Guest Note by Al Jazeera’s Riz Khan: Mother and Child

-

riz khan 2.jpgRiz Khan anchors the Riz Khan Show on Al Jazeera English. This “Note” is part of a series of posts that personalities from Al Jazeera covering the international events in New York and Pittsburgh will be sharing with readers of The Washington Note).
One part I really enjoy about being in international journalism is the people I get to meet… and where else but the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York could I sit in a room with a dozen heads of state – Presidents and Prime Ministers from around the world?!
It’s going to be a challenge though. I’m moderating an hour-long panel on Maternal, Newborn and Child Healthcare – a global initiative that aims to save the millions of mothers and children dying every year from preventable diseases. It’s actually heartbreaking to know how bad the situation is… literally the equivalent to thousands of natural disasters all put together every year – year after year.
That’s why I’m glad to be involved in the awareness that this kind of gathering brings. By the way, the challenge I refer to is giving every world leader, and other heavily-involved parties in that room, only two minutes to speak before moving on to the next person! A politician speak for only two minutes?!! Exactly! Now you know what I mean.
The issue is a crucial one, though, and was meant to be the subject of my television show on Al Jazeera English today – but unfortunately, my two guests – supermodels, Christy Turlington and Liya Kebede, have pulled out to attend some crucial meetings.
It’s hard to get upset at supermodels (!), but as I write this, my team and I are scrambling to find either alternative guests or an alternative topic for today.
I’m lucky that I have a good amount of time – with a half-hour daily live show – to tackle these sorts of issues… ones that the news often have to shift aside for hard-hitting coverage of conflicts and disasters. But as I say, with millions dying from preventable diseases – usually the most vulnerable people in the developing world – the scale of the problem can’t be ignored.
If we do change topics, I want to make sure that we get back to the issue of maternal and child healthcare as soon as possible. Too many lives depend on it!
Whatever we end up doing though, I do encourage everyone to watch and participate actively with my show at 4:30PM EST each day, either on your TV if Al Jazeera English is available in your area (in Washington, D.C. on Comcast channel 275, Cox channel 474, and Verizon FIOS channel 457) or streaming live and for free at www.livestation.com/aje. The show is broadcast live and allows viewers from around the world to question world leaders, newsmakers and celebrities directly via phone, email, SMS, video-mail and fax, and now by participating in the LiveStation chatroom.
I hope to hear from you!
— Riz Khan

Comments

103 comments on “Guest Note by Al Jazeera’s Riz Khan: Mother and Child

  1. KirbyMichele says:

    Houses and cars are expensive and not every person can buy it. Nevertheless, loan was created to support people in such kind of hard situations.

    Reply

  2. Brad Friedman says:

    In response to Joe’s comment above, as we learned when he and I tried to figure it out, the comment actually came from Phil Giraldi when both Joe and he were interviewed together on Antiwar Radio.
    Joe – Following up on my reply below from last night. I couldn’t find the original note I sent to you on this, but I’ll presume it was a question about what you had said on Antiwar radio with Scott Horton (when you were on with Phil Giraldi) on Sep 22nd.
    The audio is here: http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/09/22/philip-giraldi-joe-lauria/
    …And at 10:10 into the audio Giraldi says: “We tried to float this story, just FYI, to the Drudge website, Matt Drudge. He had no interest in it. Uh, Steve Clemons of the Washington Note has no interest in it…”
    My apologies for mishearing the voice as Joe’s rather than Phil’s. Was tough to tell them apart on the same interview!

    Reply

  3. Joe Lauria says:

    I’m responding to Brad Friedman’s post above. I never once mentioned Washington Note or Steve Clemons when I was on Anti-War Radio. I have no idea where Brad got this from. What I said was that I had an exclusive on the deposition video for one week first for the Sunday Times, which didn’t want to do a follow up, and then I tried several publications, which all turned me down. Never mentioned Washington Note.

    Reply

  4. answers says:

    Awesome. By the way my apologies to Mr. Khan for this debate hijacking his thread. I hope the show went well.

    Reply

  5. questions says:

    For once, I agree!

    Reply

  6. answers says:

    Well, maybe post 9/11 the FBI was real focused on terrorism and this spying didn’t seem like the most pressing issue. But if the corruption should reach up to an undersecretary then it would seem like that’s too much. Maybe for some this corruption is a form of secret sharing. But sharing secrets via a third party would be almost a blundering mistake. I hope that never happened. And maybe its unusual for a low level translator to find out stuff like this. That wouldn’t say that it would be impossible. For all I know its not unusual. I mean I’m not sure there’s not at least a few more crazy untold stories out there from people who only worked with the FBI for a short time. I’m feeling like there’s not too much more to be said (by me at least) on this story until I see some significant new development. So lets see what happens.

    Reply

  7. questions says:

    But there’s the cost/benefit side to things as I pointed out above.
    Theft is wrong, no doubt. We have a property based system. So what’s the big deal about dismembering thieves? Well, we have other values and/or needs that stop us from doing that, even though it’s highly effective.
    What I see with the outsized anger at the spy issue, ASSUMING it really happens this way (unclear, but I’ll grant it for now) is that there’s is OUTRAGE at some perceived crossing of a perceived boundary.
    But what if many gov’t officials perceive the boundaries differently? What if losing the occasion loaf of bread, as it were, is just not that big a deal in the minds of many compared to the costs of saving every single loaf of bread?
    Now I will say that I do not know the value of what Israel steals with seeming impunity (if Israel does indeed do so) so maybe the loaf of bread analogy doesn’t hold. But if the costs of this alleged theft are really really huge, then the whole government has been bought out (POA’s contention, conspiracy theory to the max). Since this answer doesn’t really work in my brain, at least, I look for alternatives. Like maybe the theft is of lesser value and so not worth stopping.
    But who knows. Maybe I’m hasbara typing away. POA is certainly pretty convinced of that!
    And remember, all of this is provisional. I’m still not convinced that what Edmonds heard is what Edmonds heard….
    And I can’t quite figure out how she ended up in the center of all of this as a low hour part-time translator who go a minor promotion from mere low hour part-time translator who had to be supervised to a low hour part-time translator who no longer needed to be supervised, but could do a little bit o’analysis (this from the IG report) — she’s still on the lower hour part-time thing and she’s got any status at all? Kind of strange, unless it’s not.
    I don’t know FBI internal culture immediately post 9/11 well enough — if they just wanted any warm body at all and felt so overwhelmed that even a few hours of work in a week was worthwhile, maybe more makes sense.
    Things to think about.

    Reply

  8. answers says:

    “But I’m not a nativist. I’m not a conservative nativist.”
    Then maybe you’re a liberal nativist? Seriously just kidding. That was stupid but somehow I had to say it.
    “I’m not anti-Israeli. I think the Armenian genocide happened, but I’m not sure how I’d vote on the bill given the Turkish problems with reality.”
    I’m not anti-Israel either. I am however anti-Israeli espionage against the United States. When you have friends who spy on you, as a rule, you shouldn’t invite them to your house a lot. Correspond with them via letters. But I must agree it does seem the Armenian genocide did happen, and I’d have to vote for any bill or whatever condemning genocide. I would agree with others though who questioned the need for such a bill. But if one came up its really a no-brainer on how I would vote on a bill condemning genocide. I think genocide is bad.

    Reply

  9. answers says:

    questions asked-
    “well, maybe they are all Jewish? Maybe they are all Zionists? Maybe they are all being bribed? Maybe they are all Israeli spies?”
    We can probably agree no to those very broad assumptions, and rule them out as highly unlikely (though true/possibly true if we replace ‘all’ with ‘some’), but the last part of the paragraph (the not quoted part) gets a sort of begrudging, slightly suspicious maybe.
    then further-
    “Remember, if we cut the hands and feet off of thieves, we’ll get a lot less crime. And if we kill all people, we’ll eliminate crime completely. But at what cost? Far better to lose a huge amount of money to theft in a year than to be mutilating the bodies of thieves”
    I agree we shouldn’t mutilate people as a standard punishment.
    then further-
    “If we STOP this Israeli spying, assuming it’s real, what is the cost? What is the value of what is stolen? Is there simply an assumption of spying and stealing that goes round the world? I’m sure the US is everywhere. What does “human intelligence” mean when the CIA bandies it around? Well, umm, American spies all over the place, in lots of organizations and governments.
    If spying is the way of the world, then why freak about Israel’s spying?”
    The value of what is stolen vs. the cost of what it would take to stop the stealing is an interesting issue to consider. So I’d have to ask what are they stealing, and consider the cost to the nation of that stuff being stolen. Nuclear secrets and other national security related stuff is stolen at great cost to the nation, for example. And if spying is the way of the world we should have an interest in protecting ourselves from it while doing it as well as we can to those who might harm us.
    and further-
    “Even if there are Israeli spies everywhere, it might just not matter. And if our CIA sells drugs, why should we freak if Israel does too?
    I am not convinced by all the spying and drug dealing, but there is likely some amount of this stuff. So why get bent out of shape?”
    Maybe because its just so naughty. On a more serious note, because it is another example, to me anyway, of how drug prohibition fuels organized crime activity all over the world. This is assuming there’s truth to the allegations. If true, then not only do brutish Mexican thugs (and other types of thugs) make themselves rich while using the money they make to fuel other criminal enterprises, such as the corruption of public figures, then so do members of our intelligence services and government. And my gut says that’s not right.
    Well I’m not a nativist either though I am part native American (supposedly). But that’s neither here nor there. Here I’m concerned for the nation, as I like this country. Those old white guys who freed it from overseas reign were really onto the right idea when they set up a constitutional republic which was a representative democracy. So far so good but things like corruption suggested here tend to undermine the rep. demo. part of the deal. So I find reason to be concerned.
    Personally, if this stuff was real and I was involved, I’d begin a strategic retreat to save the fleet and let the ships that had to sink do just that. That way all the thieves don’t get there hands and feet cut off.

    Reply

  10. questions says:

    re the link to Amer. Conserv. Mag — it cites Cole who cannot be entirely trusted without other corroboration since they are colleagues and co-members of the whistle blower group and he may well be disgruntled since I THINK he was forced out over his support of Edmonds, and one unnamed source, and it’s all from one news article. So, not quite so voice-y as all that.
    But that aside, let’s take it at face value. The issue is Israeli spying — the FBI has agents who don’t like it, the Justice Dept has officials who don’t mind it.
    We’ll take that as a fact for now at any rate.
    Why might the Justice not care — well, maybe they are all Jewish? Maybe they are all Zionists? Maybe they are all being bribed? Maybe they are all Israeli spies? Maybe allowing much of the espionage is less costly than enforcing the law would be.
    Remember, if we cut the hands and feet off of thieves, we’ll get a lot less crime. And if we kill all people, we’ll eliminate crime completely. But at what cost? Far better to lose a huge amount of money to theft in a year than to be mutilating the bodies of thieves.
    If we STOP this Israeli spying, assuming it’s real, what is the cost? What is the value of what is stolen? Is there simply an assumption of spying and stealing that goes round the world? I’m sure the US is everywhere. What does “human intelligence” mean when the CIA bandies it around? Well, umm, American spies all over the place, in lots of organizations and governments.
    If spying is the way of the world, then why freak about Israel’s spying?
    Even if there are Israeli spies everywhere, it might just not matter. And if our CIA sells drugs, why should we freak if Israel does too?
    I am not convinced by all the spying and drug dealing, but there is likely some amount of this stuff. So why get bent out of shape?
    So if we grant Edmonds her very strongest cast — that everything she has said originally and added over the years in alarmingly clear detail — I’m not convinced that the world is going to come to an end. But I’m not a nativist. I’m not a conservative nativist. I’m not anti-Israeli. I think the Armenian genocide happened, but I’m not sure how I’d vote on the bill given the Turkish problems with reality.
    But I’m still pretty damned skeptical.

