Adding that the White House "denial" was more of a correction- the White House denied that there was bentonite, but ABC went ahead with the report until they could confirm the denial, except the White House "denial" was more like the current state of information about the identical investigation the sources were commenting on. In essence, there was never really more than one source. Four sources repeating the same conclusion is not the same as four conclusions about the same fact. Just sloppy all around. Ross was incredibly inexact with his reporting. He should have reported that their sources retracted the bentonite allegation and that the retraction was confirmed by the White House, not that the White House "denied" that there was bentonite. The WH did do so, but they weren't denying that bentonite was the original conclusion. The word "denial" is problematic because it is used a lot of time for lying rather than for stating a counterfactual reality.

It is hard to see how a mistake of this proportion that could lay PR foundation for a war can be condoned. If it was an honest mistake they would have called back and retracted their earlier assertion, knowing how their mistake could be used by proponents of a war with Iraq.

Why does the MSM think we are that gullible?

It's odd that Ross doesn't seem to think that there's any issue he needs to investigate further here. Even if Ivins acted alone, and the other scientists were giving the best information they had about what they thought they knew, Ivins might have been in a position to contaminate the test results to drive suspicion elsewhere.

But there are other possibilities: one or more of Ross's sources might have been one of the bad guys (Ivins might have had a collaborator, or might not be guilty). Alternatively, they could have been knowingly or unknowingly passing on disinformation, to help stir up an Iraq war. Or maybe it's just that the anthrax investigation was incompetent.

Instead, it looks like Ross is happy to declare the case closed.

I generally think of Brian Ross as a pretty good reporter, I don't think he was bullshitting in this instance. His explanation makes sense to me. Besides, with all of the blundering incompetence at the FBI and USAMRIID, plus the White House being filled with inveterate liars, it sounds like it was difficult to figure out what exactly was going on.

NYT:

The document segment about the e-mails points out that the wording in them was similar, and in some instances identical, to the language in the anthrax-laced letters. “Death to America� and “Death to Israel� were phrases that appeared both in the doctor’s e-mails and in the letters...

In addition, searches of Dr. Ivins’s home in Frederick, Md., turned up “hundreds� of similar letters that had not yet been sent to media outlets and members of Congress, people who were briefed by the F.B.I. on Wednesday said. Those people said investigators found that Dr. Ivins sometimes kept odd, night-time hours in the lab, explaining that he was trying to escape troubles at home, and that he would sometimes drive to mailboxes miles out of his way.

It took these idiots at the FBI 7 years to catch this guy? Every time I try to take in to account the incompetence of the FBI when thinking about their investigations, they always find a way to screw things up even more.

How could they have missed all of this?

Anonymous guy wants the case to end. What a surprise. The quotes you pulled were taken out of context as ably demonstrated by Greenwald tonight.
As for Ross, he is a propagandist who never bothered to "re-report" as you put it Kevin. The FBI hounded a man to death, and the MSM seems to think that he had it coming? And the silica? The reason Ross never re-reported was because the silica meant it came from illegal American offensive Anthrax stocks. Bush abrogated the inspection provision of the 1972 Biological Warfare Treaty in MAY 2001--maybe, just maybe, because the U.S. was producing silica-laced Anthrax. Bush said we couldn't trust foreign inspectors in our Biotech facilities or weapons labs. . .

Just a "few" of us not satisfied with the crap investigation. Yeah. This whole thing is an outrage.

Huh. All the bentonite I've ever seen that is of chemical grade was white. Hard to imagine that someone would have used any less pure in an anthrax prep.

Taking the second question first, Ross tells us, "Our sources were current and former government scientists who were all involved in analyzing the substance in the letter."
He also makes clear that Ivins was not one of those scientists. "No he was not. If it was Ivins, I would report that in a second," Ross said.

So Ivins was not one of the sources. There are lots of doubts out there about Ivins - maybe the biggest frameup ever - just keep up with Greenwald and Bradblog, and catch video of Olbermann. This link http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6242 shows how WaPo scrubbed their own story revealing doubts about Ivins being the killer. But there's still doubts of his colleagues at WaPo, NYT, and even the WSJ!

BTW Brad says Ivins was a registered Democrat - now we know why he was framed, heh!

Let me get this straight. By its own account, ABC accused Iraq of an act of war against the United States, on the basis that some anonymous people looked at a chemical sample through a microscope, and thought it might contain Bentonite, although they hadn't yet performed any chemical tests?

The White House told them their story was wrong before they went on the air with it, but they went with their story any way, because they didn't have time to investigate the White House's claims?

Their own sources told them almost immediately that the Bentonite theory had been disproved, but they did not until now tell the public that it was their own sources for the Bentonite claim who were now denying it?

Millions of lives at stake, and this is their idea of responsible behavior? My god.

Yeah, this is a great defense to accusations that ABC is protecting anonymous liers. This is like the guy whose alibi for the bank robbery is that he was murdering his wife at the time . . .

The whole case against Ivins is weak, trumped up crap. This guy was suicided, it's just Bu$hco cleaning up the mess before they get out of dodge.

So the reality-based community have been utter morons again. What a complete surprise.

Kevin, you really should put away Greenwald, Cole, Suskind, Hersh and all the rest and spend at least a small proportion of your time in the real, non-fantasy-based world.

So according to Ross, his sources didn't lie, they just made a mistake.

Oh. OK. I feel so much better.

Who was responsible for the Bentonite therefore Iraq link?

Call Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

am: thanks for trolling here. Really appreciate it. Since you have no affinity for truth, progressives or this site and everything, your time here was almost as wasted as as Rush Limbaugh on an oxycontin binge. Funny how everyone else in Florida is arrested for that crime:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/06/fl.insurance.drug.ring/?iref=mpstoryview

The bentonite-Iraq link? Who was responsible? Um, I dunno, but Brian Ross and four frickin' "sources" might have a clue.

Oh, and John McCain appears to have been briefed on the so-called link, as amply reported today.

He shared the grave news in 2001 during one of his celebrity gigs on Letterman.

LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

MCCAIN: I think we're doing fine .... I think we�ll do fine. The second phase--if I could just make one, very quickly--the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may--and I emphasize may--have come from Iraq.

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that's when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.

So we have a deadly substance produced by our own government used against government employees and high government officials.

Why is the outrage against this vile state of affairs so muted?

hancock

hancock: Amen. I have read and studied every scrap I can on this case, and the evidence of a government conspiracy sickens me. We all know who profited from this attack. We all know, and I think the true nature of the terror is shown in our passivity. No one wants to be the next Ivins. No one is surprised when brown shirts hound a man to death. Group dynamics. I am damned tired of Pelosi's cowardice infecting Democrats and America. The evidence points, yet again, to an incredibly evil and cynical administration. With a toady FBI and DOJ.

The Brad Blog on this is must reading:

Exclusive: Ivins Was a Registered Democrat
The Frederick County, MD Board of Elections says Bruce Ivins, the government's purported Anthrax Killer who died last week, had been a registered Democrat since 1982 and had voted in every election -- including Democratic Primaries -- since 1996. Then he sent toxic letters to Democratic officials? Anything smell funny here?

Wait a minute! I thought we had been assured us he was a rightwing religious nut job!

To paraphrase Dick Cheney, “I find the absence of evidence of any conspiracy does not mean there is evidence of absence of any conspiracy.�

Conspiracies are all around us. Companies conspire to fix prices. Financial institutions conspire to fleece borrowers. Individuals conspire to undermine fellow workers. Individuals conspire to cheat, steal and murder. Governments conspire to deceive other governments, or to deceive their citizens on the need to go to war. Members of Al Qaeda conspire to attack the United States.

But somehow, there is never a conspiracy within the United States in high profile cases like this. It’s always a “lone deranged individual.� How is that even mathematically possible? It seems to defy probability. Every coin flip can’t be tails, unless you are manipulating the data.

Something smells, and I think it is large pile of steaming Bull Shit

Gotta love that passive voice: "a brown substance that initially was reported as bentonite."

