They seem to be driven by two things. First, there's the fear of investigating Authority, and second... boobies.

If we want them to seriously cover this case, somebody's going to have to dig up Ivins' corpse and give it breast implants.

Is Carrie Johnson the Post's Judith Miller?

Every crime drama on the tube covers evidence gathering and what constitutes a solid case. I recommend a few DVD's of CSI for each reporter before stenographing the government's theories.

The Quinn Martin dramas of the 1970s covered holes in the plot by showing you who did it and why at the beginning so you were ahead of the detective as you watched him catch up and you didn't wonder what prompted him to pursue that particular clue.

So we need less Barnaby Jones and more Gil Grissom in the newsroom.

Russia has assaulted the consensus values of the Western World by invading a sovereign country and occupying parts of it for a whole week

Ummmm....Russia *has* invaded a sovereign country and has been occupying parts of it for a whole week.

They've looted Poti and sunk Georgian ships in the harbour there...part of the country far from any flashpoint.

Today, the surround Gori and continue in provocative actions in Georgia in defiance of a treaty they signed only days ago.

The Russian Defence Minister has declared that the world "can forget about Georgian territorial integrity."

This reflexive, irrational support of Russia just because the Bush administration supports Georgia continues to astonish me and only goes to prove that cognitive dissonance is a problem not only of the Right in America.

How this is being treated as a criminal matter and the FBI is solely responsible for solving the crime when, on the other hand, anyone who takes up arms to defend their homeland in Iraq or Afghanistan is immediately subject to sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, growling dogs and waterboarding. If these are such effective investigative techniques, then why aren't we using them across the board? After all, we're dealing with terrorists in every instance.

Or does 'terrorist' have more than one meaning depending on the nationality of the suspect?

They certainly have "widened" the window of opportunity. I have never felt the day time trip made sense. I find the night time drive much more likely and tox screens should have been done in a post-mortem. On at least two occasions former postal workers have dropped by the threads to offer some thoughts on the postmark issue. This is one of those comments. I lost track of the other but it was similar to this:

Mailman has possible answer

I am a retired mailman from Minneapolis. While I totally agree with Greenwald regarding the Ivins case, I can suggest a possible answer to the time of postmark contradiction.

The mail might not have been collected at or before 5 o'clock. The anthrax letter could have been placed in the box anytime before 5, but if the box is collected after 5, it will bear the next day's postmark.

I can attest to the fact that post boxes are quite regularly collected late. If the carrier who collected the box is still alive, ask him when he emptied the box that day. Or am I missing the obvious, that is, he already has been asked by the FBI?

-- eddy2454

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/10/anthrax/permalink/5bd13ef4c8d1f8f580250eca05dabf81.html

Personally, I'm not too impressed by the FBI's handling of this case. I don't think I would vote to convict Ivins if I were on a jury but it is difficult to say without hearing both sides. That doesn't mean I am convinced of his innocence but a juror doesn't have to be. The jury must just be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

As time passes, I find the case against Ivins remains the same in my mind (weak) but the FBI needs to do more explaining.

Russia has assaulted the consensus values of the Western World by invading a sovereign country and occupying parts of it for a whole week

Ummmm....Russia *has* invaded a sovereign country and has been occupying parts of it for a whole week.

Ummmm . . . . . I didn't say they didn't. Picking a clause out of a sentenece while ignoring the rest generally leads one to error. What I criticized was this narrative:

Russia has assaulted the consensus values of the Western World by invading a sovereign country and occupying parts of it for a whole week.

It's the depiction of Russia as having done something so anathema to our values by invading a neighboring country for one week -- while we have invaded and occupied for years, and continue to occupy, countries on the other side of the globe (while bombing others, feeding bombs to our allies to bomb others, and interfering in the internal affairs of still others) -- that's so distorting.

I've never argued that Ivins is innocent. I really don't know. The point is that, based on what the FBI has done and said, neither does anyone else. And we should know.

Even talking about whether one would "convict" him as a juror now makes absolutely no sense. The evidence hasn't been presented.

And if, after seven years, the FBI hasn't thought about the various possibilities with regard to the postmark -- like it never occurred to the FBI, as the mailman-commenter suggested, that perhaps it could have been dropped in the mailbox earlier but picked up after 5 -- then that's all the more reason to have a full public investigation of this case.

How can they go public with accusations against Ivins and pronounced the case definitively solved and closed if -- on such a vital issue (the "window of opportunity" for doing the mailbox drop, and when Ivins did it) -- they have no idea what they're talking about.

I admire Greenwald, but much of what he says depends upon the leak of August 7 coming from the FBI. He asserts that it did but offers nothing to back it up. It may be a likely assumption, but if it is an assumption, he should say so.