You bleww itttt!

Glenn Greenwald in a column at Salon.com raises some interesting points in the wake of Bruce E. Ivins' suicide, reportedly committed after Ivins learned he was about to be charged for the anthrax mailing attacks following 9/11.

Most notable is the fact that:

If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks.

So, an American working with anthrax for the government in a government lab, killed Americans and tried to make it look like Islamic militants did it. Hmm. (But it looks like it might have been worse than that. More further down.)

Of course, even while politicians and pundits (subtly or outwardly) were using the anthrax attacks in their arguments for invading Iraq, the FBI's investigation did center on a guy from the same Maryland lab. It was just the wrong guy. In doing so they also overlooked some pretty strange behavior from Ivins.

This strange behavior, according to Greenwald, included some letters to the editor of his local paper that I'd term as being of the right-wing nutso variety.

I used to get similar letters from one reader at my former job, and while I'm pretty sure he was retired, had I known he created anthrax for the government, transported plutonium for nukes, was developing a weather dominator or some such very dangerous, sensitive job, I'd of been on the phone to the FBI pretty quickly. Though, when you have people like Dubya, Cheney and Rumsfeld with their hands on the chicken switch, it's not hard to believe nutsos with silly, ignorant beliefs can hold down government jobs.

But more on Ivins in a bit, because Greenwald goes into depth about erroneous reports by ABC News at the time about testing on the anthrax used in the attacks. Reports stating government testing of the anthrax used in the attacks showed the presence of bentonite, which might have indicated Iraq's involvement.

ABC News went with these "exclusive" reports despite the fact the White House denied their accuracy. Repeatedly. They eventually reported bentonite wasn't found in tests, but never acknowledged the fact they screwed up the story (I completely agree with Greenwald here).

The fun part is that ABC News credited "well placed" sources close to the testing as feeding them the information, meaning sources (or source - I don't necessarily believe ABC had multiple sources just because they say so) in the Fort Detrick lab where the tests were conducted. And since the story was completely wrong, the sources obviously lied. Sources from the same lab Ivins worked in.

Greenwald is careful to point out Ivins hasn't been charges or convicted of anything yet. And based on their handling of the previous anthrax case, I wouldn't be surprised if he never is. And with his suicide, perhaps we'll never know if he was responsible.

Greenwald stops short of stating what seems a logical implication, assuming Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks, that Ivins was a (or the) source for ABC News on their erroneous stories.

The guy who may have made the anthrax attacks lied to ABC News, leading to stories implicating Iraq in the attacks, helping lead to the ongoing war in Iraq. All just a theory, but if true, what a massive story that would be. A massive story, if true, ABC News is sitting on.

Whether or not Ivins was involved, the identity of the sources of the erroneous ABC News reports would still be a huge story. And that story ABC News is definitely sitting on. A massive, massive story they won't report because it would include the mention of their embarrassing mistake? A mistake they're still not owning up to (see Greenwald's correspondences with the ABC News boss).

Greenwald rightly nails them for this:

ABC News knows who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They're allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.

They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far.

I can understand ABC News not wanting to point out their mistake, but I'd think such a massive story would take precedent. It would be an exclusive, afterall. Considering the competitive nature of the news game, I can't believe the rest of the media (aside from Greenwald) isn't raking them over the coals on this one. I'd think that would be good fun.

Greenwald goes on to question ABC News' citing of sources for another story, further emphasizing how this practice has gone beyond the breaking point, in my opinion. Using unnamed sources is necessary, even quite often, but it gets abused left and right these days.

Go read the whole Greenwald piece, and all his connected posts. Great stuff.

Oh, this post's title comes from De Niro in Cop Land, in case you didn't see it. Story via.

Obullshit

Since right-wing mouthpieces act like there's never been criticism of the president on the scale experienced by G.W. Bush by the mainstream media (read: "liberal media," or not them), conservatives can probably now rest assured the Daily Show will live on should Obama be elected.

Should still be plenty of fodder.

I posted about the FISA bill's troubles before, but now the bill — which would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies for their help with illegal spying by the government — is back and guess who signed up in support? Obama.

Apparently the Democratic apologists are out in force so as to clear any criticism of the gentleman from Illinois from his path to the White House. Pathetic, but sadly not surprising.

