Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

[Nbadan]

Where is the liberal media?

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/SibelEdmonds_AmericanConservativeCover_1109_smalle r.jpg

We'll pick this up tomorrow after I get a look at it. You East Coasters will likely beat me to it. But here's the teaser from TAC...:

There’s a new issue of The American Conservative going to press today, and it includes a story that will make more than a few congressmen and foreign lobbyists intensely uncomfortable: an in-depth interview between Phil Giraldi and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. She tells us exactly how Turkish intelligence have penetrated national secrets, suborned government officials, and blackmailed Congress. It’s going to be explosive.

Good. Right-wingers are covering it. So hopefully that means the "liberal media" will now pay attention!

Brad Blog (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7421)

The deposition included criminal allegations against specifically named members of Congress. Among those named by Edmonds as part of a broad criminal conspiracy: Reps. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA), as well as an unnamed, still-serving Congresswoman (D) said to have been secretly videotaped, for blackmail purposes, during a lesbian affair.

High-ranking officials from the Bush Administration named in her testimony, as part of the criminal conspiracy on behalf of agents of the Government of Turkey, include Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, and others.

Espionage, treason, sex...If your local news isn't covering this story why aren't you asking WHY?

[ChumpDumper]

Is this the stuff about which she had been under a gag order?

[Winehole23]

Some of it, yes. She's pretty careful about what she says. The only reason any of it is coming out now is because a judge ruled some of it relevant to a lawsuit.

[ChumpDumper]

Espionage, treason, sex...If your local news isn't covering this story why aren't you asking WHY?My local news?

Probably because it's high school football season.

[Winehole23]

The IG ruled that Sibel Edmund's claims of official corruption were meritorious and that these claims were the basis for her retaliatory dismissal.

[Nbadan]

My local news?

Probably because it's high school football season.

My bad...maybe we'll try this one again after the Spurs season....but they got in ACORN...just saying..

[Winehole23]

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds? (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/)


The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.

By Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi (http://www.amconmag.com/searchr.php?m=3&start=0&end=25&v&author=Sibel+Edmonds+and+Philip+Giraldi)

(http://digg.com/)
Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.


A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant a thorough and careful review by the FBI.” Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. “60 Minutes” launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.


John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”


But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with [I]The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, “If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it.”

http://amconmag.com/images/magcoverlg.jpg

* * *
PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.


Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.


SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.


Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.


Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.


Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.


GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.


EDMONDS: Correct.


GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…


EDMONDS: $14,000


GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”


EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).



GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.


EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, “We’ve got this and this, let’s sit down and talk.” And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.


GIRALDI: ISI—Pakistani intelligence—has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman’s assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?


EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn’t start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.


GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?


EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target’s intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.


GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?



EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.


GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?


EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.


GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?


EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD’s and DVD’s. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.


GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.



EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it’s a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.”


GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?


EDMONDS: No.


GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.



EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.


The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.


Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.


Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.


GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.


You’ve previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?


EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.


In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.


GIRALDI: This corruption wasn’t confined to the State Department and the Pentagon—it infected Congress as well. You’ve named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn’t have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?


EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.


Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.


But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.


GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?


EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.


GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information—in many cases information related to nuclear technology.


EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.


GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…


EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.


GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.


EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?


GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.


EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.


There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.


GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?



EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.


GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?


EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.


As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.


The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago. http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/images/dingbat.gif
__________________________________________
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer and The American Conservative’s Deep Background columnist.

[SpurNation]

http://current.com/items/89438469_americas-secret-war-with-iran.htm#comments

[Winehole23]

Is there a connection here, SN? I'm not seeing it.

[DarkReign]

Its always odd to see your suspicions confirmed as reality.

Nothing will come of this, nothing will be done, she will be paid and gagged via lawsuit. Swept under the rug, business as usual afterword.

[SpurNation]

Is there a connection here, SN? I'm not seeing it.

Though not tied into the comments of the OP...the covert actions in the documentory could easily be one of the outcomes associated to it.

Covert war is as much alive as blazen war. And both get funded according their titlements. And both have congressman on both sides of the ailse profiting from those efforts.



EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.


There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.



I don't know...how do these people (as in the documentory) get funded and/or supplied?

National security probably often gets covertly agreed to by many "anti-war" politicians.

Perhaps more of a reason for the gag order more than anythng is to not expose those who publicly oppose but who covertly help.

[Winehole23]

Though not tied into the comments of the OP...the covert actions in the documentory could easily be one of the outcomes associated to it.Sure. Our support of the Marxist, messianic MEK and Baluchi separatists would seem to be germane.


Perhaps more of a reason for the gag order more than anythng is to not expose those who publicly oppose but who covertly help.I thought it had more to do with covering up the crimes of US officials working in the interest of foreign states, and literally selling our country down the river.

[Winehole23]

But you could be right too.

[nuclearfm]

She obviously hates America

[Winehole23]

Nothing will come of this, nothing will be done, she will be paid and gagged via lawsuit. Swept under the rug, business as usual afterword.On the contrary, it's a big deal that any of this became public at all.

It's possible she'll be paid off -- or gagged by the state -- again in the future. But Ms.Edmonds would seem to be a person of high integrity who wants to get the story off her chest.

I kind of doubt she'd sell out. It's more likely she'll die in a mysterious accident before she can spill all the beans.

[SpurNation]

Sure. Our support of the Marxist, messianic MEK and Baluchi separatists would seem to be germane.

You don't think we covertly supported Obama during the Soviet/Afghan war?
The enemy of my enemy...


I thought it had more to do with covering up the crimes of US officials working in the interest of foreign states, and literally selling our country down the river.

It does/did. What do you think some of those outcomes would be?

Didn't see your next post before posting this...sorry.

[Winehole23]

You don't think we covertly supported Obama during the Soviet/Afghan war?
The enemy of my enemy...I see what you did there.:lol




It does/did. What do you think some of those outcomes would be?No idea. I hope the outcome isn't another land war in Asia.

[LnGrrrR]

No idea. I hope the outcome isn't another land war in Asia.

It's the fight of the century! America vs Asia (except Japan)!

[DarkReign]

On the contrary, it's a big deal that any of this became public at all.

It's possible she'll be paid off -- or gagged by the state -- again in the future. But Ms.Edmonds would seem to be a person of high integrity who wants to get the story off her chest.

I kind of doubt she'd sell out. It's more likely she'll die in a mysterious accident before she can spill all the beans.

I sincerely hope youre right.

Its pathetic though that I made mention of this at lunch today and all I got was blank stares from people who fancy themselves "political". It gets worse everyday from where I am standing.

[Winehole23]

Just look at the reaction here: an expose of official corruption at high levels of the US government -- the information for sale included nuclear secrets -- by someone who knew the intelligence first hand...

(crickets...)

But total nonsense like czars, ACORN, Henry Louis Gates, iPod and Carrie Prejean goes multipage.

[SpurNation]

Just look at the reaction here: an expose of official corruption at high levels of the US government -- the information for sale included nuclear secrets -- by someone who knew the intelligence first hand...

(crickets...)

But total nonsense like czars, ACORN, Henry Louis Gates, iPod and Carrie Prejean goes multipage.

Include the media in that.

This is the only thing I found in a quick google that shows any media interest was from 5 years ago.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

“She got very angry, and later she threatened me and my family's life,” says Edmonds, when she decided not to go along with the plan. “She said, ‘Why would you want to place your life and your family's life in danger by translating these tapes?’”

[DarkReign]

But total nonsense like czars, ACORN, Henry Louis Gates, iPod and Carrie Prejean goes multipage.

Partisanship at its finest. Those who "root for the hometeam" have a hard time digesting that their entire scope of American politics is retarded in every sense of the word and every breath and sentence in support of one faction or another is a useless enterprise wrought with misguided intellectualism.

[LnGrrrR]

Just look at the reaction here: an expose of official corruption at high levels of the US government -- the information for sale included nuclear secrets -- by someone who knew the intelligence first hand...

(crickets...)

But total nonsense like czars, ACORN, Henry Louis Gates, iPod and Carrie Prejean goes multipage.

It's because those who support civil liberties aren't surprised, and those who don't support civil liberties don't care.