    Reply

  11. questions says:

    answers, love the name!
    I came across something somewhere that seemed to indicate that Edmonds’s polygraph had some issues as well. And yes, the questions directed at Dickerson are supposed to have been poorly chosen. But of course, polygraphs are way more an art than a science, so I really wouldn’t put a whole lot of emphasis on them anyway.
    My takeaway thus far is that Edmonds’s allegations have some odd spots and holes that I don’t really feel comfortable with. When I see alternative explanations that make more sense, I tend that direction.
    Kathleen points out above in quite reasonable fashion the procedural issues involved. Indeed, the IG report is very concerned with the FBI’s lack of procedure for dealing with this kind of allegation. I ahve no idea if they now have procedures in place, but clearly they should.
    If we put ourselves back into 2002 when this all started breaking, a lot of it makes more sense. If there were some ongoing investigation into either Grossman or some Turk or other, and Edmonds hit something she shouldn’t have and was complaining in a way that could cause problems for an investigation, that might maybe perhaps explain some of this.
    If there were major bureau panic about getting through material and less about some inconsistencies, if the worry were more about middle east terror and not about Isrturkistan spying, then Edmonds’s complaints again would be most unwelcome at the time.
    If the FBI’s internal culture were such that it hated being the recipient of the “I” part of “FBI” then it might react the same way.
    So, wider context, different concerns, self-protection — all more logical to me than widespread internal conspiracy at the highest levels of government.
    Edmonds was a contract worker and so was not covered by any kind of whistle blower protection. So she really had little, legally, to complain about. It sucks to be a part-timer, but there you go.
    The IG report does a dance around this issue by noting that there is no protection, but that they will use the whistleblower status anyway — at least for interpretation’s sake.
    That the FBI coulda shoulda does not make for major conspiracy. And that there are numerous explanations for what Edmonds says she heard means it’s just not open and shut.
    So I remain, once again, highly skeptical, but willing to rethink if something/someone not related to Edmonds or the whistle blower group or the American Conservative Magazine or bradblog comes my way…. And I think I’d like to stay away from the nativist/conspiracy theorist crowd as well!

    Reply

  12. answers says:

    questions said (way back)-
    “See, it gets a little uneven here. Edmonds doesn’t come out quite as angelic in this report. Her polygraph was questionable. Her irregular work hours were a problem. Many interpretations for the same events. That’s why there’s cross-examination, and why we shouldn’t just deify Edmonds. There is another side or many other sides to the story.”
    I agree, there seem to be so many sides to this story and so many ways to interpret it. When I read the business about the question-ability of the polygraph test I thought it was mostly in reference to the co-worker. Like this quote-
    “The Security Officer said the questions were not responsive to the allegations raised by Edmonds.”
    That seems like it was a reference to the co-worker. and further-
    “despite the concerns about the polygraph, the FBI never considered doing any additional polygraphs and continued to rely on the polygraph as support for its position that Edmonds’ allegations were unfounded”.
    That seems to be a statement almost supporting Edmonds, and expressing doubts as to whether the FBI was correct in not taking Sibels’ claims seriously or whatever. Its funny how two different people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions, isn’t it?
    Anyway, sorry if this stuff has already been said. I’m tring to get through this thread but you people really like to write. And argue. And argue in written form.

    Reply

  13. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Riz…cover the presentation of the Goldstone Report to the Human Rights Council tommorrow….Live Blog it for Steve. answers…..I’ve been praying for you…Listen up kids…teacher doesn’t want another 300 post thread fight about conspiracy theories…so anyone with a question about 9/11 go to the Crazy CT person corner…and stfu.
    I don’t know what I think about Sibel’s case in its entirety…it covers so many issues and people…I havent grasped it all yet, so I’ve focused on the procudural aspects of her case..how she was treated and how her right to a fair hearing was violated…certain basic legal principles, like the right to see the evidence being presented by the other party to a suit, the right to respond, the right to cross-examine a witness..Sibel had none of these…in fact she was not even allowed in the court room during testimony…she was simply told the verdict…You lose!
    A few years ago, whe I fisrt began communicating with Luke Ryland about Sibel’s case, I suggested to her, through Luke, that she form a group of all the whistlblowers who had suffered the same treatment and that they, as a group, file a complaint with the UN Commission for Human Rights, for discrimination against them and based on their category, denial of their right to a fair trail but the US…they formed a group, but did not bring the issue to the UN…that was in Bolton days…so it might have been dangerous.
    I’m pleased that shre finally has had the opportunity to testify under oath about some of the issues.

    Reply

  14. answers says:

    Damn it. I misspelled support.

    Reply

  15. answers says:

    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/09/28/and-its-not-only-sibel-edmonds-who-says-so/
    This seems to be public supprt for Edmonds that does not come from her own site.
    Yikes.

    Reply

  16. questions says:

    So are you sort of hinting that Steve is a “Grossman Firster?!” And therefore, I guess, Steve is part of the conspiracy to silence Edmonds?
    Maybe you’re not saying this? I don’t know.

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Steve seems to have numerous contacts in government, a long history of dealing with this kind of issue (much more than I have, I will say), an entire think tank and some research assistance behind him and Steve seems for now to reject the story”
    He also has a friendship with Marc Grossman. You’d think he’d want the truth to come out, if Sibel is lying.

