He may have been but if you believe that he was "suicided" then what kept the boys from suiciding Hatfill at a time when the verdict was already in for him with everyone from fellow scientists to virtually all of the media?

I read the NYT and Wash Post articles on the case yesterday (Saturday) and neither included ANY reference to the ABC news reports from their "four sources" concerning the bentonite-Iraq connection, or to the ABC news reports at all. And needless to say, NEITHER included any mention of how the anthrax-laced letters contributed to the hysteria that rapidly emerged after 9-11 to invade Iraq.

On yesterday’s thread, Jim White provided a very interesting link(see sig) on tetrahedron.org to a 2002 article by Leonard G. Horowitz, that is extremely interesting and well worth digging into. The title is, The CIA's Role in the Anthrax Mailings: Could Our Spies be Agents for Military-Industrial Sabotage, Terrorism, and Even Population Control? A Special Report Expressly Prepared for Simultaneous Publication in The Spectrum and Media ByPass

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/anthrax_espionage.html

I'm from the future so I know this turns out

Sorry but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

-- Dave Satan

So we are supposed to believe that one of the cruelest and cunning administrations in the history of America (at least) just happened to be in the seat of power when the largest intelligence failure in the history of intelligence was pulled off right under their noses?

• That the amount of 'unanswered questions' left over from the 9/11 whitewash commission runs into many volumes. That many of the incidents that happened leading up to that day (restricting commercial flight, Cipro, etc) were just 'lucky coincidences'?
• That the entire military was caught 'off guard' on a week day attack in broad daylight?
• That the entire government was made impotent by how many 'rag heads' training and receiving money (from Sadi Arabia IN THE OPEN) and avoiding the entire law enforcement system of our government through 'incompetence', 'malfeasance' and political infighting.

Sometimes, yes, an accident is an accident and sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one. With all of the 'breakdowns' and 'issues' on that day and the many months leading up to it one has to admit that the preponderance of the evidence at least seems to point to collusion and participation by some levels of the Bush administration in what happened that day and months leading up to it.

If you can't even think for a minute that it's likely then all you have to look at is what they have done since. Nothing short of a complete takeover of government. A very bloody 'bloodless' coup d'état of the United States of America.

Bush started out on lies (the 'w' keys) and will end as a self-pardoned war criminal and continue his unbroken record of being a failure and a fraud, and add 'tool' to that distinguished list. Future occupant of the Fletcher Memorial Home.

. . . that once you get the reputation of reporting lies/being easily fooled, people stop going to you for the news. The result is something called "low ratings" and "lost ad revenue".

And that losing "sources" that lie to you is not a loss - it is a blessing, since only real sources will come to you after that.

What possible justification is there for ABC to continue to protect the identity of those who deliberately foisted on the public such a destructive fraud?

______________________________________________

I expect that the "justification" employed by ABC-- a network with a history, even a tradition, of playing footsie with this (mal)administration and others-- is, and will remain, the pseudo-ethic Glenn and others have so ably discredited: the absolute obligation to "protect sources". No matter that it is clearly the case that this formerly valid and viable standard (properly applied) has been successfully co-opted and hijacked by the very institutions against which it was intended to serve as a bulwark. That's their story, and they're sticking to it! Or so I expect.

If (when) ABC news stonewalls, or offers only token or select disclosures served in a sweet-and-sour sauce of arch ethical rhetoric, it's likely that the rest of the corporate media organizations will take up the cry. The archives of UT are rife with examples of media infotainwhores baying with high dudgeon, simulated or sincerely misguided, decrying critics who are unable or unwilling to appreciate the would-be sophisticated ethics of the professional journalist.

If ABC and its co-conspiratorial allies can sustain the dodge that it is obliged to withold the information in question because of its deep committment to ethical standards, period, the question again becomes whether the plurality of critics from the blogosphere and academia can successfully derail this story's express trip to the Memory Hole. Let me see... there's Glenn, "Democracy Now"... help me out here!

Oh, and absent valid "justification", the question devolves to what possible motive would ABC have to stonewall? The question is the answer; see above sentence immediately below quote.

______________________________________________

Given the significance of the anthrax attacks, it would be unconscionable for there to be anything other than a full-scale Congressional or independent investigation -- with a full airing of all the facts -- regarding everything that happened here.

______________________________________________

I again apologize for being a cynical pain in the ass-- it even annoys me at times. But I can't help throwing out another of my generalized hunches-- to wit, that Congressional investigations have in their own way devolved into Memory Holes-- paradoxically, Memory Holes in plain sight.

Before I even got to Glenn's reference to Congressman Rush Holt, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations' Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, I thought "Yeah, let's get Waxman, or Conyers, right on it!" I'm not directing my cynicism or skeptical sarcasm at Glenn by any means. But I've begun to believe that the outright refusal of our political elite of para-corporate technocrats to use bona-fide tools of government, e.g. impeachment, has a ripple effect. Or perhaps I should say that as the will to consider admittedly grave and arduous alternatives such as impeachment has atrophied, so too have precursors and ancillary mechanisms of rigorous and consequential oversight become vitiated.

By which I meantersay that despite congressional committees appearing very busy with conducting responsible oversight, that there's no longer much desire, or will, to uncover "smoking guns" or other findings of culpability that would force major confrontations and conflicts with the Executive Branch or within their own institution. As far as I can see, the congresspersons with a reputation for being intrepid bulldogs like Waxman have become caricatures-- bulldogs still resolutely chasing cars, but realizing that if they ever actually caught the damn car, they'd have to figure out what to do with it.

As with other aspects of government, the forms remain intact, but the function is lost or weakened to a point where they are merely cosmetic, or ceremonial. To trusting, naïve, or uniformed observers, it appears as if our incumbents are still taking care of business; perhaps the incumbents actually believe it themselves!

And I've already gotten to wordy to start on Conyers, et al. It may be that it's still possible for a determined, energetic chairman with a modicum of integrity can still probe deeply, with the intention of forcing appropriate redress. But my sense is that at present, anything that rocks the boat is destined to be quietly tucked into Pelosi's locked desk drawer. (And, parenthetically, FWIW I don't believe this attitude would substantially change in an Obama administration.)

Which leaves an independent investigation. Can the blogosphere find a few good allies-- in the foreign press, perhaps-- who can take up the cause, overcome the vast forces aligned to stonewall and whitewash the seamy underside of our rogue government's heinous conduct, and not get smothered, quashed, or pieced off? It seems like that's our only hope.

I feel obliged to end with an upbeat note: ♪