A lot of people read here, so it seems like a good place to put this. When a big disaster happens, like September 11, or Katrina, or, right now, Ike and Gustav, it tugs hard on a lot of peoples heart strings, and they donate to organizations that help in disasters.

In the wake of lawsuits after September 11, a lot of these organizations instituted ironclad earmarking procedures so that every penny a donor wanted spent on that particular disaster will be spent on that particular disaster, and nothing else. The problem is, these organizations need to function, need to buy supplies, need to train volunteers, need to maintain inventories and emergency supplies, between disasters, so that they will be ready to mobilize on the next one.

Not only that, many disasters are pretty below the radar. They tug only on very local heart strings, and not for long, or maybe not at all. Sometimes nobody even knows that such things are disasters, too. But they still take supplies, they still take volunteers, they still take logistics, training, and follow up.

This is just my personal plea, not speaking for anyone but myself. If you donate to an NPO for a major disaster, please consider making sure your contribution can be used for whatever use is best, and don't tie their hands. You probably have to make that explicit these days, nobody likes getting sued.

the Department of Justice is so thoroughly politicized and corrupted, in all its branches and activities, perhaps especially including the FBI, that the only real answer at this point is to abolish it altogether and start over.

This state of affairs didn't come about only under the Bushevik regime; but it's reached a climax with the Busheviks.

Defunding and abolition make sense.

We need Cheney's phone records. Did he or anyone from his office ever call the Army labs or contractors where anthrax reasearch is conducted? Why did ABC claim that Iraq possessed the strain of anthrax used in the attacks?

I, for one, would have loved to see this. The first time that the Director failed to "have the information" he needed to answer one of the questions he has long known were coming, Leahy should have had a page carry in a telephone, place it in front of Mueller and then said, "We'll wait."

Leahy's vehemence probably comes from the fact that his life was actually threatened. So he, and other Senators, may consider this issue more important than so many others they have let slide.

I, for one, would have loved to see this. The first time that the Director failed to "have the information" he needed to answer one of the questions he has long known were coming, Leahy should have had a page carry in a telephone, place it in front of Mueller and then said, "We'll wait."

They all love, love, love Mueller. They all agree on that. He's a man of great, great honor and courage.

Why? Because he was going to quit if the extremely illegal surveillance program didn't stop. He didn't tell anyone about it when he discovered it. He didn't take any steps to ensure members of Congress were briefed. He was fine with the equally illegal warrantless surveillance program that stayed in place. His FBI systematically abused Patriot Act instruments for years.

But he secretly agreed to quit in 2004 if one extreme illegal program didn't stop, so his Integrity Must Not Be Questioned.

Leahy wouldn't do any of the dramatic steps that you and others have suggested to anyone - he just likes blowing steam out of his head. But even if he were willing to do so, he wouldn't do it to the Hon. Robert Mueller III.

Timeline and Method of Manufacture

Would the perpetrator(s) have been able to prepare the weaponized anthrax post 9/11/01 or are time constraints such that the start of manufacture preceded that date?

In what way does the silicated nature of the spore particles affect the manufacture timeline?

Why has the disclosure of the extent of spore silication been modified or obfuscated over time by the FBI?

FBI and Military Cooperation

To what extent is or has the FBI assisted in internal military investigations of personnel or facilities for breach of protocol?

Has the FBI met with any resistance from military officials during the course of their investigation?

Have the FBI been denied access to documents?

Have military officers placed any prohibitions regarding under oath testimony of personnel or contractors?

Were claims of "security issues" used to deny access or information?

How were arrangements made to facilitate the sharing of materials requiring security clearance?

To what extent were interagency investigations aided by post 9/11 information sharing protocols?

To what extent were investigations impeded by interagency protocol ?

Ivins was a scapegoat which they were trying to fix the evidence around and with his suicide they felt relived that nothing could stop them now in blaming the whole affair on one man...disgruntled.employee...Ivins. Like he DoJ and the AG the FBI is covering up or misdirecting investigations to prevent having to accuse these attacks on insiders using their office to gain political power and push the nation to war. I will never buy that it was one "mad" scientist when it went down like a military intelligence operation to strike terror into Americans so they could be more easily manipulated...which they were. Like the 9/11 attacks/investigations, the anthrax attacks/investigations is an attemot to make everything fit into a neat pre-conceived story...anything that doesn't fit in the theory is dismissed, ignored, or suppressed. People in our own government acting like foreign terrorists while really being domestic terrorists doing a false flag operation. The FBI like the DoJ has been politicized. They should stick to chasing down serial killers...oh wait...I mean non political serial killers

I very, very seldom agree with anything Dennis Miller says, but I''m emphatically with him in that every time he sees Harry Reid on television, he can't help wondering why he doesn't have one of those yellow chalk outlines around him that the police draw around a victim's dead body.

I have the same thought every time I see Patrick Leahy or John Conyers feebly trying to hold themselves upright and talk at the same time.

Are those bad boys some Kick-Ass Dudes, or what?