Sorry to interrupt the puritanical Ken Starr-like scolding going on, but something more important than John Edwards’ sex life happened today.

Or to be exact, 34 years ago today: Richard Nixon resigned the presidency over the threat of certain impeachment for violating the 4th Amendment, among other crimes.

The blogosphere has been questioning the "sources" of ABC New/Ross reporting of the anthrax scare back in 2001. ABC News/Ross reported falsely that (1) the anthrax contained Bentonite and (2) this showed it came from Iraq.

But the issue is much bigger than that. Glenn Greenwald, the Salon magazine blogger, has taken the lead on this issue. But he became rather vehement when I challenged the basis for his main concern: there is NO evidence that ABC News/Ross ever had any sources.

The larger issue is that ABC News/Ross sensationalized this concocted story in order to obtain money, and there is every evidence that they did so fraudulently.

Dailykos will help give us more Democrats; Accountability NOW will help make them better Democrats.

Today, on the anniversary of the day of when outrage among the American people and their Congress held a President accountable and he resigned; today on a day when the Congress is mute when the President is accused of forgery to support an illegal war, and violation of US statute and international treaties while waging that war, make a pledge to change this all.

dday has a highly recommended reprint of his Hullabaloo (digby's place) piece on the Rec List right now.

I have collected some of Glenn Greenwald's recent pieces on the subject for my readers on DocuDharma and I thought I'd share them with you here too.

I absolutely refuse to let this story go away.  I'm just so blown away by Glenn Greenwald's article in Salon yesterday.  I'm sure you've read it by now, but it continues to amaze me.

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

...and John McCain promoted the Iraq/anthrax connection on Letterman on Oct. 18th:

Ross on charlie rose august 12, 2002

After a clip of Steven Hatfill denying that he had anything to do with the anthrax thang:

"We've talked to him(Hatfill) over the past three or four months. Long before his name was made public we were aware that his name had been given to the FBI by a number of his former colleagues at Ft. Detrick, which is the U.S. bio-weapons defense center. They were aware of Hatfill and they didn't like him there. He was fired in 1999 for violating lab procedures. And then he got a job with a government contractor and lost that security clearance for that job, August 23rd of 2001, just about a month before the anthrax went into the mail. So that started the suspicion that this was a person who might have a motive. He was mad at the world, in particular mad at the government. He doesn't think....

It tracks, actually, interestingly enough, a novel he'd been writing. About an anthrax-- biological attack on the U.S. Congress. He has been saying for years that the U.S. government is unprepared and they have failed to focus. They've-- He's been criticizing them for failing to focus on anthrax and instead focusing on AIDS. And that's a waste of resources.

Hersh and Greenwald report, you decide.

I'm not of the conspiracy theorist persuasion, but the modus operandi of the Bush Administration makes me question the the actions and motives of my government in ways I never would have imagined.

First, Hersh expands upon his New Yorker story at a journalism conference, disclosing one idea tossed about in Cheney's office to provoke war with Iran - dressing up Navy SEALs as Iranian Al Quds Forces to fire upon US ships in the Gulf.

Now, Greenwald reminds us of the false information given to ABC News by government officials linking Iraq to the anthrax attacks.

And I am left questioning the circumstance surrounding the apparent suicide of Bruce Ivins.

So where exactly do I go for my tinfoil hat fitting...

As Glenn Greenwald has reminded us, Brian Ross was the one who reported the lie that the anthrax mailed in 2001 had chemical markers that indicated the anthrax had come from Iraq. He claimed 4 sources for this lie.

It's pretty simple for me - the liar is Brian Ross, and he and his associates at ABC news are now known propagandists.

In a time when Democratic Senators control the Senate and when there is not reason to cave, Harry has done it again. Heaven forbid he stand his ground on this or any other issue. Not only did Harry surrender on one issue but on everything the Right wants. Remind anyone of the FISA votes ?

Reid said Democrats would allow votes on GOP amendments that would permit new drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf; the development of oil shale in western states; construction of new nuclear power plants; as well as a vote on broader legislation Republicans have dubbed "drill more, use less," which includes offshore drilling, conservation initiatives, the development of battery technology, and language to curb speculation in the oil futures market. Reid putting offshore drilling to a vote

As a aside Mitch has yet to accept Harrys offer, he may want still more don't you know.

You know how embarrassed you feel when you do something just stick-stupid? Well, welcome to my world right now. Yesterday I wrote a well-constructed diary designed to expand on points made in Glenn Greenwald's latest book, Great American Hypocrites. Specifically, to examine the specifics of the Republican smear campaigns against presidential candidates going all the way back to Jimmy Carter, and more specifically to smear the candidates as being closeted homosexuals (or at the least exhibiting "homosexual" behaviors). The diary ended with a warning that the Republican slobber machine, aided by witting and unwitting allies in the media, is doing the same to Obama, and that Obama seems to be responding as so many other Democrats have done in the past: running to the right, keeping his head down, and in general letting the Republicans and the idiot media sketch his picture for the American voters.

