... then the extensive photographic record of her between January and May 2008 was.

With all due respect to the author of the article, you may want to do a little research yourself before dismissing the fake pregnancy story out-of-hand. Just sayin...

Palin won the governorship with 48.3% of the vote. She was running against the incumbent who had a 19% approval rating.

Please don't say 80% of Alaska voters put her in office -- that'd be lying. Of course, Palin herself lies so maybe that's the example she's setting. For example, Sarah said on 10/9/2008:

Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.

With a few exceptions, the media (and the FBI) are still claiming that Dr. Bruce Ivins submitted false anthrax samples designed to mislead investigators. This contributes mightily to the FBI's theory that Ivins was guilty of preparing the anthrax and mailing the letters containing that anthrax. But who is really misleading who?

In February 2002 the FBI asked for anthrax samples from flask RMR-1029 in Bruce Ivins' lab. Ivins prepared two slides; one went to the FBI (they subsequently destroyed it) and the backup sample went to scientist Paul Keim in New Mexico. These samples were smears--a representation of the entire set of cultures in the flask. After destroying the first sample, the FBI asked Ivins for another sample, which he provided early in April based on verbal instructions, in advance of receiving the subpoena in May 2002 that contained written details on the required sample preparation protocol. The sample Ivins provided this (second) time was a pure culture sample instead of a smear. Remember, he had already provided a smear sample.

The FBI now says the first sample was prepared in such a way that it would make for poor evidence in court, so they threw it away. The FBI also now says the second sample was false, that is, not from the RMR-1029 flask, because it did not contain the newly discovered genetic markers unique to the anthrax used in the attacks. With all their technological advancements of late, they still seem unable to tell the difference between a pure vs a smear sample.

The innocent explanation for the mismatching samples is that the second sample was a pure sample from the single dominant culture in this flask of mixed cultures. Of course it didn't match the initial smear sample from the contents in flask RMR-1029.

Years later the FBI remembered there was a backup of the original smear sample, which they went and got from Keim. Surprise, surprise, it had the genetic markers -- and it is exactly what Ivins gave them in the first place. It is exactly what they threw out. And now they are blaming Ivins for having misled them.

It should be obvious how ridiculous this "proof of guilt" is. It looks to me like Ivins was doing his best to help the FBI, who threw out his first sample and miscommunicated what they wanted for the second sample. So, who is really misleading who?

(The above is partially paraphrased from my blog post of today linked in my signature.)

The Government (via the FBI) has held two press conferences that I know about -- the first, concurrent with Bruce Ivins' funeral, also concurrent with the initial document dump, was held on August 8, 2008. The second, a 'press briefing,' was held on August 18.

I can find almost nothing in print about the August 18 briefing yet. As far as I know, it was not announced to the general public. Does anyone know where I might view a recording, or get a transcript?

I can't find a transcript and the audio is not yet ready on NPR's site, but All Things Considered just ran a story in their second hour highlighting two critical "proofs" in support of the FBI's case against Ivins that apparently were given during a briefing held for journalists today.

The only problem is, by my reading, both these "proofs" are false.

Proof #1: Ivins provided false samples to the FBI in an effort to mislead them, early on in the investigation.

Proof #2: The anthrax used in the letters was easy to make, in fact the FBI duplicated it, and the equipment in the USAMRIID labs contained everything necessary.

As for #1, NPR's own site has the transcript of an interview with Paul Kemp that dispels the myth of Ivins' attempt to mislead investigators. Yet Scott Simon, the NPR interviewer, doesn't question the obvious contradictions.

As for #2, the last I heard was the FBI had totally failed to reverse-engineer the "weaponized" anthrax found in the Daschle/Leahy letters, so they are now saying they have? Then, several scientists at USAMRIID stated unequivocally that they'd never seen a product like it, and added that nobody there had the knowledge or equipment to make it in any case. Other sources spoke of the purity, fineness, and coating of this anthrax as well --

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxterrormystery.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907EEDB173EF934A25753C1A9679C8B63

among others.

Link to the skeleton of the NPR on-air report here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93710969