Reply With Quote
I will certainly allow for the possibility that they can be misinformed or merely stupid too.
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
You don't understand. Chump and I are almost always on opposite sides. I think this is the only thread we have agreed on!
I will certainly allow for the possibility that they can be misinformed or merely stupid too.
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
We've already covered this; the controlled demolition created an atmospere of fear where power flowed to the military industrial complex.
Why bring the buildings down at all then? That would have really minimized casualties.
A military mission and an inside job are two very different things. You really need to make up your mind about which tin foil hat you are going to wear.
Most military missions are not inside jobs, but 9/11 was a false-flag operation.
You keep using these words. I don't think you know what they mean.
Why even bring down any buildings if the purpose was to minimize damage?
The two towers where losing money and had to have asbestos's removed for millions of dollars. That is why the owner took out a in case a terrorist blows up my towers I get 4 billion insurance policy right before 9/11. WTC7 had all the do ents to show all that so you do the math why it went down.
The purpose was to go to war and get the oil. and maybe get rid of much of the American peoples privacy as they can along the way!if the purpose was to minimize damage?
So it was the joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.The two towers where losing money and had to have asbestos's removed for millions of dollars. That is why the owner took out a in case a terrorist blows up my towers I get 4 billion insurance policy right before 9/11.
Uh, you just told me all that, so it must have been somewhere else too.WTC7 had all the do ents to show all that so you do the math why it went down.
Uh, you just said it was the jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.The purpose was to go to war and get the oil. and maybe get rid of much of the American peoples privacy as they can along the way!
Make up your mind.
Hey mookie, is that what you believe too?
Mark Steyn's latest column makes a point very similar to Peggy Noonan's in Friday's Wall Street Journal: opponents of the Iraq war, such as the editors of the New Republic, seem to have gotten their understanding of war from movies about Vietnam. It's a good point, but what I want to comment on, and relevant to this thread, is this observation by Mark Steyn, which was highlighted by Hugh Hewitt:
That is exactly right, I think. It is the luxury of knowing they are bull ting that allows American nutters to claim their freedoms are going up in smoke and that dissent is being suppressed, when in fact, "dissent" is socially mandated in polite society from Manhattan to Marin County.
If your freedoms were truly being taken away and dissent was truly being suppressed, most nutters would be petrified to voice their conspiratorial nonsense and, with good reason. Indeed, many on this forum would have disappeared, like Jimmy Hoffa, a long time ago.
Analogous to this; any survey of Europeans you look at will say that they think the United States is the biggest danger to world peace, worse than North Korea or the Islamofascists. But they don't mean it. If they did, they would be clamoring for their own countries to re-arm. But the very people who claim to believe that the U.S. is bent on world domination are the same ones who don't want their own governments to spend a dollar on defense. They are entirely content to let us keep the peace. Which means that what they tell pollsters about threats to world peace, like what liberals say about threats to their civil liberties, is, to put it politely, disingenuous...and, to put it directly, a pack of ing lies.
Hasn't that dude confessed yet? When is he going to confess,
an inquiring mind wants to know.
To bad no one is in a hurry for Bush to confess!
Mookie, is this you theory too?
Dan, cbf, pego, mookie, mouse . . . what part of this theory do you guys agree with?
i dont give a one way or the other. i have my su ions and i'll be here to laugh if i'm right and be relieved if i'm wrong
Most gagged person in the U.S. ready to spill the beans on 911 and other Congressional criminal activity, that is, if anyone of the corporate shills in the M$M will grow some cahones and give her some face time....
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All - and Faces Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her
She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption
The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...
-- By Brad Friedman
Attention CBS 60 Minutes: we've got a huge scoop for you. If you want it.
Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America".
But if you'll sit down and talk with her for an unedited interview, she has told The BRAD BLOG, she will now tell you everything she knows.
Everything she hasn't been allowed to tell since 2002, about the criminal penetration of the FBI where she worked, and at the Departments of State and Defense; everything she heard concerning the corruption and illegal activities of several well-known members of Congress; everything she's aware of concerning information omitted and/or covered up in relation to 9/11. All of the information gleaned from her time listening to and translating wire-taps made prior to 9/11 at the FBI.
