Me: No war is a "good war". None

You: Well then, there isn't any disagreement, is there?

I think there is a large disagreement. You see, several here, and one in particular, do not belive my statement. They believe we have had "good wars" in the past and will have more in the future. They further believe that we have had secular saints in the white house that led us in times of these "good wars". I do not.

I guess I believe "evil is as evil does" just as I believe "stupid is as stupid does".

As an example, recent historical revisionism shows that Mr. Carter had a lot to do with the Russian/Afghanistan war and may even have been the catalist. Damn! Not my Jimmy! But, sadly there it is; his administration started a black opp in Afghanistan that led to the invasion by Russia.

If one opens their eyes they will see that power corrupts men; even Americans and the presidency is a powerful office.

On to today's topic. Glenn's investigation of the Anthrax mess is a great example of corrupt men using the event to launch a war against innocent women and children. That was the whole purpose of the exercise; war.

Glenn Greenwald has done some good research about the criminal background of Jean Carol Duley,and has written a great article about the impact of the anthrax scare,but i have seen not one piece of information about why Ivins was in group and individual counseling sessions with Ms. Duley.Why was he in counseling in the first place?Was it court ordered for a traffic violation or some other criminal matter?Was it voluntary?It seems to me that this original connection to Ms. Duley has been overlooked or ignored by every author of every article I have read about the Ivins/Duley connection.Does anyone else out there find this oversight a little strange?Why was Ivans a client of Duley's seems to me to be the most basic question an intelligent reporter would ask.

Scientists are def. not trained to "print" in any particular way, as architects are.

And, some scientists are very visual, and some are not at all. I'm very visual, but my handwriting sux.

One of the first letters I read on this thread was from someone who said that the writing on the Anthrax letters indicated the person had a military background. I read that after I posted my first comment. I got no idea about that.

I'll go back and try to find a link to that...

the email was sent from Ross' ABC address; yesterday, I emailed both him and ABC's Jeffrey Schneider to request confirmation of its authenticity, and they didn't reply):

Do you have access to the full headers from these emails ? Have you checked the origin of the IP address for these emails ? This is a fairly basic forensic step of checking where emails actually came from (it is generally easy to spoof the "from" email address, but harder to properly spoof the chain of email IP addresses).

I would be glad to help you do this if you need it.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/04/anthrax/permalink/2b9b53528a8233165a100f755367afe3.html

and, snip from that:

~~Glen, you mention that Ivins might be "the" anthrax attacker. A quick analysis of the notes included with the anthrax gives a suggestion (strong?) that the writer of the notes had some military background. I've seen no mention of any military background in Ivins' case (there was with Hatfill).

The suggestion here is that, possibly, Ivins did not act alone (if he did, in fact, act in the crime). (etc.)~~

What evidence have you found that contradicts your evidence that Ivins is guilty?

Why do you publish stories like this?

Notice the standard technique:

"His decades-long obsession with a college sorority may link a former Army biowarfare scientist to four anthrax-laced letters dropped off at a New Jersey mailbox in 2001, authorities said Monday in the latest twist of one of the most bizarre unsolved crimes in FBI history."

That Ivins had a decades-long obsession with a a college sorority is taken as fact.

And again:

"U.S. officials said Bruce Ivins' fixation with Kappa Kappa Gamma could explain one of the biggest mysteries in the case: why the anthrax was mailed from Princeton, N.J., 195 miles from the lab it's believed to have been smuggled from."

Now for "balance":

"Still, authorities acknowledge they cannot place Ivins in Princeton the day the anthrax was mailed. And the curious explanation connecting the scientist and a sorority is unlikely to satisfy his friends and former co-workers who question what motive the married father of two might have had for unleashing the attack."

Then there's this, which makes no sense at all:

"One official said investigators were working off the theory that Ivins chose to mail the letters from outside the sorority's Princeton chapter to confuse the government if he ever were to emerge as a suspect in the case."

Some theory. If he had created a paper trail documenting his supposed obsession with the sorority, why woud he think that mailing from near the sorority confuse the government?

"Details about Ivins' alleged obsession with the sorority will be spelled out in court documents that could be made public as early as Tuesday."

So why not wait to see those details, and whether they are substantiated? Instead, AP cites unnamed "authorities" that are not authorized to speak, unnamed "officials" spoeaking unofficially.

Olbermann's intro to his segment on the Anthrax story read like talking points from GG's blog.

Key quote from the interview that followed from Olbermann:

"There is no one easier to convict than a dead man."

Olbermann on the therapist: "Her story is not air tight... and the time line is screwy."

Posner - the guest - brought up the therapist's record. Again, straight from GG's column today. (Domestic assault, DWI's, etc)

GG should be flattered as well as pissed at the cribbing.

As a chap who's rubbed the wrong way by the "case closed" attitude of smug dismissal towards 9/11 truth-seekers-- including those who've wielded Occam's Razor harum-scarum, like a switchblade in an old-fashioned rumble to slash away legitimate skepticism-- I've been gratified to read quite a few comments, here and elsewhere, from people who are sufficiently shaken up by this anthrax story to question their own complacency.

I would be gratified if the anthrax story served as a catalyst for reviving interest in the great unsolved mystery of the events of 9/11; like one of those colossal jigsaw puzzles, fitting together the anthrax caper may even reveal direct relationships, or common denominators, that would shed light on both subjects.

All that said, I respectfully ask that the comments to Glenn's posts about the anthrax story not include gratuitous references to the 9/11 mystery.

My quite selfish request arises from the fact that I can't access Salon comments at work-- so I've been plowing through them afterwards. I know I'm not absorbing the enormous amount of information as it is; my eyeballs feel like the spinning lemons of a slot machine in use.

Gratuitous 9/11 references make an already overwhelmingly turbid issue that much more volatile, IMHO, and they're a distraction to boot.

I've got blood oozing out of my ears as it is just trying to process all of the anthrax-related stuff. Thanks for your consideration!