[Winehole23]

Leaving civil liberties completely aside, there's a totally juicy official corruption angle here. Before Sibel Edmunds, I had no idea Turkey was so influential in the halls of power.

[LnGrrrR]

Leaving civil liberties completely aside, there's a totally juicy official corruption angle here. Before Sibel Edmunds, I had no idea Turkey was so influential in the halls of power.

Neither did I, to be honest. I mean, we have a base there, but Turkey is usually overlooked when it comes to discussion of foreign policy. You have the usual bad guys (Iran, Iraq), the 'allies' with deplorable civil rights records (Saudi Arabia, Egypt), the "Taliban" countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan) the economic rivals (China, India), and then of course, Israel/Palestine. Turkey remains surprisingly low-key.

Edit: Forgot to mention Russia, but I guess they go somewhere between economic rival and usual bad guy.

[ElNono]

Neither did I, to be honest. I mean, we have a base there, but Turkey is usually overlooked when it comes to discussion of foreign policy. You have the usual bad guys (Iran, Iraq), the 'allies' with deplorable civil rights records (Saudi Arabia, Egypt), the "Taliban" countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan) the economic rivals (China, India), and then of course, Israel/Palestine. Turkey remains surprisingly low-key.

Edit: Forgot to mention Russia, but I guess they go somewhere between economic rival and usual bad guy.

You need to add Syria and Lybia to your list, but yes, Turkey has always been pretty relevant considering their position on the map. I believe they have the second or third largest standing NATO force behind the US. They also have nuclear capabilities.

On a unrelated note, good to be back home.

[Wild Cobra]

I thought it had more to do with covering up the crimes of US officials working in the interest of foreign states, and literally selling our country down the river.
But we don't know that. The guy she talks about might be one of our covert agents.

[Winehole23]

Edmunds talks about a number of US officials besides Grossman. Are they all covert agents?

[ElNono]

Edmunds talks about a number of US officials besides Grossman. Are they all covert agents?

Depends. Are they Democrats or Republicans? :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Edmunds talks about a number of US officials besides Grossman. Are they all covert agents?
Point is, we don't know. She may have been fired because she was jeopardizing active agents. That is why you don't talk about things you see in classified jobs. I find that far more likely than being fired for finding bad people in the agency she worked for.

Either way is possible. Point is, do not jump to conclusions.

[Winehole23]

Point is, we don't know. She may have been fired because she was jeopardizing active agents. That is why you don't talk about things you see in classified jobs. I find that far more likely than being fired for finding bad people in the agency she worked for.The FBI's IG said her complaints appeared to be substantially true, and agreed that her firing was retaliatory.

I'll take the official findings of the FBI's top lawyer over your off-the-top-of-your-head guesses any day WC.


Either way is possible. Point is, do not jump to conclusions.Like you do every day?

In serio, I see what you mean, WC. Most of the corroborating evidence is in secret files that may never be declassified. In your book I guess that means we turn Sibel Edmunds out of hand without consideration.

I can't agree with that. Sometimes we have no more than the word of dutiful public servants that official corruption has occurred. In this case, the FBI's top lawyer says Sibel Edmunds complaint (about Mrs. Dickenson) was meritorious, and that her firing was without good cause. That gives her some credibility in my book.

[DarkReign]

Hmmm, should I be skeptical of a former FBI agent who has been under a DOJ ordered gag, only to be released of said gag when a Federal judge heard her testimony and found the DOJ's gag "unreasonable" to say the least?

Or should I believe a government that routinely raids the taxpayer's coffers in order to prop up private banking institutions and insurance companies who stand to lose the most from having their current and former prominent members be indicted for treason?

Hmmmm, let me think reeeeeeeal hard about this...

[LnGrrrR]

Point is, we don't know. She may have been fired because she was jeopardizing active agents. That is why you don't talk about things you see in classified jobs. I find that far more likely than being fired for finding bad people in the agency she worked for.

Either way is possible. Point is, do not jump to conclusions.

So, without evidence, you're willing to believe that all of these were sleeper agents instead of believing that they were corrupted?

I thought conservatives were a fan of smaller government because bigger government is more likely to be corrupt?

[Winehole23]

So, without evidence, you're willing to believe that all of these were sleeper agents instead of believing that they were corrupted?WC likes to protect the prestige of institutions (esp. government institutions) against individuals. It goes with his authoritarian bent. If this means jumping to a few conclusions, so be it.

[symple19]

http://current.com/items/89438469_americas-secret-war-with-iran.htm#comments
Interesting piece

As for the interview, seems to me this is par for the course in Washington. Both parties are thoroughly corrupt, perhaps irreparably so. Would like to see more of this come out and then see those responsible skewered for their treasonous acts.

[DarkReign]

Interesting piece

As for the interview, seems to me this is par for the course in Washington. Both parties are thoroughly corrupt, perhaps irreparably so. Would like to see more of this come out and then see those responsible skewered for their treasonous acts.

Skewered? If you mean literally, then yes.

I prefer theyre just tried, convicted and summarily hung.

[Winehole23]

Former FBI agent John M. Cole verifies details (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/09/28/and-its-not-only-sibel-edmonds-who-says-so/) about Marc Grossman.

[Winehole23]

"I am fully aware of the FBI's decade-long investigation of the High-level State Department Official named in this article, Marc Grossman, which ultimately was buried and covered up," Cole notes, adding his call to re-open the matter. "It is long past time to investigate this case and bring about accountability."...

Grossman was specifically identified as a ring-leader in a very broad espionage scandal --- which includes the theft and sale of nuclear weapons technology to the foreign black market --- in a series of front-page exclusives by the UK Sunday Times in early 2008 (the stories can be found here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece), here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece) and here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece)). At the time, though the paper clearly identified the official in question, they didn't name him outright due to British libel laws. One of the co-authors of the series, Joe Lauria, has since confirmed the official in question was, indeed, Grossman.


The 2008 Sunday Times series detailed Edmonds' allegations that Bush's Under Secretary of State Grossman --- the third-highest ranking official in the State Department, after Colin Powell and Richard Armitage --- worked closely with both the Turks and Israel in obtaining and selling U.S. nuclear weapons technology on the worldwide black market, and that he had even tipped off Turkish diplomatic colleagues about the true identify of then-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson's front company, Brewster Jennings, several years before the operation was named publicly by columnist Robert Novak.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7439

[Winehole23]

Later on in the interview, Edmonds also claims that Grossman similarly "took care" of others, outside of the government, even, she says, contacts at the New York Times. "Grossman would brag, 'We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.'"


She later elaborated on that point to (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7427)The BRAD BLOG (http://bradblog.com/), explaining that this "also happened with the Washington Post, but the New York Times was their primary one for this."


"Every time they wanted something on Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan, for example, they just faxed it over [to the Times], and it was run under their own guys' name, even though it was written by the State Department," she told us. "This was an ongoing operation, at least during a four year period of time" from 1997 to 2001."

[Nbadan]

Dubya's former Under Secretary of State sells nuclear weapons technology on the black market and the M$M yawns...


Grossman was specifically identified as a ring-leader in a very broad espionage scandal --- which includes the theft and sale of nuclear weapons technology to the foreign black market --- in a series of front-page exclusives by the UK Sunday Times in early 2008 (the stories can be found here, here and here). At the time, though the paper clearly identified the official in question, they didn't name him outright due to British libel laws. One of the co-authors of the series, Joe Lauria, has since confirmed the official in question was, indeed, Grossman.

[DarkReign]

When a worthy adversary does not exist, a true warrior will produce one.

[LnGrrrR]

Still waiting for the board conservatives to denounce this man. :)

[Wild Cobra]

Still waiting for the board conservatives to denounce this man. :)
Coming out of the State department, it wouldn't surprise me. Still, that doesn't mean her actions were right. What if she blew some kind of an investigation then?

If you are sworn to secrecy, you don't go public. There are other people to take it to instead.

[Winehole23]

Coming out of the State department, it wouldn't surprise me. Still, that doesn't mean her actions were right. What if she blew some kind of an investigation then?Actually, she was trying to prevent an decade long operation from being blown by a foreign agent that the FBI had hired as a translator. Ms. Dickinson used her position to scuttle the investigation into her own activities and those of her sponsors. She also tried recruit Ms. Edmunds.