What does that mean? That the sources saw a brown substance, that ROSS reported as bentonite? Or that THEY reported to Ross AS bentonite? Or that they couldn't identify at first, so someone reported to them could maybe be bentonite, because the Iraqis once used bentonite?

Just who was doing this initial report of the the brown substance as bentonite? And to whom? And why was this report being made without further confirmation via chemical analysis, beyond microscopic examination?

How is what Ross is saying different from "Some guys looked at it under a microscope, and saw something they couldn't identify, which they'd never seen before, and someone called it bentonite"?

Mr. Ross, thousands of dead Iraqis thank you for your careful and accurate reporting.

For god's sake, bentonite is the main ingredient for cat litter.

So, we thought Iraq had a bioweapons project because they had cat litter?

As Casey Stengel said of the hapless Mets, "Doesn't anyone here know how to play this game?"

As I understand it, bentonite was such a big deal not because Saddam had some, but because Iraq's was the only anthrax program known to use bentonite in its formulation.

"...because Iraq's was the only anthrax program known to use bentonite in its formulation."

Jeez. That sounds like a Jon Lovitz routine.

"Oh, yeah? Well our anthrax program uses... bentonite. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Either our sources were yanking the American intelligence community's chain, or they were yanking Saddam's chain. And painfully obviously so.

Some [glances at Optical Weenie. heh =] thought I was funny when I talked of the coming investment in infrastructure. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9736 NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cash-strapped U.S. state and city governments are likely to sell or lease more highways, bridges, airports and other assets to investors desperate for stable returns after being frazzled by the credit crisis.

...according to Ross, his sources didn't lie, they just made a mistake.

How convenient for Ross, no need to expose sources on a tiny little mistake like that, 4125 dead soldiers later.

This case so in need of a independent investigation - can we get Patrick Fitzgerald again, he is not afraid to put Ross in jail, I'm not afraid of it either. That is only real way to get any facts out of the press these days.

Bring on the news man, bring on Patrick Fitzgerald.

Lets see if I understand this story. A top scientist, a Democrat, at a top secret highly classified lab is nuts. On his own he employees weapons grade anthrax obviously manufactured the the United States government on an unsuspecting population, mostly Democratic politicians. Some how the other top scientists make a "mistake" and conclude it is Iraqi anthrax. The mistake is leaked as truth by somebody in the administration. The mistake is used as one of a bunch of justifications for going to war with Iraq. After the war starts the government recognizes its mistake and focuses on a guy they don't like, not the crazy scientist. They leak his name and ruin his career. Slowly they realize that they can't make a case against the first guy but they keep trying. The top guy on the FBI team doggedly trying to prove the unprovable is replaced and his replacement orders a reexamination of the evidence. The nuts scientist is quickly identified as a more likely candidate. They leave him in place for a long time, but finally start to act. He then commits a bizarre "suicide." The FBI leaks proof that the crazy guy is the murder. His motive has something to do with sorority envy.

Brian Ross and the rest of the press are happy to put the story to bed. Case closed.

This plot wouldn't make a good movie of the week. For example, why was a clearly deranged guy working in the secure government facility in the first place? Don't they test for people who are deranged? Why was he left in place so long? It is not like he was working at a post office. Why did the first FBI agent not see him right away? (That one is possible--he jumped to the conclusion that the second guy was guilty before all the facts were in--the rest was simply pinning the crime on the guy. Jumping to conclusions is what bad detectives do.)

The truth is out there but this story isn't it.

"employs" not "employees." Sorry.

Who are the only people to benefit from the anthrax attacks? Why, Dick Cheney and the neo-cons. Who has been frightened of Dick Cheney and the neo-cons ever since? Why, Congressional Democrats.

From the administration's point of view the attack represented a highly successful deployment of a potent biological weapon. Terror works if you are Dick Cheney.

because Iraq's was the only anthrax program known to use bentonite in its formulation.

Iraq's scary superweapons guys always have to be different, don't they? I hear they were also the only nuclear weapon makers in the world who refined uranium using aluminum tubes. Everyone else uses steel or carbon fibre drums, not things that look like cheap rocket casings.

