You succinctly and beautifully described what I was trying to do tonight when I was calling undecided voters on behalf of my US House candidate. When they tell me they are split between Obama and McSame, I ask them how important their own ethics and values are to them. Then I say if ethics and values are so important to McShame, how is it that he can now go against everything that he stood for in the 2000 campaign? To me anyone who could now support all the lies and dirty tactics that were used against him, means he has given up the most important thing he has to get elected, his own values and ethics. Now I really wonder if he ever really had them. Is that the kind of leader we need in such challenging times? I have not seen Obama give up his ethics and values and I don’t think he would ever make that choice as our president.

The DD link and his link to the new material from Ed Lake were very useful. My problem at this point is that there just have been too many conflicting reports. DD does a good job of trying to deconstruct the whole flow of information, but with my current low opinion of the FBI and the potential for serious fu**ery on the FBI from other government entities, I now doubt whether anything approaching the truth can ever be determined.

Has the attack material been properly preserved with no tampering?

Has RMR 1029 been properly perserved with no tampering?

If the answer to Leahy's question regarding how many facilities could have produced the anthrax is "classified", then someone, somewhere is making sure that an independent and scientifically valid analysis will never occur.

Who might have an interest in preventing analysis? (Of course, I am now moving away from neutral and putting on tinfoil). Here is a passage from page 21 of Francis A. Boyles' "Biowarfare and Terrorism":

To its great credit, during the Nixon administration the US government eventually did wind down its offensive biological warfare program. But most ominously there lurked in the bowels of the Pentagon the remnants of the old Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) Unit waiting, wishing, hoping, planning, and scheming to spring back into life. In retrospect, this was one bureaucratic vampire that should have had a budgetary stake driven through its heart by Congress in order to kill it off once and for all time.

Then in 1981 the Reagan administration came into power, staffed with many of its self-styled Neo-conservative operatives, who were embedded at the Pentagon. Two decades later, many of these same Neo-Con apparatchiks returned to power with the advent of the Bush Jr. administration in 2001, and then received bureaucratic promotions for their past nefarious services rendered. The Reaganites took the position that America would exploit its technological superiority in all fields of scientific endeavor across the board for war-related purposes: nuclear, chemical, biological, space, lasers, computers, etc. So the Reaganites began to pour massive amounts of money into researching and developing biological agents for what they alleged to be "defensive" purposes.

Much of the testimony and press releases so far have stated that they have found a unique DNA sequence associated with RMR-1029. Analysis of the affidavits, and subsequent analysis of corresponding scientific reports does not corroborate that statement. The so-called unique sequence only corresponds to bacillus subtilis, a contaminant found in the culture of two of the letters, Brokaw and Post letters. The bacillus subtilis contaminant was NOT found in the sample of RMR-1029 refrenced by the FBI. Thus, there is no direct link by DNA sequence to the Ivins lab. The affidavit only states that the Brokaw and Post letters came from the same source, whoever that may have been. I think that has always been presumed by everyone interested in the case, so the whole bacillus subtillus thread does not contribute to the case significantly in any way. Nor does the supposed advanced DNA sequencing associated with the contaminant. The passage form the Dellafera affidavit is as follows:

Bacterial contaminant found in attack letters

Both of the anthrax spore powders recovered from the Post and Brokaw letters contain low levels of a bacterial contaminant identified as a strain of Bacillus subtilis. The bacillus subtilis contaminant has not been detected in the anthrax spore powders recovered from the envelopes mailed to either Senator Leahy or Senator Daschle. Bacillus subtilis is a non-pathogenic bacterium found ubiquitously in the environment. However, genomic DNA sequencing of the specific isolate of Bacillus subtilis discovered within the Post and Brokaw powders reveals that it is genetically distinct from other known isolates of Bacillus subtilis. Analysis of the Bacillus subtilis from the Post and Brokaw envelopes that these two isolates are identical

Phenotypic and genotypic analyses demonstrate taht the RMR-1029 does not have the Bacillus subtilis contaminant found in the evidentiary spore powders, which suggests that the anthrax used in the letter attacks was grown from the material in RMR-1029 and not taken directly from the flask and placed in the envelopes. Since RMR-1029 is the genetic parent to the evidentiary spore powders, and it is not known how the Bacillus subtilis contaminant came to be in the post and Brokaw spore powders, the contaminant must have been indtoduced during the production of the Post and Brokaw spores. Taken together, the postmark dates, the Silicon signature, the Bacillus subtilis contaminant, the phenotypic, and genotypic comparisons, it can be concluded thta, on at least two separate occasions, a sample of RMR-1029 was used to grow spores, dired to a powder, packaged in an envelope with a threat letter, and mailed to the victims.

Thanks for the update, and the link, Glenn. While I understand the point George Smith (?) at Dick Destiny is making, and can follow the logic of his argument, at best he has addressed one loose thread. But, from the beginning, the FBI's case - as they have released it - raises as many questions as it answers. I especially, appreciate the way you have kept the many facets, and associated questions, alive; as opposed to closing the case because one question - one substantial question - has been answered.

AnnieW, happy to provide you with the moment of humor. At least you didn't call me out for the Freudian slip in the second line. ;-)