Various and Sundry

Sort of a catch up post here on a few different subjects. Hope all are having a great Labor Day weekend..

HURRICANES AND SINKHOLES

Gustav is a monster, heading right for Louisiana. Oddly, it may be the first time in history an event in Minnesota has been canceled due to a hurricane, depending on what McCain does My suggestion--cancel. Even if it peters out to a CAT 1 Hanna is still swirling around off the east coast of Florida. It would be refreshing to see McCain, Palin and families handing out water bottles or filling sand bags--we know Obama and Biden will be doing it.

Meanwhile here in our fair city a sinkhole has been blocking southerly access to the Amtrak depot going on six months now. Instead of the mayor saying "deal with it" he apparently has said "squabble with the railroad so we all look like fools". And lo, it has now come to pass. Amtrak's special evacuation trains from New Orleans will now have to make some kind of convoluted detour, backing into the station from the north. Well played, King.

PALINMANIA

The maverick selection of Sarah Palin has really separated the liberal wheat from the moonbat chaff. The level of vitriol is mind-numbing--making Sean Hannity's bash of Joe Biden look like Biblical text. This trash festival will only be formally closed when someone invokes Godwin's Law, if it hasn't already happened.

By the way, the left is worried about McCain not being able to fulfill his duties, leaving her the Commander-in-Chief (which hasn't given me any warm fuzzies either) but think about it--if Palin becomes president she can nominate another Vice President (subject to Congressional approval) who would most likely be a seasoned veteran like perhaps Minority Leader John Boehner or a statesman of her choice. Isn't that about the same as having a lightweight on opening day?

DR. BRUCE IVINS

The Congress may take the anthrax story up during the next few weeks. Senator Charles Grassley expects it to come up when FBI Director Mueller testifies but it's not a special session. Questions remain, such as why Ivins would incriminate himself by sending his own attack sample to the FBI for testing, even using the wrong format. But he still looks guilty.

One thing's for sure, he couldn't take the intense scrutiny Hatfill endured. Times writer Nic Kristof, who helped make Hatfill's life miserable, wrote an apology piece a few days ago. No word on Hatfill's response--no word from Hatill at all--but perhaps it would be something like, "..you've been had".

IN GOD WE TRUST ON THE MONEY

Some want it gone. MSNBC is running a poll on whether to remove it or not--I voted no. My view is that the mention of "God" on money does not endorse Christianity or any other religion as most believe in some kind of God-like deity. Even the Indians worshipped a 'Great Spirit'. Wonder if the same people would complain if they changed it to that?

Side Tracks

Old Judge Jones..



Les Dudek was a pretty good guitarist and played with some of the greats. He's still out there playing somewhere.

These guys were a little better known. Here's a pretty good live version of "Fooling Yourself".

Larry King's Misty 9/11 Memories

Think Progress is making note of a strange exchange on the Larry King Live show where guest (and conservative) Larry Elder along with Ben Stein argued with King over the buildup to 9/11:

KING: You know something? You’re better than me. You know when it was planned. All the guys who planned it are dead. They’re dead on a plane, you know when. You interviewed them during the flight.

Here it is:



King has had an outstanding and distinguished career but c'mon--everyone knows 9/11 was planned on Clinton's watch. Certainly any major journalist should know this before going on the air.

That doesn't mean Clinton was to blame anymore than Bush, but King's guests weren't trying to suggest he was solely responsible, only that he shares some culpability for treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter throughout the 90s. According to the 9/11 Commission Report and several major terrorism experts that emboldened AQ and led to larger and larger attacks, culminating in 9/11. Perhaps King should brush up on his history a bit.

Interestingly, Elder was making a point made here a few days ago--the Dems had plenty of chances to call Bush or Cheney liars on the pre-war intelligence but instead took the high road. Maybe it had something to do with Biden? Whatever the case, it's certainly more evidence the n'roots don't hold anywhere near the power they imagine.

And in other News...

It's hard to believe this story hasn't exploded yet. An ABC reporter gets roughed up and detained outside a hotel in Denver during the convention while shooting video of bigwigs coming and going, and only ABC covers it:

Video of the arrest shows a cigar-smoking Denver police sergeant, accompanied by a team of five other officers, first put his hands on Eslocker's neck, then twisting his arm behind him to put on handcuffs.

Never fear, the left blogosphere is up in arms with outrage and will soon be threatening marches and perhaps some civil disobedience of their own. One outraged blogger was outraged beyond words.

Funny, the far left can hold gay pride and freedom marches in San Francisco where people have oral sex in the street and march with placards calling Bush a Nazi and nothing happens. But let just one news reporter attempt to smoke out some lefty hypocrisy at a major high stakes event and he's in cuffs faster than one can say "Patriot Act". At least he wasn't tased.

Unless there's something we've not been told apologies should be fast and profuse. Glad to see the ACLU stepping in on something worthwhile but can't help but wonder where Alex Jones is on this one. Perhaps too busy explaining world politics or exhausted from screaming down a woman?

Suddenly Sarah

I'll without withhold some judgment until after seeing her at the convention but there are a few observations to be made without looking overly silly right now. [moderately silly is always a given-ed]

1. Her resume is weak. It's hard to make the case experience matters after picking her, although admittedly on opening day Obama will be holding the football should his team win, while if McCain wins, she won't.

2. The focus is already off Obama's concert last night. Check your favorite web site, message board, etc--it's wall to wall Palin. By design, and a rather good one.

3. She'll trigger some of the finest pretzel logic ever seen from the left in their attempts to deride her.

4. The email scandal they're already getting lathered up about pales in comparison to Obama's ties with an unrepentant domestic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon along with his campaign's attempt to stifle investigation about his past associations, including muzzling those who speak about it.

5. Palin may not woo as many Hil-gals as predicted once they understand her politics. But they'll play hell putting her down without looking hypocritical.

6. She has some serious challenges and distractions with a son going to Iraq and another child with special needs. It'll be a tough juggling act. Some will accuse her of being selfish, although such charges run the risk of pointing out conservative arguments about the family, motherhood, gay marriage, etc.

If Obama decides to change horses in mid stream (to Hillary) that will only make him seem petty and panderous. And Bill still comes with that package. It almost seems we're at a stalemate. Maybe they'll have to argue about their positions now.

MORE 8/29/08

How about a strategic view of the Palin pick? If team McCain wins she'll be perfectly set up to run in 2012 (assuming McCain's a one-termer). By then all doubts about experience will be erased and her main opponent could be another woman, Hillary, who won't have any real presidential experience. Obama might be in there too unless he gets the Kerry tag, and we're seeing Biden's last stand now.

If team McCain loses she'll return to Alaska and continue being a successful governor, collecting 4 more years of executive experience.

Let's face it, the only issue with Palin is McCain's health.

The Speech

Just for grins let's say the person who blogs here didn't see the speech--maybe they had a previously planned social outing--and came home only to find the AP's report about what happened. The temerity!

But what is, is. Here's the AP's report, followed by reaction:

By contrast, he said, "John McCain has voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time," a scathing indictment of his Republican rival - on health care, education, the economy and more.

Since when did it become scathing to vote with Bush any amount of time? Has the AP done research on this to the point of saying anyone agreeing with Bush deserves to be scathed?

Polls indicate a close race between Obama and McCain, the Arizona senator who stands between him and a place in history.

That's McCain, standing in the way of history.

"I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree" of a presidential candidate was as close as he came to the long-smoldering issue that may well determine the outcome of the election.

Since these writers had previously said he never mentioned race we must assume the "long-smoldering issue" they were referring to was race, ie, if Obama doesn't win it's because he's black. Hmm, interesting, it seemed more like an admission of being underqualified but yeah, OK, it was about race.

Obama delivered his 44-minute nominating acceptance speech in an unrivaled convention setting, before a crowd of unrivaled size - the filled stadium, the camera flashes in the night, the made-for-television backdrop that suggested the White House

Wow, did he score a touchdown, too? Was there a glowing ball with the word "nuclear" written on it passed to him from Biden, spiked in the end zone followed by a dance move reminiscent of Billy White Shoes Johnson? Curse all those who missed the show.

He did not say precisely what he meant by breaking the country's dependence on Mideast oil, only that Washington has been talking about doing it for 30 years "and John McCain has been there for 26 of them."

And Joe Biden for 30.

His pledge to end the war in Iraq responsibly was straight from his daily campaign speeches.

Uh, isn't refusing to redeploy when things were going bad, then surging more troops in an effort to win the peace (based on McCain's suggestion) then, after decreasing violence, making a deal with Iraqi politicians to pull them out slowly based on ground truth "responsible"? Just how much more responsible can Obama be at this point without being irresponsible?

"I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," he added.

"Renew?" Is he referring to something that occurred before the Carter administration? Because we've never really had tough diplomacy with Iran unless he means trade restrictions. Does 'tough and direct' mean pointing his finger at A'jad during a non-pre-conditions unilateral meeting? Damning the Mullahs? Or was he actually bashing the current UN multi-lateral approach? Does Obama hate the UN?!

Ah heck, what does it matter? He looked good, the set was flashy, everyone cheered out of their minds then almost passed out. That's something the AP didn't have to mention to know it was true.

King and Obama

Tonight is an historic night in American history. Win or lose Obama represents the hopes and dreams of many from backgrounds consisting of something other than majority. Some might say he's the epitome of the American Dream--a bi-racial man raised by his grandparents who rose through the ranks to compete for the most powerful office in the world. Not only a kid's dream, but a minority kid's dream.

So perhaps it's fitting Obama accepts the nomination on the anniversary of King's dream speech because he represents at least a partial realization of that dream. Part, but not all.

After the hankies are dry the reality of King's words will remain--that he desired every man be judged on the content of his character, not the color of his skin. Equal opportunity means an opportunity to join the game and compete fairly for the prize, not guaranteed success every time.

It's already been hashed to death but Barack's resume is pathetically thin in comparison to most other major presidential contenders of the past. His background associations are also not supportive of the crafted image of a bridge-builder as evidenced by the story of William Ayers, just now beginning to appear. And it appears to be an apple many don't want to see bobbing to the surface, if judged by the "doth protest too much" reaction.

Perusing a candidate's background is what the public might call their own "vetting" process, just as the candidates do when searching for running mates. Suggesting that race has anything to do with the Ayers question is absurd and dangerous. And suggesting likewise on the experience question is equally absurd. Imagine Colin Powell as the first black presidential nominee, then imagine some of his peers and the Democrats trying to assert that he didn't have the requisite experience. Put another way, questioning Obama's experience isn't a racial issue, it's a skill-set for president issue.

Obama was asked in 2004 whether he might consider running for president and he answered quite rationally at the time, saying he didn't want to do something before he was comfortable. Whether his mind was changed by Party bigwigs or by his own visions of grandeur isn't clear (perhaps Time will do an expose like they did with McCain) but the reality is we have a man on the verge of running the most powerful nation on earth with only marginal credentials, propped up mainly by flowery words, hate for the previous administration and by the fact he's not a white man. And that's just not enough.

Americans should be proud. We've come a long way. White Americans should not be afraid of a possible black president and should take some pause when reading the litany of oft-scandalous and unverified emails flowing into their in-boxes. If they are "too good to check" perhaps there's a reason.

But black Americans and white liberals should remember that getting in the race doesn't mean a guaranteed victory. This isn't an EEO issue nor a popularity contest, well, unless we're to believe King's dream was for men to be judged on mere symbolism, not substance.

Another Clinton to be heard from

Another sexual moment for Olbermann and Matthews with tingles all around. Sorry for that imagery. But McCain's gotta be thinking, "all these years I crafted myself as a maverick and this is what I get?"

A few observations on the cheap...

Pretty good speech as speeches go and he did his best to build up Obama. I've seen better, though.

He said cronyism was responsible for Katrina? Hopefully Nagin's checking the diesel in those buses right now.

Bill reminded us they said he was too inexperienced as well in 1992, leaving the impression that sweetness and light soon followed, which ignores what happened in 1994, and why. Besides, Slick had executive experience as a governor for many years, which is not the same as Obama's bored stint in the Illinois State Senate. But if, as Michael Dukakis strongly stated afterwards, that Obama was great in that role then why did Hillary order the 3 AM commercial? Bill didn't answer that question, either.

The laugher was his definition of when America went down the crapper--2001--when Bush took the White House and the GOP still had Congress (before Jeffords went Indy in May). How many thought he was about to say "then 9/11 happened" but instead, he never mentioned it at all, as if it was just an inconsequential blip.

Vintage closing--Obama will bring back unity and "hope", ahem, reminding everyone who invented hope first (Huckabee will soon appear on cue) but all McCain has to do is keep running those commercials where Hillary and Biden are endorsing him and bashing Obama's experience and force the Dems to confirm what we all know, that words mean nothing.

MORE 8/27/08

Here's some vintage Bill Clinton (well, from several months ago) talking about McCain. Here's another. Clinton was trumping McCain when nobody else was, which raised an eyebrow here at the time (wondering what he was up to). Expect these to surface if they haven't already.

As to Clinton saying that Obama has about as much experience as he did in 1992, well, here's an Obama video that shows otherwise...



And there's this..



So, just where is the 'fairy tale'?

MORE 8/27/08

Matthews and Olbermann are wondering why the Dems didn't go after Cheney harder. Perhaps this explains it..



"This wasn't just some Cheney pipe dream.."

MORE 8/28/08

Another view of the campaign floor:

8:04 - The convention floor erupts as the big TV screen shows . . . OMIGOD . . . JOE BIDEN! He's HERE! The transformation of Joe Biden is one of the best story lines at this convention. A week ago, people would sprint from the room when Joe entered for fear he would start a sentence that might not end until Halloween. Now, suddenly, he is a towering stud muffin of charisma

Gotta love Dave, whatever his politics might be. And with the hurricane season cranking up his preparedness rules are also worth repeating.

Hillary Time

Hillary started off by showing obligatory support for Obama. Then she did what strong candidates do--she bashed the current occupant of the White House while cementing the Clinton legacy.

stream of consciousness..

Hillary talking about making government an institution for public good. That's a good one.

A nation of immigrants and laws. Is she saying Dems should go after illegals?

She asks, 'were you in it for..'. But she didn't answer that question herself.

Good times are impossible without a Democrat in the White House.

Can't stop the problem of global warming without going commie on the oil cos.

Workers, workers, workers, workers world.

'We did it before'. Well yeah, if you don't count that Contract with America stuff and all the ignored terrorism. Sure.

Health Care...translation, 'enact my plan, Uhbama".

