The New York Times has an interesting anthrax article by SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU today (link at my sig):

"...in interviews last week, two dozen bioterrorism experts, veteran investigators and members of Congress expressed doubts about the bureau’s conclusions. Some called for an independent review of the case to reassure the public and assess policies on the handling of dangerous pathogens like anthrax.

An independent review? Gosh, that sounds familiar! LOL

Meanwhile, new details of the investigation, revealed in recent interviews, raised questions about when the bureau focused on Dr. Ivins as the likely perpetrator and how solid its evidence was.

In April 2007, after the mailed anthrax was genetically linked to Dr. Ivins’s laboratory and after he was questioned about late-night work in the laboratory before the letters were mailed, prosecutors sent Dr. Ivins a formal letter saying he was “not a target” of the investigation. And only a week before Dr. Ivins died did agents first take a mouth swab to collect a DNA sample, officials said.

Justice Department officials, who said in early August that the investigation was likely to be closed formally within days or weeks, now say it is likely to remain open for three to six more months.

They have already decided that Ivins did it, now they just have to prove it. Why do the words "Saddam" and "WMD" spring to mind?

Dr. Vahid Majidi, head of the F.B.I.’s weapons of mass destruction directorate, said the accumulation of evidence against Dr. Ivins was overwhelming: his oversight of the anthrax supply, his night hours, his mental problems and his habit of driving to far-off locations at night to mail anonymous packages.

WTF? They have NEVER proved that Ivins drove anywhere late at night, let alone made a "habit" of it. That's pure speculation (and sloppy reporting).

This could be interesting:

Investigators have not reviewed three boxes of papers left by Dr. Ivins marked for the attention of his lawyer, Paul F. Kemp, because the records must first be reviewed to see whether they should be kept confidential under attorney-client privilege, Mr. Kemp said. A government lawyer not involved in the investigation will soon review the papers with Mr. Kemp, who said some might be given to investigators or made public.

And get this:

Skepticism toward the bureau’s case remains especially pronounced among Dr. Ivins’s former colleagues at the Army laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md.

“Despite the F.B.I.’s scientific and circumstantial evidence, I and many of Dr. Ivins’s former colleagues don’t believe he did it and don’t believe the spore preparations were made at Detrick,” said Dr. Gerry Andrews, a microbiologist who worked at the Army laboratory for nine years and was Dr. Ivins’s boss for part of that time.

Laboratory records obtained by The New York Times show that the anthrax supply labeled RMR-1029, which the F.B.I. linked to the attacks, was stored in 1997 not in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, in Building 1425, but in the adjacent Building 1412. Former colleagues said that its storage in both buildings at different times from 1997 to 2001 might mean that the bureau’s estimate of 100 people with physical access to it was two or three times too low.

Like I said, link at my sig. And now back to your regular viewing...

If you read the NYT story, Olbermann says that his criticism of 9-11 images during the RNC is what "restarted months-old conversations about his role on political nights".

I've noticed a few commenters here saying KO initiated these discussions himself, but that's not apparently true.

Also BTW, I notice via E&P (link at sig) that Google is hoping to republish "billions of articles published during the past 244 years". For anyone who has been frustrated by news sites that block access to archived pay-per-view stories, that's good news.

As an example of journalists meditating endlessly on their ethical rights and privileges, may I recommend Nicholas Kristof's recent mea culpa about publicly fingering Dr Stephen Hatfill as the anthrax killer? A quick "I was wrong" followed by a lengthy "oh but it's so hard" hand-wringing exercise.

Then there's Judy Miller and all the others who found it so hard to apologize for their WMD lies... I mean, talk about a responsibility to the public! A million Iraqis are dead because of those lies.

MSM journalists, particularly the DC strain ... are like a bunch of adolescent pre-frat-rats - they stroke their own hurt egos by infantile ridicule of their critics. ... Thus their only defense against well-argued and evidenced-based attacks is to respond to them with patronizing sarcasm, rather than to attempt to rationally refute the actual arguments made against them.

Of course it's not only the journos who follow this modus operandi. It's standard far for Bush administration officials too.

I just finished listening to an old taped interview (22MB MP3 link at my sig) with Jerome Hauer, who dismisses his critics as crazy conspiracy theorists while steadfastly refusing to answer any difficult questions.

For example, asked whether he told the White House to take Cipro on 9-11, he says "This is crazy! I was in New York!" What, did OBL bring down the US phone networks that day?