Here's a handy bullet-point list, as we ran it in March of 2006, for reference, of what she's now willing to tell you about.
"People say, 'why doesn't she just come forward and spill the beans?' I have gone all the way to the Supreme Court and was shut down, I went to Congress and now consider that shut down," she told The BRAD BLOG last week when spoke with her for comments in relation to our story on former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's original attempt to move a resolution through the U.S. House in 2000 declaring the 1915 massacre of 1.5 million ethnic Albanians in Turkey as "genocide".
"Here's my promise to the American Public: If anyone of the major networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX -- promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know," about everything mentioned above, she told us.
"I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up," she continued. "I'm not compromising ongoing investigations," Edmonds explained, because "they've all been shut down since."
"She's Very Credible"
She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."
On the morning that the SCOTUS refused to hear her case, the facade cracked on the front of the building. In a ridiculously ironic metaphor which would have been rejected by any credible screen-writer, a chunk of marble -- just above an allegorical statue representing "Order" and just below the words "Equal Justice" -- came crashing to the ground.
She has met with, and told her story to, U.S. Senators including Republican Charles Grassley and Democrat Patrick Leahy, both of the Senate Intelligence Committee, both who found her extremely credible. 60 Minutes producers may remember when Grassley told them, "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."
In fact, the FBI itself has done so. Their Inspector General found her allegations, as described in the unclassified version of his report, to be "credible", "serious" and "warrant a thorough and careful review by the FBI."
As far back as 2002, Grassley and Leahy co-wrote letters on Edmonds behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to the allegations she's made.
"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."
She's briefed many legislative offices -- as well as the 9/11 Commission -- in regard to her claims, and now, she says, she's even prepared to tell the media "the names of every single Congressional office who has received the names of the witnesses" to the crimes she's detailed.
When we spoke last week, Edmonds seemed to reserve most of her frustration for Congressman Henry Waxman's office. Waxman is the Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
After briefing members of his security-cleared staff "inside the SCIF" -- a high-security room in the U.S. Capitol, specially created for discussion of highly sensitive information -- Edmonds says she was told on several occassions, prior to the 2006 Election, that her case would be one of the first heard in his committee, once he became Chairman.
"I even gave names of former and current FBI agents who were willing to go to Waxman's office and give more information on all of this," she said.
"Before the elections, I had a promise from Congressman Waxman's office." She claims they told her, before the election, "the only reason they couldn't hold hearings, was because the Republicans were blocking it."
"They said 'your case will be one of the first ones we will hold investigations on,'" she told us. Now, however, since the Democrats have become the majority in the House, Waxman's office is "going mum". They won't even respond to her calls.
The Congressman's office did not respond to several requests for comment on this story.
Two Other "Well-Known" Congressmen
Aside from the allegations she's already made concerning Hastert, as we reported in some detail in early 2006, following up on a Vanity Fair exposé in 2005, Edmonds says there are at least "two other well-known" members of Congress that she's prepared to name as well.
"There are other Congressional people, whose names have not come out," she explained. "As I'll be able to give them file numbers and investigations, including investigations by the IRS. I will be giving details one by one, not just allegations."
"But," she added, "unfortunately nobody wants to have an investigation like that."
For the record, she told The BRAD BLOG, the other two "well-known members" are from the House, both Republican, and "one of them is recently no longer there."
So far, she says, "those names have not been public."
"Kafka-esque"
Since leaving the FBI, and in the wake of her years-long ordeal, which she frequently describes as "Kafka-esque", Edmonds has founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
In addition to the support she has received, at various times, from members of Congress, she's received a great deal of support from members of the national security whistleblower community and government watchdog organizations.
As we reported last Spring, Veteran FBI counterintelligence agent, John Cole has said he's "talked to people who had read her file, who had read the investigative report, and they were telling me a totally different story" than that given publicly by FBI officials. "They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was 100 percent accurate," he said, "management knew that she was correct."
Famed "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has described Edmonds as "extremely credible." In a 2005 interview on KPFA, Ellsberg said, "FBI agents we've talked to have, in every respect that was raised, have confirmed her story - that she's a very credible witness."