End the war in Iraq 'responsibly'. Exactly what the hell does that mean?

Greasy Joe.. he's tough. McCain? He's a friend and colleague but he's no longer a maverick with that Bush suit. He hates health care, children and he's a chauvinist pig. But otherwise, a patriot.

OK, the Twin Cities joke was pretty good. Revenge for Janet Reno? Nah, not enough.

Summation..

She's come a long way. Politically, she's a quick learner and exudes confidence and leadership, even when revising or sugar coating history.

Olbermann says it was a home run way out of the park, but he would. Perhaps he had a sexual experience along the way? Fox was less impressed, as might be expected, saying she didn't go far enough in supporting the One. Me, I'd call it a solo homer in the bottom of the ninth of a game she was trailing 8-6, just clearing the left field wall, only because she's lived to fight another day.

Camp McCain? They are reminding everyone that she once said Barack wasn't ready to lead, and wasn't convincing in overriding that premise. For the record, the McCain commercials showing her and Biden praising McCain when they were facing off with Obama are devastating.

Flight Delay City

Major failure of one of the FAA's two centers for processing flight plans, NADIN/Atlanta. They have a parallel site in Salt Lake City, which is taking the load for both, slowing everything down. No terrorism - the same kind of thing happened last year. They just need better backups.

The FAA's normal flight status website is overwhelmed with web traffic as of this writing, just when people need it the most. NATCA, the FAA's controllers union, also has a delays website, which doesn't seem to be faring much better as to information. Flights can be tracked free online here. Good luck out there.

UPDATE ...from Atlanta..

Michellorama

She's not a gifted public speaker, but she got her points across.. faith, family, God, loves America, average woman, not a shrill monster. As Juan Williams said on Fox, it was also an historic moment from the perspective of minorities in this country, something not possible in any other country but America. And she touched on that.

But she avoided the proud comment. Saying she loves America really doesn't do it--she could love the country but still not be proud of it until Barack started bringing out the voters.

As to Obama, what's he doing in St. Loi, Kansas City hanging out with some family and not at the convention? A Secret Service thing, perhaps?

Man Jumps from Sixth Floor, Survives

Amazing:

Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel to contact an associate of Gartrell's. But that man, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say the man broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later.

Incredible. He must have landed in a trash dumpster or something. Good thing they caught him before he was able to do something horrible to Obama.

Saving the World Better

Sayeth Queen Nancy the I:

"We've got a planet to save. Nothing less is at stake other than civilization as we know it today,"

And they accuse Bush of scaremongering over terrorism! But here's a question for her highness--isn't John McCain a believer in man-made global warming that only man can change?

Changing Change

With Biden onboard it's apparently time for Frank Rich to define the new way forward for the hopeandchange express:

Is a man who is just discovering the Internet qualified to lead a restoration of America’s economic and educational infrastructures? Is the leader of a virtually all-white political party America’s best salesman and moral avatar in the age of globalization? Does a bellicose Vietnam veteran who rushed to hitch his star to the self-immolating overreaches of Ahmad Chalabi, Pervez Musharraf and Mikheil Saakashvili have the judgment to keep America safe?

R.I.P., “Change We Can Believe In.” The fierce urgency of the 21st century demands Change Before It’s Too Late.

Behold, the new problem ahead. There's no reason to fear AQ attacking our soft economic underbelly anymore, no sir, it's China we have to worry about now, made clear by their tally of Olympic medals and the vast numbers of shipboard containers heading our way. Even climate change pales in comparison (especially since China is producing the most CO2 pollution these days) to the plight of American's economic might if we continue our current failed capitalistic leadership. And we need an education system to point our youngsters in that new direction.

How to win? Rich believes it can't be done with the old experienced white guy, rather, we must elect the unqualified black guy because he understands text messages and isn't white, which is key to fooling the global masses into believing once again in the greatness of America, which is key. No surprise, it's symbolism over substance 101, right out of the Howard Dean Democrat Party playbook.

Disregard the fact George Bush appointed more minorities in his cabinet than any former president--none were liberals or internationalists, meaning they were only faux minorities. His argument almost lends credence to that Jack Wheeler opinion piece going around right now in email, although Wheeler's use of race tends to trigger the theme song from Deliverance while Rich's vision of white GOP devils tends to cue 'We Are The World'.

So how is Joe Biden part of this? In one word, Iraq. He was for it before he was against it, but it's becoming more of a moot point daily as casualties don't make the news. But do the Dems really think they get away with calling someone who voted yea on the war resolution an 'expert' who'll bolster the main candidate's resume when the main candidate himself defeated Hillary largely based on his judgment to oppose the war? Apparently they do! It's now the stupid economy, stupid, unless Russia attacks someone else, in which case it'll be George Sidney McSame's fault as explained to us by Joe Biden, foreign policy expert.

Yet as the convention approaches there's a nagging feeling the Dems could be in a much better position. They'll enter the show with an empty suit and loose cannon in the starring role when they could have had her Majesty and the first black VP, a scenario perhaps guaranteeing a 16 year domination of the Lincoln Bedroom if the donations played out right. Alas, it's too late now. We presume.

State of the Sponsorship

Scientists at Sandia National Labs have been freed to discuss their detective work on the anthrax mystery and have elaborated on the lack of a silica coating to the spores, suggesting it tends to rule out state sponsorship. Not really.

Indy researcher Ed Lake has always been a lone nut proponent and tends to bristle at those who don't share his view. The following blockquote is his reaction to an email he received from an expert regards the Sandia silica conclusion:

Unfortunately, this is one of those occasions where general terms and suggestions may be more appropriate than universal truths, since the statement seems to have given license to all the people who were previously arguing that the anthrax was weaponized to now argue that the lack of weaponization means nothing, and they can still argue that there was a "state sponsor" behind the attacks. Or al Qaeda could have done it.

While his reasoning is sound (some want it both ways) the spore coating scenario really only made sense if someone stole American or Russian powder (the bentonite-Iraq story was shot down by the White House early on) or if AQ was advertising they'd figured out the process, which was near-impossible.

It's actually worse to think it wasn't weaponized. We'd have to change 'Axis of Evil' to 'Axis of Idiots' to think one of them would have attacked America a week after 9/11 using their own material fingerprint. As the emailer alludes, the lack of a coating doesn't rule out a state from sponsoring a proxy terrorist group by supplying necessary primary ingredients and know-how, leaving their own mark off the product, which has always left AQ in the picture.

That doesn't take Ivins out of the picture--he still looks pretty darn guilty. But on the same token, why would he leave his own material fingerprint by using the RMR-1029 supply then send the FBI a sample of it? Being the killer he'd have known it could be genetically tied back to his stock, even if sent in the wrong format. We'd have to believe he was either overly arrogant and nearly insane or in the least impulsively stupid, which the FBI has been trying hard to prove of late. But some of those constructs also apply to terrorists.

But back to that pesky state sponsorship thing. We know proxies and even lone wolf terrorists like anniversaries. McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal building on April 19, 1995 on the one year anniversary of Waco. But how many knew April 19 was also the anniversary of the creation of UNSCOM to enforce UN Resoltion 687 in disarming Saddam Hussein?

Here's a video that discusses anniversaries (via Jack Cashill). Warning, it's somewhat truther-ish in music and overtones--just watch for the dates:



He left a few out. Yousef entered America in 1992 with a fake Iraqi passport. It had a date stamp of September 11, 1990 on it (refer to Mylroie's "The War Against America" page 53). Why use a fake Iraqi passport with 9/11/90 when he knew Iraqi nationals needed a visa to enter the US, which he didn't have? Andy McCarthy believes it because he wasn't very bright, yet he made his way past immigration and later set off the bomb and almost knocked down the towers (where would Clinton have retaliated for that?).

Evidently he favored that date because years later federal prisoner Yousef sued the Bureau of Prisons for what he called "draconian restrictions" at ADX Florence. The lawsuit was filed on 9/11/98.

The lefties might call these coincidences 'neocon fantasies' and OK, perhaps they are. But the folks who are 100 percent invested in Iraq being harmless and inconsequential to the GWoT--like Barack Obama--will never compromise on this issue. They simply can't. On the other hand, Joe Biden was once a major advocate of regime change and voted yea for the use of force before he started blaming Bush for worldwide terrorism. Maybe the verbal volcano will spurt out some kind of inconvenient truth along the way if pressed regards this issue. Could be fun to watch.

Side Tracks

I was never a big fan of the late John Denver but I liked this song and I sure like his mountains. He was an avid golfer as well.



Appropriate for this week, if you think about it.

In the same kind of musical vein, here's the LRB..



I'm certain the opening piano scene is live, or "real", but it appears they spliced in a lip-synch thereafter. There's a true live version on YT with Wayne Nelson singing lead in a later version of the group sans original member Glenn Shorrock.

It's so, Joe

Obama has his Cheney, although a hipper version. Folks will be pulling Biden clips from You Tube and this one will probably get a lot of play:



Yes, who can forget his "colorful cuss word reaction" to Bush's veiled suggestion at the Knesset that Obama might be a terrorist appeaser in the mold of Europeans during the Hitler days?

Of course, if you keep listening to the rest of that diatribe you'll be treated to a nice rasher of boilerplate bullshiite about how Bush increased terrorism through his policy of going after terrorists. So while he's a funny guy and one prone to shooting off his mouth at times, he's still a liberal Democrat.

His quick wit and relaxed style will be a natural for late-night talk show circuit but at the same time, it's also a liability. Wonder if they'll duct tape him after the convention, to some degree? Whatever the case, I kinda like Joe Biden and so do a lot of other bitter clingers. Which is probably the point.

Parting thought--what's left for the Clintons, aside from their roll call hopes? Revenge?

MORE 8/23/08

Will there be at least one non-Senator in the club when all is said and done? McCain might as well pick Graham or Lieberman now and be done with it.

But seriously, what does the Biden pick say about Maverick's decision? Obama had no choice but to pick a more experienced second man similar to Bush 43 in 2000, which ironically makes him now seem even more inexperienced. And unlike Bush's pick of Cheney--a quiet operator who spent at least part of his tenure at a secret location, Biden is hard to duct tape. Impossible might be the better word.

Everyone knew the RNC was going to ram the Biden clips down our throats this fall [debate clips of his bashing the unilateral attack plan for Pakistan and the on the job training comment] but since he's part of the team their effectiveness has been muted--Obama saw the light. More of his superior judgment on display.

Conversely, the conventional wisdom is that McCain needs a younger more vibrant sidekick to fill out the ticket to alleviate any age fears (McCain has the experience thing locked up). Whomever it is, this person will soon be debating with the older, experienced Biden on matters foreign and financial. Obama had an foreign policy experience problem--he fixed it with Biden. McCain has a financial experience problem and hasn't energized the GOP base--Romney is the obvious fix, like it or not.

ONE MORE THING

Obama is running as the outsider bent on fixing a broken Washington, but Romney actually IS an outsider who ran on fixing Washington. Team McCain could then say "we're actually more outsider than Obama", pointing to McCain's willingness to cross the aisle while Obama sat stoically on his own side for 2 years, and Romney's vast experience in the business world while Biden only pontificates about it in the Senate chambers. I can easily see Romney flummoxing Biden in a debate, pointing to his business acumen trumping theory, etc.

HISTORY OF JOE 08/23/08

Hard to find a better example of Biden's fieriness than this talk to firefighters in 2006, whereupon he predicts--without equivocation--a dirty bomb attack on America, which will be blamed on Republicans because they wanted tax cuts for the rich.

Or how about this one, Biden's position on abortion:

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception?

A: I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That's why the late-term abortion ban, where there's clearly viability.

That church would the Roman Catholic Church, but in other words his answer was just like McCain's with more nuance. And just when Obama was facing those nasty allegations about his cold-hearted position on the infant protection act thing.

To Veep or not to Veep

Who's it gonna be?

Political oddsmakers are ruling out Hillary, which sorta makes sense--why would they give her a floor vote otherwise? Of course, naming her VP would eliminate the floor vote, wouldn't it? Neither Nader nor Rove are lightweights in the prediction department and have both picked her, so we'll see. Politico describes her as being dissed by Uh-bama's vetting department, so maybe we'll see more of those famous tears. Or maybe this is just more BS diversion, like somebody floating Kerry's name last week. Where is the leftist outrage over all these secretive secrets!?

Drudge is saying Bayh, presumably not Birch, while earlier people were floating the name of Chet Edwards of Texas whom I know very little about. Google and You Tube know plenty, though, and a quick search indicates he was against the surge and once advocated we build schools rather than more jails.

Stock liberal rhetoric perhaps but anytime they mention schools the name of Ayers floats to mind for some reason. A more inquiring mind might take note that the video was sponsored by an outfit called the "first five years fund" who advocates early childhood education and which is run by ex journalist Cornelia Grumman, a Harvard grad and Chicago inhabitant, and soon-to-be writer for HuffPo's new Chicago edition. Education always sounds fine--it's the curriculum ya gotta watch.

But if it's Bayh, which has always made sense due to the Midwestern values he brings to the table, then announcing Friday evening (or Saturday morning) would suggest they are low-keying his running mate. If Google memory serves, Bayh advocated taking out Saddam when Saddam was still our enemy, including this morsel:

It is an honor and privilege for me to join today with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and my good friend, Senator Lieberman, in support of this resolution granting the President of the United States the authority to defend our country.

That opens an interesting dichotomy with the One's superior position of judgment on the matter but it does kinda support the low-key thing.

Whatever, it's a sure thing that with the upcoming concert, er, convention and VP announcement the fledgling Ayers Annenberg story will be knocked off the mainstream press's story planning boards once and for all, only to return in September as the racist smearmongering du jour.

End Game

The New York Times, reporting today on new scientific revelations about the anthrax:

By late 2005 to 2006 it became clear that just eight of the 1,070 samples collected included all four morphs. And one of the samples was the ancestor of the other seven. The seven samples came from Fort Detrick and one other laboratory in the United States, F.B.I. scientists said at the Monday news conference, held at F.B.I. headquarters.

The Washington Post, commenting on the latest updates on the case in September 2006:

"There is no significant signature in the powder that points to a domestic source," said one scientist who has extensively studied the tan, talc-like material that paralyzed much of Washington in the deadliest bioterrorism attack in U.S. history.

Still a little strange, but maybe they were trying to spook Ivins into reacting. Why though, if they were making such good progress in the lab in 2006, was the leader of Amerithrax, Richard Lambert, transferred? Grassley asked some questions then, too.

Anyway, the scientific revelations released today will satisfy some while offering more fodder to others. The slow trickle is cooling off some of the conspiracists and even Greenwald seems to have curtailed the chase based on his last few columns. Maybe that's because it's obvious Ivins had time to make the trip, was skilled enough to not leave traces in his car or home (or kill himself), had emotional issues and was a little weird to boot. 9/11 was a traumatic event for many, and maybe it was enough to snap him. Perhaps he wasn't trying to kill anyone, just scare the nation into a preparedness frenzy based on what he knew of the threat.

Thing is, today's information didn't shine any light on that possible motive nor did it seem to link the attack anthrax to Ivins' Fort Detrick lab. One of Senator Grassley's recent questions was whether it was possible any of the substance fell into the wrong hands--it would seem from today's story that if any RMR-1029 material ever unofficially walked out of that lab it would have displayed the same key mutations (and a former employee has admitted such a thing was possible).

But it's rather amusing that as this story begins to fade away the Times remains vigilant while showing nowhere near the same curiosity about Obams's ties with an unrepentant domestic terrorist, one who gives interviews with socialists sitting in front of Che Guevara flags. Wonder which end game Times staffers like Nic "I'll apologize to Hatfill real soon" Kristof believe in? Doubtful it's the Ross Getman Islamic terrorist version.

After all, their former run-amok expert on germs and Islamic terrorism was a friend of another world-class microbiologist who 'committed suicide', former UNSCOM inspector Dr. David Kelly. Miller was cut adrift about the same time the Times turned on Bush by giving up the terrorist surveillance program. One could assume they might have strong feelings about all this, especially after Miller's starring role in the Plame affair.

Speaking of starring roles, the Miller character will soon be appear on the silver screen portrayed by the lovely Kate Beckinsale in the film "Nothing But the Truth", which debuts in Canada in September. Most of the flick was filmed here in Memphis, and rumor has it a local blogger might even make a cameo.

Somebody Check Cafferty's Kool Aid

Yes, it's CNN. Yes, it's Jack Cafferty. But it looks like fun to push back on this thing:

Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.

Only fake presidents can take vacations in Hawaii while Russia invades Georgia and get away with it--real ones are always on call as Hillary noted in her 3 AM ad. Cafferty knows this, which can only mean he's fallen so far in the tank for Obama that his mind is gone. Presidents need to occasionally venture out of DC, even if it's to play golf or grab photo ops on a yacht. For Jack's sake, here's a photo of the vacationing president vacationing:

President George W. Bush delivers a statement on the situation in Georgia with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Crawford, Texas, Saturday, Aug. 16, 2008. White House photo by Eric Draper

There's more. Summarizing, Bush should have seen 9/11 coming in August just like everyone else in government, like Richard Clarke. Damn him. After all, he had that August PDB to work with (trutherism?). Too bad he never looked back on past PDBs while he was waiting for the missing W keys to be replaced. Guess he really was intellectually incurious. But Cafferty's target wasn't Dumbya, he built that strawman to tear down McCain:

It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven."

True he's no C.S. Lewis but that's basically being saved in a nutshell. Some tend to mistake fancy words for intelligence, going as far as seeing Bush as an incurious moron slacker who caused a hurricane after starting a war over an attack he could have prevented by not going to Crawford, Texas before the attack. And that John McSame is just like same, and a phony Christian to boot!

After reading a column like that it's not hard to imagine Mr. Cafferty at some point chanting 'O bom A' to the master among the European throngs. As if not enough, CNN gave us a two-fer with a same day profile of the man for whom change can't happen fast enough. Sharp contrast to the black hole known as the missing Annenberg Challenge years. Oops, can we use that term anymore?

Ivins update II

The FBI held a technical session at its HQ this afternoon to discuss the anthrax whodunit in more scientific detail. The media was invited, sans cameras, for what that was worth.

The news clarified last Friday's New York Times report that said, seemingly contrary to previous reports and the affidavits themselves, that Ivins's initial sample actually did match the evidence anthrax. Not quite.

According to today's session the first sample indeed did match the evidence but was destroyed by the FBI because it didn't follow the protocol that Ivins himself helped to structure. Since it was not in the same format as the thousands of other samples under subpoena they claimed it wouldn't be admissible. Before destruction they sent a copy to a scientist at Northern Arizona University, then promptly forgot about it.

Ivins claimed to have known a few months after the attack that the evidence had similar qualities to his flask of RMR-1029. The FBI claims he was lying. By now saying they destroyed the first batch it takes away any possibility they could have told him or any other scientists three months after the attacks.

The fact the first batch was a match means he took a great risk by sending what he knew was the culprit anthrax to the FBI, even with incorrect format. We know it was viable because later it came back to bite him through DNA testing--he would have known that was possible. Incredibly risky, but we don't know what was being said around the water cooler at the time. Wonder if that April 2002 sample is still around for some independent testing?

It's interesting the stories say the FBI learned their error (destroying the sample) three years after 2002. Still somewhat confusing. When the Feds went to visit Ivins on March 31 2005 they were grilling him on why his April 2002 submission didn't match his RMR-1029 flask they had seized, not on why his first and second submissions in 2002 didn't match. According to reports they couldn't have known such a thing at the time because the NAU batch wasn't discovered until a year later in 2006, unless I've missed something, a decent bet with this mess.

Ironically, only nine days before the March 31 face-off an anthrax scare occurred at the Pentagon, hardly publicized by any major media:

Harris also said the anthrax in the initial samples was the same strain as the organism used during the first anthrax attack via U.S. Mail facilities in the fall of 2001. This was not surprising, however, he said, because it is the most common strain.

The material was tested at USAMRIID, who found nothing, but showed a positive when tested by a contractor who had never experienced a false positive in thousands of previous tests.

Greenwald and his co-conspiracists will probably claim the destroyed evidence was some kind of ruse after the fact to explain why Ivins had to be lying during the following conversations:

As indicated in previous paragraphs, the RMR- 1029 submission provided by Dr. Ivins in April 2002 did not match genetically or phenotypically. Therefore, neither SA Steele nor any other member of the Task Force could make a comparison between the Ames strain used in the mailing and RMR 1029, until after the June 17,2004 submission and subsequent laboratory analysis.

When interviewed again on May 7,2007, Dr. Ivins told investigators that, within three months after the letter attacks, he was aware that his stock of anthrax, RMR-1029, exhibited unique morphological similarities to the anthrax-used in the attacks, and that he allegedly learned this information from three coworkers at USAMRTID who participated in the forensic analysis of the anthrax in the letters. Each of those three coworkers was interviewed by the Task Force, and deny disclosing such information to Dr. Ivins.

We know someone had the February 2002 sample the entire time and it's not clear whether the botched sample could have been tested before being destroyed. That leaves open the possibility that although perhaps inadmissible, someone still tested it and could have told Ivins as he indicated.

Greenwald might also claim the seizure of RMR-1029 from Ivins's lab in 2004, which was tested off-site by the Navy and determined to be a match to the evidence anthrax, cannot be trusted without independent verification. They may also ask why the Feds would have needed Ivins's 2002 initial botched sample to crack the case when they had control of his entire flask of RMR-1029 (which the 2002 sample was based on) as early as 2004. Overall it seems somewhat odd they wouldn't have indicted him in 2005 based on the severity of the situation (WMDs). So far we've been told they were waiting to end the Hatfill defamation cases. As good an answer as any, I suppose.

MORE 8/19/08

Frankly, after re-reading the convoluted scribblings above I'm reminded of when Obama lost his train of thought on stage one time. This investigation seems to be going around in overlapping circles with bits of evidence being sprung on the public and press in little spurts, sometimes seeming to contradict itself. But frankly that's a drawback of speculating based on media reports. Even some trained microbiologists are falling into this trap, some perhaps because they don't want it to be a lone wolf--or one of their own. Just gotta be Cheney.

Like Spertzel, I thought it was Iraq or AQ. But after digesting this WaPo report and the ones from yesterday Ivins looks a lot worse, and my questions have narrowed:

1. They are saying the silicon was basically an environmental contaminant of the lab when the product was made. Was it in the first batch, and if not, why not? The labs were supposedly the same.

2. Are we going to get a timeline on when they determined RMR-1029 was the suspect source? When did they narrow it down to eight batches and two labs when they supposedly didn't have Ivins sample until seizing it in 2004.

3. Was Ivins really stupid enough to think he could use stock from his own lab, knowing his extra time spent there before the mailings would be highly incriminating as would the substance itself? This is why they've provided the emails, but at the same time he was together enough to be added to the investigation team in 2001 and win an award in 2003.

4. What effect did the Hatfill lawsuits have on whether and when Ivins was targeted for indictment?

5. As to the alleged coming indictment, we were first told it was imminent when the story broke, along with mention of the death penalty. Monday's briefing said they're months to even a year from getting all their forensic techniques accepted via peer review. Were they really that close to an indictment after all?

6. Was the 2005 Pentagon anthrax scare ever confirmed one way or the other?

7. How did he handle the letters during transit? Is it that easy?

8. Why are they protecting the name of the other lab?

9. What happened to Hatfill? Is there a book forthcoming? An interview?

I can easily imagine a scenario where Bruce Ivins could have committed this crime. He had weak motive, an unstable personality, worked for Red Cross (bringing in a preparedness angle), had access to almost everything he needed and the knowledge required to do it. He doesn't have a rock solid alibi for either mailing window, and has no rational explanation for why he was in the lab after hours before each mailing. He liked to mail things from distant post offices to throw people off, and also liked to take long drives for no reason. He messed up his samples after having helped FBI set up their evidence lab. And he spiraled down towards the end under growing pressure and better genetic testing.

Inconsequential items= the franked envelopes (anyone could have purchased); the Florida letter they never found (probably tossed and currently buried in the dump--nobody knew there was an anthrax threat at that point); the threats to the social worker (he was distraught and paranoid, so he could have figured people were trying to frame him if he wasn't guilty).

For what it's worth, Ed Lake still has the most rational coverage of all of this mess, quite a contrast to the sock puppet.

But I think it's important to remember one thing. Even if Ivins settles in as the likely culprit it doesn't mean there is no external threat, or never was. I'm still wondering what happened to Mubarak al-Duri, bin Laden's "WMD procurement" person according to the 9/11 Commission. Interview in 2001, but no rendition, only tracking. Weird.

Obama's Pay Grade

To recap:



Using a tired government cop-out reply to answer this question = not smart. That's why he quickly cut off Warren and rolled into Obamaspeak, distorting and contorting his views then saying he can't really argue with those who believe life begins at conception. Like McCain.

It's a complicated issue indeed but for one to support abortion on demand it would seem morally required to believe that human rights begin at birth. Otherwise...

By the way, who's above a president's pay grade?

Flag on Obama's Plane, Part Deux

This is part of the ongoing silly saga of the American flag being removed from Obama's campaign jet. For some quick background, here's the first post, which pointed out that ALL North American Airlines charter jets have flags on their tails so 'removing' it was a natural part of repainting the plane into official Obama campaign livery. No story there.

But having just checked Obama's 'fightthesmears' website a follow-up post is in order. Obama has completely distorted the controversy, stating the charge as follows:

Barack Obama has been attacked for not having an American Flag on his campaign airplane.

Not exactly. He was attacked for removing the huge US flag waving on the tail fin. Here's the response:

Barack Obama does indeed have an American flag displayed on the outside of this campaign airplane.

Here's their picture proof:



Well OK, he's got a tiny flag next to the N number but this is really a "whoopdee do" moment. Most US commercial aircraft have a small flag somewhere on the fuselage, evidenced by this United 757, this American 757, this Delta 757, and this Northwest 757. That's almost like bragging that it still has a paint job.

The real response was that all North American Airlines planes have large tail flags but they probably didn't want to invite question as to why he felt the need to replace it with the Big O while opting to downsize the flag to a postage stamp, so they're just saying "it's still there." Crafty, these politicians are.

By the way, as to the incident in July where Obama's charted Midwest MD-81 declared an emergency the FAA initially says it didn't, chalk it up as yet another embarrassment for a government agency. But Brian Ross's dramatic description of controllers asking for "souls onboard and fuel" is really nothing unusual, since it's SOP anytime a plane declares an emergency. And the controllers almost certainly knew Obama was one of those souls onboard.

Side Tracks

This photo struck a chord:



I grew up with a father who loved the King and NASCAR, probably favoring Palmer more than Petty as the years passed. As a kid I built model cars of number 43 and his challengers (Cale, Buddy, Bobby). It was only later that I'd come to appreciate the swashbuckling on-course charisma of Arnold Palmer. A lot of golf balls met their demise in trying to emulate the man. Here's an ode to another king of that time, with a stock car theme to boot..

Smoke in the Eyes

One of the more incriminating items from the FBI's original document dump against Dr. Ivins was their contention he submitted erroneous material from his lab in 2002 when they requested samples from his RMR-1029 control flask. This is now down in flames.

The New York Times reported on Friday about a closed-door session the FBI had with selected government officials this past week where the following was announced:

But F.B.I. officials acknowledged at the closed-door briefing, according to people who were there, that the sample Dr. Ivins gave them in 2002 did in fact come from the same strain used in the attacks, but, because of limitations in the bureau’s testing methods and Dr. Ivins’s failure to provide the sample in the format requested, the F.B.I. did not realize that it was a correct match until three years later.

This was a very interesting revelation depending on when the "three years later" actually began. If it was 2002, discovered in 2005, then the evidence provided in this 2007 affidavit appears to be rather outdated:

On March 31, 2005 Dr. Ivins was informed that the slants of RMR-1029 material he provided to the FBIR on April 10, 2002 were found to be genetically distinct from the anthrax contained in the attack letters, and from the anthrax material recovered by the FBI from the RMR-1029 flask seized from Dr. Ivins' lab on April 7, 2004. Dr. Ivins was confronted with this and was asked to explain why he did not submit the genetically positive sample which was clearly responsive. Dr. Ivins was adamant in his response that there had been no omission from his submission, and he insisted that he had provided RMR-1029 to the FBI in his second submission of samples in April 2002.

If "three years later" actually means the discovery was made in 2008 that takes the postal inspector off the hook but still doesn't explain why they would release erroneous information to the public via the document dump.

Either way it certainly makes Ivins look a little better but it doesn't exonerate him. In 2007 he reportedly told the FBI that scientists investigating the case shortly after the attacks had told him the attack anthrax was genetically similar to his own RMR-1029 flask. This was before he was asked to provide a sample. The individuals named later denied telling Ivins but they were probably working under non-disclosure agreements and wouldn't necessarily want to admit a violation.

