Apologies for not having listened to the interview yet (off to work) but I hope you guys discussed the latest news (link at my sig) that the FBI destroyed critical evidence and had to rely on Dr Paul Keim's sample:

FBI officials admitted Monday that destroying the initial Ivins sample was a mistake, but said it didn't really hinder the investigation because the technique used to trace the source of the anthrax to Ivins had not been developed yet. Luckily, a copy of that first sample was sent to an outside professor, who years later used it to help further link Ivins to the killer strain.

Another gaping hole in the FBI's case, I would think. And another good reason to demand some accountability from Robert Mueller and his mob.

This is a question for CargoCult, or anyone else who has been covering the corporate angle on this story: has anyone ever put together a good look at the corporate involvement in this anthrax case?

I have seen lots of discussion here and elsewhere but never seen the story pulled together insofar as Batelle, Biotech, and other companies are involved. Anyone got a good link?

PS: Having read the transcript, this is just more empty huff and puff from a BushCo stooge. These GOP and Dem senators all wanna look good, but when it comes to the crunch Grassley will cop out like they all do, every time. Glenn's faith in the Congressional approach is admirable, but I find it impossible to share any more. More's the pity.

The suspicion that there were two groups involved remains strong.

On that note, it's interesting to note that the issue of Bruce Ivins' whereabouts on September 17 (highlighted by Glenn) relates to the first batch of anthrax letters. So even if we assume that Ivins could have produced the first, coarser batch of anthrax, the chances that he mailed it as well are stretching credibility.

One might almost be persuaded that Ivins was not working alone, and an accomplice mailed the anthrax that evening, but then there is still the question of how he could have produced the top quality anthrax shortly thereafter. This is entirely beyond credibility IMHO.

911 theorists talk about MIHOPS and LIHOPS ("made it" or "let it" happen on purpose). It's entirely possible that someone who was involved in producing the first batch, or who was at least aware of what was happening, took advantage of that first crime (targeting the news media) to launch a second attack (targeting politicians blocking the Patriot Act).

PS: Glenn, I fully agree that it is worthwhile getting a Senate or Congress investigation, and pushing for as much information to be made public as possible. And while I suspect it will still be up to the public, rather than the politicians or corporate media, to find the smoking gun here, I would not want that cynical attitude to discourage your brave efforts in any way. Keep up the great work, mate!

I just put together a lengthy blog post (link at my sig) which links the death of Bruce Ivins with the alleged CIA killing of another US military anthrax scientist from Fort Detrick in the 1950s. Guess who helped cover up that story? Cheney and Rumsfeld wrote a memo advising President Ford that evidence could not be released and it would be hard to avoid the appearance of a CIA cover up.

My post also examines 2003 claims by UK journalist David Rose, who co-authored that first Observer story linking the 2001 anthrax attacks with Saddam, that the UK and US governments have a secret program feeing disinformation to journalists. The other author of that piece, Ed Vulliamy, later wrote another Observer article claiming the attacks were likely perpetrated by skinhead neo-nazis on the West Coast. Both these UK journalists left the USA bitter about their experiences.

Details and more URLs at the link.

I posted this on the radio program thread today, but might be worth repeating it here (at the risk of being labelled a blog whore of course).

UK journalist David Rose, who co-authored the first Observer story linking Saddam to the 2001 anthrax attacks, admitted in September 2007 that he was "tapped" by the UK government to be a recipient of secret information from MI6 and other top-level insider sources.

Our conversations would not merely be off-the-record, and hence attributable in print to an unnamed MI6 official. In public I would have to pretend they had never happened, and if I wanted to quote or paraphrase anything Bourgeois said, I would have to use a circumlocution so vague as to make it impossible for any reader to realise that I had spoken to someone from the Office at all. Should I breach these conditions, Bourgeois made clear, I could expect instant outer darkness: the refusal of all future access. MI6, in other words, would maintain a priceless advantage, a quality regarded as essential in intelligence operations of many kinds - what spies call "plausible deniability". And if, heaven forfend, the service told me something that turned out to be mistaken, or even tried to plant sheer disinformation for who knows what purpose, there would be no comeback, no accountability. I could put up, or shut up.

At the time, I pushed my misgivings to the back of my mind, accepting Bourgeois's assurance that eventually MI6 would like to have an ordinary public press office like the Home Office or Department of Health. After all, as he pointed out, "the friends" across the Atlantic, the US Central Intelligence Agency, had long had such a bureau - an entire public affairs division - without apparent harm.

Rose was one of two Observer reporters who first linked Iraq to the 2001 anthrax attacks. The other, Ed Vulliamy, wrote another Observer story linking the anthrax attacks to neo-nazi skinheads before he left the USA in disgust in 2003.

More at the link on my sig.