We should adopt the British term newsreaders and drop anchor.

It would also do us well to make a distinction between journalists and state puppeted propaganda stenographers, perhaps: newswriters.

Enough with reporters and correspondents who are on assignment. The language alone should be a clue these are mostly mere mimids of journalism, - parroting received info rather than searching for and uncovering truth.

Thank-you Mr. Greenwald.

Subjetas aquila aptat

He verifies the sentiment expressed in the U of MD poll that "some portrayed the American people, like the Muslim people, as victims of the American government."

Read his Rick's blog entries starting May 16, 2008 at:

http://www.ricksteves.com/blog/

(great photos as well)

Main stream 'news' companies' blog arms are the ones giving bloggers a bad name.

These are the folks spreading spurious rumors and making baseless claims -- all in the name of delegitimizing the major media's critics.

You see, all hell breaks loose when reporters aren't restrained by editors, or so their narrative goes.

Timeline and Method of Manufacture

Would the perpetrator(s) have been able to prepare the weaponized anthrax post 9/11/01 or are time constraints such that the start of manufacture preceded that date?

In what way does the silicated nature of the spore particles affect the manufacture timeline?

Why has the disclosure of the extent of spore silication been modified or obfuscated over time by the FBI?

FBI and Military Cooperation

To what extent is or has the FBI assisted in internal military investigations of personnel or facilities for breach of protocol?

Has the FBI met with any resistance from military officials during the course of their investigation?

Have the FBI been denied access to documents?

Have military officers placed any prohibitions regarding under oath testimony of personnel or contractors?

Were claims of "security issues" used to deny access or information?

How were arrangements made to facilitate the sharing of materials requiring security clearance?

To what extent were interagency investigations aided by post 9/11 information sharing protocols?

To what extent were investigations impeded by interagency protocol ?

By David Willman | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer | September 17, 2008

Link @ signature

Peter B. Jahrling, who aided the federal probe of the 2001 mailings, says he erred when he told White House officials that material he examined probably had been altered to make it more deadly.

On Oct. 24, 2001, Jahrling was summoned to the White House after reporting to his superiors what he believed to be signs that silicon had been added to anthrax recovered from a letter addressed to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

The presence of silicon was viewed with alarm because the material, if artificially added to the anthrax, would make it more buoyant in air and more capable of penetrating deeply into the lungs.

"I believe I made an honest mistake," Jahrling said in response to questions e-mailed to him for this article, adding that he had been "overly impressed" by what he thought he saw under the microscope.

"I should never have ventured into this area," said Jahrling, who is a virologist, referring to his analysis of the anthrax, which is a bacterium. Jahrling's initial analysis -- and his briefing of officials at the White House -- was first detailed in a 2002 book by bestselling author Richard Preston.

.....

Some critics of the FBI investigation have asserted that Ivins lacked the skills to have "weaponized" the anthrax with any additive that enhanced its virulence.

At Tuesday's hearing, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), pressed Mueller anew about how the silicon got into the spores.

After being informed of the events at the hearing, Jahrling renounced his earlier analysis.

"In retrospect," Jahrling said, "I believe I was mistaken and defer to the experts."

Hat tip antiwar.com

A president Barack Obama is uniquely qualified as a black man to call into question the foundation of these extraconstitutional executive powers -- Lincoln's precedent -- without being labeled a confederate sympathizer or white supremacist.

Post 9/11 executive 'emergency' powers justified by Lincoln @ signature link.

I reiterate the point I made earlier which has been touched upon by others.

The unitary autocratic executive is a creation of Lincoln. For generations, questioning the "Great Emancipator" 'meant' that you wanted a return to slavery or some such other dismissive judgement.

Barack Obama as the first black president is uniquely qualified to call into question the consolidation of power in the executive initiated by Lincoln and more recently pushed to perverse limits by Bush the younger.

Will Obama do it? Doubtful. But if not him then who? Who could honestly question the Lincolnian precedent without facing charges of advocating a return to slavery better than Barack Obama?

The federal checks and balances must be unshackled from the cult of Lincoln for there to be any semblance of a constitutional republic in the D.C.

Regarding Lieberman, nearly half the country voted for the belligerent he was stumping for. Congressional democrats attempting to co-opt that flaccid mandate for themselves is hardly a surprise.

Glenn,

Your readers should be made aware of Monday's San Francisco Chronicle editorial.

It wouldn't hurt to urge people to fax it to their Senators and Representatives.

Link @ signature

I haven't heard it posited anywhere, but I'm wondering if it's possible for the 100 mile "Constitution Free Zone" the ACLU has covered (which blankets two-thirds of the US population) might be used as a (quasi) legal justification for treating telecommunications within this zone as though they were 'international'.

Any thoughts?