One can imagine a scenario where the FBI was trying to test Dr. Ivins by requesting a sample only to find it did match, then later trying to trip him up by announcing it didn't. Whatever the case Ivins seemed to know a switch would implicate him and therefore fingered an FBI special agent for giving him the info followed two years later by mentioning the insider scientists. Why wouldn't he have mentioned them in 2005? Maybe he didn't want to get friends in trouble. By 2007 the heat was high and maybe he felt less restrained out of sheer desperation.

The FBI appears to be in a hard spot, now forced to backpeddle probably because they know the scientific evidence being demanded by the press and skeptics will prove the two samples did indeed match in 2003, which was not evident in the affidavits and not explained with their release. They will be providing this scientific evidence in a briefing this week.

A strong scientific presentation might explain why Ivins spiraled downhill these past two years as he realized they were no longer blinded by his science while also explaining the initial confusion between the samples.

But an unpersuasive presentation will only further sully the credibility of the world's premier law enforcement agency, one already tarred by fumbled cases like El Sayyid Nosair, Richard Jewell, Ruby Ridge, and even TWA 800.

It might also open the possibility that Ross Getman might be closer to correct about the letters than Ed Lake. Getman seems to believe the crime was an inside job alright, but the perps were not government scientists, they were jihadi spies who had infiltrated our bio-lab network.

That could rationally explain the FBI's passion to finger lone wolf scientists with restricted access to high-level containment facilities (therefore limiting the field) rather than opening the door for any well-trained microbiologist operating in their basement (here or overseas). Such a move would be completely understandable given the circumstances and stakes involved but the bottom line is that nobody will ever be completely satisfied unless the government can put somebody at those mailboxes.

A strawman named Corsi

Jerome Corsi might be a tad nutty and prone to believing fantastical tales but who can argue with this statement from Joseph Farah, his boss at World Net Daily:

Isn't it interesting how Jerome Corsi has received more scrutiny from the Big Media in the last 24 hours than Barack Obama has received in his entire political career?

About right. Tom Maguire has been asking questions about Obama's early relationship with Bill Flag Stomper Ayers for months now with only an echo in return.

Obama's 40 page rebuttal of Corsi's book seems a little overboard considering how many Americans couldn't care less. It's not hard to imagine a strategy that puffs Corsi into a giant strawman the size of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man with the entire Republican Party stuck on him like glue in an effort to knock the whole thing down once and for all. The answers to any remaining legitimate questions would go down with it in the ball of fire.

We already know the MSM won't dig into the closet of any Democrat until forced at gunpoint or by the National Enquirer, so they'll be there with bells for the One. It may already be occurring with John Freaking Kerry being mentioned as a possible VP candidate the very same week Corsi's book hit the press--there's no way in hell Obama would pick that dude as a running mate, in this life or the next (although it would make for an interesting internecine battle if McCain were to pick Lieberman).

No, Kerry's most likely being trotted out to bring more light to the Swift Boat side of Corsi's resume and will be jammed back in the bottle before the election only to reappear in Barack's cabinet somewhere. If Obama loses he still gets his shot at revenge.

Exit Strategy, Stage Left

It's hard to find a story full of more BS that the "Hillary's name will be placed in nomination at the convention" tale being told today. They put out a joint statement that conveyed the following, minus the PR happy talk:

we're unified as long as Hillary's ego is properly stroked

Never mind that Her supporters have threatened to walk out of the convention after her speech on Tuesday night out of protest. Imagine the MSM trying to spin that, perhaps hiring John Edwards as a commentator to help explain it.

And never mind that such a stunt might give more people a reason to watch til the bitter end. If there's even the tiniest scintilla of a chance the super delegates might turn on Obama during a roll call vote it would be the definition of must-see TV. Of course, there's not one scintilla of a chance that such a thing might happen or Obama wouldn't have agreed to it.

All in all, a face-saving exit deal for Clinton guaranteed to placate her angry supporters and con them and America into watching a rigged vote so they can hammer home more propaganda along the way. But then again, I could be wrong.

That was then..

Back in 2006 the WaPo published an update story about the Amerithrax investigation, which included the following:

Moreover, scientists say, the particular strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned to out to be a less significant clue than first believed. The highly virulent Ames strain was first isolated in the United States and was the basis for the anthrax weapons formerly created by the United States. The use of the Ames strain in the 2001 attack was initially seen as a strong clue linking the terrorist to the U.S. biodefense network.

But the more the FBI investigated, the more ubiquitous the Ames strain seemed, appearing in labs around the world including nations of the former Soviet Union.

"Ames was available in the Soviet Union," said former Soviet bioweapons scientist Sergei Popov, now a biodefense expert at George Mason University. "It could have come from anywhere in the world."

Reading the article again, especially this quote, "there is no significant signature in the powder that points to a domestic source," said one scientist, after knowing what we know now sounds a little startling and suggests a couple of possibilities.

In 2006 the Feds had just changed the guard and the new chief wanted a fresh look at the case. They had to know Ivins was a leading suspect at that point, so perhaps this story was mild disinformation attempting to shake the trees and see if anything would fall out. The converse would make the current story fingering Ivins as disinformation, but read this affidavit before rendering final judgment on the FBI, which is perhaps the most incriminating circumstantial evidence they had and certainly very interesting to a jury.

MORE 8/15/08

Ed Lake's anthraxinvestigation site is an interesting repository, containing many old MSM stories in their entirety that don't appear on the web anymore. One such article is from June 2002, where Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Hatfill's leading detractor, mentioned that it had been known in 2002 the anthrax was genetically linked to Fort Detrick's stock.

Why is this important? Because the FBI accused Ivins of lying in 2005 and again in 2007 when he claimed to know the RMR-1029 flask was linked with the attacks. They claimed he couldn't have known since the first sample he sent to FBI for testing in 2002--April 2002 to be exact--did not match the evidence anthrax. Apparently they didn't inform him of this until 2005 at which point he adamantly denied it, claiming several scientists in the investigation told him his flask was close to a match only several months after the event (they denied it). Odd that Hatch-Rosenberg also seemed to be getting the same info in 2002, meaning Ivins could have picked up the same gossip. Actually, if he was one of Ms. Rosenberg's sources that would seem to prove he was telling the FBI the truth.

Another interesting potential loose end is the threatening letter sent to former USAMRIID scientist Dr. Ayaad Assaad accusing him of being capable of launching a bio-terror attack. The typed letter was sent on September 21st and displayed insider information about the Detrick workplace. Many suspected former USAMRIID scientist Phillip Zack because he had harrassed Dr. Assaad when they worked together in the late 80s, early 90s. But the FBI determined the substance had been grown within 2 years of the attack, effectively ruling out Zack. Was the letter perhaps written by Ivins to throw off the dogs?

Whomever wrote the letter had no way of knowing the anthrax was in the pipeline unless they mailed it--as the Assaad letter was sent only three days after the initial anthrax to mailings to Florida and Tom Brokaw and before the first victim was publicly identified. Ironically, it was also a day after someone in St. Petersburg, Florida sent a hoax letter to Tom Brokaw, using the term 'unthinkabel'. The second anthrax letter was mailed October 9 with the word penicillin misspelled. Possibly a coincidence, but an odd one at that.

Brinkmanship 101

Once again George W. Bush proves to be a wild card in games of international brinkmanship:

The US is sending troops to embattled Georgia in the form of a humanitarian aid exercise, President George Bush said.

Wonder if Putey-Poot saw that one coming? Everyone figured Bush's hands were tied but the alternative of allowing Russia to run roughshod in the Caucasus, possibly paving the way for a future reacquisition of Azerbaijan or some of the 'Stans if adequate reasons can be manufactured, not to mention the oil pipelines in those regions, perhaps made up the Decider's mind.

So it's Putin's move. Will he call the bluff? Will he dare fire on US soldiers delivering humanitarian aid in a country being illegally attacked, perhaps jeopardizing their role on the Security Council? They say the Russians are good chess players but Bush has always operated under a Rovian doctrine that says "never underestimate the value of being underestimated". We shall see.

MORE 8/13/08

According to reports the town of Gori is being sacked by the Russians. Gori's claim to fame? Birthplace of the most famous Georgian Joseph Stalin, who must be smiling in the grave about now.

An Interesting Visitor

As mentioned by LGF and Hot Air, this may be something, or it may be nothing:

Adding to the intrigue is that the dead man, Saleman Abdirahman Dirie, 29, appears to be from outside the U.S. No passport was found on Dirie, who is believed to have entered the country from Canada.

A large container of a white powdery substance was found in the man's room on the fourth floor of The Burnsley hotel at 10th and Grant.

He was from Ottawa, Canada but it'll be interesting to see if there were any Pakistani connections. A cyanide plot was busted in Sindh, Pakistan in January of this year where the perps admitted they were going to put it in the water during the Shiite festival of Ashura.

At the same time ABC News is reporting tonight that al Qaeda's "Mata Hari", Aafia Siddiqui, a relative of Baluchi native KSM, had a "treasure trove" of contact info seized on her thumb drive. Ironically, the article also said this:

Interest in Siddique is in itself not new. On May 26th, 2004 she became the first woman wanted by the federal government in connection with Al Qaeda when then Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller asked the public's help in finding her and six men suspected of links to Al Qaeda. At that same time they warned, in advance of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, that Al Qaeda was preparing to "hit the United States hard" that summer.

She had her bail hearing postponed yesterday, which featured lots of supporters who claim she's being railroaded for some reason. But if she really knows Adnan El Shukrijumah, she's the real deal. Called by John Ashcroft "the next Mohammed Atta" at one point, he's rumored to have lived in Canada in the past, among other places.

Very soft eyes

McCain is touting his new online ad for the "Obama Fan Club", which shows folks in various stages of an Obamacrush. The title of this post was taken from the last utterance in the video, which can be viewed here.

No doubt McCain is trying to reach the net-savvy age bracket by appealing to the celebrity crowd but if Obama is a dreamy star that still leaves Mac filling the Bob Dole role. He needs to focus on finding ways of moving his own brand from "old war hawk" to "new improved peace hawk unless we have to kick Putin's KGB arse".

The GOP will have plenty of fodder coming up. The Dems are announcing their convention rotation for ole softy's coronation:

On Aug. 27, the theme is "Securing America's Future" with an acceptance speech by Obama's still-unannounced vice presidential candidate.

That should be interesting, since to date Obama has hinted he'll secure America's future by saying 'no we can't' to exploration for domestic oil, nuclear power, and victory in the very spot where most of the readily available oil resides. The only thing he's saying 'yes we can' to are new taxes and altering global climate through government hubris, which involves smoke, mirrors and more new taxes. But he says it so well.

That sets up the logical question--who will deliver the "spit ball speech" at this years RNC Convention?

Questions from Grassley and Greenwald

One of Glenn Greenwald's fans thinks they've found a glitch in the Washington Post's article about the anthrax killer's window of opportunity before the first mailing occurred:

If the Post's reporting about Ivins' September 17 activities is accurate -- that he "return[ed to Fort Detrick] for an appointment in the early evening, about 4 or 5 p.m." -- then that would constitute an alibi, not, as the Post breathlessly described it, "a key clue into how he could have pulled off an elaborate crime," since any letter he mailed that way would have a September 17 -- not a September 18 -- postmark.

Wonder if the Post's sources got it wrong? Perhaps they meant Tuesday the 18th? If not, then Greenwald has exposed a major flaw, because any letter mailed in that scenario would indeed be postmarked one day too early.

Looking over the affidavits on the DOJ Amerithrax page the circumstantial evidence looks just as strong as when I last viewed it, especially some of the emails (the one about multiple personalities is especially weird). But loose ends are still dangling, such as all the emails they didn't show. It's hard to get a mosaic based on a series of selected missives.

One of the most compelling arguments for Ivins's guilt was the FBI's contention that he misled them with different spore samples when they initially requested samples from his RMR-1029 sample in 2002. If Ivins was the culprit he might have figured he was home free at that point, thinking his deception had thrown them hopelessly off course. From reading the affidavit they never informed Ivins of the results of these tests, which they claim did not match the evidence anthrax samples.

After taking time out of their pursuit of Hatfill they came back to Ivins in late 2003 to look around some more. An FBI agent accompanying Ivins into the B3 facility then makes a seminal discovery--there were other samples not produced in the 2002 production. It's possible this was a common investigatory technique designed to test Ivins but whatever the case, he subsequently produced more slants for the FBI in April 2004:

On the afternoon of April 7,2004, an FBI Special Agent accompanied Dr. Ivins into Suite B3, and seized the original samples Dr. Ivins had used to prepare the slants submitted to the FBIR earlier that day. Additionally, the Agent seized the RMR-1029 flask itself.

It was sent to a Navy lab, where it tested genetically and phenotypically positive for all four evidence samples. The jig's up, right?

Apparently not. When confronted with the discrepancy Ivins did like any criminal (or wrongfully accused person) might do--he adamantly denied the original submission was not from RMR-1029. I'm assuming he didn't know the results of the 2002 tests until that very day, telling them he was told by a Special Agent some months earlier the evidence anthrax was from RMR-1029. The FBI adamantly denies it.

But we're back to the "new tests" issue, ie, how did they conclusively match the 2002 submission with the evidence anthrax when they admit the most definitive tests didn't arrive until much later? In a 2007 interview Ivins told them he was informed by 3 Fort Detrick scientists only three months after the event that the letter anthrax vaguely matched RMR-1029, which would have been around January 2002. He was then asked for samples in February 2002.

It makes sense that if he knew these scientists had told him it was close to RMR-1029 they had told the FBI as well, meaning they would be expecting his flask to match the letters. With that knowledge he couldn't very well switch the samples and incriminate himself, knowing they'd eventually come back and check at some point. This seems to be a crucial sticking point and most likely the reason the FBI doesn't believe his 2005 or 2007 assertions on the matter.

Something else:

Phenotypic and genotypic analyses demonstrate that the RMR-1029 does not have the Bacillus subtilis contaminant found in the evidentiary spore powders, which suggests that the anthrax used in the letter attacks was grown from the material contained in RMR-1029 and not taken directly from the flask and placed in the envelopes.

Excuse me, but aren't we assuming the material in the letters was brewed then dried in the lab, not poured directly out of the flask into an envelope? This sounds oddly cornball, unless I'm missing something.

By the way, the search warrants never turned up any traces of disease in his cars or property, meaning they had to assume he grew it and dried it at the Fort. Weren't security cameras on that area in 2001 after a major terrorist attack? Most federal offices began to install security cameras en masse after the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995.

