i.e. a court??

The closer we get to the trusth of the anthrax attacks, the more likely it is that the key evidence will be destroyed (if it has not already been). Waterboarding tapes of KSM, alleged mastermind of 9/11-- destroyed those years ago. They were good enough to act as the backbone of the 9/11 report, but not especially useful as raw data for public consumption. Ivins is to go the way of KSM-- the predetermined fallguy in some much greater scheme.

My problem at this point is that there just have been too many conflicting reports.

I know what you mean - "my head hurts"! The big long argument about whether or not the anthrax was weaponized has certainly been a major distraction. Seems like everybody agreed it was weaponized until Ivins died and serious "expert" people began to acknowledge that he could never have weaponized it alone, so suddenly it was never weaponized.

Whatever.

It would be interesting to see if the FBI ever officially declared that the anthrax was weaponized. I would go search for the info myself but (a) my head hurts, and (b) I have to go and get my daughter from Kindy.

I was thinking earlier today what might have happened in the JFK assassination if the Internet was around in 1964. Personally (I never take the tin foil hat off any more) I think that Bush 43, who was active in the CIA at the time, knows exactly who did kill JFK. But whatever... we will never know... coz like you say:

"There have been a lot of conflicting reports"!

History repeats. And just a tiny handful of us are even following this story any more. And of course nobody has been sacked, even those who make "mistakes" under Bush get shiney medals and promotions, including US government employee Peter Jahrling.

Heckuva job, Mr "Moo"!

What really jumps out at me is how drastically Greenwald changes his tone in an update to his piece on the Senate questions from today. He ends his first post coming verrrry close to saying "inside job," when he writes:

"It takes a lot for Senators from both parties to so openly and explicitly say they don't believe the FBI's definitive accusations in such a high-profile case. Perhaps that will be understood as a reflection of how dubious the FBI's case here is. Given what far-reaching impact these attacks had, and given that these attacks were -- as our own Government claims -- ones that originated from U.S. Army facilities and perpetrated by U.S. Government employees, it ought to be understood as exactly that."

In his update, he turns on his heel and makes an entirely different case,in exactly the kind of bureaucratese of which he accused Mueller. He even says there is "ample grounds" for believing that Ivins was involved in the attacks, which go against everything he has written on this case so far.

Greenwald's update has all the signs of a forced confession. It is diametrically opposed to his previous views, and written in the tortured English of one trying not to lie in a baldfaced way, but rather with confusion and obfuscation. I can almost hear the editor saying "we can't go too far in that direction...we need to be more evenhanded here...the FBI has some points, which should be mentioned..."

And a demoralized Greenwald, realizing he is really just a hired gun, crafts an update which practically screams "THEY MADE ME WRITE THIS!!"

Of course the killer anthrax came from either the Dugway Proving Ground or Battelle Memorial Labs (which is not a corporation but a non-profit). As I explained in a 2700 word article last month, there is no other place it could have come from.

So we are faced with the dismaying spectacle of a corrupt and criminal government barely even bothering to pretend to investigate itself. Ivins will go down in history as the anthrax kiler, and the vast mass of Americans who haven't looked into it too closely will dismiss any suggestion of conspiracy because, after all, didn't both the House and Senate investigate and find nothing worth pursuing?

my signature is link to the rest.

The FBI has accused the late Bruce Ivins of being the anthrax attacker. They might be right. Given the questionable nature of some of its "evidence," however, we can't be sure. We don't know if there were others involved.

The FBI Director's reluctance to answer questions about his own agency's "investigation" will, inevitably, lead to public doubt--and suspicion.

We'll never know what defense Ivins would have made in a court of law, with the government being required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty. The thing to do is for the FBI to release its "evidence" to outside, independent authorities for scrutiny.

One really big problem with talking about "weaponized" anthrax is that the term "weaponized" is not defined. Without a definition, facts are true and false at the same time. Let's work out a framework and explore some possible definitions.

Intention vs. Effectiveness vs. Manufacturing Technique

The term "weaponized" is used at different times to refer to all of the above.

Intention

With this definition, Effectiveness and Manufacturing Technique do not apply. For example, the most lethal anthrax developed using the most advanced techniques is not weaponized if developed by the US for the purposes of bio defense. Non lethal anthrax harvested from animal skins by Iraq for the purpose of an offensive weapon is weaponized.

Effectiveness

With this definition, Intention and Manufacturing Technique do not apply, but first we need to come up with a baseline to compare. Possible baselines--

- Naturally occurring anthrax.

- The state of the art of the US bio weapons program when it was "halted."

- The state of the art of the US bio weapons program today.

Using the Effectiveness definition, if someone could produce anthrax in their kitchen using a waffle iron, and without the aid of any additives, that was more lethal than our baseline definition then we would call that anthrax weaponized.

Manufacturing Technique

With this definition, Effectiveness and Intention do not apply. Using this definition, the specific way the anthrax is produced defines weaponized. For example, no matter what the intention or how lethal the final anthrax product, the use of additives in the process will determine that the anthrax is weaponized.

----

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on Manufacturing Technique when what we should be looking at is Effectiveness. For example, if the anthrax mailer(s) was able to produce the most lethal anthrax we have ever seen, but did not use additives in the process, would we really say that the anthrax wasn't weaponized? If the anthrax mailer(s) used silica to produce anthrax that was less lethal than naturally occurring anthrax, would we still call it weaponized? Maybe attempted weaponization?

Additives and Manufacturing Technique are being used to distract attention away from Effectiveness.

The real question is how Effective the anthrax is compared to our baseline.