Ms. Edmunds was fired for reporting the conflict of interest and the contact with Ms Dickinson.

[Winehole23]

If you are sworn to secrecy, you don't go public. There are other people to take it to instead.The circumstances surrounding Ms. Edmunds's firing are a matter of public record and have been commented on by US Senators. The state secrets gaggings of Ms. Edmunds are also public.

If you think Ms. Edmunds has divulged something secret, let's have it. Smearing her character by merely insinuating she has broken trust -- without any good basis for saying so -- is chickenshit, WC.

[Winehole23]

WC: you've impugned the character of a public servant twice, by insinuation, without any evidence whatsoever to back you up.

Why did you do so?

Would you care to give evidence for your position, or will you rest content to run away and hide after you have blackened Ms. Edmunds's reputation?

Would you maybe reconsider it?

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, she was trying to prevent an decade long operation from being blown by a foreign agent that the FBI had hired as a translator. Ms. Dickinson used her position to scuttle the investigation into her own activities and those of her sponsors. She also tried recruit Ms. Edmunds.

Ms. Edmunds was fired for reporting the conflict of interest and the contact with Ms Dickinson.
What if that's not the real story? If there is a veil of secrecy, the opposing side isn't going to give their side.

What if, that's what it appears to be. What if she outed people trying to uncover something deeper.

I'm only playing Devil-Advocate here. There may be truth in what she says. Still, going public was the wrong course. I once had a security concern, and I went outside my employer strait to the NSA with it.

[LnGrrrR]

What if that's not the real story? If there is a veil of secrecy, the opposing side isn't going to give their side.

What if, that's what it appears to be. What if she outed people trying to uncover something deeper.

I'm only playing Devil-Advocate here. There may be truth in what she says. Still, going public was the wrong course. I once had a security concern, and I went outside my employer strait to the NSA with it.

Given the lack of evidence for your "What if", don't you think it would make more sense to go by what evidence HAS been produced?

[Winehole23]

I'm only playing Devil-Advocate here.You could do better. No accusations against Ms. Edmunds for breaking classification have been made.

Saying over and over that there must have been some good reason to fire her flies in the face of the IG's report maintaining the contrary and makes you look like a crass apologist for power and corrupt officials in train with foreign agents, and who sold US nuclear secrets on the black market.

[Wild Cobra]

WC: you've impugned the character of a public servant twice, by insinuation, without any evidence whatsoever to back you up.

Why did you do so?
It's not my intention. It's keeping an open mind to other possibilities.

Trust me. I do believe there was corruption in the Clinton State Department. I just need real evidence.

Would you care to give evidence for your position, or will you rest content to run away and hide after you have blackened Ms. Edmunds's reputation?
My evidence is that we have no real evidence.

Would you maybe reconsider it?

If valid evidence comes out. Would you consider this:


Ms. Edmonds' critics maintain that she saw only a small part of the picture in a highly compartmentalized working environment, that she was privy to only a fragment of a large operation to penetrate and disrupt the groups that have been stealing U.S. weapons technology. She could not have known operational details of what the FBI was doing and why.

That criticism is serious and must be addressed. If Ms. Edmonds was indeed seeing only part of a counterintelligence sting operation to entrap a nuclear network like that of A.Q. Khan, the government could now reveal as much in general terms, since any operation that might have been running in 2002 has long since wound down.
That is from:

Philip Giraldi: What FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds found in translation; Why is her story being covered up? (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-sibeledmonds_17edi.ART.State.Edition1.45b446a.html )

The government would never reveal such secrets until after any active agents were in no threat of being retaliated against, assuming this was a counterintelligence operation.

Can you justify the damage done by this woman if she uncovered a counterintelligence operation?

[Winehole23]

I imagine she would be prosecuted had she actually done so. That she hasn't been weighs in her favor IMO.

[Winehole23]

The whole "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" argument is truther worthy, and proceeds contrary to what evidence is known.

[Wild Cobra]

I imagine she would be prosecuted had she actually done so. That she hasn't been weighs in her favor IMO.
Not true. They still have deniability since she didn't really know much. To prosecute would be to acknowledge she stumbled onto something.

[Winehole23]

So then, you fall on the side of deniability of an operation for which there is no extant evidence, over substantiated allegations of official corruption and the bad faith firing of a conscientious professional.

Ok.

[Winehole23]

In other words, you take the side of free-wheeling speculation over known evidence.

Duly noted.

[Wild Cobra]

In other words, you take the side of free-wheeling speculation over known evidence.

Duly noted.
What known evidence?

What did I miss? That she translated communications she says implicated State Department personnel? That she was fired? So what.

Show me the transcripts please.

[Winehole23]

See John M Cole's substantiation above. The IG also weighed in on her allegations and found them credible. Sen. Grassley said his sources in the FBI confirmed her story.

[Winehole23]

WC likes to protect the prestige of institutions (esp. government institutions) against individuals. It goes with his authoritarian bent. If this means jumping to a few conclusions, so be it.

[Wild Cobra]

See John M Cole's substantiation above. The IG also weighed in on her allegations and found them credible. Sen. Grassley said his sources in the FBI confirmed her story.
Still, Cole's remarks don't mean much. The FBI stopping the investigation could be a signal they found the CIA was doing counterintelligence. Isn't that what Valarie Plame was working on before she was outed? Counterintelligence on the matter?

Think about what you are implying.

The second in command of the State Department outed Plame, hampering an investigation on the third in command...

There are too many plausible scenarios and not enough facts.

I see nothing significant in Cole's remarks. Maybe you can give me a quote and tell me what it means.

[Winehole23]

Think about what you are implying.

The second in command of the State Department outed Plame, hampering an investigation on the third in command...Hadn't occurred to me.

You're not convinced. Well and good. But this doesn't mean that Sibel Edmunds is not credible. On the basis of the known evidence, she is.

Per contra, your dismissal of Edmunds on the basis of unknowables in the face of the trend of the evidence, strikes me as being willfully perverse.

[Wild Cobra]

Hadn't occurred to me.

You're not convinced. Well and good. But this doesn't mean that Sibel Edmunds is not credible. On the basis of the known evidence, she is.

Per contra, your dismissal of Edmunds on the basis of unknowables in the face of the trend of the evidence, strikes me as being willfully perverse.
No, I just have a little insight on how government secrecy works. I believe she did what she thought was right, and she may have stumbled on something real and tangible. The fact of the matter is, she may have also stumbled on to a counter intelligence operation instead.

We simply don't know, and anyone who truly knows would never divulge the information. The truth of this may not come out for 30 to 50 years. Speculation and taking a firm position is ignorant.

[Winehole23]

Speculation and taking a firm position is ignorant.You speculated and took a firm position, based on nothing as far as I can tell.

I'm sorry: based on a lame appeal to personal experience, and nothing else.

[Wild Cobra]

You speculated and took a firm position, based on nothing as far as I can tell.

I'm sorry: based on a lame appeal to personal experience, and nothing else.
No I didn't taker as firm position. I was playing "Devil's Advocate." I was offering possible reasons why her case was being ignored.

You were appearing to take a firm position in belief of her claims, where there is no proof of her allegations.

[Winehole23]

Yes, based on no evidence at all, or more nearly, on the total absence of evidence for your argument.

Weak.

Hence the comparison with truthers.

[Winehole23]

If Sibel Edmunds story compromises something ongoing, don't you think she would still be under a gag order?

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, based on no evidence at all, or more nearly, on the total absence of evidence for your argument.

Weak.

Hence the comparison with truthers.
You have only her word which is no doubt what she believe. You have remarks that look like they fit the story you want to see. Factually, the pieces could mean something else. Are you not willing to admit that?

It is you who fits the "truther" analogy.

I am open to the truth being either way.

[Wild Cobra]

If Sibel Edmunds story compromises something ongoing, don't you think she would still be under a gag order?
I don't know. Speculation is required there too. Too many variables and too little known facts.

Trust me. I would like to believe it was Grossman who leaked the secrets during the Clinton administration. Then maybe we could put that to bed. I'm just not willing to convict the man on no evidence.

[Winehole23]

Factually, the pieces could mean something else.Sure. But the case you make is based on threadbare inferences, whereas mine is supported by the public record.

You could be right, but you have no case.