Now might be a good time to introduce some questions posed by Republican Senator Charles Grassley on his website. Here's one pertinent to the above:

7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick? Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?

In other words, just because RMR-1029 was the root doesn't mean it had to come from that lab, right? The FBI would need to conclusively prove no material had ever been sent or stolen from that sample unless the new testing can zero in on which lab made what. This is consistent with Ivins not worrying during the 2002-2005 time frame, being under the impression they knew RMR-1029 was the root of the letters and not knowing (we assume) his first tests had come back negative.

On a tangential note, the affidavit talks of the franked postal envelopes used in the mailings and says the following:

Of the sixteen domestic government, commercial, and university laboratories that had virulent RMR-1029 Ames strain Bacillus anthracis material in their inventory prior to the attacks, only one lab was located in Maryland or Virginia, where the relevant federal eagle envelopes were distributed and sold by the U.S. Postal Service: the USAMRID facility at Fort Detrick, MD.

Seems they are needlessly bringing these other labs in play by mentioning their lack of proximity to the postal facilities of note. If they knew the evidence anthrax had come only from the flask in Ivins's lab then this is a moot point not worth mentioning.

On the other hand, if the evidence anthrax wasn't limited to the Detrick lab then it's possible some quantity of pilfered RMR-1029 could have been grown and dried off-site (it wasn't weaponized) then brought into the DC area, whereupon the perp(s) purchased envelopes locally and mailed them in New Jersey. Admittedly rather far out, but the letters alone hardly condemn Ivins without other evidence.

I'll leave off with one final Grassley question:

14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?

Nice observation. Maintaining a top secret clearance requires an FBI background investigation and one would certainly think they updated his clearance in 2001 before allowing him to work on the evidence anthrax. They gave him a lie detector test at the time. One of the emails in evidence is this:

July 7, 2000, in an e-mail, Dr. Ivins offered to be interviewed as a case study, as long as it' remained anonymous. Dr. Ivins indicated that he did not want to see a headline in the National Enquirer that read, "PARANOID MAN WORKS WITH DEADLY ANTHRAX!!!"

So it seems like what wasn't very significant then is highly incriminating now. But hindsight is 20/20. If the psychological problems were as bad as they are now saying the FBI and Army are basically incriminating themselves for not pulling his clearance in 2000, assuming it was reviewed before the attacks. It's possible these insinuations are being trumped up to bolster the relatively weak circumstantial evidence since he seemed to recover pretty well, winning the highest civilian award in 2003. But it's interesting that his mental state was described as "manic" right after 9/11 yet he was tagged to analyze the evidence and passed a lie detector.

He got the award for getting anthrax vaccines back online in the government, which they leave hanging as another possible motive but it's impossible to say the contracts wouldn't have been re-upped anyway after 9/11. The attacks certainly didn't hurt, though. Overall, it's another weak horse argument for committing mass murder and risking everything. Short of that we're left with his psychological problems explaining everything, suggesting some sort of crime of passion, yet it was rather well planned.

Aside from all the loose ends it still seems like he's the best fit. It'd be nice to get the 2002 test results and the September 18th mailing issue cleared up before suspending disbelief.

Bush and Georgia

The condemnations are coming in:

Miriyan Gogolashvili, of Tkviav, said: “The Russians will be here tomorrow. They want to show us and the world how powerful they are. Tomorrow it will be Ukraine and nobody in the West is doing anything to stop them. Why were our soldiers in Kosovo and Iraq if we don’t get any help from the West now?” he asked.

The Georgians are now retreating and begging their western friends for mercy. This could quickly turn bad in the court of public relations.

Putin surely knows it. He is displaying a lethal calculus consistent with a former KGB leader, probably figuring Bush is politically diminished and the American public has no stomach for engaging with Iran, much less some place they can't even locate on a map (I had to look it up on Google Earth, not realizing North Ossetia is where the Beslan massacre occurred). This is a win-win for him--he gets territory back while the neighboring countries realize western leaders aren't willing to risk world war III to defend them.

Something creative needs to be done, and soon. Cap'n Ed thinks Bush is doing enough by cranking up the empty rhetoric:

Former Soviet republics will learn to to fear Russia and to gravitate to the West for protection — as long as we stand firmly for Georgia. Fortunately, the Bush administration is now following John McCain’s lead on this issue and sending exactly that signal.

Actions speak louder, but apparently we can't act yet. But actions may come whether we want them or not. Oil is still a major player in all of this with major pipelines crossing Georgia to consider.

We've also got a presidential transition coming soon and with that worldwide terrorism antennae are already raised. AQ has struck somewhere around every transition since 1992 and Zawahiri's evidently still alive and speaking in English. Hopefully world leaders can refrain from gross stupidity and focus on stopping the extremism.

Fighting Gridlock

What is the future of highway transportation in America? Here in Tennessee we've been hearing some about the T word lately -- tolls. They are discussing a new toll bridge across the Mississippi River and have flagged several other state corridors as proposed toll roads. General aviation pilots have been standing firm against a near constant threat of "user fees" for several years now, but should they also be concerned with fees driving to the airport?

Check out this message from transportation secretary Mary Peters announcing the new website from DOT, which seems to lay out a future of user fees to fund the highway system under the premise that more hybrid cars (or even hydrogen replacements, air cars, etc) would greatly reduce the contributions to the gas tax funding method. It's a legitimate concern.

But it's something that if not done correctly will spark fear and conspiracies, especially when they talk about using RFD chips in vehicles to track usage so they can be tolled in "congestion pricing" corridors and such. The government would do well to tread lightly moving forward.

For example, here in Tennessee we've been watching as they erect overhead message boards along the interstates with other equipment on poles. Yes, it's probably for disseminating traffic, weather and safety information, but the PR campaign has been lacking, which invites speculation. I snapped a picture recently..



It's blank, and ripe for Photo-shopping. How about, "welcome to Memphis, we hope you don't get shot." Think the Chamber of Commerce would go for it?

Anyway, using a fee-for-service method isn't necessarily bad, although liberals will complain it's regressive, putting undue burden on poor drivers. Private pilots have used a similar argument (although few are poor), saying user fees would mainly benefit the deeper pocketed airlines. But these things can be worked out in due course. The bigger concern is the idea of tracking vehicle movements, for obvious reasons.

Side Tracks

Here's Eric Clapton at a concert in Hyde Park in 1996 with a nice version of "Badge":



Changing a little bit, here's Karla Bonoff with Linda Ronstadt, complete with a vocal mistake at the beginning and a lead guitarist with his volume turned way down--but the singing is definitely real.

Coming Up Empty

The Ron Suskind thing won't go away. TPM says the recently embarrassed author has now resorted to sliming his own book sources, namely Rob Richer, by publishing a partial transcript of their interview. Here's the money quote:

Yeah, no, exactly. But I couldn't tell you--again: I remember it happening, I remember a terrible brief kinda joking dialogue about it, but that was it

Well, that certainly clears everything up. No wonder they called the nutroot rescue squad and blamed everything on stock bogeyman Doug Feith. Marcy Wheeler reacts:

Now, I'm not at all surprised that Giraldi says Suskind got details wrong. The story always had a fundamental logical flaw (which Giraldi points out), which is that Cheney and CIA hate each other--and particularly hated each other in this period, when OVP believed Tenet had forced DOJ to open the Plame investigation. Note, there is significant reason to believe that Tenet knew Cheney declassified CIA properties over his objections, so things were probably quite tense between CIA and OVP, just as OVP was handing over documents showing that Cheney was the one pushing to leak Plame's identity.

And yet we're supposed to believe Tenet had a love affair with Feith and the OSP? That's not what he indicated in his memoirs (page 347):

Tina Shelton, a naval reservist on Feith's team, gave the presentation, which was titled "Iraq and al-Qa'ida--Making the Case." She started out by saying there should be "no more debate" on the Iraq-al-Qa'ida relationship. "It is an open and shut case", she said. "No further analysis is required." This statement instantly got my attention. I knew we had trouble on our hands.

Read pages 348/49 for more tributes of Doug Feith. Shelton denies Tenet's version. Feith mentions her on page 267 of his stealth book:

Tenet took me back to his office and complimented the briefing as useful, adding that he had "issues" on this subject with some of his people. His remark suggested he was sympathetic to the presentation.

Atta in Baghdad or not, all of this ignores a fundamental reality. The Joint Forces Command, which the left heralded earlier this year when they said there was no operational relationship found between Saddam and al Qaeda, put this in their "Iraqi Perspectives Project" in 2006:

Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills.

No need to fake reality.

Suspension of Belief

While the Edwards love child story provides Greta Van Sustern a fresh batch of program material the tidy wrap-up of the WMD attack on America continues to wind down towards the obscure conspiracies from whence it came. Yesterday Slate's Farhad Manjoo outlined three major theories while Ace provided one of his own:

I have to say at this point I am seriously doubting the FBI. I simply do not believe one even bothers offering this sort of utter nonsense as evidence of any kind if one has smoking-gun "new techniques" which definitively prove the anthrax came from Ivins' flask. Why are they not releasing these techniques? Do they wish to hide these powerful new methods from their fellow criminologists?

He knows, along with Greenwald, that this case has featured a lot of BS from the get-go. Those unfamiliar might want to start with Vassar professor Don Foster's overview from 2003 that helped finger Steven Hatfill. What is Foster saying now? Well, pretty much nothing, thanks to Hatfill's defamation settlement.

It's surprising the truthers haven't been more active in this story due to all the conflicting and puzzling information released from day one. But let's be candid here--not buying the official line doesn't automatically make one a conspiracy nut. This makes one a conspiracy nut (somebody please warn her about the dihydrogen monoxide).

No, I'm talking about stories like this at the Pentagon in March 2005 for example:

An anthrax alert occurred at the Pentagon facility March 14 and was accompanied by a second alert at a mailroom in a Defense Department-leased building in Falls Church, Va. That building, along with the entire three-building complex, was closed for two days before being declared clean.

Robert B. Harris, president and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Biotechnologies Inc. in Richmond, Va., also said the anthrax found at the Pentagon was the same genetic strain used in the 2001 attacks.

Down the memory hole now.

In the interest of full disclosure I've always favored a foreign source for this attack. Since I can't possibly know all the facts you'll mainly find my observations and supporting links here, nothing more. All of this could be wrong, but at least it's free!

That said, I think Bush's psyche was altered by these mailings no matter what the source. Both Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan have said Bush was changed by these attacks and it seems no coincidence the highly compartmentalized secret surveillance programs were started in the fall of 2001. Sure, 9/11 was enough of an excuse on its own, but this was icing on the TSP cake. After all, we had been attacked with WMDs.

I'd venture a guess that most Americans don't want to believe that a respected government germ scientist working to invent vaccines would actually commit treason and attack his own country, much less a president. That leaves only terrorism (either foreign or corporate) as a culprit, and most probably don't want to believe corporations are routinely killing people in such a fashion either. But in the maelstrom of theories some have gone a little hard on the outsider theorists, at times calling them "jingoists" and "haters". Yep, the kitchen is hot and I've ragged the inside jobbers myself.

Of course Greenwald probably believes Bush ordered every aspect of this, perhaps right down to printing the letters himself. On the same token, people like former UNSCOM inspector Richard Spertzel and bloggers like Ace and others (including me) really don't want to believe the government would attack it's own, even though we have, preferring to let the evidence lead to a lone 'ends-justify-means' liberal with a god complex if it can't be terrorism. So there you have our biases. But in the end, beauty is truth.

After weighing the document dump there's no more likely suspect (we know of) in that lab than Dr. Ivins. Of course "in that lab" is the optimal phrase. It was clear from stories posted in 2002 that the FBI knew Ivins' sample didn't match the sample they had or the powder from the letters. This was a key point, since it narrowed down the strain to only one location on earth--Fort Detrick, narrowing the suspects along with it. Ivins adamantly denied he had switched samples, which may allow some to believe the FBI were the ones playing switcheroo.

That's why it doesn't make sense he wasn't picked him up in 2002 since they undoubtedly knew about the evening unsupervised hours before the attacks and about his clandestine clean-up. After all, we're talking about real WMDs, not theoretical dirty bombs. The document dump had nothing to say about their fixation on Hatfill, who seemingly had an alibi, although the trip from Frederick to Trenton is no easy jaunt either (not to mention a nervous non-criminal scientist carrying WMD might stand to get stopped by the police en-route and give the whole thing away. And he did it twice).

I suppose there's a more nefarious explanation to consider. Say they had arrested Ivins in 2002 while the nation was in the middle of ramping up to remove Saddam. Imagine the impact it might have, like throwing cold water on a private part. The left would have considered it proof Saddam's WMD threat was overhyped, something that Iraq's propaganda apparatus would have surely seized upon to enhance their worldwide PR status. In other words, Bush could have intentionally delayed the arrest to give him an opportunity to remove a real anthrax threat, Saddam, so he had to name someone who couldn't have done it to stall for time.

The problem remains the Daschle/Leahy letters.

Whether coated with bentonite or not the Daschle powder was certainly better than seen before, something that apparently even tripped Bruce Ivins' scientific trigger according to Wednesday's NPR article. It's odd he would marvel publicly at his own creation or lie about somebody else's for that matter. Could be a clue. Perhaps he was more in line with the government scientists who let the cat out of the bag to Brian Ross:

By WILLIAM J. BROAD Three top scientists all with experience in germ weapons and knowledge of the federal investigation said in interviews yesterday that the powder was high-grade and in theory capable of inflicting wide casualties.

And, two of the scientists said, the anthrax was altered from its natural state to reduce its electrostatic charge, a process that prevents small particles from sticking together and to nearby objects, thus making them more likely to become airborne.

The experts noted that turning anthrax into a weapon of mass destruction still required added steps, like making the powder in quantity and learning how to disseminate it effectively. One expert said that only the United States, the Soviet Union and Iraq were known to have developed the necessary technique. But the experts said some officials were playing down the powder's potency out of ignorance or an impulse to reassure a frightened public.

Or perhaps he was one. The FBI and Fort Detrick, along with Ari Fleischer and Bob Woodward, almost pulled groin muscles trying to dispel any such notion, which seems to shred Greenwald's inside job theory especially knowing what he thinks of Bush's overall intelligence (iow, Bush was so crafty he sent the letters then vigorously pretended they didn't implicate Saddam in order to frame Saddam).

So in my mind Greenwald is correct--Ross still looms large here, at least in part. If Ivins was his source (or a source for his source) that would seem an automatic case closed since a Democrat scientist would have no reason to lie other than to deflect attention away from himself.

