Glenn has a great follow up article posted.

A key question left unanswered in this article is what group therapy members saw, if anything, since this social worker claims it all happened at a group therapy session.

Where is this session held, who was there, what do they say? For some unknowable reason, the story is silent on the topic.

If group members were present but refused to talk, that is relevant. If the medical facility where this group meets refused to identify members of this group, that is relevant. If no one else in the group had yet arrived, that is relevant. If they are all locked up in some FBI location, that is relevant.

If this social worker refused to give information on who else saw the threats, etc., that is relevant.

Has the author tried to get answers to these questions? If yes, what in God's name were the answers, if not, why in God's name weren't they?

I would like to go on record re: Derbig Mooser stating that Glenn Greenwald is not a hack and I have never suggested anything like it. I have frequently questioned his methods and practices, however.

Also Derbig: "portentous" means "ominously significant or indicative," ie portending something through inductive or other types of logic. It's not a slam on Glenn at all. Like you say, it's a compliment to his research and argumentative skills. He's no hack. It's just that personally for me, his winks are not as good as nods. I'm not blind; most of us aren't.

He's no hack. It's just that personally for me, his winks are not as good as nods. I'm not blind; most of us aren't. -- Mike NYWI

Which is why I feel comfortable stating that you are over-interpreting Glenn's posts. Also, if you wanted to ascertain whether he was attempting to lead the readers to conspiracy-style conclusions, you could have asked him point-blank, rather than asserted it without at least a token effort to question him about it.

That is quite a character assassination there. Do you find it odd that you defend Ivins against the same sort of character assassination (his obsession with a sorority, etc.), yet you pull out someone's traffic tickets and marital problems in order to besmirch their credibility?

Have you ever gotten a traffic ticket, Glenn? Ever have any personal problems? You obviously have no credibility when it comes to your work then. (Wow, what a useful device!)

Well, maybe it is just the lawyer in you, but this is the sort of thing that makes the rest of us non-lawyers view you guys as vicious assh*les.

There are lots of venues where you can find uncritical acceptance of the Government's claims. If, as appears to be the case, that's what you're hungry for, you should go find one of them.

-- GlennGreenwald

Book says White House ordered forgery Click on my sig.

Please remember this anthrax incident fits into a tapestry of deceit that has lead us to a war, potentially another one with Iran (and who else?) and a full on assault on our civil liberties. Everywhere you look (and some you don't), pieces or our constitution are being ripped away (for our own protection, we are told). As a good little lemmerican in the days before war with Iraq (I'm a vet from the first Iraq war, mind you), it occurred to me that the 'Dead or alive' rhetoric was not at all directed at the terrorists - it was directed at us. Those are things you DO and don't SAY. So I decided to stop listening to what I wanted to hear and become a real patriotic american and QUESTION EVERYTHING. That's still my right and I figure I'd damn well better exercise them while I still can. Along that path it occurred to me a trite little saying I once thought meant nothing "Freedom isn't free", meant everything.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

by Thomas Jefferson

So, I'm not comfortable at all with the incompetence theory. It is too convenient. It is used too often. Especially when no one is held accountable. If incompetence is suspect doesn't accountability follow? Where is the accountability?

If the FBI 'bungled' this case, why hasn't Ross been taken to gitmo to bob for apples until he remembers the sources who, it appears, lead the feds on the wrong path?

Why isn't the headline in every NEWS outlet, "Anthrax investigation turns inward. Iraq and/or the muslims were not the culprit as we were told in the run up to the Iraq war. Suspect who allegedly committed suicide dies under dubious circumstances. Feds try to close the case but many questions remain especially by those who were against the Patriot Act and targeted with anthrax". That should be the headline. Those are the facts, at least as I see them. Sigh.

Am I a conspiracy theorist? Honestly I don't know. But I do know there are those that are quick to judge - who see questions as sedition or at least unpatriotic. The label 'cultist' is thrown around a lot by these folks - especially when the facts become inconvenient. Objectively, these are the unAmerican (at least unconstitutional) people out there and the founding fathers would agree. I'd remind those people of history, replete which such occurrences, where the very act of pinning a label on someone is what allowed such atrocities as what happened to the Jews. The good germans never knew what hit them. They were duped by power.

Question everything! Especially power.

Notice that Orson hasn't rebutted a single fact in Glenn's investigations into this case, and that he seems to be mightily upset by anyone into looking into the facts of the case at all. What's the agenda here?

I can't believe Greenwald is going the "9/11 truth" route on this. Attacking the witness by citing her drunk driving arrests is reprehensible. If the "MSM" did anything like that to someone Greenwald approves of, he's howl about how "lazy reporters" are not "doing their jobs."