I can see no reason to do so. Why use fake powder and pull a hoax that there was anthrax when the US government has tons of the stuff? (well, I hope not "tons")

It is like the fools who wanted to claim that the plane that hit the pentagon was really not a plane. That story is an obvious government plant since using all Planes was the MO of the day and slipping in a missile for no good reason would just be stupid.

So, why don't you come up with a reason why the whole anthrax thing would be a hoax; I mean, you don't think Bush was squeamish about about Americans getting hurt do you?

As to the Zeitgeist if the incident, I offer something from that guy Suskind in a 2004 New York Times Magazine article..

"The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” ...

Hey, no argument from me that the administration would "create reality" by scaring the population to death. Many even think we do not know the whole story about what happened on 9-11.

My point is that if they were "creating reality" they would use real anthrax. We have it; and we have intelligence officers that would use it without hesitation. I have no illusions that government operatives give a damn about morality or law. I once worked with a fellow who was an army grunt that was marched out to watch a nuclear test --- he later realized he had been a guinea pig.

I just can't see faux anthrax when so much of the real stuff was being shipped all over the damn country Fedex. Hell, it is sounding like all a third world country needed to do to get in the bio-warfare business was to intercept a few packages! Why have an expensive program?

That is a bunch of documents! I do not envy anyone who needs to wade through that mess in a hurry, but I want you to know I appreciate what you do.

There are many men in prison today convicted by circumstantial evidence, and wrong doing by the prosecution. I hope that you help make sure that the truth is served in this case -- wherever that leads; and that a dead man is not unfairly convicted as this case is tried in the press.

"I'm ignoring cargocult henceforth, belongs in the l.w.m. category." -- macgupta

Jim, he has a point. That "outing" was uncalled for. I would even add a third fellow here who jumped all over the "news".

I appreciate your efforts and I suspect many others do also.

"I'm ignoring cargocult henceforth, belongs in the l.w.m. category." -- macgupta

Jim, he has a point. That "outing" was uncalled for. I would even add a third fellow here who jumped all over the "news".

I appreciate your efforts and I suspect many others do also.

Great point. Thanks for the comment.

The sorter version as I got it: if a man is delusional, he will not know it and therefor would not complain of the delusions in an e-mail.

That televised FBI propaganda attack on the dead Ivins yesterday was straight out of the USSR, and about as convincing. For a realistic view of the situation see attorney-blogger-journalist Glenn Greenwald's analysis.

Sorry Glenn, I mean no insult when I call you a journalist. :-)

I have had the occasion to study the USA justice system for a few articles, and what I saw turned my stomach. The local prosecutor, police, "expert" witnesses and other state goons all lie and think it is all for the best. I bet they sleep well at night after convicting a man of a crime they know they could not convict him of in a fair trial. Prosecutorial misconduct is an interesting thing to research.

Ivans may well have been involved in some way. However, the FBI's case is a mess and full of useless tidbits of circumstantial evidence that they twist to make sound ominous. I hope Salon will keep pounding home the holes in the case; so that we may find out the real culprits. (which may well include Ivins)

But please FBI, stop with the "Ivin the terrible" crap and look at the facts!