Gotta disagree here. The media is reporting the findings of the FBI. How is this tantamount to endorsement of their claims? I don't see any examples of iresponsibility on the part of the media. I find it perfectly normal that the FBI would need to update its theory as new facts are uncovered. And I have not seen anyone explain why the FBI's claims are too hard to believe in. I applaud criticism but I think you are jumping to the conclusion that they are hiding something or colluding with someone as part of the Conservative conspiracy? just guessing here.

Really it is a bit much and your persistent use of pejorative adjectives in a way contradicts your thesis - your own spin is painfully evident in nearly every sentence, so how is a reader to derive an objective viewpoint? You have so much slant in this (and in most of your work) that it is impossible for a reasonable man to get any footing.

To be specific, I think only a small, but vocal, proportion of Americans actually 'love' war, though they do probably have a disproportionate effect on presidential races. ... (omooex)

I respectfully disagree.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, so let me state my beliefs as opposed to the fellow whose article I linked to. I believe that Americans love war and fighting, even if they do not want to admit it. They will decry 'Country A' invading 'Country B' for whatever the reason, but they believe that the good old USA should be the bully of the world; always ready to knock heads and kill all those 'evil ones'. (and their kids too)

It is, of course, all in the name of the "good", and we only kill when we have to do so. (need a used bridge?) The fact that we used armed interventions in dozens upon dozens of countries over the last hundred years just shows how many "Hitlers" there are out there in the mean old world, not that we as a people are war-prone. (really, I have many lovely bridges 1/2 off)

The fact is our entire economy rests on "defence spending" and the rest of the fascist system. I do not use "fascist" in the usual way Americans use it as an all purpose smear -- I use it to mean an economic system as practiced by pre-war Italy under Mussolini. Our system is modified to be uniquely American and not just a clone of Italy's system, but it is the same under the skin.

Americans of all political stripes falsely believe that Laissez-faire capitalism is a failure, but we have not practiced it in this country --- only claimed we have. Well, we may have practiced laissez faire in the first 50 years or so, but that is a long, long time ago.

To sum up. Ask an American if he wants a war and he will say no since that is what he thinks you expect. Ask him if America should intervene for "good reasons" of "national interest" and/or "humanitarian concerns" and you have a "Hell Yes, lets kill those mother fuckers!"

Just in the American genes.

PS: Glenn has shown over and over here in his blog that the MSM will always support the most outrageous government claims. ("You going to believe the Media or your own lying eyes?") So, the Americans are always "in the right" even when they are not. See?

When I was young I fantasized that trials were about right and wrong until I understood that the police will lie in court to make their cases stronger. I also believe that the role of the court, the prosecution, and the defense was to punish the guilty and free the innocent, until I learned that trials are a contest like chess with the court and the prosecution on one side and the defense on the other. Since they are contests rather than a cooperative effort to uncover the truth, a sharp attorney or a flawed case can easily result in the innocent being punished and the guilty going free.

Since it is a contest prosecutors are tempted to withold or create phony evidence, the police are more likely to frame a suspect, and the courts attempt to dispatch with the entire matter in as quick and inexpensive means as possible. I believed that justice was the intent behind due process. I did not realize that it is a cynical joke played on the innocent and guilty alike.

It wasn't as much that I believed in perfection, because I was aware of the corruption in the court system, but in the past it was punished; today it is accepted. And now that we have a arbitrarily lawless administration, I can't help but wonder where due process goes from here.

Fort Detrick has been convicted and forbidden to defend themselves or Ivins. Check the following quote from this source:

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=3261

The information lockdown has far reaching implications. First of all, the researchers there are all Ph. D.s and by definition Ph.D. publish continuously as part of their jobs. It's ironic that as top secret as the FBI believes Ivins work to be, it is in fact all published. We those of us who are familiar enough with immunology, physiology and technology are free to read the rationale and details of all of presumably all of his work. Even details such as references detailing the preparation of the Anthrax spores used for challenges are online. This is a point I will prove in my my next posting. Sogiven that Ph. D.s publish, by definition, there is far reaching implications to the information lock down at Detrick. Will this military support activity be able to continue? How will it affect our military readiness if all of the researchers at Detrick must leave, as this policy seems to require?

Today (August 9), I spoke with a PhD scientist who works at Fort Detrick. The scientist knows Dr. Bruce Ivins very well and has worked with him for many years.

The scientist is an acquaintance of mine who I've known for about five years.

The scientist is a specialist in infectious diseases, including airborne diseases.

The scientist does not want their name given out. The FBI has told all the scientists at Fort Detrick they cannot speak with the media or they will be fired.

[Its interesting to note that scientists at Fort Detrick can't exercise their first amendment rights, but the FBI can illegally leak confidential investigative information to the media. Its also interesting that some of the info leaked to the media by FBI informants is not legitimate investigative material, but instead, material meant to character-assassinate Dr. Ivins. It's also interesting that the FBI leakers can avoid detection, given the Patriot Act.]

The scientist's eyewitness statements and expert opinions are based on personal knowledge, not media reports, and the scientist has hardly read any news articles about Dr. Ivins. The scientist has heard media reports that have character-assassinated the good name of Dr. Ivins. I will be sending some important news articles regarding the anthrax case to the scientist today.