[Winehole23]

Can you admit that?

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. But the case you make is based on threadbare inferences, whereas mine is supported by the public record.

You could be right, but you have no case.
What public record? There is nothing but circumstantial facts. Not enough to support the conclusions made.

I ask you again. That did Cole say that is so convincing. How about the exact words that anyone said that convinced you. Everything I read can be parsed more than one way. Maybe I missed something, so please, show me what evidence is so damning.

[Winehole23]

Damning? No. Credible, yes.

US Senators and the IG say so, and to my knowledge, Edmunds's allegations have been factually refuted nowhere.

[Winehole23]

My understanding is the investigation into her allegations was scuttled by political appointees, not by the intelligence agencies themselves. What inferences are you inclined to draw from that?

[MannyIsGod]

Damning? No. Credible, yes.

US Senators and the IG say so, and to my knowledge, Edmunds's allegations have been factually refuted nowhere.

Why do you bother, WH?

[Wild Cobra]

Damning? No. Credible, yes.

US Senators and the IG say so, and to my knowledge, Edmunds's allegations have been factually refuted nowhere.
They said she sounded credible. They had no facts. Am I wrong? Oh... You forgot to say she passed the polygraph!

My understanding is the investigation into her allegations was scuttled by political appointees, not by the intelligence agencies themselves. What inferences are you inclined to draw from that?Have a trustworthy source that shows them as only that, or were they intermediaries between concerned parties that might have scuttled it because she uncovered a counter-intelligence operation?

You are jumping to conclusions where other possibilities exist. Can you not admit that?

[Winehole23]

Somebody else might believe WC. I'd hate for people to think I had no good reply to him.

I also hold out hope that he might learn someday to be more reasonable with people who disagree with him, and less stuck on his own view of things.

I even conceded he could could turn out to be right, but I won't hold my breath waiting for reciprocity. It's always his way or the highway.

[MannyIsGod]

You are a more patient man than I.

[Winehole23]

You are jumping to conclusions where other possibilities exist. Can you not admit that?No. My own inferences are based on credible accounts substantiated by independent investigation and from sources inside the FBI.

Whereas yours are based on...

What are they based on, WC?

A rational account no doubt, but one that is hard to believe, since there is not even circumstantial evidence to back it up, but only sheer speculation.

[Wild Cobra]

No. My own inferences are based on credible accounts substantiated by independent investigation and from sources inside the FBI.

Whereas yours are based on...

What are they based on, WC?

A rational account no doubt, but one that is hard to believe, since there is not even circumstantial evidence to back it up, but only sheer speculation.
Then show me one of those accounts that have convinced you.

Like I said, I haven't seen any that could mean more than one thing.

Please show me.

What you have would never stand up in court. The prosecution has to make a case beyond reasonable doubt. I see reasonable doubt at every turn in this case.

[Wild Cobra]

You are a more patient man than I.
Have any evidence that doesn't have reasonable doubt attached? If so, show me please.

[Winehole23]

At any rate WC, you take mere allegations-- even unsubstantiated ones -- for evidence all the time if the target is someone you dislike.

I'd have thought you'd jump at the chance to characterize the Clinton State department as corrupt. But it seems you'd rather protect it against credible whistleblowers based on mental freewheeling.

Suit yourself.

[LnGrrrR]

Then show me one of those accounts that have convinced you.

Like I said, I haven't seen any that could mean more than one thing.

Please show me.

What you have would never stand up in court. The prosecution has to make a case beyond reasonable doubt. I see reasonable doubt at every turn in this case.

WC, I don't think WH23 is trying to make a case. He's just comparing the known evidence with what's out there.

Right now, it's POSSIBLE that Edmonds stumbled into something. However, I see no evidence on your part but speculation. It's also POSSIBLE that she's making this all up in order to get a book deal. Or maybe it's POSSIBLE that she had an affair with the person she's accusing, and she's merely a jilted lover.

Of course, I have as much evidence for those other scenarios as you seemingly do for yours. Whereas the evidence for Edmonds telling the truth would be the IG report backing her up.

[Winehole23]

Then show me one of those accounts that have convinced you.

Like I said, I haven't seen any that could mean more than one thing.

Please show me.

What you have would never stand up in court. The prosecution has to make a case beyond reasonable doubt. I see reasonable doubt at every turn in this case.Red herring. This isn't a court, it's a discussion forum.

Just because something can't be proven to criminal standards of evidence doesn't mean the allegations aren't credible. You seem to be unwilling to weigh the credibility of Edmonds (partly substantiated) allegations of official corruption against your own naked inferences.

I find that telling.

[Winehole23]

Besides, the legal standard to proceed with action is preponderance of the evidence. On that count, the IG backed up Edmunds, not her employer.

[Wild Cobra]

Your post #75:

Somebody else might believe WC. I'd hate for people to think I had no good reply to him.

I also hold out hope that he might learn someday to be more reasonable with people who disagree with him, and less stuck on his own view of things.

I even conceded he could could turn out to be right, but I won't hold my breath waiting for reciprocity. It's always his way or the highway.
Bullshit. I have never taken the stance she was wrong.

My post #67:


Trust me. I would like to believe it was Grossman who leaked the secrets during the Clinton administration. Then maybe we could put that to bed. I'm just not willing to convict the man on no evidence.
My post #47:


What if that's not the real story? If there is a veil of secrecy, the opposing side isn't going to give their side.

What if, that's what it appears to be. What if she outed people trying to uncover something deeper.

I'm only playing Devil-Advocate here. There may be truth in what she says. Still, going public was the wrong course. I once had a security concern, and I went outside my employer strait to the NSA with it.
My post #30:

Point is, we don't know. She may have been fired because she was jeopardizing active agents. That is why you don't talk about things you see in classified jobs. I find that far more likely than being fired for finding bad people in the agency she worked for.

Either way is possible. Point is, do not jump to conclusions.

[Winehole23]

Fair enough, WC. Mea culpa. I generalized from past impressions.

My bad, bro.

[Wild Cobra]

At any rate WC, you take mere allegations-- even unsubstantiated ones -- for evidence all the time if the target is someone you dislike.
There's a difference when you have a solid believe of the other persons M.O.

I'd have thought you'd jump at the chance to characterize the Clinton State department as corrupt. But it seems you'd rather protect it against credible whistleblowers based on mental freewheeling.

My post #67:


Trust me. I would like to believe it was Grossman who leaked the secrets during the Clinton administration. Then maybe we could put that to bed. I'm just not willing to convict the man on no evidence.

[Winehole23]

There's a difference when you have a solid believe of the other persons M.O.Well, at least that's honest. Your private beliefs about the actor trumps the evidence or the lack of it. That's fine as long as people agree with you.

But how will you ever persuade people who don't?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, I don't think WH23 is trying to make a case. He's just comparing the known evidence with what's out there.

And one side will not make a case on the basis it is classified. We only have one side of the story.


Right now, it's POSSIBLE that Edmonds stumbled into something.

Absolutely.


However, I see no evidence on your part but speculation.

Offering other possibilities rather than jumping to conclusions.


It's also POSSIBLE that she's making this all up in order to get a book deal. Or maybe it's POSSIBLE that she had an affair with the person she's accusing, and she's merely a jilted lover.

Nope. I believe she believes what she says. She did pass a polygraph over the matter.


Of course, I have as much evidence for those other scenarios as you seemingly do for yours. Whereas the evidence for Edmonds telling the truth would be the IG report backing her up.

But the IG only says the situation warrants investigation. It does not say her allegations are correct.

[Wild Cobra]

Red herring. This isn't a court, it's a discussion forum.
I'm only asking you to show me convincing evidence that I may not have seen.

Just because something can't be proven to legal standards of evidence doesn't mean the allegations aren't credible. You seem to be unwilling to weigh the credibility of Edmonds (partly substantiated) allegations of official corruption against your own naked inferences.
I'd say she is 100% credible in what she says happened. I'm not claiming she's not credible. Just the conclusion she made on so little.

[LnGrrrR]

But the IG only says the situation warrants investigation. It does not say her allegations are correct.

Fair enough.

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, the legal standard to proceed with action is preponderance of the evidence. On that count, the IG backed up Edmunds, not her employer.
They said her claims warranted an investigation. Not that she was correct in her assessment.

