This 'case' against Ivins should be a primary issue in the media right now. Sadly, the media simply passes along uncritically whatever they are told by the FBI. It is clear to anybody with even a cursory familiarity with the science involved that the FBI literally has no case whatsoever against Ivins.

The scandal here is the net effect of the FBI's actions. By intentionally blaming the wrong person, the FBI is giving up any serious effort to determine the actual culprits.

With that in mind, I have to ask the question: why does anyone think that the Republicans are better at dealing with terrorism?

My local paper did it too. After years of championing free market economics, bashing politicians who wanted to pay up front for projects, and prostrating themselves in slavish, slavering, salivating thralls to instant billionaires, when the whole Ronald Reagan house of cards comes apart, we are supposed to....Learn how to cook!

September 11 attacks kill 3000 people? Go shopping.

Total Voodoo economics zombie death trance meltdown? Learn to cook.

The reason the FBI can't do anything right anymore is actually because of corrupting their process with intelligence gathering. They no longer know what the forensic, intellectual, or statistical processes were that contributed which pieces of data to which compilation. So they can't keep a logical argument going through a complex case, because they fundamentally can't distinguish between a hunch, a lie, and a fact. Long before this, they had problems similar to the ones exhibited in the anthrax case, particularly with their ProSem data mining programs. Anything they learned from those mistakes was thrown to the wind when they got told to move to hunch based, one percent doctrine thinking. They can't go back without a massive overhaul. From now on, they are only going to get worse over time unless that overhaul is done. Nobody has the political will to do so. Our government gladly spends a trillion on a war, a trillion on a Wall Street bailout, but overhauling government and fixing problems? Are you kidding? Appoint another guy to implement "business principals", rearrange the deck chairs, and hold hearings on why the computers haven't been upgraded since transistors were invented. Somebody doesn't want it fixed.

It isn't really true that all social structures have finite lifespan, but failure to make needed changes at critical junctures does cause them to fail. Americans should think about that on Constitution Day. For some years now, Americans, in the press, the government, and elsewhere, have been talking up shared sacrifice as if it would cure things: start a draft, public service, and on, and on. Now the shared sacrifice becomes clear: Eat a lot of crow for American excesses, and step up and pay for them. And sacrifice time and energy to sit over the government and the corporations, being vigilant and watching every move, being informed and watching every decision, until we force them to truly change. Expensive, time consuming, and no fun at all.

Okay, so maybe the shared sacrifice idea was not what we really wanted?

Glenn:

You have pointed out that the Senate, and the House before it, are not doing anything to force proper testimony.

What actions are the Senate able to take in this matter?

Have any been left them after 8 Bush years?

I remember the Watergate Hearings.

Hardcore prosecuters asking probing and inciteful questions.

The very real threat of jail time for criminal acts.

A Justice Department led by a conspirator but still independent.

I never thought I could miss the days of Nixon and Mitchell.

If it becomes clear that the Bush administration was behind the Anthrax attacks, any chance Pelosi would entertain the idea of putting impeachment back on the table?

I requested a correction via WaPo and got this reply:

I understand you were looking for a comment regarding Tom Raum's analysis, which was brought to your attention by a reader. I hope this

helps:

The AP piece by Tom Raum pointed out how some conventional wisdom about Republicans and Democrats has been turned on its head by the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. Tom's piece did not move as a news story, but as an analysis because it reflected his judgment about what this meant. It was clearly labeled analysis.

Much thanks,

Steve

----------------------------

Steven Komarow

Deputy Bureau Chief

The Associated Press

My reply:

Thanks. I appreciate it was an analysis piece not a straight-up news story, but I would argue that it still needs to be factually accurate.

My original request:

Dear Ms. Howell:

In an AP analysis piece on Sarah Palin that the Post website ran, Tom Raum

wrote:

"Many liberals are belittling the choice [of Palin], suggesting that as a mother of five children - including an infant with Down syndrome - she has neither the time nor the experience to become vice president."

When challenged to defend this, he produced 19 quotes. However, only one addresses the incendiary part of the claim, the issue of Palin's role as a mother allegedly conflicting with her ability to serve as vice president.

That quote is from John Roberts, reporter for CNN. I don't think Roberts has made his personal political views publicly known, but I don't think it's fair to characterize him as a liberal. I believe Raum should retract his claim and publish a correction.

Link for the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR200809

0202358_pf.html

Link with Raum's 19 quotes to defend the claim:

http://godly-fumigation.blogspot.com/2008/09/tom-raum-responds.html

(According to Salon, these have been verified to genuinely be from Raum:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/12/raum/index.html )

As an aside, while Raum was unable to find a liberal making the charge that Palin's motherhood was problematic for her candidacy, at least one prominent conservative, Dr. Laura, did make that claim:

http://www.drlaurablog.com/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-and-motherhood/

I would be grateful if you could request a correction from the Associated Press. I appreciate that you do not have direct responsibility for thewashingtonpost.com, but you were great in pursuing such a request in the past for me, so I've taken the liberty of asking again.