The NEOCONSERVATIVE (not corporate) mainstream media are helping to frame Ivins and to protect the identity of the real terrorists behind the 9/11 anthrax attacks. These are the same neoconservative mainstream media that milked the 9/11 anthrax attacks for all they were worth to help drive the United States into a war against Iraq. What is so difficult to understand here? The MSM were key drivers of the psychological warfare program for which the 9/11 anthrax attacks served as the pretext.

If this were merely a matter of the corporate media, not corporate media with a particular extremist political agenda, the corporate media wouldn't hesitate to get to the bottom of the 9/11 anthrax attacks case.

The current mainstream media in the United States have morphed into a 24x7 neoconservative agitprop machine on behalf of endless wars against an endless list of neoconservative enemies -- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia, Muslims, European "appeasers," American "appeasers," etc. -- all of whom have been bundled together as "terrorists."

A prediction, which I can guarantee you will become true: the mainstream media will now make every effort to bury the Bruce Ivins and 9/11 anthrax attacks story as deeply as possible, and to discourage any further inquiries into or questions about the case. Having successfully used the 9/11 anthrax attacks to help push the United States into a war against Iraq, the MSM will now want to get as far away as possible from an official story that is coming apart at the seams.

Your threads and those of a few other netroots are the only place for critical information on this topic.

If you are a reporter who wants to get ahead, there are two important rules that make your life easy:

1. Never offend the owner (eg. if NBC, then GE).

2. If you are blessed with a leak from the Feds, report it as given.

Disobey rule 1, and you might get fired; do not risk it. Disobey rule 2 by introducing facts or logical conclusions that cast doubts on the veracity of the information, and you will never get another leak. Your next job might be reporting on amateur dog shows in Duluth. (And you will discover that you are willing to give in to similar pressures on a local level.)

It amazes me that there are a few good reporters working for the MSM. Remember when editors were expected to stand up to pressure (not that they all ever did)? How many expect this any more?

Hope you got some downtime.

TPM's take, worth a look

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/fbi_agrees_to_release.php

I missed your column and insights into what is really going on!

If they had convincing evidence rather than pure conjecture they would have told the American public...they would have bragged about a job well done. All they have is mere suspicion which they used to hound a man to suicide. Now they will go to any length to make sure the public believe it was Ivins and his suicide was from guilt and cowardice to face his deeds rather than from an agency who so tortured a man that killing himself seemed a way out of the misery they were heaping on him.

If the FBI had a case they wouldn't be hiding it in secrecy, nor would they be using the media so desperately to convince us.

They do not want to admit they mistakenly drove a man to suicide for how would that make them look, to now catch the real guilty party or worse just to learn it couldn't possibly have been Ivins.

holy christ on a popsicle stick. Chandra Levy?

The juxtaposition of those two elements is among the most damning things I have ever seen you present, Glenn.

Thanks.

Hope you had a wonderful break.

Glenn and the Internet are the ones who challenged the FBI investigations, especially the one(s) against Ivins. Being followers, not leaders, the M$M did report the contradictions cited by bloggers and commenters. The power of Internet journalists grows daily.

If Ivins were still alive, the FBI would have to put up or shut up. They would have to reveal all their evidence in court to get a conviction. But what instrument exists to make them make a case now that he's dead? Doesn't the gravity of this crime insist on a full-disclosure, a case being made, to the standard of a criminal conviction? Or does the FBI get to close the book and that's it?

Dear Glenn,

So what is up with these folks at the newspapers and the TV stations? All these things you point out on the litany of items where their actions make them complicit in the crime.

This morning I moved from the blogs to msm to follow the Conehead of Liars chooses Saddleback church to go on a lying binge story and nobody seems to care. Can't hardly get to the Seelye article using the NYT search which lays the thing out. Analysis of the transcript on DailyKos proves McCain is either clairvoyant of a cheater so where is the outrage?

That the press smears a person with a legitimate question that they should be asking is unfathomable and I am left to wonder will there be enough room in Hell for all of them?

Thank you for your good work,

Conrad C. Elledge

I was under the impression that the "first wave" of letters (to the media, right?) had spores that clumped together and were otherwise unable to leak out from the letter. The "second wave" (to the Senators) was highly refined stuff that leaked out of the sealed letter all over the post office and Hart building.

If it's true that the first wave didn't leak, then is there any way to know for sure that those letters were mailed from NJ? The FBI would be hesitant to share such evidence because it would make it appear as if the anthrax attacks were carried out by separate entities.

Wingspan, what makes you think the first wave was sent from FL?

They can't place him at the scene and their story keeps changing. I've yet to see an independent expert agree that Ivins could have even produced the anthrax product with the skill and equipment he had. The motives they propose are ridiculous on their face. There is nothing in the mountain of Ivins' communications that indicate he was angry enough with anything or anyone to commit such a crime.

The mental health issue is all they really have right now. And the same emails that FBI tries to use to incriminate Ivins shows that he had good insight into his situation and that he had sought treatment as well as support from friends. He is not the "loner" of FBI fable and the "therapist" whom they coached into making multiple wild public claims, that the media repeated endlessly, has been discredited herself as having neither the credentials nor the sobriety to counsel anyone about anything.

One thing that gets lost is that while government propaganda mules like Apuzzo and Johnson and others forward the FBI's story, the FBI apparently has had people in Frederick and at Ft. Detrick sign non-disclosure agreements, effectively gagging them. I wonder how selectively those agreements were deployed. The effect has been to leave the field to the FBI narrative.

Over the weekend we find out via NYTs that Ivins did NOT attempt to deceive the FBI by submitting the wrong sample and we find out that the FBI knew that when they gave their briefing to serve "the public interest". Jeff Taylor continued to make the claim that Ivins did attempt to throw them off track. We also found out those envelopes were more broadly available than had been claimed.

It's enough to remind you that the FBI works out of the Bush Justice Department, isn't it?