Or did I miss something more substantial?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, at least that's honest. Your private beliefs about the actor trumps the evidence or the lack of it. That's fine as long as people agree with you.

But how will you ever persuade people who don't?
I'm not going to try to remember the situations I may have had too little evidence. We all do base things at times from our own bias, so I wasn't going to outright dismiss your words.

[Winehole23]

They said her claims warranted an investigation. Not that she was correct in her assessment.Yes, her allegations are credible and serious. That's what I've been saying.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, her allegations are credible and serious. That's what I've been saying.
OK, what is the credibility claimed?

I read it that she was credible in her belief, and that if she is correct, it is a serious matter. Not that her allegations were credible.

Can you back up the difference?

[Winehole23]

Hair splitting.

I can't be responsible for you misreading me, WC.

The IG said her allegations warranted investigation. That goes to the credibility of more than Ms. Edmunds private state of mind IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, her allegations are credible and serious. That's what I've been saying. Hair splitting.

I can't be responsible for you misreading me, WC.
Then please say what you mean. I'm not psychic. Her allegations are not credible. That facts of what she heard on the tapes is credible. One does not equal the other.

If you are saying that she is qualified to conclude the truth of possible counter-intelligence and possible treason from compartmentalized information, then you should rethink your thoughts.

The IG said her allegations warranted investigation. That goes to the credibility of more than Ms. Edmunds private state of mind IMO.
What are you saying about her state of mind? My major point about her speaking out on this is that she should have gone to someone like the NSA. Not public disclosure.

Do you think there is something with her state of mind? I don't.

[Winehole23]

If you are saying that she is qualified to conclude the truth of possible counter-intelligence and possible treason from compartmentalized information, then you should rethink your thoughts.I said no such thing. Credible does not mean conclusive. It means "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."

[Wild Cobra]

I said no such thing. Credible does not mean conclusive. It means "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."
And again, I believe she is credible in the accounts of what she heard. Just that her conclusions of what she heard are unqualified.

[Winehole23]

What are you saying about her state of mind? My major point about her speaking out on this is that she should have gone to someone like the NSA. Not public disclosure.She went to her superiors first. In retaliation, they fired her.

To my knowledge Ms. Edmunds has disclosed nothing that is classified, but has limited herself to what has already been publicly disclosed. If you read her carefully, you can tell how seriously she takes her obligation to remain silent about what is still secret. Mr. Grossman, for example, was outed by the British press, and her more recent allegations were germane to a lawsuit.

The propriety of her doing so was not officially challenged.

[Winehole23]

And again, I believe she is credible in the accounts of what she heard. Just that her conclusions of what she heard are unqualified.Perhaps.

But they deserve at least to be investigated, wouldn't you say? if the results of such an investigation should prove too sensitive, the results can be classified. But at a minimum there should be due diligence to assure national security wasn't compromised, and US officials corrupted.

[Wild Cobra]

She went to her superiors first. In retaliation, they fired her.

To my knowledge Ms. Edmunds has disclosed nothing that is classified, but has limited herself to what has already been publicly disclosed. If you read her carefully, you can tell how seriously she takes her obligation to remain silent about what is still secret. Mr. Grossman, for example, was outed by the British press, and her more recent allegations were germane to a lawsuit.

The propriety of her doing so was not officially challenged.
I'll say it again. I hope we found the State Department traitor. It wouldn't surprise me for him to be a Clinton appointee, or from the state department. I'm just not willing to carelessly destroy a man's reputation.

[Winehole23]

An admirable scruple.

[Winehole23]

Off to work with me. Thanks for the conversation, WC.

[Winehole23]

...

[mogrovejo]

Ah ah, a Sibel Edmonds thread! Let me put my hat.
http://mobmg.photobucket.com/albums/v228/displacedtexan/blogstartdatefeb052005/tinfoilstetsoncopy.jpg?t=1254345478

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I think she has a story. I do have to say that it is less explosive than I thought, but maybe the really juicy stuff the truthers intimated her sitting upon is still subject to a gag order.

[Wild Cobra]

Ah ah, a Sibel Edmonds thread! Let me put my hat.
http://mobmg.photobucket.com/albums/v228/displacedtexan/blogstartdatefeb052005/tinfoilstetsoncopy.jpg?t=1254345478
LOL...

I wouldn't take it to that degree.

[mogrovejo]

Nah, I think she has a story. I do have to say that it is less explosive than I thought, but maybe the really juicy stuff the truthers intimated her sitting upon is still subject to a gag order.

What gag order? I've never seen someone gagged speaking so much. There's even a film about her. She has been telling her multiple stories for years, adding on some new feature every freaking time. Now, coincidentally, we have the Illinois/Chicago connection - just after a President from Chicago was elected. That's been her pattern for all these years.

I think that her initial allegations about her co-worker may or may not be true and if true may or may not indicate some wrongdoing from the FBI, like lack of proper vet procedures in their linguistic staff (or, if one wants to stretch it a bit, that she tumbled into some sorte of counter-intelligence operation). All this increasingly fantastic and complex material that she keeps adding, from the 9/11 stuff to the tentacular Turkish/Pakistani/Israeli complot (and now sexual blackmail!) that she apparently uncovered after 6 months as a part-time contract translator in the FBI beyond reasonable.

[ChumpDumper]

What gag order?She is subject to several from what I have seen, although if it's as mind-blowingly important as it has been made out to be by some, she probably would have already said something.

[mogrovejo]

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.
EDMONDS: So they have sent Turkish female agents, and that Turkish female agents work for Turkish government, and have sexual relationship with this Congresswoman in her townhouse actually in this area, and the entire episodes of their sexual conduct was being filmed because the entire house, this Congressional woman's house was bugged.http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsDeposition_Transcript_080809.pdf






A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story.

It would be just as accurate to say the Congresswoman was kidnapped by little green men and carried in a space ship to the planet Xenon.

From the start, the fantasy is riddled with factual errors. It claims that an "intimate" relationship between a fictional female Turkish spy and the congresswoman began at the funeral of the congresswoman's mother after 2000, however, Rep. Schakowsky's mother died thirteen years earlier in 1987.

Furthermore, it is alleged that the "relationship" occurred in the congresswoman's bugged town house even though she has never owned or lived in a town house in her life. Congresswoman Schakowsky shares a small apartment with her husband in a busy Washington, DC apartment building and owns a single-family home in Illinois.

In fact not one of the events in this fantastic tale ever took place.http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7429

Now we'll get some (very quick) nebulous and vague explanations for these incongruences swiftly followed by screams of "I'm being smeared!! The Congresswoman can't prove my allegations are false!!".

[Winehole23]

Schakowski is a red herring, a pointless side issue but for the Sibel Edmunds testimony.

You poo-poo her, but the IG and at least two US Senators stood behind her and demanded an explanation for what happened. What they heard from inside the FBI backed Edmunds up. The guy who came out of the woodwork the other day backed her up.

Who are you relying on on this, mogrovejo? Your takedown was stylistically cutting, but not really informative IMO.

[Winehole23]

She is subject to several from what I have seen, although if it's as mind-blowingly important as it has been made out to be by some, she probably would have already said something.Two orders that I have heard of, which apparently makes her the most gagged person in US history, I have heard.

[Winehole23]

. All this increasingly fantastic and complex material that she keeps adding, from the 9/11 stuff to the tentacular Turkish/Pakistani/Israeli complot (and now sexual blackmail!) that she apparently uncovered after 6 months as a part-time contract translator in the FBI beyond reasonable.Before Sibel Edmunds, the FBI had no Turkish translator. Let that sink in.

I don't know for how long, but Ms. Edmunds reported she had a considerable backlog of material. That could easily explain her apparently deep familiarity with a certain area of US Turkish relations (viz., the Turkish lobby.) if she was diligent in depleting her backlog, and it was as extensive as she says.

Most of what she says seems to check out.

You don't see Denny Hastert rushing to deny he was a Turkish agent, though that's been more or less spelled out.




He might still be one.



I think he still is.

[mogrovejo]

More Sibel Edmonds discussion. Allow me to take a sit:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Inland/?action=view&current=IMG_2683.jpghttp://mobmg.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Inland/IMG_2683.jpg


Before Sibel Edmunds, the FBI had no Turkish translator. Let that sink in.

