The main political crime is the shutdown and takeover (by the executive branch) of the US House of Representatives and the Hart Senate Office Building for a week.

That's, I think, the only time in US history, or at least since the British burned the capitol in 1814.

The framing of Muslims in general, and Iraq specifically, though still criminal, is the lesser crime.

They have all lived the last 7 years under a cloud and likely with some anxiety, regardless of how innocent the knew themselves to be, as well as obvious safety and other concerns -- if someone had been doing off-the-books propagation, etc. -- Was there more off-the-books anthrax somewhere? could it be used to set-up as the next Hatfil? Would there be more letters sometime in the future?

If the FBI's case against Ivins closed-the-book I think they'd be delighted and relieved. Not so far.

-- fwiw -- I'm would not be surprised if they were well aware of the "high-tech science" being employed before this document dump.

Wait and see.

Markov - the two crimes are closely related. Neoconservatives require the construction of a dictatorship and police state in the United States to get on with their plans for waging World War IV against most of the rest of the world, pretty much forever. This is why neocons have repeatedly tried to smear their political opponents IN AMERICA (including mainstream Democrats and Republicans and traditional liberals and conservatives) as terrorists and traitors. They have used incidents like the 9/11 anthrax attacks to destroy the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and our system of checks and balances.

If Ivins added squalene to the anthrax vaccine to make it better and squalene turned out to cause Gulf War Syndrome, that would explain the deterioration in his mental state beginning around 2000. Imagine having caused the pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of US troops. Further, he himself was vaccinated 33 times - I wonder if any of them had squalene and if so, whether that had any effect on his mind.

I also heard an interesting comment earlier. Duley mentions in her testimony that she has her own FBI agent who suggested the protective order...what if the FBI was using Duley to get feedback on how Ivins' mental state? Interesting question...

What evidence is there to support the lone wolf narrative? If Ivins can't be placed in Princeton at the time, then that suggests it was either someone else or an accomplice.

I agree 110%. The neocons do routinely characterize their opponents as traitors or as coddlers of the 'enemy'.

I'd also point out that the FBI seems almost desperate to frame US citizens as terrorists (Brandon Mayfield, Miami shoeless terrrrrist cell, etc.).

It all seems to point to a larger agenda of no-limits empire, police state and endless profiteering.

No autopsy? Really it amounts to a quasi-subjective why or why not? And to me the why nots win. At least to know what was in his stomach. Full discloser. No more questions. Since it is generally standard procedure in suicide cases, why not?

Incompetence and/or 'sorry we fucked up' is no excuse for an investigation. At least find out (admit to) exactly where the mistakes were made. Grilling the family with macabre pictures and insinuations BEFORE the man was indicted/taken in to custody? Well, start there! I'd like to find out more about the families perspective.

"The lone nut - end of case" theory does not even pass the LOL test. Especially when you consider whose theory that is!

As for the anthrax details, which boggle my noodle, can it be ascertained it was indisputably from that lab? Since the guy is dead, he will never tell you he did it, conveniently! If it can be is that not the big news? What is being done to make sure another crazy koot is not planning the same thing? Nothing? Huh.

The roads that lead to Iraq ... motive ... opportunity ... are practically paved ... and we only need to find out where they originate.

----------

I've got mixed feelings about a new/better board. The best board would give GG and his best sleuths the best tips in the quickest manner - without the chaff. I'm not sure multi-threaded super duper board software would do that, though I'd like to be proven wrong. Simpler is better most of the time. There is a lot of noise here (my own in particular which really contributes little more than cheerleading) as it is -but it is simple enough to skim over. GG would know best, certainly.

Friendfeed is an interesting idea, imagine what you could do if you had a few billion dollars to throw at that?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/chertoff.html

It would be like 'social google' whoohooo! Who wouldn't like that?

When I trusted the gov, not so long ago, that would have been just great.

Combine the speculation about the time spent in the lab, with Dr. Nass' skepticism about the log book entries. Then the 2:15 time spent in the lab doesn't look suspicious, but the actual 4:00 time logged makes a good alibi for a trip to Princeton (in a very fast car). And which guy was staying late in the lab? The guy in the chair who was 1st person, or the guy standing next to it, who was 3rd person? Maybe while Dr. Jekyll was supposed to be working late in the lab, Mr. Hyde was out mailing letters and waylaying sorority girls.

Mad scientist murder mysteries always involve personality shifts, it's the genre. It's one of our most comfortable frames. Scientists are supposed to be keepers of the sacred flame, and while others laugh at their social virginity, they secretly fear that the angry scientist within will drink the secret potion and become the Green Goblin.

Reilly: No one is letting the FBI off the hook, just saying their behavior is standard for frustrated people under pressure to produce, and that, contrary to what has been advanced by some, they had a reason for keeping Ivins alive, not for wanting him dead. It's simple logic, under that premise, that they were not the ones who created the pressure, since it was antithetical to their goals. So the pressure that ended up killing Ivins, ruining the FBI's case, and creating a firestorm of public scepticism, came from someplace else. I was just suggesting that such a premise makes almost everyone involved into an honest player, and points a big finger at a group of people who have believed in October surprises since the term was coined in the Fall of 1960.

Theories which make almost everyone into an honest player used to be considered plausible. And yes, I do feel sorry for the honest players. A lot of people put in a lot of work, and created a lot of what they consider to be innovative forensic science. Probably genuinely attempting to solve this case. Probably because they genuinely wanted to make the world a safer place. They may now have failed to accomplish their goals. But they should not be tarred with guilt by association.