    Reply

  18. questions says:

    Ummmm, one more question….
    Isn’t 123 real change dot blogspot dot com
    SIBEL EDMONDS’S VERY OWN PRODUCTION???
    Is there any support of Sibel Edmonds that does not actually come from Sibel Edmonds anywhere in the whole world?
    Yoiks!

    Reply

  19. questions says:

    oh, and poa, I saw the note over at bradbloggia, not gonna bother pasting this time! — how is it that inviting people to INVESTIGATE bradblog’s background could possibly be a bad thing to do?!! What precious national resources would be wasted? What anti-government sentiment would be fanned? What loss of morale might be an issue? What, really, are the consequences of people’s clicking on a wiki link or clicking on bradblog’s very own bio statement? I think our national security can take a hit on this one!!
    The point of it actually is to try to figure out what makes for authoritative information. Brad has a blog. Is that enough? Steve has a blog, too. Steve rejects the story. Brad accepts the story. Steve seems to have numerous contacts in government, a long history of dealing with this kind of issue (much more than I have, I will say), an entire think tank and some research assistance behind him and Steve seems for now to reject the story. What does bradblog have? It’s an honest question. Maybe he really is a brilliant investigative reporter, someone with deep connections in government, someone with keen analytical skills whose judgment is worthy of deep trust. And maybe the real thing is that he agrees with your position, or you agree with his position. Hmmm.
    Oh how many many many journalists have been bought out by this conspiracy?

    Reply

  20. questions says:

    poa, not “discredit”. I didn’t say that. It just all raises issues that make the credibility thing an issue. It’s not airtight. There are gaps and weird things. And I’m simply not on the certain it happened side of things.
    But, we’ll see how the wind blows. Maybe Cole’s repeated support of Edmonds will make some intrepid journalist start reading the dossier, too. And maybe that intrepid journalist will see what you see after having read the whole dossier. Or maybe that intrepid jouralist will see what I see, which is way on the iffy side with a few moments of something that might be real, though it’s hard to say.
    Grossman, Dickerson, Hastert — could be. Who knows….
    But if you want to hire an intrepid jouralist, why poa, I won’t stop you.
    And if it turns out everything she says is TRUE, well then, ummm, I will have been wrong. I can live with that. It won’t be the first time. Happily, I don’t work at the FBI deciding what gets investigated and what doesn’t….
    And by the way, someone on the top thread of the day was saying something about how this all took 10 years and the time lapse was proof of stonewalling — maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on what Edmonds ran into. If she heard a small part of a large spy probe with some disinformation aspects, then the delay might actually make sense and might be a big reason for the most gagged thing.
    My guess is that the Obama admin didn’t put the gag back in place because it’s unclear what’s going on and they would prefer to let “nature” takes its course. Which is what is happening. If lots of people start pouring out of the woodwork and corroborating pieces of the saga, then that would seem to support Edmonds. If her only corroborator is the guy who stood up for her originally and then joined her group of whistleblowers after he, too, lost his job (pretty sure I read that, but do check), then my doubts remain. If, again, the truth starts pouring out, then I’ll convert. I’m an atheist til the deity appears before me. I’m just like that. A late adopter, an automatic skeptic, a refuser of all things conspiratorial. I can be wrong though, and that I’ve never denied. After all, there have been some juicy governmental conspiracies involving multiple nations, drug money, and weapons.
    So at this point it’s a waiting game. How many more FBI people will come out and agree with Edmonds on a variety of her claims.

    Reply

  21. aliceinwonderland says:

    This was sure an unexpected thread for the post at hand. Steve, I think you were hijacked by some very non-objective men in black on a mission from God. Or maybe a mission from Sibel and her PR team.
    For what it’s worth, not that it has anything to do with Riz, I’m with you and questions on this one. No matter how hard I try, Sibel’s dots don’t connect for me. There’s probably good reason none of the regular media are “on this story.” I haven’t seen any accusation substantiated, even in the small portion where Cole and Edmonds share a story. Where’s their proof? The few proofs I’ve seen only debunk some seriously irresponsible things Sibel has said, if you ask me.
    I know, I know, POA. You want everyone else to have to prove Sibel to be lying, and lying about everything before anyone is anything but an a–shole (I think that’s what you called questions) for not fawning over the Turkish godess’s every word. But that’s not the way it works in real life.
    The biggest thing I don’t get is why Sibel never seems to have made any accusation against any of the foreigners. Wasn’t she supposed to be translating the foreigners?
    I read portions of her deposition last month, and that was enough for me to write her off. Her English skills are too rough to trust her to have accurately understood what American officials may have said in English. My God, the woman has lived here since 1988 and she still doesn’t know the word “tears.” She calls crying “floods.” It took me awhile to figure that one out.
    And why are all her accusations only one way, against the American politicians, as if Hastert was taking a bribe from some inanimate object? Who is the Turkish spy she thinks she heard bribe him and why doesn’t she put that Turk on public display for ridicule?
    Oh, and just so I don’t have to post again, I’ll answer what my crystal ball tells me is coming next. No, POA, I am not questions, and questions can vouch for that.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Sunday, September 27, 2009
    Grossman Confirmed as FBI Target in Espionage Investigations
    Former FBI Official Confirms Buried Espionage & Corruption Cases
    John M. Cole, a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager, has publicly confirmed FBI’s decade long investigation of the former State Department Official. According to Cole, as in over one hundred cases involving Israeli espionage activities within the US government, this case too has been covered up and buried despite mountains of evidence collected.
    Here is the public response from John Cole after the publication of The American Conservative magazine’s cover story:
    “I read the recent cover story by The American Conservative magazine. I applaud their courage in publishing this significant interview. 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. It is long past time to investigate this case and bring about accountability…”
    In November 2006, in an article published by CQ on covered up espionage cases involving Israel, Cole was quoted extensively:
    “John M. Cole, an FBI spy catcher who retired in 2004, says that from 1993 to 1995 alone, he had “125 open cases” of Israeli espionage, representing nearly half of all the investigations carried on in his Global Unit, part of the now-defunct National Security division.” Inside the FBI itself, Cole said, tracking suspected Israeli spies was hush-hush.In a sharp break with FBI procedures, he was prohibited from notifying field offices when an investigation crept into their jurisdictions. “No one was supposed to know we were investigating the Israelis,” Cole said.”
    Stein’s article quoted several other FBI officials confirming Cole’s disclosure:
    “The 125 figure “makes sense,” another former top FBI counterintelligence official said, speaking only on condition that he not be identified because of the issue’s sensitivity. This official called the Israeli embassy’s denials “horse [manure].” In fact, he said, U.S. officials repeatedly warned the Israelis to back off. But the finger-wagging only seemed to energize them. “We would call them in, call them on the carpet, and next week there would be 10 more cases,” he said. The Justice Department never seemed much interested in prosecuting them, he and other counterintelligence veterans said. Agents would get pissed off,” said the former top official. “We knew they were going to walk, that they were going to get a pass. . . . It was frustrating.””
    http://123realchange.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  23. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yeah, sure, Cole is lying. I mean shit yeah, you obsfucating ponmpous asshole, these two have a lot to gain by lying, don’t they? And Sibel’s costs, fighting FOIA fights, risking libel suits, she’s just doing it for the attention. And yeah, she just lied her ass off during the depo, right? She is just dyin’ to get charged with perjury, right?
    Yep, singlehandedly questions has unraveled the whole scam. No need to investigate, questions and the “proffessionmal journalist” are on the case.
    And Cole, geez, can’t trust him, he’s a member of Sibel’s whisteblower club. Obviously, that discredits him right on the spot.