At least that's what she says. Apparently they were able to hire a few of them during her stay there, from the guy who had been hired for 3 years and was working in the FBI without being able to speak english (and nobody noticing it), 2 other guys she mentioned that could go to Guantameno and the other worker she complained about. Of course, this highly depends about which interview we're talking about.


I don't know for how long, but Ms. Edmunds reported she had a considerable backlog of material. That could easily explain her apparently deep familiarity with a certain area of US Turkish relations (viz., the Turkish lobby.) if she was diligent in depleting her backlog, and it was as extensive as she says.

Apparently compartimentalizin is unknown to the FBI.

A certain area? She was able to know stuff from a corruption investigation to high-end Withehouse officials and elected officials in Congress, envolving drugs, sales of nuclear secrets to foreign countries and details like the exact ammount of money a never ending amount of people receive to the calls of an Under Secretary of State to newspapers, not forgetting the fact that FBI had information that Osama Bin Laden was planning terrorist attacks (not only that but that the attacks would take course in a few months, with planes and in cities with skyscrapers), that Brewster Jennings was an operation run by the CIA (of course she only revealed she was aware of this after it was publicly known that Brewster Jennings was an operation run by the CIA :rolleyes), that the US kept an intimate relationship with Bin-Laden till the 9/11, that there were a drug operation envolving the Pentagon, islamic terrorist and some exotic Asian countries, that some Turkish professor at the MIT was able to place a bunch of his graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos and have them selling him nuclear secrets (for $5.000!! - btw, wouldn't this be an unnecessary duplication of the work that all those guys in the Pentagon and State Department were already doing?) that, in this case, would go to the Saudis, not the Pakistanis or the Israelis, to the attempt to recruit her husband to a socially desirable group to belong to (and a well-known one, since her husband was perfectly aware of its existence? The Rotary Club? The Lions?) that is in fact an international criminal organization (this episode is conpiscuouly absent of more recent interviews when it was the most suculent part of the earlier ones), contacts with a vast array of FBI operatives, evidence of widespread nepotism, details of inter-agencies infightings, blackmailing by foreign spies over elected officials, NATO planes and facilities in Europe being used to a big drug dealing operation, etc etc.

This is an amazing collection of earth-shattering events (all of them with endless details) for 6 months of work! If she's telling the truth, some government agency should recruit this woman. Such an inquiring and powerful mind is wasted as a translator.


Most of what she says seems to check out.

Like what?


You don't see Denny Hastert rushing to deny he was a Turkish agent, though that's been more or less spelled out.

Nor should he, just like Obama shouldn't answer to Orly Taitz.



He might still be one. I think he still is. The fact that you want or wish Ms. Edmonds claims to be true don't make them any more true.


Two orders that I have heard of, which apparently makes her the most gagged person in US history, I have heard.

Well, those orders have been pretty unproductive, to say the least.


Schakowski is a red herring, a pointless side issue but for the Sibel Edmunds testimony.

Huh? Why? Because she was caught lying? Obviously it's something that deeply affects Ms. Edmonds' credibility and verifiability, which, given that her has absolutely nothing to corroborate those extraordinary claims, is of mighty importance. The fact that she made false, malicious and slanderous claims about Schakowski is pretty relevant for her overall credibility because she has nothing to support her claims but her own words.

And it's obvious that her claims have so many details, as the John Birch Society Magazine interviewer often stresses, to give them verisimilitude. Once verifiable details turn out to be demonstrably false they become a red herring?


You poo-poo her, but the IG and at least two US Senators stood behind her and demanded an explanation for what happened. What they heard from inside the FBI backed Edmunds up.
Can you explicitly state what claims of her were backed by the US Senators? Because that kind of argument can be seen as misleading.


Who are you relying on on this, mogrovejo? Your takedown was stylistically cutting, but not really informative IMO.I'm relying on my own reason.

[DarkReign]

Blind faith in government and any evidence to the contrary must be untrue and wholly fabricated for reasons of personal gain and notoriety.

God save the Queen and all that shit. Loyalists, I hope you burn.

[Winehole23]

More Sibel Edmonds discussion. Allow me to take a sit:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Inland/?action=view&current=IMG_2683.jpghttp://mobmg.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Inland/IMG_2683.jpg
[quote]A certain area? She was able to know stuff from a corruption investigation to high-end Withehouse officials and elected officials in Congress, envolving drugs, sales of nuclear secrets to foreign countries and details like the exact ammount of money a never ending amount of people receive to the calls of an Under Secretary of State to newspapers, not forgetting the fact that FBI had information that Osama Bin Laden was planning terrorist attacks (not only that but that the attacks would take course in a few months, with planes and in cities with skyscrapers), that Brewster Jennings was an operation run by the CIA (of course she only revealed she was aware of this after it was publicly known that Brewster Jennings was an operation run by the CIA :rolleyes), that the US kept an intimate relationship with Bin-Laden till the 9/11, that there were a drug operation envolving the Pentagon, islamic terrorist and some exotic Asian countries, that some Turkish professor at the MIT was able to place a bunch of his graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos and have them selling him nuclear secrets (for $5.000!! - btw, wouldn't this be an unnecessary duplication of the work that all those guys in the Pentagon and State Department were already doing?) that, in this case, would go to the Saudis, not the Pakistanis or the Israelis, to the attempt to recruit her husband to a socially desirable group to belong to (and a well-known one, since her husband was perfectly aware of its existence? The Rotary Club? The Lions?) that is in fact an international criminal organization (this episode is conpiscuouly absent of more recent interviews when it was the most suculent part of the earlier ones), contacts with a vast array of FBI operatives, evidence of widespread nepotism, details of inter-agencies infightings, blackmailing by foreign spies over elected officials, NATO planes and facilities in Europe being used to a big drug dealing operation, etc etc. It's a very tangled web, indeed. It challenges my own credulousness for sure.


This is an amazing collection of earth-shattering events (all of them with endless details) for 6 months of work! If she's telling the truth, some government agency should recruit this woman. Such an inquiring and powerful mind is wasted as a translator.
I agree. She could write historical fiction.

I think she's good lookin, too. :lol


Like what?Like being fired for no good cause, and having investigatible allegations.


Nor should he, just like Obama shouldn't answer to Orly Taitz.I agree.



The fact that you want or wish Ms. Edmonds claims to be true don't make them any more true. It's closer to the mark to say I'm open to the possibility elements of Ms. Edmunds' tale may turn out to be true. I expect she'll be wrong about a number of things, and to have embellished others. But I'd frankly be surprised if she's wrong about everything.




Well, those orders have been pretty unproductive, to say the least. Where they applied, Ms Edmunds complied. Are you aware of any court orders Ms. Edmunds is alleged to have broken?



Huh? Why? Because she was caught lying? Obviously it's something that deeply affects Ms. Edmonds' credibility and verifiability, which, given that her has absolutely nothing to corroborate those extraordinary claims, is of mighty importance. The fact that she made false, malicious and slanderous claims about Schakowski is pretty relevant for her overall credibility because she has nothing to support her claims but her own words.Maybe so. The Schakowski lawsuit is an instrumentality for Edmunds, a lilypad. Edmunds might only be mistaken about the facts, or may have relied on partial information. The imputation of mala fides is hasty, IMO. But this episode makes her look bad for sure.


And it's obvious that her claims have so many details, as the John Birch Society Magazine interviewer often stresses, to give them verisimilitude. Once verifiable details turn out to be demonstrably false they become a red herring? I'm not as confident as you in the refutation, but I find it persuasive.



Can you explicitly state what claims of her were backed by the US Senators? Because that kind of argument can be seen as misleading. Do you think it's misleading now?



I'm relying on my own reason.Cheers, mogro.:toast

So do we all.

[mogrovejo]

I think she's good lookin, too. :lol

Definitely.


Like being fired for no good cause, and having investigatible allegations.

I agree. As I've said, her initial allegations seemed to have substance.



Where they applied, Ms Edmunds complied. Are you aware of any court orders Ms. Edmunds is alleged to have broken?

I don't and I didn't mean to make that allegation, but I wonder what exactly she was restrained to say when she said so much. Anyway, as far as I understood, any order was lifted to allow her to testify in some trial in Ohio evolving a congressional race.


Do you think it's misleading now?

I believe it's misleading because the only complains uphold by the Senators were her initial complains about sloppiness in the management of the department she was working, especially in regards to the background checking of new employees and in the investigation of alleged misconduct from one of her co-workers. Those allegations were the ones that Senators Leahy&Grassley, the IG report, as well as the FBI, find to deserve further investigation. Any generalization can be misleading because none of her claims about treason by ellected members of the Congress and appointed officials, the info about the 9/11, the Brewster Jennings leak, the nuclear secrets sold, etc. etc. were supported, uphold or even taken to their consideration.

[Winehole23]

Any generalization can be misleading because none of her claims about treason by ellected members of the Congress and appointed officials, the info about the 9/11, the Brewster Jennings leak, the nuclear secrets sold, etc. etc. were supported, uphold or even taken to their consideration.Sure. I never meant to imply that.

[Winehole23]

FBI Veteran Executive Calls For Special Counsel Investigation, Prosecutions in Sibel Edmonds Case (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7449)

Details panic inside the Bureau, executive effort to 'keep this whole thing quiet' when matter first came to light in 2002


Further confirms FBI translator/whistleblower's allegations, credibility...
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/JohnMCole.jpgAn 18-year Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Manager for the FBI has called for a Special Counsel to be appointed to investigate the allegations of FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. John M. Cole, who now works as an intelligence contractor for the Air Force, made his comments during an audio interview released late last week (http://www.peterbcollins.com/podcast-45/) with radio journalist Peter B. Collins.


He also offered a detailed insider's look at the concerns among high-level officials inside the Bureau as Edmonds' disturbing allegations began coming to light back in 2002, before they would be quashed for seven long years by the Bush Administration's unprecedented use of the so-called "State Secrets Privilege" to gag her.
Earlier last week, following the publication of a remarkable American Conservative magazine cover story interview (http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/) with Edmonds --- detailing a broad bribery, blackmail, and espionage conspiracy said to have been carried out between current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials and covert operatives from Turkey and Israel, resulting in the theft and sale of nuclear weapons technology on the foreign black market --- Cole had been quoted by the magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/09/28/and-its-not-only-sibel-edmonds-who-says-so/) confirming one of Edmonds' key allegations.


"I am fully aware of the FBI's decade-long investigation of" Marc Grossman, he said in response to the AmCon article/interview. Grossman had served as the third-highest ranking official in the Bush State Department and was alleged by Edmonds in the interview, and in a sworn, video-taped deposition (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374) a month earlier, to have been the U.S. ringleader for a massive Turkish espionage scandal reaching through the halls of power and into top-secret nuclear facilities around the country to the benefit of allies and enemies alike. Cole said that the FBI's counterintelligence probe "ultimately was buried and covered up," and that he believes it is "long past time" for an investigation of the case to "bring about accountability."


In his subsequent interview with Collins last week (audio and text excerpts posted below) Cole elaborated on those comments in much greater detail, noting that Edmonds has been "one hundred percent right on the money, on the mark" and confirming the existence of an "ongoing and detailed effort by Turkey to develop influence in the United States" through various illegal activities.


"Yes, I can confirm that," Cole told Collins, "That's true."


The FBI veteran executive also offered an insider's account of the panic that ensued inside the highest echelons of the bureau following Edmonds' first disclosure of information in 2002, recounting how an executive assistant director admitted to him at the time, just after the story first broke, "Well, all I know is that everything that Sibel is stating is true. I read her file. Everything she stated is, in fact, accurate."

"Everybody at headquarters level at the bureau knew that what she was saying was extremely accurate. ... They were trying to figure out ways of keeping this whole thing quiet, because they didn't want Sibel to come out."
Cole further describes how the concerns about Edmonds ultimately led to the Bush Administration's two-time use of the Draconian "State Secrets Privilege" in hopes of keeping her extraordinary information from becoming public. "Everybody at headquarters level at the bureau knew that what she was saying was extremely accurate."


"I know they didn't want her to go out and speak about it at all," Cole revealed, "and I know they were trying to figure out ways of keeping this whole thing quiet, because they didn't want Sibel to come out."


He also offered information which directly counters one of the criticisms of Edmonds' allegations as frequently offered by skeptics. Namely, that as a short time FBI contract translator --- even though she was tasked to review some seven years of counterintelligence wiretaps made from 1996 to 2002 --- she couldn't have had enough understanding of the full scope of the investigations to understand what was really going on.


"The thing is," Cole explained to Collins, "the position that Sibel was in, she had access to extremely sensitive information. The translators have access to some of the most sensitive information that we receive."


He detailed how first-hand information goes first from the translators to the investigators who then act on it, as some of the most important information collected by FBI language specialists could have "implications that may affect even the White House, or policy."


"So what I'm saying is, I know she had access to some very sensitive stuff, and I could see why the Bureau would squirm over her coming out and speaking about some of the things that were going on."


The interview concluded with Cole's reiteration of both his confidence in Edmonds' credibility, and his call for accountability.


"I would love to see, especially with the allegations that Sibel has come out with, her allegations --- which I believe are in fact true, I have no reason to doubt what she's saying --- I would love to see somebody take that, a Special Counsel or whatever, some group of people that you could trust, have them investigate those allegations and have people's feet held to the fire. Have them be held accountable for their actions --- and prosecuted if they've done wrong."


"You know, no one's above the law, and no one should be above the law," he added, along with one more chilling thought: "You know, it really irritates me that people are getting away with murder, in some cases. They should not be allowed to get away with that. There needs to be accountability. And that's what I'd love to see."

[Wild Cobra]

OK WH, did I miss it, or did that story still not exclude the possibility she uncovered counterintelligence activity over the security concern?

If I missed something, please point it out. I read the article in a hurry.

[Winehole23]

OK WH, did I miss it, or did that story still not exclude the possibility she uncovered counterintelligence activity over the security concern?It did not exclude your bs hypothetical, no.

[Wild Cobra]

It did not exclude your bs hypothetical, no.
Then I only ask that you maintain an open mind as I am.

[Winehole23]

Then I only ask that you maintain an open mind as I am.You're not exactly the poster boy for open minded, but I'll keep the door open a crack, even though you don't have so much as a peg to hang your suspicions on.

[Wild Cobra]

You're not exactly the poster boy for open minded, but I'll keep the door open a crack, even though you don't so much as a peg to hang your suspicions on.
I can see your confusion. We have different viewpoints on situations, and there is usually enough information on a subject to take a solid stand. None of the information surrounding this story is enough to take a solid stand, other than knowing we don't have enough information.

That is, unless you know something the rest of us don't?

[Winehole23]

That US officials stand behind Ms. Edmunds, and that elements of her story are corroborated by FBI insiders.

What do you know?

[Wild Cobra]

That US officials stand behind Ms. Edmunds, and that elements of her story are corroborated by FBI insiders.
Do the same people actually know the secrets of the story within the State Department, or have they just jumped to conclusion?

What do you know?
I know that I don't know enough to make a properly informed opinion, especially since the counterintelligence aspect makes perfect sense.

[Winehole23]

I know that I don't know enough to make a properly informed opinion, especially since the counterintelligence aspect makes perfect sense.In other words, when the evidence lines up with your suspicions, you embrace it; when it doesn't, you just go with your suspicions anyway, even though they are completely threadbare.

What admirable restraint.

[mogrovejo]

Cole elaborated on those comments in much greater detail, noting that Edmonds has been "one hundred percent right on the money, on the mark"

As far as we know, she has been one hundred percent wrong.


The FBI veteran executive also offered an insider's account of the panic that ensued inside the highest echelons of the bureau following Edmonds' first disclosure of information in 2002

Odd, considering that Edmonds' allegations at that time were exclusively directed at a single co-worker.

[Winehole23]

As far as we know, she has been one hundred percent wrong.
So you set nothing whatsoever by the voucher of US officials and FBI agents. That's just fine. Others may.

Turn it around on yourself, mogro: As far as you know, she could be 100% right.


Odd, considering that Edmonds' allegations at that time were exclusively directed at a single co-worker.The conflict of interest endangered a decade long counterintelligence operation, and possibly indicated corruption in the State Department. The tizzy doesn't strike me as odd at all, but instead predictable, foreseeable.

