Reply With Quote
The whole "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" argument is truther worthy, and proceeds contrary to what evidence is known.
I imagine she would be prosecuted had she actually done so. That she hasn't been weighs in her favor IMO.
The whole "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" argument is truther worthy, and proceeds contrary to what evidence is known.
Not true. They still have deniability since she didn't really know much. To prosecute would be to acknowledge she stumbled onto something.
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-30-2009 at 11:21 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hadn't occurred to me.Think about what you are implying.
The second in command of the State Department outed Plame, hampering an investigation on the third in command...
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.
You speculated and took a firm position, based on nothing as far as I can tell.Speculation and taking a firm position is ignorant.
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.
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.
If Sibel Edmunds story compromises something ongoing, don't you think she would still be under a gag order?
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.
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.
Sure. But the case you make is based on threadbare inferences, whereas mine is supported by the public record.Factually, the pieces could mean something else.
You could be right, but you have no case.
Can you admit that?
What public record? There is nothing but cir stantial 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.
Damning? No. Credible, yes.
US Senators and the IG say so, and to my knowledge, Edmunds's allegations have been factually refuted nowhere.
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?
Why do you bother, WH?
They said she sounded credible. They had no facts. Am I wrong? Oh... You forgot to say she passed the polygraph!
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?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
