Richard Cohen was warned to take Cipro before the anthrax attacks? Perhaps his government source was aware that journalists would be targeted, and sought to curry favor while laying groundwork for the pro-war "scoops" to follow.

By the way, ABC cannot properly invoke the reporter/source privilege here, as the release of disinformation to news outlets in order to march the country to war is a species of fraud; it is certainly not whistle-blowing.

So: while our government may not have been behind the 9/11 attacks, someone was damned if he wasn't going to build upon, and exploit public fears by the judicious use of a little anthrax. The creation of public hysteria could certainly be done cheaply with anthrax.

I wonder if Cheney or Scooter Libby gave Cohen the friendly heads up?

absolutely.

I also think that TeamBush immediately following 09/11 was preparing itself for a very angry "how could you have let this happen" backlash that never materialized.

After all, these are people who doubtless blame Roosevelt for the day that shall live in infamy ... along with destroying America with the new deal ... the embodiment of all that is bad ...

Exploiting a pretty much fictional "international terrorist conspiracy" and "ongoing threat" worked and continues to work ... which is not to say there aren't folks who want to hurt us ... there are and have always been ... Remember WTC the first? ... all those "other terrorist attacks" ...

Hook, line and sinker.

Great comment title!

I had forgotten alot of the antthrax attacks but had seen Ft. detrick mentioned this week in re to another article-But I immediately rmemeebred the anthrax attacks after reading about Ft Detrick and wondered what happened..

It's like all investigation just fell by the wayside after the GOP got their war..

I seem to also recall that Guiliani had some sort of chemical/biological warfares tests going on just the week before 9/11 and the question of anthrax was raised even just before 911..

It would not at all surprise me to learn that GW/Cheney had concocted a 1-2 coordinated punch to emotionally freeze people from making sound decisions.

The way investigations just dropped off the radar after all of the fearmongering is suspect/suspicious..

I've also read that the Bush family has some business interest in a private compnay/lab which manufactures biological/ chemicals which I though had business dealings with Ft Detrick..

I don't recall the name of the company though.. sorry

This is absolutely dynamite. The heart of the whole report, as you point out, is the possible reasoning for ABC's protection of the liars who fed them this false information.

At best, there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why ABC pretends it never happened. At worst, it could be one of those rare windows into how modern democracies control and manipulate the public with a supposedly free press.

It seems like you are saying that Clinton is a hero for bombing Iraq three years before nine eleven. Based on your faith based political analysis(wherein, I assume, Saddam was involved in the nine eleven attacks) do you think Bush inadvertantly caused the nine eleven attacks by not bombing Iraq in 2000? After all, Clinton left him quite a legacy of bombings there. Not only that, then he went after Al Qaida in Afghanistan, WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY IN IRAQ the whole time, giving them precious time to regroup. That is also why we've had such a hard time of it there, I guess. And now McCain actually wants to pull out of Iraq, when Al Quaida will only grow stronger after we've left.

Yeah. It all makes sense.

Conservativeslayer

Does anyone know if it's standard procedure for the DOJ or FBI to tip off someone that they are about to be prosecuted? I just can't see an FBI agent saying hey we are about to charge you for with murder, don't you go no where now. It doesn't make much sense if they do.

I'd like to know the answer to this, too.

-- GlennGreenwald

I will second what a couple of commenters have already posted, that there is nothing necessarily suspicious about a target of an investigation being aware of an impending indictment.

As a New York prosecutor I'm not familiar with DOJ or FBI "standard procedure" but generally speaking there are two kinds of indictments: one is "silent" in that the target is unaware of the grand jury proceeding and only finds out about it post-indictment when he is arrested or asked (usually through his attorney) to surrender.

With the other kind of indictment, while still "secret" in that the content is sealed, as in all GJ cases, the target is aware of the GJ action (usually because he's been arrested, although Ivins had not been) and in fact may actually testify in the grand jury. (Remember, that's how Scooter Libby got into trouble.)

Silent indictments are actually pretty rare, at least in my practice.

News accounts about Ivins indicate he was participating in the investigation - probably being questioned by investigators and turning over subpoenaed documents. It seems that he was demoralized over the Hatfill settlement, an indication that he was becoming the prime suspect. The DOJ also may have said something to his attorney.

But I don't see anything unusual here.

This is a fascinating article, Glenn. Definitely keep up the pressure on ABC to reveal their "sources." And I'm glad you accepted the counsel to not assume Ivins' guilt - I thought your piece walked up to the line but didn't cross it.

You can get Cipro for any number of seemingly innocuous infections. I fell off a motorcycle and got cut up and the MD wrote Cipro for that, same day.

Good work, as usual, Glenn, but you forgot to mention a few germane points.

1) This "Anthrax Scare" comes directly from the DOD playbook for psycological operations.

2) The FBI investigation into the source of the anthrax was stalled by the Bush administration once it became clear that the anthrax was produced in one of three locations, all of which were under the control of the US government.

3) The major beneficiaries of this incident were Bayer and it's owners. Bayer was near bankruptcy at the time, yet posted it's largest profit in history shortly thereafter. Why? Because Bayer has the only US government contract to produce Cipro. The fact that the Bush family is a majority owner in the corporation of which Bayer is a subsidiary is purely a coinicdence, right?