If he had an alibi, don't you think that person would have come forward by now?

First of all, the speculation that Ivins has an alibi for the evening of Sept 17, 2001 is driven by the leak that the FBI was looking at his administrative leave during that day as the time-window for him to have gone to Princeton, and the window is limited by 4-5PM when he had an appointment in Frederick with someone. Why doesn't the FBI think he went later that evening to Princeton? We're only drawing an inference from a leak, and that is highly speculative.

But if Ivins had an alibi, and the person(s) involved in it have connected the dots, they realize that the FBI unscrupulously destroyed Ivins (after Hatfill) and they will certainly hesitate to cross the FBI. And why should they come forward? It will not result in the FBI finding the culprit(s), it will only result in some third person being subjected to the same thing. Or it will result in the FBI naming them as a conspirator.

If the postbox in Princeton were in some obscure corner then I'd agree it is possible it is not regularly cleared. But it isn't, it is on a major thoroughfare of the town. This is not some rural route.

Second, the FBI itself named the window of opportunity as starting from 5PM on Sept 17, 2001.

Third, I'd like to hear from a **New Jersey** postal worker, not one from Minnesota (yes, work cultures vary across states).

Fourth, we know that the FBI and postal inspectors interviewed the postal workers in October 2001 (news item posted on anthraxinvestigation.com). So their time window is not based on guesswork.

Since the American voter is swayed by the "strong/weak on national security" theme, this is a fault of the nation as a whole.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/18/11055/

or click on signature.

Asks some different questions; and is complimentary to GG:

More recently, Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com has done superb work on the anthrax story. In 2007, he wrote a striking column, “The unresolved story of ABC News’ false Saddam-anthrax reports,” on some crucially bad reporting by Brian Ross and ABC, and he followed up after Ivins’s suicide with a piece, (“Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation,”) that has more unsettling questions about the anthrax case than any other 16 pieces I’ve seen. It’s a must read. Jay Rosen, at his always interesting PressThink blog, took up Greenwald’s challenge to Brian Ross and ABC on its reporting and pressed the point home in two recent posts, here and here.

That this was LEGALLY speaking, and you are all over that international law, a strictly internal matter between the government of Georgia and a civil uprising that resulting in a secessionist state.

I'm out of sympathy for Georgia and for Russia and wish them all to hell; but truthfully, there were Russian peacekeepers attacked by the government of Georgia; the peacekeepers were there as per 1992 treaty, which as far as I know, counts as international law.

If the reporters simply reminded readers on a breaking story, what is presented here is the government's side of the story, and we'll be looking at this in depth over the next N days, that would be a great improvement.

Then just apply a little critical thinking and if nothing else, simply point out the various interests and their spin.

Gorby, in today's NYT makes only the following claims:

Quote:

But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?

...

Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any Russian troops arrived.

-----

Actually, I was thinking what happened to all our vaunted satellite imagery? Surely we know exactly where troops are and what happened to the building in various towns - unless Georgia has been under cloud cover for the past so many days? Why do we have to rely on claims by either side?

“Effective leaders draw people into their cause by creating powerful stories, with clear distinctions between good and evil, hero and villain. Instead of bemoaning the fact that Americans love their entertainment culture, political activists need to borrow Hollywood’s proven methods to structure gripping narratives and compelling communications strategies. Making politics and causes participatory, exciting, and fun is key to sustaining citizen involvement.”

Just wondering - suppose when Congress was busy passing bills to expand NATO upto Russia's border, the news media found a gripping narrative - a plausible what-if story that would lead to Americans having to decide whether to send their sons and daughters to war to defend some obscure place in the Caucausus,

and thereby made a rather dry foreign policy issue come alive?

---

BTW, the above is also key for the Accountability Now PAC.

Look it up, e.g, maps.google.com - it is not a large town.

Anyway, where the damage was:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_georgia_captured_capital.html

Quote:

"The heaviest damage from the recent fighting appeared to be around Tskhinvali's government center. More than a dozen buildings in the area were little more than scorched shells.

Several residential areas seemed to have little damage, except for shattered windows, perhaps from bomb concussions."