FBI Claims: Take With Salt

The FBI is now saying that they are totally sure that Bruce Ivins was solely responsible for the anthrax attacks. This may well be true, but before we all pat the FBI on the back, we would do well to look at the history of this investigation. Glenn Greenwald has details on this investigation here and here which shows a number of prejudicial FBI leaks to the media that seem to have fallen flat on their face in rapid succession. Now the FBI is selectively releasing information that was previously sealed.

Now look, I want to be clear, he may well be the sole culprit. But taking the FBI's briefing at face value is not something that anyone should be doing, especially in light of what happened to Steven Hatfill.

The other aspect of this case which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere but on the internet, is what happened to reporting at the time of the attacks. In October 2001 ABC News reported that the anthrax mailed in the attacks contained bentonite, the presence of which "was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks." (source)

Glenn rightly brings up the point that this leak from "four separate well placed sources" was a lie. More importantly, it was a falsehood designed to foment public support for a war with Iraq, a war which administration officials wanted. Who these "sources" are and what were their motivations should be a major news story. But thus far, everyone is just talking about "gosh well they caught this guy." This was certainly a tragic event for the victims and their families. But coming in the paranoid and panicked days following 9/11, it was a major factor in driving the public support for war against Iraq. Who was circulating this propaganda to the media, and why? In light of recent developments, ABC News should be providing answers.

UPDATE: TVNewser is reporting on an interview with ABC News' Brian Ross. Ross claims that he was not lied to, but rather the report was the product of a mistake in the initial analysis. According to Ross "Their [scientific analysts] initial conclusion, based on microscopic examination was a brown substance that initially was reported as bentonite... We were told after further chemical analysis it was determined it was a silica, but not bentonite."

It's not clear to me why it took this long for this information to come out. This seems like a really simple and innocent explanation. Why wasn't this reported by ABC News a week after the first story aired? Just odd.