    Reply

  24. questions says:

    Umm, it appears that John Cole is one of the members of Sibel Edmonds’s whistleblowers group. That is, they are associates. And he’s stood up for her before, so this might not even actually be breaking news….. Oh my.
    Is this credible? Really? It certainly seems insufficient as it stands.

    Reply

  25. questions says:

    POA, the point of the “stupid sentence” is that a lot of electrons have been devoted to attacking my postings despite the fact that my postings don’t move the wheels of history. So I don’t see why it matters so much if I think that Edmonds is iffy on many many fronts.
    Sincerely,
    Sherlock Holmes
    ps, I don’t know when to shut up. And I don’t think telling people to shut up is particularly democratic of you!

    Reply

  26. questions says:

    “Note that her actually being right about one thing doesn’t mean she’s right about everything. Make distinctions. Grossman and Dickerson and maybe maybe Hastert are a little iffier than some other stuff she’s noted. The idea that we supported the muhjideen which then became al Quaeda is so thoroughly documented as to be a non-issue. We all know that Bin Laden had US support in Afghanistan. And we know where that got us. None of this means that Lantos did whatever or Dickerson did whatever or Schakowsky did whatever.”
    Me at 9:26 a.m on the 27th of this month, about a mile up on the thread.
    I would like to learn more about Cole before I sign off on this one, though.
    But if I’m wrong, as I have said many times, then I am wrong and I will admit it.
    But I remain highly skeptical still and all.

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “And by the way, as I’ve said, I’m in no position to start or stop an inquiry into Edmonds’s claims”
    No shit, Sherlock.
    You really can’t figure out when to shut up, can you? Do you have any idea how stupid that sentence sounds?

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Breaking…….
    By Brad Friedman on 9/28/2009 5:08PM
    Former FBI Agent Confirms: Bush State Official Was Target of ‘Decade-Long’ Espionage Probe
    Longtime counterintel official acknowledges evidence behind key aspect of allegations against Marc Grossman made by former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
    Agency vet says investigation was ‘buried and covered up’, calls for new investigation, ‘accountability’…
    George W. Bush’s third-highest ranking State Department official, Marc Grossman, who became the Under Secretary of State after previously serving as Ambassador to Turkey, was targeted as part of a “decade-long investigation” by the FBI, according to an 18-year veteran manager of the agency’s Counterintelligence and Counterespionage departments.
    For still-unknown reasons, the investigation which also involved a multitude of cases involving Israeli espionage, was ultimately “buried and covered up”, according to the official.
    The comment from the former FBI official John M. Cole, in response to recent, stunning disclosures made by former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, helps to shore up a key aspect of her allegations. Cole is now calling for an investigation to help “bring about accountability” in the matter.
    Edmonds’ allegations of bribery, blackmail and infiltration by foreign agents at the highest levels of the U.S. government were recently detailed in a remarkable cover story interview, as published last week by the American Conservative magazine.
    “I read the recent cover story by The American Conservative magazine. I applaud their courage in publishing this significant interview,” Cole says in his public response, as posted today at the AmCon website by interviewer and former CIA agent Philip Giraldi.
    Cole then went on to verify his knowledge of the espionage investigation which, he says, included Grossman. Edmonds has long alleged he had been a key target in the agency’s counterintelligence probe of the Turkish lobby and their relationship to current and former members of Congress and high-ranking officials in the Bush State and Defense Departments.
    continues……..
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7439

    Reply

  29. questions says:

    And by the way, as I’ve said, I’m in no position to start or stop an inquiry into Edmonds’s claims. I think there’s something totally off in her account. I have presented many of the reasons I think this. I am not convinced by brad of blogland, by POA, by many of the posters at brad of blogland, by Edmonds herself, or by the things she cites as supportive of her case. I have a lot of suspicions of her presentation of herself, and I personally wouldn’t at this point support a major looksee.
    But I’m not stopping anyone from doing that. Maybe someone will find something. Maybe the errors she makes, the changing and complexifying process her stories go through is justified somehow. Maybe her status as the number one most gagged Turkish via Iran babe is significant.
    I don’t think so. But I do not have POWER to rule in her case, to force people to talk, to make CONGRESS DO SOMETHING.
    So, really, once again, does it matter what I think? I’ve read a ton of stuff, I’ve analyzed it to the best of my ability and in keeping with what I know (which certainly isn’t everything there is to know in the universe) and I have laid out my particular sense of things. It differs from the conclusions others have made around here, but does seem in keeping with the conclusions Steve and Josh Marshall have come to. Don’t know if it means much. Maybe bradblog knows more or is a better analyst than the wiki page would suggest. But I didn’t come to conclusions based on the work of others. I read and thought and related things to what I know.

