Did Bush ever address this issue? Did he ever once go on TV to discuss it (like he did endlessly with Iraq)? I don't recall any speeches or statements from the White House about the need to get the anthrax terrorist.

Yes - in his January, 2002 State of the Union address, he hyped Saddam's anthrax program - at exactly the time the countries was still traumatized by the anthrax attack.

Why no mention of the booming new biowarfare-biodefense components of the military-industrial complex, Mr. Greenwald? Is that too touchy of a subject or something? Too near the interests of the pharmaceutical lobby?

Yeah - I'm too frightened that the pharmaceutical lobby will get mad at me if I mention that. Not everyone can be as bold and courageous as you are.

and as far as I can tell he states his case with aplomb and respect, although he himself is frequently attacked personally.

Yeah - accusing people of "appeasement" and comparing them to Neville Chamberlain and claiming they favor "surrender" is deeply respectful, as is this:

But Bolton undercuts his own credibility by incendiary rhetoric aimed at a conservative audience. Those who believe in a stronger role for international institutions are “the High Minded elite who worship at the altar of the Secular Pope” — like the State Department, which is full of obstructionist careerists allied with “the High Minded in academia.” Throughout his book he refers to European diplomats as “EUroids.” What is more, “ ‘moral equivalency,’ a disease of the sophisticated, is especially prevalent among EUroid diplomats and is highly contagious, frequently spreading to State’s permanent bureaucracy.” While Moynihan and Kirkpatrick confronted a genuine anti-American coalition of the Soviet bloc and a number of third world countries, Bolton rails against a supposed coalition of “the Europeans” with “the third world countries, sometimes referred to as ‘the Group of 77’ (G-77), although there were actually about 130 of them (this being the U.N., who was counting?).”

If Bolton is to be believed, the United States is in dire straits indeed, facing a global EUroid-third-world coalition that is aided and abetted by decadent American liberals, professors, career civil servants, the major news media — and even elements of the Bush administration. He tells us that he thought of resigning on May 8, 2006, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “sidelined our Security Council drive for sanctions against Iran.” Not since Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “surrender on Iran at the September 2004 foreign minister’s dinner in New York had I been so depressed.”

He never accuses anyone of "surrender" and he's never disrespectful or name-calling - just like you said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/books/review/Lind-t.html?pagewanted=2

Colin Powell -- 4-star General and Vietnam combat veteran -- wants to "surrender." John Bolton is a tough-guy warrior who wants to courageously stand tall -- as he flees New York City in fear.

HANNITY: Last question. Is the "Obama doctrine" a doctrine of appeasement?

BOLTON: I think it is, and I think it's an election issue. It should be.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356708,00.html

Now what were you saying?

And if you want to try to convince people that Bolton's book title wasn't characterizing those with different views as wanting "surrender," feel free. You can talk about how Bolton decided to write a book arguing that "surrender is not an option" without suggesting anyone was actually advocating it as an option. What an odd thing to do -- write a whole book arguing against X, even though nobody is advocating X.

I've criticized Obama for his war policies and specifically asked (a) whether "chicken hawk" epithets applied to right-wing war supporters also apply to those supporting the war in Afghanistan without serving and (b) if the Right are cowards for opposing the trial of KSM, what are Obama and Holder for opposing trials for large numbers of detainees?

Nonetheless, Obama does not run around advocating one war after the next - Bolton not only supported the war in Iraq but also advocated bombing of Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/sep/30/conservatives.iran); Obama does not traffic in the language of self-proclaimed toughness, courage, appeasement, surrender and the like; Obama has not argued against trials on the ground that he's too scared to be in the same city as terrorist suspects; he doesn't write book accusing people of surrender and giving interviews accusing others of "appeasement." When it comes to desperate attempts to prove one's own strength and courage, there is no comparison between Bolton and Obama -- or between Bolton and virtually anyone else not employed at the Weekly Standard, National Review or by the Podhoretz family.

Finally, the vast majority of what I write these days is about the Obama administration, often critically. If you want to try to convince people that I choose topics based on what's easiest for a so-called "liberal columnist" to write about -- or that I only criticize easy targets -- feel free to try to make the case. I think you'll have an even more difficult time with that than with the claim that Bolton didn't suggest anyone was advocating "surrender" when he entitled his book: "Surrender is Not an Option."