[mogrovejo]

So you set nothing whatsoever by the voucher of US officials and FBI agents. That's just fine. Others may.

Turn it around on yourself, mogro: As far as you know, she could be 100% right.

!00% right she can't be, she wasn't accurate in some of her specific claims about Sen. Schakowsky. And because the IG report - that only examined her initial allegations, that were very far from earth-shattering - explicitly states that not all of her allegations were true: in fact, that most of her allegations of misconduct were not supported.

Who are those US Officials and FBI agents?


The conflict of interest endangered a decade long counterintelligence operation, and possibly indicated corruption in the State Department. The tizzy doesn't strike me as odd at all, but instead predictable, foreseeable.

Which conflict of interest? Possible corruption in the State Department? She never alleged such a thing in 2002.

[LnGrrrR]

OK WH, did I miss it, or did that story still not exclude the possibility she uncovered counterintelligence activity over the security concern?

If I missed something, please point it out. I read the article in a hurry.

Tell me WC.

If she DID actually out a counterintelligence activity, do you think it would ever be made public knowledge?

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me WC.

If she DID actually out a counterintelligence activity, do you think it would ever be made public knowledge?
I addressed that before. I don't think any facts related to counterintelligence will be made public until the players are dead. There could be a public release if in fact she did discovered traitors, much sooner. I'd say it's safe to say if we don't hear about some convictions in the near future, say two more years, that is was and might still be a counterintelligence operation.

[Wild Cobra]

In other words, when the evidence lines up with your suspicions, you embrace it; when it doesn't, you just go with your suspicions anyway, even though they are completely threadbare.

What admirable restraint.
Actually, and I said this before, I would prefer to think the Clinton appointee is guilty. It would make sense with the secrets disclosed during that time frame, and all the negative leaks during the Bush administration. If I were to base this on pure suspicion, that's the route I would take, that she really did uncover treasonous activities.

You need to reevaluate your bias against me.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, and I said this before, I would prefer to think the Clinton appointee is guilty. It would make sense with the secrets disclosed during that time frame, and all the negative leaks during the Bush administration. If I were to base this on pure suspicion, that's the route I would take, that she really did uncover treasonous activities.

You need to reevaluate your bias against me.Thanks for admitting your bias.

[Winehole23]

!00% right she can't be, she wasn't accurate in some of her specific claims about Sen. Schakowsky. Sure.


And because the IG report - that only examined her initial allegations, that were very far from earth-shattering - explicitly states that not all of her allegations were true: in fact, that most of her allegations of misconduct were not supported. So then, she may not be 100% wrong. And while Mrs. Dickinson's conflict of interest wasn't "earth-shattering", it might have been a serious breech of national security.


Who are those US Officials and FBI agents? Senators Grassley and Leahy, Agent Cole and whomever Sen. Grassley relied on inside the FBI for his own corroboration.


Which conflict of interest? Mrs. Dickinson's.


Possible corruption in the State Department? She never alleged such a thing in 2002.Ms. Dickinson was married to a State Department official at the time she tried to recruit Ms. Edmunds for the Turks. The recruitment took place -- if I remember correctly -- at a dinner at the Dickinson residence. Perhaps Mr. Dickinson wasn't wise. Perhaps he was.

To be perfectly honest, I don't recall this part of the tale too well. I'm not a scholar of it, like yourself. More of an interested newspaper reader.

[Winehole23]

Would you mind sharing your own sources on this mogro, since you seem to have so much command of the detail? I'd sure appreciate it.

[Winehole23]

You need to reevaluate your bias against me.You picked a good example WC, but I don't find it very convincing. You can't turn back the tide with a paddle.

But your eagerness to appear impartial does impress me somewhat.

[Winehole23]

Fake it til you make it.

[LnGrrrR]

I addressed that before. I don't think any facts related to counterintelligence will be made public until the players are dead. There could be a public release if in fact she did discovered traitors, much sooner. I'd say it's safe to say if we don't hear about some convictions in the near future, say two more years, that is was and might still be a counterintelligence operation.

So, let me get this straight.

1) You want to keep all options open.

2) You acknowledge that if they are traitors, there's a slight possibility that it could be released in two years.

3) If we don't hear anything, you'll assume it's a counter-intel op.

I guess we have to give this thread two years then, hm? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

You picked a good example WC, but I don't find it very convincing. You can't turn back the tide with a paddle.

But your eagerness to appear impartial does impress me somewhat.
Believe it or not, I am very unbiased when it comes to people who are not liberal pundits.

I hate liberal pundits with a passion.

[Wild Cobra]

So, let me get this straight.

1) You want to keep all options open.

2) You acknowledge that if they are traitors, there's a slight possibility that it could be released in two years.

3) If we don't hear anything, you'll assume it's a counter-intel op.

I guess we have to give this thread two years then, hm? :lol
Basically, yes.

I don't see us having any acceptable answers on topic this for some time.

[Nbadan]

Brad Friedman
for HUSTLER MAGAZINE – March 2010


SIBEL EDMONDS, a former FBI translator, claims that the following government officials have committed what amount to acts of treason. They are lawmakers Dennis Hastert, Bob Livingston, Dan Burton, Roy Blunt, Stephen Solarz and Tom Lantos, as well as at least three members of George W. Bush’s inner circle: Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Marc Grossman. But is Sibel Edmonds credible?

“Absolutely, she’s credible,” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told CBS’s 60 Minutes when he was asked about her in 2002. “The reason I feel she’s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.” Edmonds’s remarkable allegations of bribery, blackmail, infiltration of the U.S. government and the theft of nuclear secrets by foreign allies and enemies alike rocked the Bush Administration. In fact, Bush and company actually prevented Edmonds from telling the American people what she knew—up until now.

John M. Cole, an 18-year veteran of the FBI’s Counterintelligence and Counterespionage departments, revealed the panic of upper-echelon officials when Edmonds originally started talking back in 2002. “Well, the Bureau is gonna have to try to work something out with Sibel,” Cole said an FBI executive assistant told him at the time, “because they don’t want this to go out and become public.”

But they couldn’t “work something out with Sibel” because, it seems, she wasn’t looking to make a deal. Edmonds says she was looking to expose what she believed to be the ugly truth about the infiltration of the U.S. government by foreign spies. They were enabled, Edmonds claimed, by high-ranking U.S. officials and insider moles planted at nuclear weapons facilities around the nation.

Hustler (http://larryflynt.com/?p=693)

The money center is in Saudi Arabia. Most of the agents of influence are connected to the Jewish right-wing..

The Saudi Slush fund is called "al-Yamamah," about $80 billion, and that money was skimmed off the top of sales of British arms in exchange for oil deal set up by Margaret Thatcher and the Saudi Royals. The origins of Saudi slush funds with the west goes back to the "Safari Club" agreement of early 1976 set up by then CIA Director George Bush with the head of Saudi GID Intel Prince Turki al-Faisal. The Saudis then began to fund global covert black operations banned by Congress and the incoming Carter Administration after the Church Committee revelations led to a partial curtailment of official USG funding. The original Safari Club also involved Right-wing elements of the intelligence services of France, Egypt, Morocco and Iran. The Safari Club morphed into BCCI, Iran-Contra, and funded much of the anti-Soviet Jihadist war in Afghanistan, including groups we now know as al-Qaeda.

Most of the domestic payoff money has been going to key GOP political figures and lawmakers, many on the Appropriations Committee and connected with the Bush Administrations - these are the guys on Sibel's list. Politically connected defense contractors in the US and UK have been acting as middle-men and beneficiaries of this game of round-robin political payoffs. This network has been creating wars and other destabilizing events for profit for decades, many of which coincide with the agenda of the Israeli Right-wing and their Neoconservative allies.

That's right - the big secret the FBI and CIA have been trying to cover-up all these years is that the US Right-wing works with the Israeli Right-wing using political payoff money spread around by the Saudi Royals and a bunch of Right-wing drug kingpins in Turkey and South America. It's not just the Bushes and Blair who have been in their pocket. It's a lot of people in Washington and London...

[Wild Cobra]

Yet still, all you link is hearsay. And from Hustler at that.

Dan, do you ever want to be seen as more than a joke?