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yawwwwn.
    I note the “proffessional journalist” at Bradblog has been handed his ass in a basket.
    I also note that questions and he seem to keep remarkably close hours.
    And, no, questions, your obsfucating bullshit doesn’t make me “paranoid”. But it does disgust me a bit.

    Reply

  31. questions says:

    Look, I don’t really want another 300 posting fight about conspiracy theories.
    As I’ve said before, any event that happens can be stated as the sum of a huge number of improbable, profoundly unlikely, completely bizarre prior events.
    You can accept the nature of events this way, or you can require that all events be caused in related ways and the causes are linked by “intelligent” agents who desire a particular end.
    I accept the first version. Events happen. Afterwards we tell stories that try to make sense of them, but we accept improbabilities and oddities.
    Creationists, intelligent design believers and truthers prefer the second version. Intelligent design holds that complexity REQUIRES a conscious, intelligent, capable designer. That means that if the world is complex, it must have been created/designed by a deity.
    That is the structure of the 9/11 questions people. A complex event happened. There are too many bizarre coincidences. How did these people get here, or those people there? Why did anyone who was middle eastern seeming end up near a plane? How did the flight lessons happen? How did customs fail to catch people….
    Well, likely, customs fails to catch all sorts of things. That’s why smuggling happens. Sometimes there’s corruption. Lots of times there’s incompetence. And sometimes, criminals are smart enough to hide things well.
    It wasn’t until after 9/11 that we got all crazy about seeming middle easterners, cockpit doors, box cutters and fingernail clippers and 4 ounce bottles of shampoo on flights.
    AND of course, there were dossiers, so in fact some watching was going on. But institutional boundaries kept the watching compartmentalized.
    Not a lot of panic. Not a lot of awareness by regular joes at the airport. Not a lot of concern until 9/12.
    (How often do you think “watched” people manage to cross borders? My personal guess is that it happens all the time.)
    So again, what did we know, how did knowledge work pre and post 9/11? I think you’ll find that those questions are pretty significant all in all. And they go a long way towards avoiding intelligent design-style thinking.
    ID is fraudulent. Complexity is not the mark of intelligence. Evolution produces complexity all on its own. The ID people love to cite food webs and eyes as amazing complex systems that somehow require a deity, preferably a Christian one. The Truther people need the GOVERNMENT to have caused the event. They need many many hands on deck to have helped it all happen. They need intelligent design. They don’t like randomness or bureaucratic fuckups. Especially, they don’t like the idea that this kind of fuckup is unpreventable. It’s not a matter of rooting out evil forces from the government, and in fact, institutional progress will only go so far as well. And that is a tough idea to live with.
    If you’re religious in particular ways, you pray to an intercessionary deity because the randomness is unbearable. If you’re a truther, you search for the very next “nano-thermite” or cold fusion specialist or “peer reviewed deus ex machina” to rescue us all.
    But none of that is real.
    Sibel Edmonds ties in beautifully in that she provides the very next peer reviewed proof that a)it all hangs together b)there are particular people who are particularly corrupt and if we root them out we are saved. Again, it’s intelligent design thinking. If the Armenian genocide bill didn’t pass, it HAD to be because Turko-Israeli-Pakistani money paid for it. Nevermind any actual political pressure from the president or the fact that Turkey is considered a fairly important ally and so Turkey will get its way for now. Nope, had to be the money thing because that fits better with the desire for intelligent design.
    And even if you feel yourself not to be religious, you might well be falling into religious thought patterns. ID is a religion. Trutherness is a religion. Same structures of thinking. Same need for intercession. Same desire for deep patterns where there might just be random errors.
    Think about POA with the website thing. If you don’t remember, here’s the recap. The Free Gaza website went down in the middle of the whole case of the “kidnapped” former congresswoman. POA needed that event to be caused by the all powerful Israel. So he proclaimed it to be so. Now, we all know that computers have random errors routinely. Firefox crashes. My computer freezes and has to be unplugged and I have to pull the battery out sometimes to turn it off. Israeli agents are not likely doing this to me. It’s random. Websites crash. Computers crash. Randomly. But if these events happen in proximity to some Israel-related thing, POA instantly sees intercession by POWER rather than the randomness.
    There’s a piece in the Times — today’s website, tomorrow’s paper maybe — about the swine flu vaccine and the fact that X number of thousands of miscarriages happen in a year. X number of thousands of heart attacks, strokes, rashes, health events… and so on happen each year. SOME PEOPLE WILL HAVE THOSE VERY EVENTS happen to them right after or within a week of getting a swine flu vaccine. Just randomly, people will die from stuff right after getting the shot. And you KNOW that the anti-government people and the anti-vaccine people will blame the vaccine for the deaths or adverse events. This is intercessionary thinking at some level. The vaccine has the POWER to bring about heart attacks or whatever.
    In fact, nope. No one actually knows if the 1974 vaccine even caused the Guillaune-Barre syndrome (sp?) events. But the vaccine was blamed because it was on people’s minds. Conspiracy….
    I think we’re better off accepting some randomness.
    Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at things to see if this is one of the random things or one of the bad guy things. BUT, Edmonds’s dossier has been looked at and seems over 7 or 8 years to have been found lacking by many. 9/11 has been looked at by many, and the truthers’s claims have not been supported by anything credible. Not the “peer reviewed” article by the cold fusion nut, not the nano thermites, not the melting temp of steel nuts, not the building 7 nuts, not any of this. At some point, you say, OKAY. Enough is enough.
    Remember that there will be strange coincidences for this event because EVERY event comes chock full of strange coincidences. It’s, again, the nature of events to have that characteristic. So “coincidence” is insufficient.
    If my grandparents hadn’t met and mated precisely when they did, I wouldn’t be here writing this. Does that mean that Israel got them together? Does it mean that the deity of us all got them together?
    19 hijackers got into the country. It’s possible that others didn’t. Selection bias. Not intelligent design.
    If some hijackers had been stopped (and wasn’t there supposed to have been a 20th who was, or perhaps even more planes that didn’t work out?), then there would have been 3 planes or 2 planes, and you’d still be asking why THESE PEOPLE MADE IT into the country…. Selection bias. If you don’t know much about it, look it up. It’s a very important thought process to run through and you seem to have a background in psychology so it’ll make a lot of sense very quickly.

