Reply With Quote
An admirable scruple.
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.
An admirable scruple.
Off to work with me. Thanks for the conversation, WC.
...
Ah ah, a Sibel Edmonds thread! Let me put my hat.
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.
LOL...Ah ah, a Sibel Edmonds thread! Let me put my hat.
I wouldn't take it to that degree.
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.
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.
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.http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEd...ipt_080809.pdfEDMONDS: 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/?p=7429A 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.
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!!".
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-30-2009 at 11:51 PM.
Two orders that I have heard of, which apparently makes her the most gagged person in US history, I have heard.
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-01-2009 at 12:01 AM. Reason: qualified
More Sibel Edmonds discussion. Allow me to take a sit:
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.
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), 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.
Like what?
Nor should he, just like Obama shouldn't answer to Orly Taitz.
The fact that you want or wish Ms. Edmonds claims to be true don't make them any more true.He might still be one. I think he still is.
Well, those orders have been pretty unproductive, to say the least.
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.
I'm relying on my own reason.Who are you relying on on this, mogrovejo? Your takedown was stylistically cutting, but not really informative IMO.
Last edited by mogrovejo; 10-01-2009 at 07:27 AM.
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 . Loyalists, I hope you burn.
[quote=mogrovejo;3716701]More Sibel Edmonds discussion. Allow me to take a sit:
It's a very tangled web, indeed. It challenges my own credulousness for sure.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
I agree. She could write historical fiction.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 think she's good lookin, too.
Like being fired for no good cause, and having investigatible allegations.Like what?
I agree.Nor should he, just like Obama shouldn't answer to Orly Taitz.
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.The fact that you want or wish Ms. Edmonds claims to be true don't make them any more true.
Where they applied, Ms Edmunds complied. Are you aware of any court orders Ms. Edmunds is alleged to have broken?Well, those orders have been pretty unproductive, to say the least.
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.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.
I'm not as confident as you in the refutation, but I find it persuasive.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?
Do you think it's misleading now?Can you explicitly state what claims of her were backed by the US Senators? Because that kind of argument can be seen as misleading.
Cheers, mogro.I'm relying on my own reason.
So do we all.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-01-2009 at 12:53 PM.
Definitely.I think she's good lookin, too.
I agree. As I've said, her initial allegations seemed to have substance.
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.
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.
Sure. I never meant to imply that.
FBI Veteran Executive Calls For Special Counsel Investigation, Prosecutions in Sibel Edmonds Case
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...
An 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 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 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 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 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."
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.
It did not exclude your bs hypothetical, no.
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 su ions 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?
That US officials stand behind Ms. Edmunds, and that elements of her story are corroborated by FBI insiders.
What do you know?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
