That says it all. Hooray for Rush Holt. It will be very interesting to see who lines up against the idea of an investigation.

There were so many crimes committed within and by the Bush administration. There were poorly investigated terrorist acts, and a Congress and press that for the most part acted as Presidential lap dogs.

Today, the Obama administration carries on some of the worst abuses of Presidential power initiated by Bush. On top of that, we’ve got two seemingly unwinnable wars and the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.

I’m guessing, Glenn, that you don’t lie awake at night wondering where your next column is coming from.

"How effective an independent investigative Commission like this will be will depend on the details of its structure -- its subpoena powers, punishments for defiance, and the independence of its members."

Very true.

But with any truth commission on any topic, the money given to that commission is very important and telling. The 9/11 commission was given very little funds compared to what was given to investigate the Challenger, and 20+ years had passed.

Funding is also important.

Is that different than a biological weapons program?

Of all the disgusting weapons research the military does, this subject always seemed the most bafflingly apocolyptic. Creating a WMD is one thing, creating a WMD that actively struggles against human control (as all life must), is simply insane.

I could not agree more: it will VERY interesting to see who lines up against Holt's bill.

Does anyone have any light to shed on the evidence (or lack thereof) pointing to the assertion that Ivins acted alone? Or if the assumed timeline of his travels during the time in question withstands scrutiny?

... that they kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks since 9/11, but the anthrax attacks started after 9/11, so their claim is specious.

a) U.S. government anthrax was used against Americans to scare them into spending more money on biosecurity. b) And that terror attack right after 9/11 by either government scientists or government contractors was in turn used politically to fan the flames of war against Iraq. Those are the general facts. Now, who, exactly, did (a)? Twice, the FBI has said that (a) happened, but the first time they had to admit they had the "wrong" guy (Steve Hatfill), and the second guy (Bruce Ivins) is dead, so he can't be put on trial. But the known facts deserve a trial of their own.

Who were the highly-placed, anonymous government sources who told Brian Ross that the anthrax contained benzonite and that it therefore was of Iraqi origin (both blatant lies)? It would seem obvious that their motives were to create a link in the public mind between the threat of a bioterrorism attack and Saddam Hussein. This, at the time when we now know the administration was trying to sell its upcoming war with Iraq to the American public.

The answers to these questions would possibly open up whole new areas of investigation into how the administration swept this country into a bloody, costly war. I'm not quite ready to put on a tin foil hat, but I hope the investigation can lay to rest suspicions that perhaps the attack was a false flag operation by some in the government to create public sentiment favorable to a war to topple Saddam Hussein. At the very least it appears that the administration used the attacks, as they had used 9/11, to drum up support for a war they had already wanted to wage for reasons that had nothing to do with national security.

Who said we've never been attacked since 9-11, thanks to George W. Bush? Brain-dead dolts?

Good times.

I'm glad to see the Holt bill. I agree with Jim White that it will be interesting to see who lines up against the bill.

I'd also like to have a better explanation for the missing nukes at Minot AFB. That's another story where the official explanation makes little sense.

Leahy has just gaveled in the hearing.

When the guilty parties can, they will blame a patsy, in this case, the first patsy was not so cooperative and a substitute had to be found, and then suicided.

Go ahead, I dare you to say the Anthrax attacks were not an inside job.

Suicided is in my spellchecker, that says a lot.

In order to know where you are going, you must know where you have been.

The Anthrax Attacks were first reported in Oct. 2001, but an news story from May 2001 (that was pushed to the side in the wake of 9/11 hysteria) is also important to consider in analyzing possible sources, motives and the importance of a full investigation.

ABC News reported in May 2001 that "In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba." (link at sig)

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Given Richard Clarke's statement that Rumsfeld immediately began talking about attacking Iraq on Sept. 11 and "didn't seem bothered" when Clarke told him that the attack was likely from Al Queda and "had nothing to do with Iraq," the timing of th anthrax attacks worked nicely to assure that the American public would not raise any of those "pesky questions" Clarke raised to Rumsfeld that day.

Clarke even described how, after he raised objections that attacking Iraq and not Afghanistan would destroy international support for any attack, the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal reluctantly agreed, calling the plans "Afghanistan first."

Because the anthrax nicely paved the way for what came second, we need to investigate to ensure that the Joint Chiefs' plans- first proposed to and rejected Kennedy with regard to creating support for an attack on Cuba- weren't simply postponed 40 years for an attack on Iraq, as "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers [did] cause a helpful wave of national indignation" for the war we're still in.