Glenn Greenwald skewers Obama, and his apologists, as well as you can. A couple gems include:

There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism — "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" — and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

And:

What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.

I can't stomach the thought of McCain winning, and want the Republicans out of office as much as anyone, but not at the expense of being able to criticize McCain's opponent. And especially not if it means giving the next president the same unchecked (begging to be abused) power as Bush.

A bad sign of things to come? Probably. He is a politician, folks. Via.

And the law won?

Well, not yet it didn't. And even if much of his remaining time in office is spent on vacation, Bush has nine months to figure a way around a House bill disallowing immunity for telecom companies who helped the government spy on Americans. But still, the House made a good call, and it apparently puts Bush in a bit of a quandary:

President Bush has repeatedly claimed that there's an urgent national security need for new spying legislation. But he also says he'll veto any surveillance bill that does not grant retroactive immunity to the companies that turned over phone records and access to internet cable fibers to the government.

Bush argues that the participating companies were patriots, and that they would stop complying with lawful court orders in the future if not freed from the lawsuits accusing them of conducting illegal surveillance for Bush.

But it will likely be politically difficult to veto a bill containing new spying powers Bush himself says are vital to American's security, simply because a couple of deep-pocketed corporations are facing lawsuits for violating federal privacy laws.

So a tough decision. Lucky for Bush he's the decider. Via.

McCain's pain

The "straight talker" didn't too much like this New York Times article about him, which offers some good reporting on John McCain and his (un)ethical history.

The second graph — the one McCain's people are having a conniption over, despite some serious business in the rest of the article — basically says people in McCain's camp thought he was having an affair during his 2000 run for president. It doesn't say he was, likely because the Times couldn't prove it. But it feels like they were being told by these anonymous McCain camp people that he was having an affair. But the Times couldn't go with that, so we get what was printed.

The gist of the rest of the article is that McCain continually seems to court ethical improprieties while maintaining a stance against the influence of lobbyists and corporate interests, though that stance seems not to be a priority in this campaign.

Hey, it's easier to just say you're a "straight shooter" than come up with an actual issue, especially when you can be called on your shit on the issues.

But anyway, why has he courted ethical problems the way he has? He's a dumbass? Probably has a lot to do with it. He'd still rather get things done in Washington instead of being a man alone, fighting the system? Maybe. He just like helping lobbyist buddies too much to really walk the reform walk? Looks like it.

He may be all about governmental reform now that the Republican bid is pretty much assured, and to take some of the sting out of Obama's campaign, but he wasn't making a righteous, indignant spectacle out of himself concerning the Bush administration/Congress in recent years when he could have, when it would have meant something beyond campaign pap.

Back to the article, near the end the Times circles back to this possible affair, and drip the hammer a little harder, writing:

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Yeah, great, but the Times didn't have it. The implication’s clear as to how McCain behaved "inappropriately" with this one lobbyist. They attempt to cover themselves by never coming out and saying it, but this feels like an all or nothing situation. You either have it and report it, or you don't, and don't.

The McCain campaign's response to the Times is worthless as expected, especially as it counters facts in the story disputed by no one, which leads to my reaction on the story.

There's plenty of good reporting in there, and they actually could have hit McCain harder I think. How many times did he request the FCC or other bureaucrats to expedite proposals not submitted by his lobbyist buddies? They say reform hasn't been a big deal in his current campaign — point out how (and thus, how hokey and meaningless his campaign has been).

But the inclusion of the "implication" will end up detracting from the rest of the piece. Speculation suggests the Times rushed it to print so they weren't scooped by a The New Republic story on the Times' handling of the investigation, and it feels like that may be the case.

UPDATE: Though the Times denied it, the McCain camp alleged the story came out as is because The New Republic was working on a story on the Times' reporting (delaying?) the McCain story. This was discussed on Charlie Rose Thursday night, with someone from the TNR saying he took the Times' at their word in that the TNR didn't affect their decision on the story. So now I have to go read this TNR piece.

TNR's Noam Scheiber also offered that "The story reads to me like it had originally been much more ambitious, but had its guts ripped out somewhere along the way," to which I'd agree.

UPDATE 2: Go read the TNR piece, it's great stuff. I wonder what it would have looked like before the Times went ahead and ran the McCain story.