIC TERROR.

The trouble was that the other man arrested was William Leavitt Jr., an unlikely biowarfare blackguard. The father of three owns biomedical labs in Nevada and Germany, but was known mostly for his quiet ways, civic and business responsibility and devout Mormon life-style. Indeed, he appeared confused by the entire incident. Asked at his arraignment if he understood the charges being brought against him, he said, "Not exactly." Leavitt's lawyers said their client and Harris did not possess anthrax but were instead carrying anthrax vaccine and were testing a device that would neutralize bacterial toxins in the human body, exactly the kind of gadget a country on the verge of war with anthrax-oversupplied Iraq would be happy to develop. One of Leavitt's lawyers charged that the FBI's informant, from whom Harris and Leavitt would have bought the bacteria-neutralizing device, was a scam artist with two convictions for extortion. On Saturday the FBI said that the anthrax found was a nonlethal form used in animal vaccine. Possession of bacteria, even anthrax, is not illegal if criminal intent cannot be proved. Leavitt was released on Saturday.

Harris, who is under probation specifically over bacteria, may remain under scrutiny. A New York City tabloid called him a "mad scientist." And, if all this had been a movie, Harris might well have been sent by central casting. The 46-year-old has a full beard and a spastic eye. Then there is his home in Lancaster, Ohio. The first thing you notice when you enter Harris' world is the smell, the stench of numerous cats and dogs in a cramped bungalow. This is laced with the subtler scent of a basement filled with dried foods, stockpiled for the aftermath of the coming race war. Enter Harris' bedroom and you will find lab equipment and a refrigerator, from which Harris pulls a sample of a growth medium for cultivating biological weapons. Talking of biologically induced mass death, he nonchalantly remarked to CNN producer Henry Schuster, "A terrorist would need very little of this."

In the visit by CNN, Harris noted that "you could lose 200,000 plus in [a biological] attack"--something he labeled an inevitability. "That is merely prelude to what is gonna happen." Published reports last week had him traveling America inoculating people against anthrax. But he has a clear taste for celebrity and overblown rhetoric that worries even right-wing militiamen who see doomsday eye to eye with him. John Trochman warned members of his Montana Militia against Harris in a May 1997 newsletter and requested that he be expelled from a survivalist expo for "exhibiting weapons of mass destruction." "The lure for the terrorist is anonymity," says Brian Levin, director of the Center on Hate and Extremism at New Jersey's Stockton College. "It is counterintuitive to be a celebrity of right-wing warfare. I mean, if you were planning a terrorist attack, would you show up on TV?" Just before his arrest, Harris had taped three segments for a local Nevada TV talk show. When ABC recently sought Harris' opinion on anthrax, he told Diane Sawyer, "It's no big deal. Five-gallon container of anthrax spraying over Manhattan; 48 to 72 hours, you're looking at 500,000 people dead."

Harris is the author of a self-published book called Bacteriological Warfare: A Major Threat to North America, which goes into detail about the culturing of biological agents (as well as blueprints for easy-to-make weapons to take out America's power grid), all the while arguing that this knowledge is important if Americans are to protect themselves from such threats. He first made his way onto the federal radar in the 1980s. When Harris was a student at Ohio State, his association with the Aryan Nations, a violent white separatist group, prompted the Secret Service to check him out to be sure he wasn't a threat to George Bush, who was scheduled to visit the campus. When police searched his home in 1995, they found a certificate stating that Harris had risen to the rank of lieutenant in the Aryan Nations.

In 1995 Harris used the letterhead of the food lab that employed him to order $240 worth of bubonic-plague bacteria from the American Type Culture Collection based in Rockville, Md. Alerted by a suspicious ATCC employee who contacted a colleague at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, authorities searched Harris' home and found the three vials of freeze-dried plague in the glove compartment of his car and the man himself full of bizarre excuses. Harris claimed he had ordered the plague as research for his book, which he described as a safety manual inspired partly by an Iraqi woman who told him Saddam Hussein was preparing to release supergerm-carrying rats in the U.S. Harris, however, couldn't be charged with anything stronger than mail and wire fraud. In fact, what the feds wound up doing to Harris was make him a star of sorts. Congressmen used his name in offering antiterrorism bills, and journalists came looking for the odd man who got away with ordering the plague. Now, he is the man to see about anthrax.

--With reporting by Elaine Lafferty/Los Angeles

Posted at August 7, 2008 7:10 PM in response to Scientists Say Many Questions Remain In FBI Anthrax Probe

I mean the most compelling evidence was that he was looking at neeked ladies with blindfolds on. That certainly means he was linked to the attacks. I imagine that Christie Brinkley's ex husband planned 911 and that the whole affair is a nefarious plot by pornographers to hate us for our freedoms.

Ohh I forgot they never actually took this guy to trial.

Well anyway the neeeked woman thing is very very fishy.

Posted at August 7, 2008 7:00 PM in response to Anthrax Scientist's Emails Suggest Paranoia, Mental Problems