What do YOU feel are the most significant aspects of this case? Are you burying the lede a bit? It seems as if you're alluding to things here

Yet here is the first fatal biological terror attack on the U.S. in history -- one which, by our Government's own reckoning, came from a U.S. Government facility itself. Those attacks had an incalculable impact on our political climate. The list of possible suspects, with overwhelming motives to perpetrate the attack and ample opportunity to have done so, is long and high-powered. Both the public and private bio-research industry in the U.S., which was already quite substantial before 9/11 and exploded afterwards, is shrouded in almost total secrecy and operates with virtually no oversight, despite experimenting with the world's most dangerous pathogens and bioweapons, including anthrax. And much (though not all) of the establishment media is playing its now standard role of uncritically ingesting and trumpeting Government claims (even when -- especially when -- made in secret) and investigating nothing.

I know media malfeasance is one of your pressure points, but don't you feel THIS "Yet here is the first fatal biological terror attack on the U.S. in history -- one which, by our Government's own reckoning, came from a U.S. Government facility itself. Those attacks had an incalculable" [effect on feeding the wartime frenzied bloodlust] is the real crux of the biscuit?

Yes, you are appropriately hammering the FBI/media. I wonder, though, what you really think is going on, or what you're driving at. Am I asking for too much speculation?

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.

Here's what the Post said when first reporting it: "Anthrax attack suspect Bruce E. Ivins took several hours of administrative leave from his Fort Detrick, Md., laboratory on a critical day in September 2001 when the first batch of deadly letters was dropped in a New Jersey mailbox, government sources briefed on the case said yesterday."

Here's how CNN reported it: "Anthrax suspect Bruce Ivins took several hours of administrative leave on the day it is believed two anthrax-laced letters were mailed, a government source said. . . . Though they have no direct proof, investigators believe Ivins used the time to drive to Princeton, New Jersey, where the letters were mailed. Princeton is about 160 miles from Frederick, Maryland, the home of Fort Detrick."

Clearly, they were government sources with, at least, first-hand knowledge of the FBI's case from the FBI. Moreover, Carrie Johnson, one of the first Post reporters passing on the leak, then said this when reporting the new version: "Investigators now believe that Ivins waited until evening to make the drive to Princeton on Sept. 17, 2001" -- implying, with the "now believe," that they changed their view.

Is it possible that all of these "government sources" aren't from the FBI, have no knowledge of what the FBI thinks or said, and that they were all wrong about what the FBI was saying? I guess it's theoretically possible, but the media's description of their own sources for these theories strongly suggests that it's either someone who is working with the FBI investigation or who has been briefed directly by the FBI.

Welcome back Glenn and thanks for starting with the major culprit for disinformation and spewing government-corporate propaganda, the good ole M$M journalists that our nation used to have to rely on to serve as a vital fourth estate. No longer. Now we can rely on Glenn and his Internet buddies including our very knowledgeable Internet commenters. You warned about the coverge of the Russian-Georgian dust up. A dust up in conventional war terms, but not to those who suffered and died.

We can already see the complex launching its “the next enemy" campaign this morning. Guess who eagerly jumps in to help them without providing any perspective or the other side of the story, Time magazine.

The Strategic Lessons of Georgia

Time, By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON, August 18, 2008

The Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force has just been used effectively — not by the U.S., which tried to prevail on the cheap with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. This time around, however, it might as well be rechristened the Putin Doctrine, given what the Russian military has done to Georgia over the past two weeks. In the aftermath, assorted soldiers and graybeards in the Pentagon, the National Security Council and government warrens around the world are evaluating the military lessons of Moscow's move into the Caucasus. Just what does it mean for the way war is waged in the 21st Century?

Despite U.S. embarrassment at the humiliation of its Georgian ally, the U.S. Army's tankers and artillerymen at Fort Knox's armor school have been encouraged by the success of the Russian Army's blitzkrieg. Moscow's triumph suggests that there is wisdom behind Defense Secretary Robert Gates' insistence that the U.S. be prepared to wage "full-spectrum operations" — not just the past five years of irregular warfare that America has been engaged in, with small units of soldiers patrolling Baghdad streets and Afghan mountains.

Just as most of Saddam Hussein's troops melted away under U.S. firepower in 1991 and 2003, Georgia's forces crumpled under the Russian assault. While Georgians made up the third-largest allied contingent in Iraq, they were engaged in irregular warfare there, for which they have been trained by the United States. But they were in no way prepared for Moscow's onslaught.

Another point strategists have taken note of: the Russians' apparent use of computer-generated attacks on Georgian servers and websites in the days before the invasion. While much of the hacking sounded like old-time Soviet agitprop — particularly reports of alleged Georgian genocide against ethnic minorities in South Ossetia — military schools will be studying the fact that such an electronic assault moved in tandem with the real invasion. How much did it help the Russians achieve their goals, either on the battlefield or in public opinion around the world?

Whether or not a renewed Cold War works in Moscow's favor in the long term remains to be seen. Moscow may not be able to halt expanding NATO, as former members of the Warsaw Pact do not seem less eager to join the western Alliance. While Putin and his troops have succeeded in lashing out at Georgia, such action against former Warsaw Pact allies like the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland — all now NATO members — would be suicidal. But for the near term, the Putin doctrine is now in play.

Through the unnecessary, tragic and long Iraq War, (even though many experts including the quickly sacked chief of staff of the Army said our strategy was fatally flawed) the complex succeeded in convincing the American people that our Army and Marine forces are now (not before the invasion; then we were invincible and totally modernized) stretched thin and billions of dollars are being spent to enlarge and better equip them.

The lesson learned is not that we were fighting a totally outclassed Iraqi military during the early phases of the invasion, an enemy that immediately retreated and could only win in the long term though insurgency and civil war. The lesson is not that the Powell doctrine was not followed and that we fought a conventional Iraqi military in a preventative war that had a mission that was not expressed to the Congress and American people. The lesson is not that the complex had poorly equipped our forces for the war they would have to fight.

No. The real lesson is that for the first four years we refused to recognize we needed to use counter insurgency tactics only after the complex had ginned up production of conventional weapon’s warfare and made countless billions. Then they made more billions ginning up for counter insurgency warfare. Now we have to spend trillions getting ready for another conventional "cold" war. And you know who says he is the expert to lead us.

The anthrax propaganda is a good means of exposing the real conspiracy in America, our complex and the M$M’s sad role in it. We need all the true patriots like you Glenn on the Internet and through the ballot box to stop the war thugs and their propagandists in the M$M and the Congress. We need a complex that will stop making money on war and destruction and start building a new economy that will fight the real next war, the war on our planet.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833503,00.html?xid=newsletter-daily