    Reply

  32. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    questions…I’ve never mentioned Bradblog and rarely go there…is your implication that this would be my sole source for forming an opinion?
    If I am so closed-minded that I wouldn’t accept an answer from Mr.NORAD himself, what would be the point of googling anything? I’ve already made up my mind and want to cling to a conspiracy theory…I don’t actually have one, but in a pinch, I guess I could borrow one.
    Again, you are projecting your own refusal to see answers on to me…I am not the one objecting to an indpendent inquiry with testimony, under oath, on the record…you are.
    And yes, you’ve got the shcoolmarm thing down pat….second nature.
    Here’s another querie for you…how do watched people get into the country through customs and why did some of them learn to fly at Pensacola Naval Air Base?
    Epistemology…the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge…
    Speaking of the limits of knowledge, stay tuned for my next epistle on everything we don’t know, but would love to, about 9/11…

    Reply

  33. questions says:

    Anyone ever google “brad” of bradblog fame? His wiki page is interesting. The stuff he (likely) wrote up against the stuff a (likely) disgruntled poster wrote — worth noting the contrast!!
    Also worth noting the self-promotion aspect that seems to lurk. Maybe it’s just a blogger norm and I’m not entirely familiar with the genre. After all, Arianna does “all things Arianna” over at HuffPo. So maybe they all have this underlying self-promotion thing….
    Anyway, this in response to — was it POA — who challenged my challenging such luminaries. And to Kathleen who seems to think I’m overconfident and I should listen to, say, bradblog.
    It’s interesting what counts for credentials and legitimacy in speaking. But I’m a mere kindergarten teacher, so what the fuck would I know…..

    Reply

  34. questions says:

    POA, the level of paranoia you display is really something.
    You have been convinced, CONVINCED, over the years that I am:
    Sweetness
    WigWag
    hasbara
    multiple posters
    And why do you think this way? Because you can’t seem to get your head around the fact that more than one person can think in a certain way, use decent grammar, and not agree with YOU.
    You are at the center of your own little world in which people are either with you or against you, and if they are against you, they are actually only one person using many fake names. ZOMG. And they have to be on the payroll of Israel. Think about how deep this thinking runs through your psyche. There’s always some external evil agent pulling strings. It’s so religious as to defy reason. Really. Israel is your devil. America as it should be in some originary structure is your god. Carroll might be floating around there with you as well. Note that I assume you two are TWO!
    For the record, I’m not actually sure I had even heard of BradBlog until you started the Edmonds thing. I certainly hadn’t heard of Sibel Edmonds despite my fairly wide reading. I tend to stay away from conspiracy sites anyway. I didn’t even know about the truther stuff, to be honest. And I don’t post there. In fact, I don’t post anywhere but here at this point, as it’s difficult to get into the feel of a community and post within the bounds of a particular site. And who has so much time anyway? I have a few other commitments in my basement, keeping track of insects and all…..
    So why don’t you do an investigation — go through the brad archives and see how long cheeky’s been around and how much cheeky and I are twinned on postings over the years….
    No, that would be investigation rather than a feeble attempt at matching up grammar structures without a snazzy computer program that REALLY compares grammar structures. (We make very different mistakes, by the way, and cheeky has my TWN moniker wrong. Cheeky misspells “Orly” in “Orly Taitz”….)
    In fact, I have a number of typing quirks that show up repeatedly, the way anyone does. And I would guess Cheeky’s quirks and my quirks don’t really match up. But you’re not a careful reader, as is made obvious by many of you posts, and so you’re not going to catch the quirky differences. They are all over the place, but you miss them.
    But you’ll ascribe the differences to conspiracy as well. Because you cannot, for the life of you, imagine that there could be TWO whole people in the world who have read the Edmonds dossier and NOT concluded what you have concluded without, it seems, having read the whole fucking dossier.
    Evidence doesn’t convince the conspiracy-minded. Of course, I’ve been pointing this out lately. It’s not evidence you’re after. It’s confirmation of a world view that you are emotionally attached to where good and evil can be identified, evil can be battled, and ONE DAY, good will win out. The US will return to its orignary structure and life will be beautiful again.
    But I kind of think there are always going to be structural messes, complexities, mixed motives, bureaucratic fuckups, wars, and peace treaties. People will be what they are. Little bit good. Little bit bad. No fucking conspiracies that involve nearly every institution there is….
    So conspiracize away. It only makes you look crazier. Really. Crazier.

