Glenn, it is good to see you back on the correct side of using innuendo and character assassination as a propaganda technique. Why this inherent contradiction wasn't obvious and self evident is beyond me.

You always do much stronger work when you believe in what you are writing.

---

Ivins should have a railroad named after him.

22Pogue, you owe me a new keyboard.

Frank Probst said:

So far, the only thing that surprises me about Dr Ivins is that he bothered to use an alias to buy his porn. Must be a generational thing.

People pay for porn? Must be a generational thing;)

fauxreal: You've put your finger on the hottest topic in the 9/11 anthrax attacks case: the systematic effort by the government and the mainstream media to censor any mentions of Philip Zack and the Camel Club:

"Why was the Hartford Courant the only traditional media that would look at this issue and ask questions? Why does the msm CONTINUE to ignore this issue? How can anyone explain away this event without acknowledging the Kamel Klub members are much more likely to have been involved in this - and if they have been cleared, why? What clears them?"

I've had communications with some of the leading researchers in this case, and, believe me, the Camel Club angle on the story triggers enormous consternation among certain parties. Common sense would lead one to the conclusion that the real evidential trail leads here, and that something enormous is being covered up.

I just browsed a few dozen of pieceofcake's 400+ posts here, and could not find a single factual statement relating to the Bruce Ivins' case -- literally not one. I think it is safe to conclude that a few people here, possibly coordinating their efforts, are trying to disrupt Glenn Greenwald's blog and take our eye off the ball regarding the key issues in the Ivins' case.

A kindly request to knock it off. Some of us are trying to think here.

I do not sock-puppet for trolls! I would advise you to reconsider your contentions. I thought they might have been contensions, but I checked. contentions, gentleman's ordinary, that's what they are.

I don't buy that one b/c Bush/Cheney has been all about giving money to the M-I-C. We already have private corps doing this work, before the Blackwater SS.

The timing and the targets would seem to indicate a desire to intimidate Leahy and Daschle into passing the Patriot Act.

Wolfowitz, etc. had already written about working on bioweapons that could be GENETICALLY TARGETED (genocide, in other words) in the PNAC doc "Project for a New American Century." I don't think funding was an issue at all. Doing away with the biological weapons treaty prohibition on offensive bioweapons could have been a possible motive - but only if the sender was an "other."

I've never been in rehab, never gotten a DUI, all that, but I know some who have and the counselor in 12 step programs is often a recovering addict him or herself. In fact, I cannot think of ONE person I know who has been through such a program who didn't have an addict counselor as some point - so that's really not an issue, to me, as far as Duley is concerned. Wouldn't stop the FBI from using her past to threaten her, tho.

I don't know the policies for weapons labs, but most jobs I know of do not think a recovering addict with an excellent work/research record is an issue. However, we don't know if he really was an addict, or if he even attended the meeting in question, or if he did, if he had disclosed his substance abuse at work.

By daughter-in-law is a licensed social worker. This qualifies her to be a case manager for human services providers for mentally ill or retarded people, but not to provide counseling therapy. Therapists provide THERAPY. My daughter-in-law can and has recommended a client be assigned a therapist, but she does not provide those services herself. Of course, she does not live in Maryland, and is not a licensed social worker in that state.

I don’t have a clue –

What your short 'order' has to do with Bruce Irvins case. Looks like more disruption and trolling!

I agree completely with Greenwald. The case against Ivins is weak at best. One only needs to look to the Atlanta Olympic bombing case to see just how incompetent the FBI can be and how likely it is that they got this one wrong.

However, the fact remains that its very likely that someone at an Army bioweapons lab is responsible for this crime. Working with anthrax is not something that most biological labs can do. The material found in the letters was very advanced. NPR reported yesterday that Ivins was one of only 12 people in the US who had access to the materials and equipment needed to produce this material.

So, my contribution to the discussion to put forth the idea that its time to shut down all government sponsored labs working on bioweapons. Like a loaded handgun in the closet, these labs are far more likely to kill innocent Americans than save them from some attack. The scientists who work in these labs are the sort of people who are willing to produce microbes that could potentially kill millions and millions of people, most of whom will be innocent civilians. Anyone who would do that sort of work inherently can't be trusted with the fruits of their labor. (While were at it, let's end DARPA funding too.) We have enough proven methods to kill people, more research is not needed.

Further, there are more important scientific problems for the government to be spending our money on. The funding levels at the NSF and NIH have been cut or stagnant for years. How much important research on topics such as human disease and global warming hasn't been done? Shouldn't people like Ivins be working on AIDS instead of anthrax? Anthrax may or may not kill thousands in some future attack, but AIDS is all but guaranteed to kill millions in the next 20 years.

What do the rest of you think?