as a member of the MSM is now secure with your smear of a woman who did nothing but report someone who was harassing her. Just because you don't like the way things are going you leap to the lowest levels.

As usual you will spin this just like the people you rail against on a regular basis.

Your background grows: lawyer, blogger, consiracy theorist, tabloid journalist.

Pornography is about all you have left.

yes, Nancy!

don't agree with tiberius - actually he has to come to theripi too!

It's quite clear that years after it became irrefutably clear that the administration deliberately manufactured evidence and manipulated the media in order to lie to the US public to get it to support the Iraq war, this is not only still going on, but both the media and public are more than willing, if not eager, to let this go on. The media, because it's all about ratings and access, and nothing sells--and ingratiates it to a corrupt government--like pro-government yellow journalism. And the public, because, well, what can I say--it's STUPID.

Or, more accurately, it finds it easier and more comforting to be told, and to believe, simple lies, than to be confronted with a far more complex and darker truth. And so long as these lies are well-crafted enough, and there are enough distractions to keep it from paying close attention to what's going on (both the "good" kind, like idiotic TV shows, and the bad kind, like rising gas prices and plunging home values), and the baseline intellectual level of the country continues to reside somewhere in the supermarket checkout aisle, this is likely to go on.

I firmly believe that a people gets the government and media that it's most comfortable with, whether or not they're "good" for it in the long run. The majority of Americans believe in, or at least want to believe in, the real-life equivalent of ponies. I.e. a political system that they pay minimal serious attention to yet which does for them all the things which they believe that a government should, and a press that they refuse to view critically yet which tells them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. They WANT to be lied to, because it's so much easier. They don't like the results of those lies, but neither do smokers like lung cancer.

And it's not just Repubs who are in on this con, of course. If Dems increase their majorities and Obama wins, I fully expect him, and most of them, to try to sweep this all under the carpet in order to "move on". I'm not convinced that they will be entirely successful in this, since a large minority of Americans do not want this to happen. But it will, almost certainly, be their preferred path, partly because some of them are likely implicated in these things, and partly because they continue to be, for the most part, a party that desperately wants to avoid confrontation--from the top on down (yes, I'm referring to Obama, who's yet to show his teeth).

This nexus of a corrupt, dishonest and incompetent government and media, a stupid, ignorant and lazy public--and corporations that care only about bottom line profit--is how a democracy dies. And it's revealed once again in this story, which just doesn't "smell" right. Instead of being its resolution, it comes across as more of an attempt to cover it up once and for all, as this administration prepares to leave town, and hand things over to one that will presumably not persue it further, under one of those "gentlemen's agreements" that makes the beltway hum.

The lastnamechosen said,

You know, if you don't feel like searching a bunch state and federal databases to find information about Ivins, there are companies you can pay to do this for you. That way you don't have to limit your statement to "at least not in Frederick."

Ivins had a security clearance at the top secret Ft. Dietrich. He has journal articles still in preprint according to the PubMed database at the NIH's NCBI. Any significant arrest record would have cost him access to his job. As of yesterday, his employer was standing behind him, at least in an in interview on CNN. That's better than anything Glenn could have looked up in a database.

Your Credentials...

as a member of the MSM is now secure with your smear of a woman who did nothing but report someone who was harassing her.

Since when does "smear" describe reporting publicly-available facts about someone? Actual, proven, legal facts, as opposed to -- for example -- the allegations and more-or-less professional opinions Ms. Duley has provided about Mr. Ivins, and MediaCorp has oh-so-dutifully reported.

I've read many comments on several sites about this matter. On all of them there is the common call for more facts, "show us the evidence", "name the source", "prove the claimant's credentials", etx..

Well, for my money, Glenn has given us more of all the above than any other site I've seen.

Repeatedly Glenn has stated that he is not on one side or the other, but is weighing the facts, evidence, and credibility of all reports available. That, to me is true journalism. Takes guts and determination and skills of the highest order.

Take a bow, Glenn.

You'll find out the difference.

A friend of mine found an interesting blog by Larisa Alexandrovna that can shed more light on Duley. (see sig)

Jean C. Duley... tell us again...

Okay, well the more research I do into the now infamous Ms. Jean C. Duley - the "therapist" who filed a restraining order against the alleged anthrax attacks suspect Bruce E. Ivins - the more her story sounds like a whole load of crap.

1. According to her boyfriend of 7 years, she is in an undisclosed location because she wants privacy. Okay, then why is her boyfriend Mike giving statements to the press?

Mike McFadden, spoke to The Frederick News-Post on Saturday from their home in Williamsport and provided a statement on her behalf.

"Jean is currently at an undisclosed location," McFadden said.

2. Duley's boyfriend says she was "reluctant to become involved in the FBI investigation" and then turns around and says "Jean is the kind of person who believes her life is insignificant in comparison with the kind of damage Dr. Ivins is capable of...She sacrificed all this stuff because she wanted to do the right thing. She'll soon reveal what many wouldn't because they didn't want to be involved with it." Which is it, was she reluctant or willing to sacrifice everything because she felt her life was insignificant?

And what is with this cryptic statement: "she'll soon reveal what many wouldn't because they didn't want to be involved with it."

She will soon reveal? Um, this is a terrorism case, it is not for her to reveal anything, rather, it is for the FBI/DOJ to reveal information. And if she had something to reveal, why does she simply not reveal it? She wants privacy, but dangles this little morsel over the heads of hungry journos?

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/jean-c-duley-te.html

Here’s what Larisa says about herself.

I am an investigative journalist, covering mostly national security and intelligence. I am currently the Managing Editor for investigative news of Raw Story, Media; contributor to Alternet, and The Huffington Post, and other publications. My work has been referenced in most major news outlets online, in print, and in various reference collections, as well as scholarly works and historical books.

Two other posts by her are also worth a look.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/fbi-was-told-to.html

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/a-suggestion-to.html