What does weaponized mean? I think that for the purposes of this discussion, if you take it to mean that it was produced by a State rather than an individual, you are pretty close to the mark.

The argument basically is whether:

A. Ivins could have produced weaponized anthrax on his own (no) or

B. A foreign government (Iraq, nobody else even considered, never mind how they got hold of the Ames strain in the first place but link at my sig if you really wanna know) could have produced it (no) or

C. It was a US government production (WTF???).

But of course it was NOT weaponized, so it doesn't matter.

Ivins was just one more "bad apple".

Go back to sleep now, chillun...

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:

. . . .

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.

None of what you wrote or accuse me of has anything to do with what I think. I never said I know who perpetrated the anthrax attacks because . . . I don't know, because . . . I haven't seen the evidence. What I have seen is unconvincing, but I find people like you who just invent theories without facts and then think you've discovered Truth to be exactly the same as those who blindly believe whatever the Government says.

I prefer to form my views based on evidence, and when all the evidence isn't available, my position is that it should be made available. Where, as here, a small portion of the evidence is made available selectively by the FBI, then I judge that, and here I've assessed it to be woefully lacking to support the FBI's claims.

If you want to read sites that just assert theories as fact without evidence, there are plenty where you can find that -- beginning, apparently, with your own. I've never held this site out as doing that, and your suggestions that I want to do it or have about to but then pulled back because I'm afraid to do it is just more fantasies masquerading as fact.

in dealng with the FBI and Justice in the Anthrax matter is in taking them at their word.

Glenn has been rightly skeptical of their case -- citing lack of evidence and lack of evidence disclosure.

But there is a lot more than the evidence alone involved here.

And what's involved parallels numerous other high-profile cases, especially since 9/11 but not exclusive to the period after 9/11, in which the Bureau and the DoJ simply lie or make things up or twist or distort the facts to create the public spectacle they want to make and hardly anybody bats an eye.

And then when it goes to court, the "case" isn't all that much, not even close, maybe nothing at all. They may or may not get a conviction, regardless of the strength or weakness of the case (depends on numerous factors, including political ones). This has happened over and over again in the high profile Terror Cell cases that have been brought, but it also happened notoriously with Wen Ho Lee during a previous administration, and there have been similar cases almost from the beginning of the FBI.

The problem is a presumption that they are telling the truth from the outset.

There should never be any such presumption, just based on their past behavior, let alone any principle or legal philosophy. But it's hard to break old habits. It's good that Leahy and members of the committees are showing skepticism on this case, but it's not their nature to do so. Like most everybody else, they want to believe.

And I wonder, if Mueller weren't stonewalling and acting like an ass, would they?

[Side note: Glenn has an editor? Oh. Well. That spoils everything. How can a blog have an editor? That's just... wrong!]

If "this blogger" from your update is the same George Smith who published the Crypt Newsletter and wrote "The Virus Creation Labs" he's worth listening to. George knows his shit and will tell it like it is.

If I were a juror during his trial then I would vote to Convict Bruce Ivins. Neither Mr. Greenwald nor the senators have posited more than unsubstantiated doubts. A rational for this noise escapes me. The powers of conspiracy theorists continues to impress me.

On August 3, 2008, Glen Greenwald wrote in Salon:

It is so vital to emphasize that not a shred of evidence has yet been presented that the now-deceased Bruce Ivins played any role in the anthrax attacks, let alone that he was the sole or even primary culprit.

Now, in his retraction, er, update from yesterday, he writes:

The crucial point...isn't that the FBI's accusations against Bruce Ivins are demonstrably false, and it's not that Bruce Ivins had no role in the anthrax attacks -- there is ample grounds for believing both propositions to be true...

What changed Glenn? Why are there now "ample grounds" for believing that "it's not that Bruce Ivins had no role in the anthrax attacks?"

Greenwald does go on, in his update, to say that we need a full investigation; he doesn't buy the FBI story wholly. Still, why this sudden change of mind about the evidence?

My sig links to the 2700 word article I published about the anthrax attacks in Dissident Voice.

By David Willman | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer | September 17, 2008

Link @ signature

Peter B. Jahrling, who aided the federal probe of the 2001 mailings, says he erred when he told White House officials that material he examined probably had been altered to make it more deadly.

On Oct. 24, 2001, Jahrling was summoned to the White House after reporting to his superiors what he believed to be signs that silicon had been added to anthrax recovered from a letter addressed to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

The presence of silicon was viewed with alarm because the material, if artificially added to the anthrax, would make it more buoyant in air and more capable of penetrating deeply into the lungs.

"I believe I made an honest mistake," Jahrling said in response to questions e-mailed to him for this article, adding that he had been "overly impressed" by what he thought he saw under the microscope.

"I should never have ventured into this area," said Jahrling, who is a virologist, referring to his analysis of the anthrax, which is a bacterium. Jahrling's initial analysis -- and his briefing of officials at the White House -- was first detailed in a 2002 book by bestselling author Richard Preston.

.....

Some critics of the FBI investigation have asserted that Ivins lacked the skills to have "weaponized" the anthrax with any additive that enhanced its virulence.

At Tuesday's hearing, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), pressed Mueller anew about how the silicon got into the spores.

After being informed of the events at the hearing, Jahrling renounced his earlier analysis.

"In retrospect," Jahrling said, "I believe I was mistaken and defer to the experts."

Hat tip antiwar.com