I sure hope Ross' sources had a better reason to think it was bentonite than it was brown. It's not like brown rarely occurs in nature.

"It's not like brown rarely occurs in nature."

Hey, hey, hey. None of that until Friday Cat Blogging.

Although feline deposits are by far the most widely used method to turn bentonite brown...

Don't forget the first fall guy the FBI went after at Fort Detrick - on the basis of an "anonymous" and detailed accusation received BEFORE the first anthrax victim was diagnosed. His name is Ayaad Assaad. Here's a 2002 article about him (and his harrassment by Ft. Detrick's "Camel Club"):

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/01/26/assaad/index.html

They'd never seen silica before? Isn't that in like every pair of shoes sold pretty much everywhere?

There is no excuse for not positively identifying bentonite, quartz (silica) or any other crystalline substance. This can be done by any of several techniques.

I find it inconceivable that any scientist would look at a substance and assume what it was without testing it, certainly before relaying it to a major media source. Ross's explanation stinks, as does this entire case.

The FBI has had 45 years to come up with a new excuse, but they still fall back on the "lone nut" theory? Pathetic.

Hate to throw cold shower on the conspirationists (sic?) but the whole story does make sense. Loonies work in all kinds of jobs. The details against Ivins are compelling. The real story here is how Ross used one source who looked under a microscope (or did someone tell the source) and that there was a brown color that could be benzonite. Now- was Ross told it was benzonite or was he told that someone thought it could be benzonite. Either way, extremely shoddy reporting. If it was the former, the source lied and should be outed; and if it was the latter, Ross should resign.

The anthrax attacks occurred nearly seven years ago and over a year before the Iraq war started. They all had plenty of time to fix and atone for their "mistake" before now.

If Ross was told the the bentonite conclusion was wrong right before the story was broadcast, why did not he or ABC make a retraction?

I'm sort of with Brojo, but I don't watch ABC news.

They DID give this correction of a "mistake" big coverage, didn't they? They did have as their no. 1 story, "Anthrax Ties to Iraq a Mistake" didn't they?

John McSame issued a press release titled "I was Misled on Origins of Anthrax" didn't he?

There is no excuse for not positively identifying bentonite, quartz (silica) or any other crystalline substance. This can be done by any of several techniques.

I second that!
Even back in the day ('70s) when I got my M.S. in Geochemistry this would be an easy thing to identify. The possibility of making a mistake with todays equipment is zero.

It's not some exotic mineral, it's just a f'ing clay mineral. My cats know what it is, but the "scientists" that examined it didn't?

LOL

The 'evidence' released by the FBI is ludicrous. And some of the conclusions are incomprehensible to me. Why did a forensic psychologist discover that Ivins had been previously diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic? Did they really mean to say that the forensic psychologist diagnosed him (or the anthrax mailer, not clear) as such? Just a quick reading of the released 'evidence' reported in MSM brings up many such questions. For example, Ivins' long drives to nowhere are announced as bizarre behavior. It seems quite likely to me that Ivins knew he was being tailed and therefore went nowhere and took his pursuers on a merry goose chase. That's sure what I would do. The only good news I've read is that both Ivins' wife and son have both hired lawyers. I hope they nail the government to the wall.

I have noticed a lot of "Raoul" style posts on the serious discussion boards. That is a part of the PR campaign to close the case. In fact, there is almost no evidence to support a lone whacko at all. The FBI could not provide simple factual evidence like gas receipts or ATM transactions or anything that would place Ivins anywhere close to the crime scenes. They went through his home and belongings countless times and could not find a scrap of useable evidence. They finally took emails out of context and behavior they helped to inspire as part of a wildly circumstantial case that still lacks a plausible motive. When you look at the enormous quantity of weaponized industrial quality Anthrax, and realize that Ivins lacked the ability, equipment or motive for the crime (and an industrial centrifuge), you can only conclude that sources within the government or contractors to the government committed this crime. The case is smoke and mirrors with a compliant media, Brian Ross for example, pushing us away from asking the questions that must be answered about this case. How much and what kind of weaponized Anthrax had the DoD manufactured? What company manufactured the materiall? Was it a NJ Biotech firm? Did the FBI screen workers at every Biotech firm for unexplained illnesses, absences or Cipro purchases. The administration was on Cipro for unauthorized reasons for a week before the letters were mailed. that is a fact which would have convicted Hatfill or Ivins. The cases against them had no such stunning revelations.