If not, then there's still some splainin' to do. Were these folks simply trying to deflect attention off their lab network buddies by blaming foreigners? Craven, if true. Or, were they just a group of Bush-lovin' neocons who wanted to kick more Muslim ass by implicating Saddam? Considering the Decider's reputation with the scientific community, that's not very likely, but we won't know until they are revealed.

But if Ross won't release the sources it's questionable as to whether Waxman could reach them. He could subpoena Ross but timing is key. If things are going miserably bad for Obama in September it might be worth the gamble. But if things are going well it's risky, since Ivins could turn out to be a source and convict himself, collapsing the inside job house of cards. It also might rekindle the William Ayers terrorist story in the process, forcing Obama to eventually throw it all under the bus. Perfect.

MORE 8/9/08

The WaPo says that Hatfill was officially excluded from suspicion on Friday, effectively releasing him from his "person of interest" straightjacket. We eagerly await his interview with Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters.

They also tried to close the door on the Brian Ross brouhaha by clarifying the substance found in the Daschle letter. Silicon. Not silica. And it was a contaminant, not an additive. Kinda strange, but I'm neither a microbiologist, FBI special agent, nor chemist. But these folks are experts and on their site you'll find an overview of the attacks, containing the following paragraphs:

The Daschle letter was opened in the sixth floor office at 9:45 am by an aide in the Senator's Hart Senate Office Building suite on October 15, 2001. It was believed to contain about 2 grams of powder comprised of 200 billion to 2 trillion spores. Based on nasal swabs, all 18 persons who were in the area of Daschle's sixth floor office tested positive for anthrax exposure, as did 7 of 25 (i.e, 28%) in the area of the Senator's fifth floor office (an open staircase connected the two offices).

Regarding the spore analysis of the Daschle/Leahy letters:

The anthrax spores in the Daschle and Leahy envelopes were uniformly between 1 and 3 microns in size, and were coated with fine particles of frothy silica glass.

Maybe they were just parroting news reports of the time. If you noticed, they referred to Senator Daschle's state as North Carolina, not North Dakota. But the site isn't old--it's been updated with recent material, fwiw.

MORE 8/9/08

Jean C. Duley has emerged from her secure location to give an interview to the WaPo, wherein she tells of her own twisting battle with substance abuse. She strongly denies being in league with the FBI, even chastising them for not helping her. Yet for some reason ("reasons that are unclear" is how the WaPo writer put it) her much-heralded restraining order, whereupon she misspelled several words in scratching out her nervous complaint, was never served on Ivins. Perhaps that's because the Feds were watching him like a hawk already. Guess we'll have to wait for the book.

It's tempting to throw out the term useful idiot here, but not with Ivins. He was probably more towards genius, and geniuses often have trouble with interpersonal relationships. Oddly, that makes him a prime suspect and prime fall guy at the same time.

This AP story paints a nice picture of an obsessed stalker (and why would this woman have reason to lie) but it seems more an indictment of Fort Detrick for keeping this guy around than anything else. Unless the whole Hatfill thing was a big diversion (with Hatfill's help) to fool Ivins while they figured out a way to prove their case.

MORE 8/10/08

One of the problems with speculation is that it's speculative, like most of the above, so take it with the grain it deserves.

If you pore through Ed Lake's site (scroll down for updates) it's obvious he's the leading web speculator on this case and he's looking more right by the minute.

Two links on his update page stand out to me. One is a clarification of Brian Ross's sources for the bentonite claim. First, Ross claims Ivins wasn't one of his sources and if he was it would have been reported it in a second. That sounds true, since with Ivins gone there would be no confidentiality issue with sources.

That takes Ivins out of the business of trying to deflect attention off his plot by blaming Iraq, which never made much sense anyway because he wouldn't have had sole access. Ross goes on to mention a brownish substance, which Lake says goes back a story about a "brown ring", later disputed. To me that's still up in the air without them releasing data to explain it to the greater scientific community for peer review, something probably not possible due to the sensitive nature.

But Lake's point about second and third party information seems strong--IOW, a couple of prominent scientists mis-analyze something then pass it to esteemed friends, who then become 'expert sources' for the media. As Ross says, the story would make a good journalism class.

The other link is to a series of questions posed by Senator Charles Grassley, which will be covered in another post.

There's still some question in my mind about the silicon versus silica and whether the United States government would ever announce it if the spores had a Russian signature. In that sense a guilty Ivins removes all the sticky questions but we must follow the rules of conspiracies--there are a lot of people in the circle of knowledge who would be privy to such a diversion.

Actually, it seems the Feds would have this nailed shut if they had any kind of confirmation Ivins was out of the Frederick area during the two mailing windows in question. We already know he wasn't in the lab after work hours (although he was during the day) and wouldn't be stupid enough to use gas or other credit cards on such a trip, so his wife or children, or perhaps friends, or perhaps his email account or web activity, could shine some light on that question.

Surely they've checked and there wasn't anything or else he wouldn't have been near indictment. It's an eight hour round trip to the mailbox from his home any web activity from his home IP address during off-work hours would have been critical to establising reasonable doubt in court. A civil trial against his estate might reveal some of that.

Cohen's follies

Can the Cohen/Tinker race get any more ridiculous? Exactly zero real issues have been discussed to my recollection so far, and today is election day.

The latest twist is an altercation with the all-important Armenian contingent. This is apparently about Cohen's failure to support the House resolution to condemn Turkey for war crimes so certainly there could be a Jewish-Muslim undercurrent going on.

But why Memphis? We don't have a significant Armenian contingent here and besides, he wasn't the only one who didn't co-sponsor the resolution. It sounds like hired help.

I've tried hard to resist feeling sorry for such a died in the wool liberal like Cohen. Most everyone missed the Washington Times story awhile back about his oil investments (before Bush waved his magic wand and prices dropped). And he's been quite prominent in the get-Cheney subcommittee of Conyers' Judiciary.

But it's hard not to feel sorry for him now. The dirty tricks date back to at least the winter months when a black middle Tennessee preacher was connected with the fliers shown above.

And Tinker has shown she knows no bounds when it comes to pandering and attacks, just adding another before quickly pulling it (she pulled another previous ad that featured her saying she was going to DC to support those waiting on the porch for the welfare check). She's lost Olbermann--symbolic, since he's probably not much of an impact in this district. But this guy sure is.

Yes even Obama has joined the fun and thrown her under the bus as suggested on Kos (now down the memory hole). Talk about barnacles, the last thing he needed was overt support from her--he's got enough trouble with Hamas.

But it certainly seems somebody really wants that seat back and has employed an "enemy of my enemy" tactic to get it. Under that cloud I say good luck today, Steve. May the force be with you.

The Ivins Document Dump

The Ivins document dump happened as promised today and it's pretty compelling....at least from the standpoint of proving he was indeed a troubled man and certainly could have done it. Why such an individual would be left close to infectious diseases is another post. By the way, here's a timeline, FWIW.

The two strongest pieces of evidence seem to be, 1) Ivins gave the FBI switched samples of the evidence anthrax when requested in 2002, and 2) he spent many extra evening hours in his lab alone during the days leading up to--but not including--the day when the letters were mailed.

So the potential is there for him to have simply told the wife--whom he was having trouble with--that he was working late again while instead driving up to New Jersey, quickly mailing the letters, then getting back by midnight. His wife might know the answer to that if her memory serves.

When one considers Ed Lake's 2003 reconstruction it all sounds pretty reasonable.

Yet there are still a few lingering questions, although fewer than before. The New York Times article from 2002 posted here yesterday details the effort put forth by the FBI after the attacks:

Officials say every investigative technique available to the F.B.I. has been used in the case, including round-the-clock surveillances, eavesdropping and searches conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Agents have conducted 5,000 interviews and served more than 1,700 grand jury subpoenas.

For some reason Ivins didn't stand out, though. They mention a possible culprit--a "superpatriot" sending the germs to alert the world to bio-terror, but apparently a revenge of the nerd scenario was trumped by Hatfill's more conservative profile. He was single. And yes, the mistake could be as innocent as that, where once tagged as a person of interest he was hard to shake.

Perhaps it was also the "Greendale School" return address that fooled investigators since Hatfill had a history with that name while in Africa. It be interesting to know what Ivins's relationship was with Hatfill, if any. Now that Hatfill's off the hook and 5 million dollars to the richer guess they can't release his employment record and hours worked during the times the letters were mailed. It would also be nice to hear from him at some point. Has he ever been interviewed?

Some may find it odd the document dump didn't include much about the Stevens inhalation case in Florida since it was close to where the terrorists trained, including the airport Atta reportedly visited and asked about crop dusters. Why ask about crop dusters unless there's dust? But as Ed Lake points out, the mention of crop dusters was already in the news by September 18th and besides, Atta had already found out the horrible truth about the virgins by then. Oddly enough, news came out that same day about the Czech Republic's link of Atta meeting al-Ani in Prague. More fodder for the inside jobbers.

There's one more key point in contention. While it's hard to agree with Glenn Greenwald, this case isn't completely closed until someone determines where ABC's Brian Ross got his bentonite claim. Ross isn't saying, no doubt claiming source privileges, but at the time he said they were government research types, presumably from the Fort. This has been long-contended, mentioned in 2003 by Gary Matsumoto and as late as yesterday by former UNSCOM inspector Richard Spertzel, who said the powder wasn't something one man could have cooked up by himself without being caught.

Those elements tie in with the bentonite claim because if there was any reason to cover this event up it was a conclusive link to Iraq and/or Russia. It's clear the government "wasn't ready to do anything about it yet" as Cheney would tell Woodward for his book "Bush at War", which perhaps explains Hollywood Bob's immediate dousing of the bentonite story days later.

Ironically, even Ivins himself seemed to confirm the special quality of the Daschle powder if he can be believed. In the NPR story linked above he was attributed by a woman as excitedly telling her the particles in the Daschle letter were so finely milled they were basically weightless and just "hovered". The evidence released today seems to suggest the main difference was a bacterial contaminant in the Brokaw/Post/Florida letters that wasn't present in the Daschle/Leahy versions.

Indeed, 2003 was a confusing year. In April we got a story that said Dugway Proving Grounds was able to reverse engineer the powder to something similar:

Such additives or coatings, including glass-like silica, were routinely used in past U.S., Soviet and Iraqi bioweapons programs, and some accounts have suggested that silica was present in the mailed anthrax. But more thorough testing disproved that.

"Everybody was looking for a coating, but there wasn't one," the investigator said.

But the methods used point more to a makeshift lab than a professional operation, the source said. One clue pointing away from a state program was the absence of any additive to neutralize the spores' electrical charge and make them float more freely.

But then on Dec 7 Gary Matsumoto made a splash with this "Science Magazine" article:

The amateur anthrax scenario appears to have lost some credibility with the failure of the FBI’s attempt to reverse engineer a highquality powder using basic equipment. If the Army couldn’t do it in a top-notch laboratory staffed by scientists trained to make anthrax powders, skeptics ask, who could do it in a garage or basement?

Hmm. Well, in the unlikely event there was a cover up it would have started with the bentonite push-back continuing with the persecution of Steven Hatfill and the flip-flopping releases that followed from time to time through the years. But short of this event being some kind of bio-terror urinating contest between states or perhaps some kind of message delivered by criminals or others it has never made sense for it to have come from al Qaeda, since they wouldn't have had the capabilities nor would they have stopped short with just seven letters. Therefore, the Ivins angle looks the most promising.

And if a plea deal was actually being discussed as reported it wouldn't be surprising to see them dealing towards a reduction to life from the death penalty based on the evidence released today.

That might also explain a subsequent bottle of Tylenol washed down with happy juice at the thoughts of 20+ horrible years as somebody's prison lover. Bullets hurt, besides, anyone who'd send anthrax through the mail is by default a craven coward. If nothing else the FBI has established that Ivins was unstable enough to justify the risk of tossing away a government pension and losing his family, a point sure to be pondered by any reasonable jury faced with a load of circumstantial evidence.

What's next? Well, the popular Congress will return in September just as the presidential race heats up. Chances are this story will float back down to whence it came with a public now largely reassured and the moonbats crushed to find Ivins was a registered Democrat.

The Jack of Diamonds

Ron Suskind has created yet another ripple in the eternal netroot sea by interjecting another "Bush lied" claim about Iraq using the former head of Iraqi Intelligence (IIS) Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti. But the real bomb involves his allegation the CIA, on orders from the White House, forged a back-dated letter on Habbush's behalf to Saddam linking Mohammad Atta to terrorist training camps in Iraq to justify the invasion.

Suskind was interviewed this morning on Today. Here's a snippet:



Budding journalists might want to take note of how Viera challenged every single talking point rather than sitting legs-crossed and nodding. Suskind was left to say "read the book and trust my CIA sources", as if none of them would have any axes to grind.

As the Jack of Diamonds in the Deck of 55 Habbush is still officially on the lam, although according to Suskind we resettled him in Jordan with 5 million bucks.

This tale implicates not only Bush but George Tenet, who was quick to respond:

"There were many Iraqi officials who said both publicly and privately that Iraq had no WMD but our foreign intelligence colleagues and we assessed that these individuals were parroting the Baath party line and trying to delay any coalition attack. The particular source that Suskind cites offered no evidence to back up his assertion and acted in an evasive and unconvincing manner."

Don't believe him? In his memoirs he mentioned that in the months leading up to the invasion a number of Egyptian Islamic Jihad members massed in Baghdad, a fact confirmed recently by the Joint Forces report (and completely ignored by the Meridith Vieras of the world). So...apparently they had Habbush telling them one thing, Naji Sabri telling them another while an al-Qaeda related terror cell huddled with the regime. And they had history.

Yet somehow the former director of Iraqi Intelligence is seen as more credible than our own former leader:

Suskind wrote that Habbush first told British intelligence agent Michael Shipster in January 2003 that invading forces would not find the weapons in Iraq.

Wonder whether Suskind has investigated this guy? If true his story might explain a few things.

But OK, it is a bit odd that Habbush hasn't been located. Makes it look like we did pay some hush money since as the leader of IIS he wouldv'e been in perfect position to confirm Saddam's sins, or not. He'd also be in perfect position to lie (and the left would likely believe every word since anyone--even former regime members and notorious liars--who tell tales on Bush can now instantly be trusted). Maybe we just don't renege on our bargains and paid him cash upfront for his leak.