Then I did a most stupid thing. I titled it "Obama is a F*g." I didn't think it through. In fact, I hardly thought about it at all. It seemed like a clever title, shocking, inflammatory, and attention-getting. It was all of that and more. It was also a damn stupid thing to do. Apologies and arguments below the fold.

Okay, hold on a moment. I admit, this is a "made you look" diary title. But only somewhat. I'm impugning neither Obama, gays, or anyone else outside the mighty conservative scream machine. And I deliberately chose the insulting, character-smear term "fag" (without even the comforting asterisk: f*g, like that makes it more palatable) because that is the term Obama is being smeared with, whether directly (been on the Free Republic lately?) or more indirectly (every MSM news outlet whose anchor's name doesn't start with the letters "Olbermann"). Actually, this diary is all Glenn Greenwald's fault.

Edit: Okay, already, I added the asterisk.

Edit 2: Boy, I thought people would be a little ill, but damn! Let's just get it out and talk about the thrust of the diary.

Obama-bashing has made gonzo political performance artists  into celebrities;corporate hacks  into Thomas Paine wannabes.  So where does one look for some common sense  these days? To Narco News. And  to the New York Times Op-Ed page. (Don't tell any one I read either one.)

Al Giordano    says that the people who are outraged at Obama over the FISA vote are not going to abandon him over it; they will just threaten to abandon him all over again on the next issue. That sounds just about right.

It turns out that being a community organizer is good training  to run for President. People have been  threatening  to do all sorts of things to Obama  if he does not do this or that, for the past twenty years. Obama learned  to listen. And to ignore.  Gail Collins points out that  many on  the Libertarian Left , which wants Obama  to listen to them or else, has not been listening to Obama.

Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for alerting this non-Paulite to an embarrassingly well written, and profoundly sane statement put out by the Texas Republican on the FISA abortion bill.

The operative quote that Barack might want to read himself is, "Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure."

I would urge Barack to "reconsider" his support for this measure.  To have Ron Paul out ahead of the Democratic Presidential nominee on such a bedrock issue of Constitutional democracy is just... wrong. (Paul even provides another coherent legal argument against the bill, if you can stand it, below.)

When we last saw our courageous Republican Superfriends, they were reeling from even further setbacks in their struggle to keep 'Merica from the terrorist tentacles of the shadowy Dr. Baracko! But fear not, faithful reader, for the feckless Democratic Leadership would yet again offer a helping hand to the Republican Superfriends in their moment of dire need!

During the campaign, there was a constant theme of backers of Obama being cult-like in their support for their chosen candidate.  

It even reached the talking points of the Paul Krugman's of the world.

I was one of those "cult members" that so many spoke of.  

But today I had an epiphany that made me see the light and the errors of my ways.

Being a newly indoctrined convert I must spread the good news...  

Sisters and Brothers please join me after the jump so we can fellowship amongst each other...

If this isn't directed at you, it isn't directed at you; no need to take it as such.  As I sit here tonight, just four short months away from the election, I continue to read articles about Obama being unable to put out the "fire in his own house"

Bob Ostertag at the Huffington Post:

In an unprecedented attempt to put out a fire in his own house, Senator Barack Obama yesterday issued a response to supporters who had been protesting his position on government surveillance.

And the main shit-stirrer in this whole thing has been Glenn Greenwald:

This expression of Obama's "intention" has so many equivocations and vague claims as to be worthless.

Sorry folks.  The reality is, you drank the Kool-Aid, told everyone that he would never do a thing like this, and now you're embarrassed that you were wrong.  It's not about FISA.

More...

This is Glenn Greenwald's take on the statement Obama made this afternoon.

"This statement has so many equivocations and vague claims as to be worthless. In a society that lives under the rule of law, government officials and corporations which break our laws are held accountable by courts of law, not by vague promises from politicians of some future "review" and "recommendation" process grounded in claims that we can trust the Leader to do the right thing, whatever he decides in his sole discretion and infinite wisdom that might be."

This is his conclusion, and I have to say that after reading the whole thing I entirely agree.

In a post titled "The baseless, and failed, 'move to the center' cliche" Glenn Greenwald argues that centrist Democratic presidential campaigns are "just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002." Basically, his argument is that the reason Democratic candidates have lost in recent presidential elections is that they have run centrist campaigns: "What makes Democrats look weak is their patent fear of standing by their own views." Greenwald has consistently been one of the best sources of analysis on issues like wiretapping, torture, and civil liberties - but on this one, he's 100% wrong.