This "explanation" opens up a whole new series of questions. Others above have discussion what shoddy work it would be to find something brown and guess that is was bentonite.

But Ross gives us new information. After Ross's reports went out, he was told that the tests had actually found silica, "something they had never seen before but had a brownish color."

Questions:
Does that mean that US weaponized anthrax doesn't contain silica?
If the samples that were part of the attacks contain silica, has the FBI concluded that Ivins for some reason added silica to the strain of anthrax they accuse him of using in the attacks?
do they have any physical evidence that links silica-bearing crime samples with material Ivins had access to?
Do they have any physical evidence that indicates
that Ivins routinely or ever used silica in experiments?
Do they have any motive for Ivins using silica? Is there any benefit to using silica in weapons grade anthrax, or other weaponized biological agents?
Do they contend that Ivins contaminated the anthrax with silica, rather than adding it deliberately? If so, do they have any theory for how the contamination came about? Any physical evidence?

I'm sure there are a lot more questions that arise out of this one new bit of information. Is there any attempt by anyone to pursue this avenue of investigation?

How could we have known so much about the Iraqi biological weapons program (to know they used bentonite), but still didn't know all our info about their biological, chemical and nuclear programs was crap?

And, if we knew Iraqis used bentonite, then it would certainly be easy for our guys to add bentonite to anthrax to create a false-flag operation. Yeah, I know Bush would never do something like that, but in theory...

There's an important opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today written by Richard Spertzel, who was head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, on why Ivins is innocent. His argument is based on the science of weaponized anthrax. See:

Bruce Ivins Wasn't The Anthrax Culprit

I attended a meeting today headed by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Barack Obama's chief domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes. They presented great talking points and details of Obama's policy plans, but pertinent to this discussion: Afterwards, I asked Scott about the Ivins case. He looked at me and rolled his eyes a bit, and suggested I watch "Arlington Road" about a framed college professor (see review at http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/1999/07/09/arlington/print.html.) He was just expressing doubts, and isn't to the point yet where he could say he just doesn't believe the official story about Bruce Ivins. BTW it's hard to see where the MSMemia are going with this, but Drudge sure as hell isn't floating any critiques of the current narrative (and I fed his public intake with plenty.)

I brought up the efforts of Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) to look more into the anthrax ("Amerithrax") affair (check http://holt.house.gov/.) Scott thinks it would be great to do so, but told me his and the other committees have so much work to do (considering all the messes left behind by the current Admin etc.) that it's hard to prioritize. I hope we will see more investigation, since this case surely does not deserve to be "closed" yet.

"Our sources were current and former government scientists who were all involved in analyzing the substance in the letter."

Taken literally, that means that some of the sources were, back in 2001, "former government scientists." If they were no longer working for the government, how did they know about the supposed bentonite? Of course he probably meant to say that some of the scientists are still working for the government and some of them aren't. But what is the significance of their current employment status? Why didn't Ross just say: "Our sources were government scientists who were all involved in analyzing the substance in the letter"?

Actually, "", because of the sloppiness of English semantics Ross could easily have meant, those scientists were "former" at the time he was speaking (2008) rather than at the time the claims were received (2001). Of course then we have to wonder why he'd trouble to find out such details, and your question is still a good one overall. I remember my teacher of semantics giving the example of "cats have tails" - ambiguous between each cat has one tail, and each cat has "tails."

(PS to blankers: could you just make up *something* so we can refer to you? Thanks.)

Neil B...

Each cat has tails???

...it is also suspected that bentonite is linked to the kitty litter industrial complex...

"...it is also suspected that bentonite is linked to the kitty litter industrial complex..."

Hey, per a WSJ article on bentonite a number of years back, my memory is Wyoming is the primary producer. So Cheney may well be connected. You never know.