So let’s see. At some point during the anthrax attacks in 2001, USAMRID and AFIP decided to do anthrax tests on material from Flight 93. They purportedly found the hijackers tested positive for anthrax! But on second thought, FBI tells us, that positive result came from “lab contamination.” And then, presumably just after those tests, USAMRID and AFIP, perhaps working outside the chain of the official FBI investigation of anthrax, discover evidence implicating Iraq in the anthrax attacks. Results that, once again, further testing suggested was inaccurate.
|By: emptywheel Monday May 23, 2011 4:35 pm|
|By: Jim White Thursday April 21, 2011 7:50 am|
In an article published Wednesday evening on their website, McClatchy points out yet another failing in the FBI’s Amerithrax investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. The article focuses on the fact that the FBI was able to get a clear genetic fingerprint of a bacterial contaminant that was found in the attack material mailed to the New York Post and to Tom Brokaw (but not to either Senator Daschle or Senator Leahy). This contaminant, Bacillus subtilis, is used in some cases by weapons laboratories as an anthrax simulant, because its behavior in culture and in drying the spores is very similar to Bacillus anthracis but it is easier to handle because it is not pathogenic. I covered the FBI’s failure to link this B. subtilis contaminant to Ivins in this diary in February of 2010.
|By: emptywheel Wednesday March 23, 2011 3:30 pm|
The FBI has linked to a redacted executive summary of the report some shrink contractors did on Bruce Ivins. While it is just the executive summary and even that is partly redacted, the report basically paints Bruce Ivins was a stalker which therefore makes him a possible bioterrorist.
Unfortunately for the shrinks who did the report, they start by endorsing the FBI’s now questionable anthrax theory.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday November 23, 2010 1:25 pm|
Ethanol subsidies are up for renewal at the end of the year. And some prominent conservatives have pitched letting them expire, to the chagrin of farm-state Senators and establishment Republicans.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday October 5, 2010 3:30 pm|
I don’t know that there’s a piece of paper laying out the terms, or an audio tape of the meeting, or anything other than a handshake deal. But this is a fairly badly kept secret in Washington, and now Daschle went ahead and put it in a mass market book.
|By: Gregg Levine Thursday September 30, 2010 10:04 am|
MSNBC is reporting that the White House is confirming what pretty much all Washington watchrs have known for a fortnight: Rahm Emanual will resign his postion as President Obama’s Chif of Staff to run for mayor of Chicago.
|By: Jane Hamsher Friday November 27, 2009 2:00 pm|
I’m certain there are people who have thought about this a great deal, but “do you or an organization you work for stand to profit as a result of the actions of this panel” seems a more effective threshold for participation in federal advisory boards.
Because the definition of “lobbyist” seems a bit too flexible to prohibit the biggest of the professional influence peddlers.