Oddly, the SIS was also apparently involved in another incident in Iraq a few months earlier involving legacy terrorist Abu Nidal. Word is they were floating stories through Gulf States that Abu was looking to defect to England in return for info on Saddam's links to AQ. Iraq didn't buy it, thinking he was way too old, but eventually saw the wisdom in sending him to Allah anyway since he did know something about older history involving Arafat and others. Here's Yossef Bodansky:

On August 21, Mukhabarat chief Taher Habush appeared in a rare press conference, showing grainy pictures of a blasted and thoroughly bandaged body he claimed was Abu Nidal's. Habush admitted that the longtime terrorist had been hiding in Baghdad, but alarmed at his recent discovery by police, he had committed suicide rather than face Iraqi authorities.

This is the guy Suskind wants us to believe.

But it's actually rather foolish to arrive at any definitive conclusions about this stuff at observer level, where this blog rests. Even Suskind is treading on choppy water for allowing himself to be a conduit for spooks, but at least he gets paid for it. Whether Bush lied is a case for the history books. But we do know one thing for sure--the invasion of Iraq turned over a big rock exposing not only the intelligence business but also provided a hot dog factory perspective of how things are done in the real world. The patriot games can sometimes blur the lines between good guy and bad (made famous in Alfred Hitchcock's classic "North by Northwest") and those representing our republic would do well to keep that in mind.

More on Mr. Ivins

The government, who just paid Steven Hatfill millions of taxpayer dollars for leaking slanderous info about his non-role in the anthrax case, has seemingly not learned their lesson with Bruce Ivins. Here's a recap of some of the stories released today.

There was a shipment of milled anthrax from Dugway to Fort Detrick, handled by Ivins in the late 90s, which seemingly takes away the need for him to clandestinely manufacture product off site; he had some kind of fixation with a sorority (don't we all) but one with a branch at Princeton University only 100 yards from the mailbox used to send the letters; and only three locations sold the franked envelopes used in the mailings, one of which Ivins frequented and held an anonymous post office box. All circumstantial, but when taken together pretty damn damning.

But that said, the Wall Street Journal is certainly correct in their opinion:

..we use the word "reportedly" here because everything we know about the case against Ivins has been leaked to reporters without official attribution. This is the way the Justice Department has behaved for nearly seven years, and much of what it previously leaked has turned out to be false.

Enter the sockmeister Glenn Greenwald, who's keeping hope alive on his grand smoking gun conspiracy linchpin theory implicating BushCo, which requires a conspiracy with the bentonite and a tearing down of the main prosecution witness so far, the mysterious Jean C. Duley, now ensconced in a secret location. It'll be fun to watch Greenwald if news breaks that Ivins was one of the sources of the bentonite claim.

But he threw his usual PC caution to the wind as to whether Duley might be a fellow Bush-hatin' hard liberal gay marriage lovin' friend and dug deep into her personal history (Bush would be proud) otherwise known as her arrest record, which he suggested was extensive. It wasn't, but it did reveal some points of interest, such as her "race":

RACE: WHITE, CAUCASIAN, ASIATIC INDIAN, ARAB

Unless I'm misreading the form, a rather odd combination indeed but something not odd enough for Greenwald to note. She's also coming off a recent DUI. Since we're wildly speculating it would seem possible someone with a recent conviction might benefit from cooperation with the authorities over other matters. Just a guess.

Anyway, putting it all together after four days of reportage:
Ivins was a brilliant and award-winning microbiologist who heroically helped analyze the suspect anthrax in 2001 but only to cover his secret "revenge of the nerd" plot to bring attention to WMDs and later garner windfall profits for himself through government patents while hating women. All of this is suggested by the fact he wrote letters to the editor of newspapers and had a fixation with sorority girls at Princeton and threatened a certain social worker with a criminal background (unlike his), while spending hours at the lab after 9/11 and going to the post office.

These smoking guns explain why he targeted liberal Senators, the National Enquirer, George Bush, TV personalities, little old ladies and postal workers beginning exactly one week after the worst terrorist attack in US history and on the same day the Czech republic announced they had evidence that Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi spy in Prague. All accomplished while never being seen by anyone or any camera.

How bizarre. Especially considering the fact he might be the one.

MORE 8/4/08

Here's a NOVA interview with Bill Patrick, former Detrick researcher and a pioneer in the US bioweapons program, on making an agent:

Broad: Is this hard or easy for anybody to do? What does it take to develop the agent and get to the point that you can disseminate it?

Patrick: Well that's a difficult question for me because it is second nature to me. But it is a little bit more difficult for a Tom, Dick, and Harry type of terrorist. Now what concerns me are graduate students and professors in microbiology and chemical engineering who have a better appreciation of the finer points of detail. If they were to get disgruntled, I think they could, with a little trial and error, come up with a reasonably acceptable BW agent. But, they are going to have problems with its dissemination.

Meanwhile, here's what the New York Times had to say:

Hundreds of people have been polygraphed. Investigators have compiled minute-by-minute chronologies of the lives of some subjects, examining their whereabouts when the letters were sent. Forty of the F.B.I.'s 56 field offices and many of its 44 overseas legal attachés have been asked to help. The F.B.I. has established 112 separate databases to store information about the case.

In June, 2002. A very interesting look back.

MORE 8/5/08

This is choice. The Brad Blog has determined that Ivins is a registered democrat and has voted in every election, including primaries, since 1996. He whines:

Kincaid, who conceded during our interview that the revelation of Ivins' party registration, in and of itself, was not necessarily "probative," still found it difficult to believe that someone as virulently rightwing as the author of the anthrax letters was believed to have been, would continue year in and year out to vote in Democratic primary elections.

Translated, "the killer couldn't be one of us because only virulent right wing Bush lovin' fascists are capable of terrorizing people through the mail". Mmm, no.

Despite their best efforts the BDS just leaks out sometimes. Apparently these sherlocks haven't considered the person(s) writing the letters might have tried to intentionally deceive people. In that case it makes sense for a life-long Dem to target Dem leaders of the Senate, knowing they would be protected with Cipro anyway. That also ties in to the funding angle. And hey, are they admitting that Brokaw was an undisputed liberal? Interesting.

Sauce for the Goose

Question one--
Can a woman who runs an ad saying her motivation for going to DC is to represent those people "still going to the porch, looking for the check" really be taken seriously?

Question two--
Can a man who just reinvented the definition of political pandering by apologizing for slavery be in any way outraged when his opponent calls him out for not advocating the removal of a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

I think not, in both cases.

McCain's Ad Strategy

It's actually not a horrible commercial. Maybe a 5 on a scale of 10, but certainly not near the bottom in the attack ad department. For context, here it is again:



So why is Paris Hilton's mom whining? Her daughter showed up for about a second. Her gripe (appropriately on HuffPo):

It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States.

No mention of her daughter, only the message. While I can see how she might not like Paris being used as a prop (even though the tabloids use her daily) it's unclear why she would think the message is wrong.

The point of using the blonds initially was to grab attention then lead the viewer into the meat of the commercial, which was pointing out Obama's frivolous proposals, like no drilling and new taxes on energy while Americans suffer 4 dollar a gallon gas. If those concepts are "wastes of time" then Mac has very little left in the campaign ad quiver, save going completely positive.

Many think he should. I don't. A politician has to draw distinctions by pointing out his opponent's platform compared to his own. Obama has been doing a rip-roaring job of that since day one, tying McCain repeatedly and unfairly to George W. Bush. Few have become outraged, not even Barbara Bush.

But team McCain is failing with the ad for two reasons. One, he didn't clear this with the Hiltons, and two, because they've allowed it to be swallowed by a leftist maelstrom, effectively hijacking the message by switching attention to various offenses, like using Barack's face beside the word "foreign"; juxtaposing Obama with white blonds to race bait with rednecks; target Florida Jews by framing Obama in front of a huge crowd in Berlin (nazi); and by pointing out the creator was the same one that produced the RNC's Bob Corker's Playboy attack ad on Harold Ford here in TN in 2006.

But this ad isn't the Harold Ford ad. It's not overtly offensive. It's Mac who should remain on the offensive by stressing the drilling/taxes aspect while pointing out repeatedly that Obama has reneged on his earlier promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime", adding that if Obama had agreed the voters would be allowed chances to bring this stuff up in an open forum.

The roots of all silliness

Does anything better point out the trivial nonsense of some of the disputes in the Middle East than this?

Hamas has resumed its policy of shaving the mustaches of rival Fatah members to humiliate them as a form of punishment, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Yeah, that'll show 'em. Until it grows back. Funny, Saddam had a cult of moustache, or as some called it, mustache de rigeur. Moustache or mustache, some say they are both evil.

It's interesting--the last US presidential nominee with a moustache was Dewey in 1948, so maybe there is something to it.

Anthrax questions, con't

The FBI either stands to be heroes or the worst bunch of bungling keystone cops ever seen when this is all over. Maybe that's why my fellow right wing bloggers are pretending this story doesn't exist. Surely they haven't missed the blizzard of stories reminiscent of 2001.

The allegations are flying around like rush hour at O'Hare. From the NBC News "Deep Background" site:

Revenge killer:
“He is a revenge killer,” Ms. Duley told a Maryland District Court judge on the tape. “When he feels that he has been slighted, and especially towards women, he plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killings.”

There are a lot of smells in this ordeal, but this is perhaps the smelliest. Some questions:

1. Why would someone admit to planning a mass killing in a group therapy session? Is it possible he was just agitated and she misinterpreted or overreacted? Can anyone else at the therapy session corroborate her story? It might be reasonable to assume a man might purchase protection if he thought his co-workers were railroading him into a death penalty charge with the FBI looking for a new fall guy after Hatfill was exonerated, especially if he was "eccentric".

2. Revenge? For what? She suggests he wanted to get back at co-workers. Are we to presume they helped direct the FBI to him? Any personal issues there? Why didn't this happen in 2002? She also mentioned "women". Was there a woman at the lab he had issues with? If so, why? Does any of that prove he was the killer?

3. She said he had been "forensically diagnosed as a sociopathic homicidal killer". What does she mean "killer"? Did he confess to her? In this country he's innocent until proven a "killer". Did the FBI freak her out by saying he was the anthrax killer? What were the details of her cooperation?

4. Where did she get the poisoning story? If this was known to his superiors in 2000 it's hard to believe he would have kept his security clearance. Does his personnel file show anything? One thing we know it does show--he got the highest award possible 3 years later.

Seems we could use a bit more information on Ms. Duley. But aside from her there are several other questions coming to mind:

1. First they said the anthrax was potent and could have only come from a few labs around the world. Then they said it was garden variety. Now they are back to saying it had to come from the Fort. Was any missing or did he take strains to some outside location and brew it? How does that work? Surely the security cameras confirmed that none had been stolen because the FBI once dragged a lake in the DC area looking for brewing equipment. Where did Ivins brew it?

2. The FBI was set to look like the biggest bunch of keystone cops in the world with Hatfill out of the picture and no new suspect in his place. Was there any desperation involved in finding a new suspect? Perhaps we'll see when they release the evidence next week.

3. If he was indeed a threatening homicidal maniac as Duley said, what caused him to change his mind and kill only himself? No suicide note--did he use Tylenol to make it appear accidental in an effort to help his family? Why no autopsy?

The right might be on ignore mode, but the left is going apoplectic on this story, insinuating Ivins was killed to cover some Bush inside job. No doubt Waxman will soon be involved as well. Their main smoking gun is a story from liberal Richard Cohen of the WaPo who claims somebody instructed him to use Cipro right after 9/11 and before the letter attacks occurred. Good. grief.

As if there was no previous history with anthrax and toxic agents. Do they not remember Defense Sec William Cohen holding that bag of sugar? Or heck, the reason we bombed al-Shifa? Do they not remember our troops being vaccinated during the Clinton years? Are they oblivious to the top-level "mad scientist" we just killed, associated with al Qaeda's fledgling bio program? Apparently in their BDS that answer is yes. As a result their smoking gun is more like a novelty cigarette lighter.

That doesn't mean there aren't questions. Hopefully they'll be addressed by the Feds this week as they close the case. Maybe they won't--we can go from there. But before presuming him guilty let's not forget the work Mr. Ivins, Steven Hatfill and countless others have been doing on some very sensitive issues to keep the American people safe from bio attacks, long since lost in this shuffle.

MORE 8/3/08

Ms. Duley has apparently retreated to an "undisclosed location" according to her fiance, which will surely bring with it references to Cheney. But who can blame her? If the FBI has clear evidence they plan to release to the press Monday, which convinces most people Ivins was the killer, then the pressure on her will subside.

Meanwhile, the question of whether an autopsy was performed is still unclear:

Maryland's chief medical examiner, Dr. David Fowler, confirmed Saturday that the cause of Ivins' death was found to be an overdose of acetaminophen, the active drug in Tylenol; and that it was ruled a suicide based on information from police and doctors, according to the AP.

Kimberly Thomas, a forensic examiner with the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, would not comment Saturday on results from Ivins' autopsy or confirm Dr. Fowler's statement.

The first paragraph suggests the ME ruled based on police and hospital officials, the second suggests there was an autopsy. Before thinking that's some kind of smoking gun consider how often the media has been wrong on this story, dating back to 2001 and proceed from there.

MORE 8/3/08

CNN is breaking a DNA story, saying they've matched DNA from a flask in Ivins' lab to the powder used in the letters. This was hinted Friday when they said there was "new technology" available to directly link the powder to the lab. The article also backs up Ed Lake's evidence theory (they needed to wait for the technology to make their case in court, which means the rest is probably circumstantial).

Some might point out Ivins himself was working with the evidence anthrax but even if some kind of cross-contamination occurred that still puts the origin in the lab. To a layman it seems like a bio facility of that nature would have enough security to notice somebody stealing or doing nefarious things but maybe not, since all it takes is a small container to do a lot of damage. Guess we'll have to wait for the real document.

Anywhere, Anytime

That's what Obama said in May regards a debate with John McCain:



But when the rubber meets the road:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed further away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates, agreeing only to the standard three face-offs in the fall proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Anytime, anywhere...apparently at the time and place of Barack's choosing. There's your change. And judgment. Too bad McCain won't get to banter with him about the relative strength of Iran with or without US involvement in the region.



MORE 8/2/08

Blogger Mustang attended an Obama speech and wasn't blown away by his off the cuff eloquence. The same thing is evident in the above video and elsewhere. Along with his slippery grip on his own positions, it's clearly another reason Obama is ducking...why agree to a nationally televised Lincoln-Douglas style town hall and bust the myth?

The Circle Game

Political reality 08: Obama makes racial insinuations and plays pretend president on a foreign stage. McCain responds and becomes the instant bad guy. Then the New York Times steps in to explain everything:

..the Obama campaign can wield a rhetorical gutting knife. There simply was no percentage for the first black major-party presidential candidate in the nation’s history to draw too much attention to his race, much less get into a shooting war with the Republicans over the combustible issue.