More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum -- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) -- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case."
That pe ion was sent almost precisely one year after The BRAD BLOG originally reported on a public pe ion to Congress, demanding they hold public hearings. More than 30,000 people, Edmonds says, have now signed that pe ion since it was first announced.
"Exhausted Every Channel"
In a speech given over the Summer in D.C. at the American Library Association (ALA, video here), Edmonds detailed the "Kafka-esque" nature of her unprecedented gag-order. Among the information still-regarded as "classified" under the States Secret Privelege: the fact that she was a translator for the FBI, where she was born, what languages she speaks, the date of her birth, the universities she attended and the degrees she earned.
In fact, the interview that CBS' 60 Minutes aired with her in 2004, was later retroactively classified by the Department of Justice under the same "privilege"!
But enough is enough. She's now ready to tell all. To the public. But not (yet) to us. She will speak, however, to any broadcast network who would like to have her.
"I have exhausted every channel. If they want to, they can bring criminal charges against someone who divulges criminal activity, and see how far they're going to get."
But will any of the corporate mainstream networks take her up on the offer? It'd certainly be an explosive exclusive.
"I don't think any of the mainstream media are going to have the guts to do it," she dared them.
So whaddaya say 60 Minutes? We've given you scoops before that you ended up turning down -- and likely later regretted. Will you be smart enough to take this one?
"You put me on air live, or unedited. If I'm given the time, I will give the American people the exact reason of what I've been gagged from saying because of the States Secrets Privilege, and why it is that I'm the most gagged person in the history of the United States."
"My feeling is that none of them have the guts to do that," she dared them, before charging, "they are all manipulated."
"I keep using the word Kafkaesque..." she paused, during her speech at ALA, clearly showing her exasperation, "because...," she continued slowly, "...I really can't come up with a better word."
Of course, the reason that Sibel is being forced into this drastic action, at great personal risk, is that Henry Waxman reneged on his promise to hold hearings in Congress where Sibel would be (legally) protected.
According to the last week's front-page WaPo article on Waxman:
"Waxman has become the Bush administration's worst nightmare: a Democrat in the majority with subpoena power and the inclination to overturn rocks.
<...>
Some investigations come straight from the headlines... But the real secret, Waxman said, is simply to follow investigations wherever they lead.
Except in Sibel's case.
In fact, Waxman doesn't even need to do any investigation in this case, the investigationwas completed years ago, and Waxman has seen the classified version, yet all he can say is
"I really don’t particularly have a comment on her case."
So what will it be, Henry? Will you follow the headlines, after Sibel has exposed herself to criminal charges and spilt the beans on national TV? How will you explain to your supporters that you sat on evidence of treason for years? Or will you do the right thing and hold hearings now 'wherever it leads'?
Youtube
Why didn't she just tell everything to the "Brad Blog"?
You think she'd get MAX exposure by the M$M by reporting it to a web-site? Only if your www is TMC...
Why do you have so little faith in alternative media?
She is committing treason by sitting on this information for no apparent reason.
, half the programs on the news channels are talking heads quoting blogs.
She will be committing treason by exposing what she knows according to the Justice Dept...so of course she wants some assurance that it won't be squashed by the M$M with info news about the latest Nichole Richie or Paris Hilton scandal...
There are only two options here:
1) She wants money.
2) She doesn't really have much to say.
There is no good reason to hold this information hostage in exchange for editorial control of a news outlet.
She's not holding it hostage....in fact, she's been trying to do it the legal way, but no-one wants to hear it even though they all agree that she's very credible.....collaborated by the FBI in fact....
Then what is the holdup?
Vanity?
People read blogs.
Nobody watches MSNBC.
If the media isn't taking time for such a hot story, it must be full of obvious holes...
Or....the government along with its accomplice, the corporate M$M simply doesn't want the story told.....at least, not giving it any credibility...trouble is....the credibility comes from all the collaborated research that has already been done....
So it's already credible.
Put it on a credible blog.
This is how news works now.
MAX exposure for MAX impact.....what so hard to understand about that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions