through this thread to make a pretty good guess who's had DUIs and who hasn't. Those DUIs are, hic, irrelevant! Shay, buddy ol' pal, what's grey, real big and carries a trunck? Hic, thatsh irrelevant...what he wass doing, hic, in my pajamas, I'll never know.

wonderful coverage Mr. Greenwald (and there's a great article in the Aug 4 Guardian completely supporting your concerns about ABC's "coverage" of the 2001 anthrax scare.)

However, as other fans have noted, it is unfair to disparage the social worker. It seems clear that Jean Carol Duley was genuinely frightened as per her legal statement on the smoking gun website. It also seems clear that she had been given a lot of background information about Bruce Ivins and was making claims based on information that had been fed her (rather conveniently!).

The mainstream media coverage about this is laughably bad. No wonder government and the corporations want to control the internet . . . now's there's a topic for conspiracy theorists!

In spite of the reference to porn that Iveins liked that involves women being blindfolded

A pleasant fantasy, but it's no use - they have x-ray vision.

I suggested it once to my wife, but she said it wouldn't do any good "cause you don't have to see ugly, sometimes it's so bad you can feel it!"

She's never forgiven me those ten years.

Derbig, thanks for the chuckle.

Bloomsbury, and all, I think the arguments made in this article about 9/11 apply equally to the anthrax case. Please consider them, not as an argument for 9/11 conspiracy theory, but as an argument for the public interest in open investigation of terrorist acts.

The war on terror: a double fraud on humanity by Elias Davidsson.

Paper presented at XVI Congress of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Paris, June 7-11, 2005.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=505&Itemid=141

Also

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2335&Itemid=107

The Right to Truth and the Events of 9/11 by Elias Davidsson

Which discusses the lack of a sound 9/11 investigation n relation to jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights.

The arguments for right to truth also apply to the anthrax investigation.

Here's a portion of this hyperlinked Truthout article that moves this discussion forward:

1. His counselor Julie Duley sought a restraining order against Ivins on July 24. She wrote the court that Ivins's psychiatrist David Irwin described him as "homicidal, sociopathic," accused him in court of a history of "homicidal threats since graduate school" and that "he will be accused for five capital murders" as the authorities tightened their focus on him, and adde that he had plotted revenge killings "especially against women" - comments that must be taken very seriously.

It should also be known that the local paper in Frederick reports that she is a "BSW, CSC-AD", which stands for "Bachelor of Social Work, Certified Supervised Counselor - Alcohol and Drug." Under Maryland law, this is attained after two years of college, and means that she can only work under supervision and cannot practice independently. Did she accurately report the serious evaluations she presented to the court?

(See Ashley Andyshak, The Legal Killers, Frederick News-Post, June 29, 2008; Addiction Technology Transfer Center, terms for Maryland Certification of counselors.)

It's also important to keep in mind that witnesses claimed to see another anthrax vaccine researcher named Kenneth Barry physically abuse his wife and daughter when he was under investigation by the FBI's as the anthrax attacker in 2004. Such intense pressure will make many people homicidal, if not suicidal.

It's also important to know that Ivins was in a psychiatric unit for several days, and apparently left the facility just a few days before his death. Dr. W. Russell Byrne, who worked at the bacteriology division of Fort Detrick, said, "Ivins was 'hounded' by aggressive FBI agents who raided his home twice." Byrne and local police said that Ivins was removed from Fort Detrick because of fears that Ivins had become a danger to himself or others. The investigation led to Ivins being hospitalized for depression earlier this month, according to Byrne, who emphasized he does not believe Ivins was behind the anthrax attacks.

As recently as four months ago, The New York Post ran a story entitled "Closing in on Anthrax Fiend":

"Federal investigators have focused their attention on 'about four suspects' at an Army research facility in the terrifying 2001 anthrax letter attacks that showed up in the offices of two senators and several newsrooms - including The Post.

"The suspects include three scientists - a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax specialist and a microbiologist (emphasis added) - at the bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, sources told Fox News."

It seems fair to assume "the microbiologist" was Ivins. But who are the others? Journalist Gerald Posner said in a Keith Olbermann interview on August 1 that his Justice Department sources told him "they are rushing to wrap this thing up. They want it over with ... We're never going to know ... because they're not going to pursue this investigation. There's no outcry for it. That's unfortunate." That's the grave danger here.

There are compelling reasons to believe that the "anthrax attacks" case is a classic case of provocation to lead the United States into war with Iraq.

L.M.W.

I have no idea what the "point" that you refer to is, and I don't follow most of what you wirte in your post addressed to me.

All I'm saying is Glenn tends to portentously string series of facts together in ways that I think are intended to lead the reader to a place that Glenn himself carefully does not go. i find that evasive and I wish he would be explicit about his larger points, or state credibly (which is to say not simply deny that he does what he does in fact in the same column do) that there isn't one. But obviously others appreciate his methods, as his comments run about 80 percent supportive.

Your absolutely right, Mike. Glenn was going to do this like a sturday morning cliff hanger serial at the cinema but then Bloomsbury came along and spoiled it all by revealing the ending.

Rouge elements, indeed. You're all fucking nuts.