"more about these simple minded points - because a truly mainstream production needs simplicity - a certain purity of thought and i think we should put him in charge of the rewrites." -- pieceofcake

In your hack writer dreams, at least keep the facts straight. It is lwm who champions the simple minded idea that the government always stops the horrible things in the end, just like in the movies.

By the way, your name is taken from "Wag the Dog", but the producer always had a story that showed how "this is nothing" and he had overcome much worse situations in the past. So, add that to your act to be closer to the name you took.

By the way, is it your intention to drag down the intelligence level of the thread as lwm wants to do? If not, your writings sure are coincidental.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

A lot of good information is to be found here. I am not so sure anything is "new" to many commenters here, but there is a nice summary in the latest blog post. I had missed the change in leadership of the FBI investigation team in late 2006.

He does a time-line that I find helpful in keeping some of this straight.

piece of cake is taking from my birth - it was a piece of cake to give birth to - moi - and if you found it in wag the dog you didn't understand the simple point of the movie -

So much about intelligence - HAH! -- pieceofcake

Look, I know you teenagers may miss the point of that movie; after all, there were more than one, and it had no chase scenes.

I think the movie "Wag the Dog" is a perfect metaphor for what we see in this situation. We see changing "stories" based on only information fed the news agencies via the feds. We see the network news following false leads on cue. We see the whole "war" fought out in the media even thought the reality of the situation is hidden.

The over riding point of the movie is that the media, and public opinion, can be manipulated in the most unbelievable of ways. It did not take a "conspiracy" to get the CIA on board to "see" the false "war", only self-interest. That is the point.

"You can stick with whatever you want. Respectfully, I find it amazing -- and pretty repugnant -- that so many people are eager to refrain from questioning the Government's claims about who the anthrax attacker is." (Glenn)

I agree. Seems many want to believe their government's explanation on almost anything -- even after 7.5 years of Bush, a man who seemingly would rather lie even if the truth would serve him better.

Why? Are we infested with Republicans posing as liberal/progressive/Democrat/libertarian/whatever?

In a Democracy, if the people really run the government, the people need to know in a transparent manner everything the government does. The people need the truth, or they are the ruled, not the ruler.

... as a creepy, porn-loving drunk suggests that their actual evidence is far from convincing. (GG)

This is the first thing that our government agencies do; they demonize the intended target. This is especially true when they have nothing on the intended target, as in the Case of Iran and perhaps in the case of Ivins.

We see certain commenters here go for the smear and guilt by rumor or association often; so often that it is SOP with them. I wonder why it is allowed in our federal agencies; or by individuals here.

I just browsed a few dozen of pieceofcake's 400+ posts here, and could not find a single factual statement relating to the Bruce Ivins' case -- literally not one. I think it is safe to conclude that a few people here, possibly coordinating their efforts, are trying to disrupt Glenn Greenwald's blog and take our eye off the ball regarding the key issues in the Ivins' case.

-- seanmcbride

Every time you call out lwm; you get hit by pieceofcake. Odd. Can you think of any reason that it might appear so?

(this test is timed)

:-)

You got that right.

By all accounts he was a human. Big difference.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/05/10809/

WASHINGTON - President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.0805 01 1 2

The charge is made in “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism” by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, released today.

Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, his book relates, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later - with the forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam bolstering the U.S. rationale to go into war. [...]

Yes, it is on-topic. It shows that this administration would stop at nothing to sell the war on Saddam, Iraq, and millions of innocent women and children.

So? Then they could have ordered the anthrax attacks. Would it not beat all if it was a black opp and the FBI knew it could not find the "real" criminals all along.