Reply With Quote
In other words, when the evidence lines up with your su ions, you embrace it; when it doesn't, you just go with your su ions anyway, even though they are completely threadbare.
What admirable restraint.
Do the same people actually know the secrets of the story within the State Department, or have they just jumped to conclusion?
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 su ions, you embrace it; when it doesn't, you just go with your su ions anyway, even though they are completely threadbare.
What admirable restraint.
As far as we know, she has been one hundred percent wrong.
Odd, considering that Edmonds' allegations at that time were exclusively directed at a single co-worker.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
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.
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.
!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?
Which conflict of interest? Possible corruption in the State Department? She never alleged such a thing in 2002.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.
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.
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 su ion, 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.
Sure.
So then, she may not be 100% wrong. And while Mrs. inson's conflict of interest wasn't "earth-shattering", it might have been a serious breech of national security.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.
Senators Grassley and Leahy, Agent Cole and whomever Sen. Grassley relied on inside the FBI for his own corroboration.Who are those US Officials and FBI agents?
Mrs. inson's.Which conflict of interest?
Ms. inson 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 inson residence. Perhaps Mr. inson wasn't wise. Perhaps he was.Possible corruption in the State Department? She never alleged such a thing in 2002.
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-07-2009 at 01:42 AM.
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.
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.
Fake it til you make it.
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?
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.
Basically, yes.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?
I don't see us having any acceptable answers on topic this for some time.
Brad Friedman
for HUSTLER MAGAZINE – March 2010
HustlerSIBEL 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.
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...
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
