ABC News is being asked many sharp and reasonable questions about its coverage of the 9/11 anthrax attacks, and especially about Brian Ross's promotion of the bentonite story: http://tinyurl.com/62lqel So far, nothing but stonewalling and a dead silence in response. Contemptible. The era of the MSM cannot end too soon. Perhaps the Internet will restore the Fourth Estate. --seanmcbride

This is just another reason we need to turn our resources on the MSM vs "bad" democrats. Certainly both are deserving, but more and more, it's the MSM which has the closest contact and the most impact on our citizenry. 1,000 media skeptics + infusion of funds used wisely = 10,000 media skeptics. And so on until advertisers start running away, media revenue drops, and then all of a sudden, they find their "guts" to do real journalism and investigation again.

Of course I'm oversimplifying for brevity's sake, but you get the idea.

Got any statements from all those people in the group therapy session? Any of them? Surely someone has stepped up to tell about this amazing tale. And I bet the MSM, knowing how juicy this story is, has been flooding the area to locate those witnesses to Ivins' meltdown.

Did the FBI recover the bulletproof vest and gun? Are there records of Ivins buying them? Are there any receipts for their purchase? And if he had a gun, why didn't he use that instead of submitting to the excruciating and painful death by tylenol?

And if someone is making death threats, why didn't Duley immediately notify authorities to have him arrested and held? Remember "a danger to self or others"? A restraining order isn't the most logical or safest means of protecting oneself from a psychopathic murderer when a mental health professional can have a dangerous person committed.

Who were the three people Duley claims Ivins tried to kill? Why hadn't she tried to get him committed for that? If he were admitting to attempted murders (by what means?), why not spill his guts about the anthrax caper?

And why did Duley go into hiding AFTER Ivins was dead?

Just asking.

-I have no doubt that if you were a criminal defendant and the principal witness against you -- both in the court proceeding and in the media circus depicting you the perpetrator of a very heinous crime -- was a social worker who accused you of being a violent psychotic, then you would think that her own history of unstable behavior -- including the fact that she herself was on probation and twice had been convicted of driving under the influence in the last 18 months -- was quite relevant.

-- GlennGreenwald -

And I might add: The fact that Ms.Duley's professional credentials are 'minimal', to be generous, and she seems to have difficulty spelling the word that is supposed to describe her own 'profession' (theripist) which is an exaggeration to begin with.

Since when are social workers recognized as 'theripists'. 'Counselor' I can accept.

Would you prefer that Ms. Duley remain free of any personal scrutiny and her 'impeccable' professional reputation remain unexamined while Dr. Ivins is widely smeared by unnamed sources and unable to defend his reputation?

Also germane to the discussion is her relative inexperience since she is fresh out of college but perhaps it's best left unmentioned so the press can continue to portray her as some ambiguously seasoned expert in her field of expertise and the case can confidently be declared close and we can all move on to the next paparazzi photo essay on Britney's anatomical features.

It comes as no surprise that one of the best minds in (and off) the blogosphere, Glenn Greenwald, has attracted an intelligent audience. In any case, much thanks to the other posters here who have provided me with some of the best insights and leads on the 9/11 anthrax attacks controversy that I have read anywhere. Absolutely invaluable. Most of the discussion in the mainstream media has been twaddle. My only complaint is that Salon's forum software is rather weak.

I'll make one comment about the difference between conspiracy speculation in this case and conspiracy speculation re: the 9-11 attacks.

Any scenarios spun concerning the Anthrax attacks will have the full compliment of human stupidity, idiocy and short-sightedness included and hence have significantly greater credibility in my eyes than any of the 9-11 theories I have seen presented.

"If there are two competing explanations for an event and one calls for someone being surprisingly brilliant and the other calls for them to be incredibly stupid - stupidity wins every time."

Bob: excellent and thought-provoking post -- I just subscribed to the feed for your blog. Let's imagine a worst-case scenario, the kind that would instantly occur to the mind of a Robert Ludlum: Bruce Ivins was smeared, framed and murdered (suicided) by the real perps behind the 9/11 anthrax attacks, in an effort to shut down any investigation which might lead back to them. I'm not there yet, but I am paying very close attention to how this bizarre story unfolds.

I especially want to know the identities of those had advance knowledge of the attacks and who issued warnings to Richard Cohen at the Washington Post and Dick Cheney. Why aren't the MSM pursuing this extremely important story?

To me, a credentialied scientist, with a good scientific reputation, papers published in peer reviewed journals, no criminal record until recent events, with a security clearance, a regular participant in his church's community activities, is intrinsically more credible than a Duley. I say this because to accomplish all that requires a certain discipline and strength of character. macgupta

Umm...I know people who are credentialed scientists, have good scientific reputations, papers published in peer reviewed journals, no criminal record at all, have security clearances, go to church and are total assholes with no morals who'd screw their own mothers for a buck. I know a guy who has no degree, a string of speeding and other moving violations, and is one of the most meticulously careful, honest, and compassionate health care providers I've met.

I don't like what Ms. Duley did, I think it's unethical, although I am willing to concede she may have acted in panic. And I do realize that in court, people light into each others character, and that what has come out in the press about Dr. Ivins is mostly about his character and his descent into suicide.

But this case can't be resolved on character, it needs empirical evidence. The FBI is now on record several times as saying they will press the court to be allowed to disclose their evidence as soon as they talk to the survivors and victims families of the attack. Scott Shane has anonymous sources (who's drinking history and credentials cannot be evaluated) who say the information is circumstantial. Maybe that's the case. He also calls waterboarding "enhanced interrogation" and passes on a CIA interrogator's contentions about KSM without appropriate caveats, which is a negative on Mr. Shane's credibility just as grave as the negatives on Mr. Ross's credibility.

What Brian Ross and many other people who have capitalized on this attack did is not lacking in evidence, and does contain a character issue at its heart. Railroading the Patriot Act is a character issue that is not lacking in evidence. Crafting an executive order by Cheney and the War Council that junks the rule of law and the Constitution on November 14, 2001 (source: Jane Mayer) is a character issue that is not lacking in evidence, and very much a result of the way this anthrax case was handled, and possibly of Mr. Ross's inflammatory reporting, too.