*just how far down the rabbit hole...

While I'm here, I guess I might as well clarify and say that we should focus on obtaining a full and complete explanation from ABC pertaining to their "sources", and maybe even ask good old McWar just what information he had when he made the appearance on Letterman.

I think Glen has allowed himself to stray from the subject of media complicity in forwarding government propaganda and gotten into the (boring and muckraking) details of this social worker's private life as if they somehow paint a picture of someone who can't be trusted. I mean, I was really kind of turned off of his post after seeing her personal criminal history photocopied and pasted on the web (that's what The Smoking Gun is for, no?) in the midst of a real, concise analysis of ABC's willingness to protect government sources in the name of source confidentiality. That of course being part of the larger problem, i.e. that the media is now simply an arm of the right wing propaganda machine - a consistent theme of Glen's work.

For lack of better description the original attack was a terrorist one. It appeared specific as to targets and did not appear to haphazard in the way a random shooting is, but rather well planned and organized. There is nothing to suggest that the crime was an act of a single crazy person. It strikes me more as a very calculated enterprise that required little in terms of moral qualms, perfectly suited for soldiers given(or giving themselves) a mission. Mailing stuff is not all that different from releasing bombs at 37,000 feet. All it takes is a group to create impenetrable alibis, secrets, and diversions. It is not difficult to keep the group subscribed to the same fear of being prosecuted.

While there is no reason to weave a grand conspiracy theory, the possibility of more than one person involved makes a lot more sense than a lone, mad but meek, brilliant scientist, who was suicidal and at the same time a homicidal sociopath, with arguably the means, but difficult to ascertain motive, having improperly shipped deadly weapons of mass destruction. Forcing what could have been done by several purposeful actors to one crazy person is what makes this story phony.

There are always side discussions here. They are just that.

Since GG's article was posted, the AP had an article from leaked sources that said Ivins was obsessed with a sorority and that explained why the anthrax letters were sent from where they were...without any evidence.

It seemed ridiculous to even me, and then the AP corrected their story.

Personally I think Bush & Co. were willing to capitalize on anything that would further their goals. The anthrax scare was just one more thing to use in the run up to the war with Iraq.

Frankly, protecting sources that outright lie to you to push their agenda is despicable.

p.s. the sorority angle is now one of the lead articles at Yahoo. I guess it's sexy since it involves college girls, even if it doesn't make a lick of sense.

The anthrax dryer referred to in the article is a lyophilizer, a type of freeze-dryer. According to the WaPo:

The device was not commonly used by researchers at the Army's sprawling biodefense complex at Fort Detrick, Md., where Ivins worked as a scientist, employees at the base said. Instead, sources said, Ivins had to go through a formal process to check out the lyopholizer, creating a record on which authorities are now relying. He did at least one project for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that would have given him reason to use the drying equipment, according to a former colleague in his lab.

But if you put 'lyophilize' and 'anthrax' into PubMed (or google or any search engine), you'll get a long list of pages about anthrax vaccines.

Consider this abstract from PubMed:

Vaccine. 1995 Dec;13(18):1779-84.

Ivins B, Fellows P, Pitt L, Estep J, Farchaus J, Friedlander A, Gibbs P.

Bacteriology Division, United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5011, USA.

The efficacy of several human anthrax vaccine candidates comprised of different adjuvants together with Bacillus anthracis protective antigen (PA) was evaluated in guinea pigs challenged by an aerosol of virulent B. anthracis spores. The most efficacious vaccines tested were formulated with PA plus monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) in a squalene/lecithin/Tween 80 emulsion (SLT) and PA plus the saponin QS-21. The PA+MPL in SLT vaccine, which was lyophilized and then reconstituted before use, demonstrated strong protective immunogenicity, even after storage for 2 years at 4 degrees C. The MPL component was required for maximum efficacy of the vaccine. Eliminating lyophilization of the vaccine did not diminish its protective efficacy. No significant alteration in efficacy was observed when PA was dialyzed against different buffers before preparation of vaccine. PA+MPL in SLT proved superior in efficacy to the licensed United States human anthrax vaccine in the guinea pig model.

So it seems that Dr. Ivins -- the lead name on this paper and many others -- had projects that required the use of lyophilizers. If you google 'lyophilize' and 'anthrax', most of the pages returned are about anthrax vaccines, which is what Dr. Ivins was working on at Ft. Detrick.

The WaPo should do some decent fact-checking rather than just writing the rubbish their sources give them. (WaPo link is in my sig)

Things are tough all over. Let me quote you from Digby's Blog, "Hullabaloo"

Here's Digby responding to commenters:

Jesus fucking Christ, I'm getting tired of being insulted day after day by an endless parade of people who can't read or comprehend what I write and leave smug drive-by comments as if they have the slightest clue.

And to make things worse, there aren't so many comments at Digby's that people can't read them all!

But when you end up trolling your own blog, you're in trouble!

There might be an instructive allegory in that, no?

But LWM, if Salon is not receiving a raft of complaints about my posts, why should a few people with unorthodox opinions bother anybody?

Not that I have any objection to you encouraging a higher standard here, but it's got to be one we have a hope of achieving and maintaining.

I like to post here because the recent jump in e-mail postage is more than I can afford. Here I can chat with very nice, well-informed people for free.

It's like a little Confederacy of the well-informed!