The Times knows Obama has been mentioning his own race and "funny name" (Muslim-sounding) since the beginning in an effort to both accuse the opposition of racism they haven't committed (they would never) while simultaneously taking the issue away from them, daring a response, which if leveled causes even more racism charges. It's really quite brilliant.

The Times also knows (we're assuming here) the issue isn't him pointing out the obvious. For instance, if Obama said something like, "yeah, I'm new and I have a weird name, and I don't look much like past presidents of these great United States" that would be fine, and expected. The issue is him pointing to the opposition and saying they will say that:

“So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Mr. Obama said. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.”

That's clearly suggestive that specific people are working to target his race and heritage. McCain was named--he had little choice but to hit back. Then it begins.

As Hillary found out, Obama's apparatchiks and media fans are very effective spinmeisters, which apparently includes the Times, who mentioned Obama's defense of the crowd being 98 percent white without questioning whether the crowd was likely 97 percent Obamafans. And therein lies the conundrum for team McCain. He has to hit back, but when he does he becomes a low-road politician playing the race card. It's debatable as to whether Rick Davis and company have enough mental horsepower to effectively derail this slick circle game.

With that, here's this week's musical selection...



That was the familiar version. Joni Mitchell actually wrote the song.

The Left has found their "Inside Job"

Yes, a second post is probably overkill after the previous scroll, but wanted to respond to the spin being put on this by some on the left. It was the top story on Olbermann's show tonight, with a banner underneath the screen reading, "anthrax, inside job?". Seems the sock puppet set is going full bore trying to paint this as a White House black bag op to nail Saddam, and everything hinges on ONE story reported by ABC's Brian Ross on Nightline in October 2001, which said the spores might have contained bentonite, an additive used by Iraq.

Never mind that the White House vehemently denied the report, our fearless lefty flamethrowers are out for blood, basically smelling a secret prison salad with GTMO dressing for these leakers figuring they'll blow the lid on the whole darn thing. Never mind that the Veep used to travel with a bio protection suit (just a unheralded prop in case the cover story might get threatened by someone at his secret location?) and never mind they leaked to Bob Woodward to debunk the story, then later set up Hatfill as a fall guy, no sir, it was inside job! So inside it wasn't even used.

Before they succeed in changing history let's go back and look:

10/21/01 (Guardian Ed Vulliamy)

However, Iraq was able to obtain a virulent form of anthrax, known as the Vollum strain, from the American Type Culture Collection, a laboratory in Virginia, before the Gulf war. That was the strain Iraq used and turned into weapons, according to Unscom.

But investigators emphasise that a relatively impotent strain does not rule out foreign sponsorship. They say it is conceivable that a foreign government or terrorist organisation picked a domestic strain to throw off federal investigators. 'There's no indication that it came from the Russian or Iraqi programmes, but you can't rule that out,' said a federal scientist familiar with the investigation.

10/26/01 (from Brian Ross through a second party site - ABC has apparently thrown the original in the bit bucket)

An urgent series of tests conducted on the letter at Ft. Detrick, Md., and elsewhere discovered the anthrax spores were treated with bentonite, a substance that keeps the tiny particles floating in the air by preventing them from sticking together. The easier the particles are to inhale, the more deadly they are.

As far as is known, only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons.

Just minutes before ABCNEWS' World News Tonight aired this report, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer flatly denied bentonite was found on the letters.

10/30/01 (from Bob Woodward - excerpt only, original article N/A)

[excerpt] Federal officials said that the anthrax spores that infected workers at the New York Post and in the office of Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle were not mixed with bentonite, a mineral compound used by the Iraqi biological weapons program to make the spores more infectious. The findings appeared to support recent hints by various U.S. officials that Iraq is not a prime suspect in the recent anthrax attacks, which have killed three and wreaked havoc with the postal system.

09/30/03 (by Toni Locy!)

Two years after the nation's deadly anthrax attacks, the FBI still has not been able to re-create the process the killer used to produce the substance sent through the U.S. mail, a top FBI official said Monday.

But Michael Mason, the new assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington field office, said testing has helped investigators "narrow" some aspects of the investigation and convinced them that the culprit has special expertise.

09/25/06 (by Allan Lengel and Joby Warrick)

Five years after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, the FBI is now convinced that the lethal powder sent to the Senate was far less sophisticated than originally believed, widening the pool of possible suspects in a frustratingly slow investigation.

The finding, which resulted from countless scientific tests at numerous laboratories, appears to undermine the widely held belief that the attack was carried out by a government scientist or someone with access to a U.S. biodefense lab.

Emphasis added. This last column is the most interesting, since it indicates they were changing their tune about the powder being so sophisticated it had to be from Fort Detrick to saying it could have been brewed up by the right person in a basement lab. Now they're saying the substance was sophisticated and traced back to Ivins' lab at the Fort.

Since this story was issued after the FBI changed horses at the top of Operation Amerithrax--now heralded as the key to solving the crime--it was perhaps disinformation designed to see what kind of reaction they'd get from lab employees under suspicion. Unless they were truly just groping in the dark.

Interestingly, although ABC is making it hard to find Brian Ross's original blockbuster about the bentonite he now has a piece out today saying that Ivins was perhaps in charge of investigating his own crime, since he was given the task of analyzing the spores in the early stages.

This begs the question as to whether Ivins was one of the leakers to ABC, or involved in forwarding the info to a leaker, in an effort to throw the dogs off the chase since the Ross report claimed sources at the lab. The FBI should know now whether this is true, and they should have known then. If true, and coupled with his mishandling of the substance in the lab, he should have become a prime suspect, yet Hatfill remained the public face of suspicion.

That's admittedly still odd, but it's also where the lefty conspiracy theory flies off a cliff. Had Bush been using the story to fearmonger over Saddam they'd have something. But he never did. It was actually Saddam who mentioned the powder in his third open letter to America October 29, 2001:

We have heard in the news, recently, that American officials think that the source of anthrax is probably the US itself. Is this conclusion or information just a tactic to divert the attention of those who were terrorized to hear that Bin Laden is the source of anthrax, and to hear insinuations to other accusations, that many Americans think that they should not persist in harming the people he cares for, because that would push him to a stronger reaction in this way or by other means? Or have they done this to divert attention from the incompetence of American official bodies in the events of September 11, and they find now that they have achieved their goal and consequently, the act and the actors should be buried?!

And while we're at it, here's an excerpt from his first open letter, which could have been written by bin Laden, Ramsey Clark, or any other assorted liberal these past few years:

Americans should feel the pain they have inflicted on other peoples of the world, so as when they suffer, they will find the right solution and the right path.

Odd where we stand today, eh?

MORE 8/2/08

Sounds like a typical eccentric scientist. Maybe that's why the FBI never pegged him. At this point we're left with believing he 1) took a bunch of pills for stress and a headache and the combo killed him, but he was the killer; 2) took a bunch of pills for stress and a headache and the combo killed him, and he wasn't the killer; 3) took a bunch of pills to end his life because he was the killer; 4) took a bunch of pills to end his life because he was messed up with something other than the anthrax stuff, which added to the stress, but he wasn't the killer; 5) something nefarious happened. It'll be interesting to see how much is released over the next few weeks to support the above.

MORE 8/2/08

It's an old-fashioned website but there's a whole lot of information stored at Ed Lake's anthrax investigation site. He's suspected a domestic source all along but not necessarily somebody from the Fort. That's why he appears a little taken aback by the news, asking several logical questions.

The main one in my mind is whether Ivins allegedly stole the powder or created it himself? It would appear the latter, since they dragged a lake in the DC area years ago thinking Hatfill had stashed some drying equipment there--meaning the surveillance tapes probably showed nothing and the stash wasn't disturbed. That would suggest he needed a secluded place to brew. Do they have a clue?

Lake also talks about the blossoming field of microbial forensics and how such evidence might go over with juries and judges in court. The worst fear would be to have the killer walk on a technicality, which suggests a reason the FBI was overtly surveiling him to produce circumstantial evidence later to be used to diminish his character to compensate. Like he says, we need a minimum of additional information to satisfy even the most rudimentary curiosity, although admittedly some on both sides (left- Bush inside job; right- AQ or Saddam did it) will never buy any story coming from the authorities, which is kinda sad.

Anthrax letters--case closed?

Ironically, on the same day the Justice Department was set to announce their formal settlement with Steven Hatfill we got this bombshell :

A top government scientist who helped the FBI analyze samples from the 2001 anthrax attacks has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

Apparently Mr. Ivins was found Sunday at his home and died in the hospital Tuesday. Case closed or just another twist?

His death, ruled a suicide, makes sense in several ways. The FBI issued a press release in March stating they were scrutinizing 3 people at Fort Detrick and one outside, and according to reports Mr. Ivins had been having some emotional troubles since then. The CNN story says a restraining order was issued on him in July to stay away from a woman they refused to name. So far few of his colleagues, or even his own brother, will say a good word about him. Sounds sort of like Hatfill, but worse.

Since he died before being indicted we may have trouble getting more info. According to MSNBC the family retains the privacy rights, obviously fodder for lawsuits against the family and not something they'd be in a hurry to release. And per usual we have some conflicting information.
According to the CNN story the FBI has said the threat is over and they won't be pursuing things further, while the New York Times says the Justice Department hasn't decided yet. Additionally:

Due to the privacy lawsuit with Hatfill, the Justice Department and the FBI are being cautious about how much information they reveal about the investigation into Ivins, federal lawyers told NBC News' Pete Williams.

Translated, the government can't use anonymous sources to leak something to the press like, "pssst, that was definitely our man because.." without risking another Hatfill-type defamation lawsuit by the family.

But other loose ends still linger. Surely the FBI had compelling evidence against Hatfill to consider him a person of interest. And surely they had even more against Ivins if they were ready to indict. Yet if they had anything on Ivins why did it take 7 years to act? Surely they scrutinized everyone at Fort Detrick in 2001, including Hatfill and Ivins, before pointing fingers at anyone. Indeed, Judge Reggie Walton made the following comment about Hatfill's defamation case:

"There is not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with this,"

Shall we believe the government was so desperate for a fall guy they pinned it on someone they couldn't possibly place at the crime scene while ignoring someone they could? Well, consider the DC sniper case. Both were very emotionally charged cases.

The Times story paints Ivins as an eccentric but talented researcher. They drop a hint by saying his most recent paper talked about the lack of monkeys for testing anthrax vaccines, suggesting he might have been involved in some kind of twisted field research in 2001. They also tell us he was a regular church goer and such.

Gleaning from the stories, apparently he'd retired from the government in 2006 and like many had returned as a private contractor, only recently to have his clearance pulled. That's a pretty arrogant guy, coming back when he could have easily faded away. It might not be unusual for a killer, though. Perhaps more troubling is the thought that someone of such reputation had a top-secret clearance at one of our most critical bio-defense labs.

On a side note, it's interesting that another distinguished microbiologist, Don Wiley, also allegedly killed himself right here in Memphis back in 2001 followed by a most bizarre incident with the Medical Examiner being wrapped in a barbed wire with an explosive device attached. Add the mysterious death of Dr. David Kelly in England and his relationship with former Times writer Judy Miller, and her former acquaintance with former Cheney staffer Scooter Libby, and well, it's no wonder so many have doubts about all this stuff. It's like a real-world Clancy novel.

Right about now Hatfill would be a very interesting interview, wouldn't he? Perhaps his agreement, which holds the government harmless, also prevents him from speaking to the press. So far his lawyers have done all the talking. With such a lack of information, many will never consider this a closed case.

But it has the feeling of case closed. Sure, there's the possibility Ivins' recent anxiety was related more to becoming the new person of interest rather than about his guilt--he knew what Hatfill had endured but unlike the doctor, described as cocky or arrogant at times, Ivins has been described as thin-skinned and sensitive. His lawyers issued a statement claiming that his recent behavior might have been related to the scrutiny, and that he was innocent.

But believing the above requires believing he was either murdered or accidentally swallowed a bunch of Tylenols and Oxycodone. It might help to see the suicide note (if it's not part of the personal effects the family has control over now). Most rational people will reject the above in favor of believing he was fully aware of coming attractions and did what needed to be done. Prison would be rough on a 62 year old scientist. But that also makes it such a tidy wrap after all these years.

In sum, we've come full circle from one lone wolf suspect to another, with both telling no tales. Quite appropriate, it would seem.

About that WND WMD story

Ryan Mauro has a piece at World Net Daily claiming that yet another lone wolf American working in Iraq has found clues leading to our modern day equivalent of the Holy Grail--Saddam's WMDs:

Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria."

Although guaranteed to arouse choking laughter and sprays of Diet Cola on lefty computer screens all over the world, this shouldn't be surprising to those scoring at home:

Retired Lieutenant General James Clapper said senior Iraqi leaders made an intensive effort to bury, hide and disperse equipment, documents and other material related to their weapons of mass destruction programs in the months before the war, moving some of it out of the country.

We've also heard WMD tales from Dave Gaubatz and Georges Sada but neither said they were moved by truck to Syria (Gaubatz claims they are still in Iraq). Frankly it's hard to tell whether either are telling the truth or grandstanding for cash. It's just as plausible to assume the prisoners knew about Clapper's truck story and were BS'ing their captors to leverage an early release. But if you prefer this line of thought (and most lefties will) keep in mind it suggests that Saddam might have done likewise in captivity when he said Iraq had no WMDs.

Of course there was that strange little story a few months ago from the Jerusalem Post about the WMDs being moved, which was supposedly to be revealed in some kind of joint Israeli-US report nobody has yet seen. Could this be some kind of mysterious card the Republicans are holding back for the election, stored in the same vault with the Michelle Obama "Whitey tape"? Or maybe Rove has it stored next to the hurricane machine.

But seriously, after all we've seen on this issue it's hard to argue with this guy over at Slant Right:

It is a mystery that I hope I live long enough for history to report all the cloak and dagger background concerning Saddam Hussein, America and WMD.

He makes some good observations about possible reasons the truth has yet to emerge, if there's a truth to yet emerge. If it does, and it's one that would cement Bush's legacy and bring McCain the White House--it's gotta be rock solid spin-proof.

And just try to imagine a spin-proof revelation about Iraq's WMDs in today's climate. Such a discovery might even get reported as a racial slam against Obama because he was opposed to the war. Then again, depending on timing it could also bring Hillary back into play (if she can recover from her exhausting efforts to get Obama elected).