First of all, go and read Jim white's analysis above if you haven't already done so. He ties Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neocon friends to this through the thoroughly illegal Project Bacchus, which Judith Miller reported on before 911. Chilling stuff. (Great work Jim. I wonder if you have any thoughts on how Richard Spertzel might tie in to your tinfoil theory?)

IMHO we have reached a stage where this Ivins case hasn't got legs, but the FBI and the US government evidently do not care. Glenn and many others here and elsewhere have done a great job of pulling apart the circumstantial case against Ivins, but the FBI still pretends they can close the case and not even admit errors along the way. The arrogance, as always, is staggering.

The only way I can imagine the FBI coming out of this with any credibility is if they nab the true perps next week, and then reveal that they were just pressuring Ivins to talk: after he suicided, they pretended they were closing the case just to fool the real perps. But that's just my little "Please God Don't Let This Be Happening" fantasy.

The fact is that the FBI is covering up this crime, and not even doing a very good job of the cover up.

And they don't care.

So what does that mean? We have reached Kremlin-esque levels of power and propaganda in Washington. Is Robert Mueller part of the plot, or is he living in fear of an anthrax attack on his own family? Are the media unwilling to report the truth, or scared to do so?

NB: Note that Ron Suskind's source said he would stake his reputation that Dick Cheney was behind the forged letter, but has now suddenly back-peddaled. So Suskind has released his interview transcipt. See the link on my sig.

PS: Glenn, good luck trying to get a holiday with all this going on. I have been on hols for a week and can't stop thinking, reading and writing about this stuff. And yes it has worn me down. Try to get away from it if you can!

Interesting that Jane Mayer's book "The Dark Side, The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals,/i>" includes anecdotal "evidence" that suggests Dick Cheney set off a White House alarm for biological agents:

On Oct. 18, 2001, a White House alarm went off indicating that sensors had detected dangerous levels of radioactive, chemical or biological agents. According to Mayer, anyone who had entered the White House situation room, including Cheney, had been exposed.

"They thought Cheney was already lethally infected," said a former administration officer who had kept the White House secret until now, according to the book.

Despite the unnerving news, Cheney calmly reported the emergency to the National Security Council. It turned out that the detection system had malfunctioned and there was no hazard.

Does anyone have any idea what it would take to trigger such an alarm? Assuming it was Cheney who set off the alarm, would have had to be in contact with anthrax, of someone who had recently been exposed to anthrax? Looking for the scientific angle here, including knowledge of such alarm systems.

The ABC News article (appropriate or what? the link is at my sig below) suggests it was Cheney who set off the alarm - can anyone confirm this?

A good point from the comments at ABC News:

Another scam by Cheney...since he had been on Cipro since he did 9-11, why should he worry?

This is a very good point.

PS: Sorry about the italics earlier, I previewed but then re-edited.

... is the top story at antiwar.com today (go and support them, please folks).

Gerry Andrews worked with Ivins at Ft Detrick. He asks why the FBI haven't released more evidence to let scientists test their allegations, and points out that Ivins had access to the evidence over several years:

When his team analyzed the powder, they found it to be a startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparation, the likes of which had never been seen before by personnel at Fort Detrick.

It is extremely improbable that this type of preparation could ever have been produced at Fort Detrick, certainly not of the grade and quality found in that envelope.

But even leaving that aside, there are important questions left unanswered. First, isn’t it possible that the manipulation of the contents of the anthrax letters in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory might have contaminated the work environment enough to potentially jeopardize the integrity of subsequent samples taken from the lab? Might that perhaps explain why the anthrax powder used in the attacks was later found to have the same DNA footprint as the other anthrax preparations in Dr. Ivins’s lab? At the very least, wouldn’t this call his guilt into doubt?

It was as if a gun used in a murder was unintentionally returned to the scene of the crime several days after the murder. What are the legal implications of such a possibility? Wouldn’t a court be especially cautious in considering evidence involving a weapon in such circumstances?

Link at my sig.

I am still a bit suspicious of this whole "startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax" meme - has that ever been verified by anyone whose analysis might not be considered suspect? I am including Gerry Andrews and everyone at Ft Detrick in that "suspect group". But I notice that warmongers like Spertzel are very keen to talk up how deadly this Daschle-Leahy stuff was: is that a way of warning others?

Remember, the first batch (sent to the media) was allegedly pretty coarse stuff.