Reply With Quote
But we don't know that. The guy she talks about might be one of our covert agents.
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.
But we don't know that. The guy she talks about might be one of our covert agents.
Edmunds talks about a number of US officials besides Grossman. Are they all covert agents?
Depends. Are they Democrats or Republicans?
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.
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.
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. enson) was meritorious, and that her firing was without good cause. That gives her some credibility in my book.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-29-2009 at 04:20 PM. Reason: wrong three letter agency
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 ins utions 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...
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?
WC likes to protect the prestige of ins utions (esp. government ins utions) against individuals. It goes with his authoritarian bent. If this means jumping to a few conclusions, so be it.
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.
Former FBI agent John M. Cole verifies details about Marc Grossman.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7439"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, 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.
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.
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 The BRAD BLOG, 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."
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.
When a worthy adversary does not exist, a true warrior will produce one.
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?Still waiting for the board conservatives to denounce this man.
If you are sworn to secrecy, you don't go public. There are other people to take it to instead.
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. inson 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 inson.
The cir stances 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 chicken , WC.
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?
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?
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-30-2009 at 10:48 AM.
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.
My evidence is that we have no real evidence.
If valid evidence comes out. Would you consider this:
That is from: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.
Philip Giraldi: What FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds found in translation; Why is her story being covered up?
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions