or left leaning journalists. Pretty bizarre. My own top notch FBI styled profile pointed to a far rightie being the perp.

This is from today's WSJ. An eyeopener:

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008; Page A17

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.

Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.

Information released by the FBI over the past seven years indicates a product of exceptional quality. The product contained essentially pure spores. The particle size was 1.5 to 3 microns in diameter. There are several methods used to produce anthrax that small. But most of them require milling the spores to a size small enough that it can be inhaled into the lower reaches of the lungs. In this case, however, the anthrax spores were not milled.

What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.

Another FBI leak indicated that each particle was given a weak electric charge, thereby causing the particles to repel each other at the molecular level. This made it easier for the spores to float in the air, and increased their retention in the lungs.

In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.

The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.

Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.

The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on Ivins, and whether he was about to be charged or arrested. And when the FBI does release this information, we should all remember that the case needs to be firmly based on solid information that would conclusively prove that a lone scientist could make such a sophisticated product.

From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products.

The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so?

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, was a member of the Iraq Survey Group.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12178929...

talked about finding Ivens' HS graduation year yearbook, and talked to the schools drama director--who cast Ivens as a murderer in the school play.

Like that has any meaning whatsoever?

This is from NPR????

I do wish they had transcripts available to the less than financially well-endowed....

And that matters, why? Unless it can be proven, first, that he was who they say he was, and, secondly, his motive was political, I don't see how this is "worthy of more discussion" anymore than his religion or favorite restaurant would be worth discussing.

how a false narrative may be constructed. that is, at first, many were told that "it was someone who must hate democrats" just as many believed that it must have been "someone from the middle east." this post is meant as a 'data point.' if brad is correct, and Ivins has long been a democrat, what does that help us understand about him, about why he may, or may not have, done the vile deed? more importantly, what does it tell us about the investigators, who have failed to bring a murderer to justice for these long years?

political identity has rarely been more meaningful than it is in our times. that's not a 'good' thing, in my book. but it is helpful, as we attempt to try to understand which facts, which people, which stories, we can perceive correctly, and use all by ourselves, to get to various truths that "our" government and leaders will not tell us. no, his political voting record doesn't "define him." yes, it's an important thing to note, as we're told by the authorities and their lapdogs in the SCLM, what we should believe about him. does this fit with, or hurt, what they say of him? you make the call.

Perhaps, I haven't been paying attention to this closely enough (and, I no longer watch cable news), but I never remember hearing anything beyond this being some disgruntled employee. I don't remember ever hearing the media that I watched and read making partisan connections between the victims, nor partisan connections among the targets. I guess I'm just out of the loop.