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, what a suprise, questions is denying his engagement at Bradblog.
    Oh well.
    Heres the link, judge for yourselves….
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7433
    Thank you questions, you are definitely proving yourself to be EXACTLY the disingenuous lyin’ little scumbag I’ve always claimed you were.

    Reply

  36. questions says:

    There are multiple ways to know things, Kathleen. The field to look at is “epistemology” — it’s all about what it means to claim to know something. (How’s that for schoolmarm!)
    What we KNEW on 9/10 is not what we KNEW on 9/12 because 9/11 altered the entire ground of knowledge.
    Pre-9/11, there were plots and plotters, there had been an attack on the WTC previously, there had been other incidents. People had been watching all of this, the “Bin Laden determined…” memo indicates that Bin Laden was in someone’s purview. And the Clinton Admin was really working on this intensely.
    So, yes, we KNEW that there were threats at some level.
    BUT the US did not have a culture of actually being attacked in devastating fashion by 15 Saudis armed with box cutters and planes and ideology. So the context within which the “knowledge” of terrorism existed on 9/10 was simply not the context on 9/12.
    And besides, the Bush people lowered the priority instead of raising it. They really didn’t get it.
    On 9/10, no one worried about someone in Muslim garb praying on a plane. After air transit restarted, that same scene was terrifying. So, again “knowing” means a lot of different things, even though we use the same word across those contexts.
    (If I say on Opening Day, “I know the Yankees will win the World Series” and then I say in the bottom of the 9th with the Yankees up by 15 runs, 2 outs, World Series Game 4, the same thing, or right after the final out is recorded I say the same thing — I’m actually saying three totally different things. The first is a hope, the second is a likelihood, the third is definitive. And yet they all use that pesky and comlex word, “know”.)
    The context for knowledge claims is highly significant and is totally ignored by the LIHOP people (let it happen on purpose.)
    If a local gang is known to be a gang and is a disaster waiting to happen, but the cops don’t really have a way to arrest them, and besides, they haven’t really DONE anything, and besides, one cop is hoping for the arrest and doesn’t tell the other cop about some incident that might be important…. AND THEN there’s a horrific crime — it’s likely that BOOM the gang names will come out very quickly and the crime will be solved in record time.
    Knowing after the fact is not the same as knowing before the fact.
    That’s likely why the info came out so quickly.
    These people had been watched. There were investigations and questions and lots of people had pieces of the truth. Some people guarded their pieces, some people didn’t know they had pieces. And then, BOOM. And the pieces were quickly put together.
    What’s so crazy about that? It’s a pretty standard kind of scenario — we’re all familiar with not realizing the warning signs were actually warning signs. Ever know someone who committed suicide? What do people say in that situation, just about every time…. It’s in the nature of shocking events to SHOCK us. And then suddenly we get it. But we always get it too late. That’s what an event is.
    If we really knew, we’d prevent. And maybe we’ve prevented vast quantities of terrorist events. And 9/11 is the one that stands out because of selection bias. (Really give Nassim Nicholas Taleb a quick look. Easy reading. Popular. Selection bias. Crucial concept.)
    The conspiracy stuff just doesn’t hold water.
    And it shows up in so many ways in this culture. The health care panic, Michele Bachman, Glenn Beck, truthers, birthers, the census insanity, and the Sibel Edmonds thing. And all any proponent of any of these positions says is, “I just have some questions I want answered.” And they are always ready with some more questions.
    Re NORAD, what I came across was some of the following — the planes’ transponders were out. Planes with transponders are mere blips on a screen with many many other blips, generally indistinguishable from one another. We are not good at shooting down flying objects. We were certainly not in a mindset that there would be flying objects aimed at solid buildings. We were not in a mindset that we should be shooting down passenger planes anyway. There hadn’t been a hijacking since 1979. That’s a long time. Put all of this together and you start to see that stuff doesn’t really happen quite the way it’s planned. Maybe there’s more to NORAD. You could go to one of the debunking websites and look up “NORAD” and get more definite info. I’m not going back to this one.
    Besides, nothing will convince a CT person. That’s the point of CT. It is insatiable because it’s emotional, not rational. There must always be some hook, some missing point. It never is made right. Somehow, there is some intense need to believe in a single unified cause of an event rather than admit that there’s randomness, that shit happens, that we fuck up, that there’s incompetence of a variety of levels, that individual and group interests diverge in some amazing ways…..
    If you heard from “Mr. NORAD” himself, you’d have doubts still, because this fictional “Mr. NORAD” would simply be added to the list of conspirators.
    That’s the same structure that seems to be happening with the Edmonds thing. Any debunking becomes part of the conspiracy. It’s psychically satisfying. But it means that we end up with the wrong diagnosis for our ills, the wrong treatment, and the disease is still there.
    Let’s say we took the 9/11 LIHOP thing seriously (with the guilty parties being only an element of the government rather than the whole fucking edifice) and we were, say, a nation that tortured people. We’d torture huge numbers of government workers, we’d fire other for their “knowledge”. And then what would be left? The same bureaucratic system that failed us the first time around. We give in to conspiracy, we arrest, torture, destroy the wrong people for the wrong reasons, we still have problems.
    It matters a great deal to have this right. So just asking some “questions” is less innocent than it seems. Asking the right questions might be better. IMHO at any rate.

    Reply

  37. Outraged American says:

    Sibel has the numbers of the files.
    In math, sometimes you have to work backwards. In the class I
    took in Set Theory, we had to go forewords and backwards again
    to prove that 1+1= 2, which I still don’t believe, because I was
    born a conspiracy theorist.
    In doing that, we explored a whole universe of theoretical
    mathematics, so let’s go with what Hastert, et al, have done
    since leaving Congress and work backwards from that.
    Let’s have a formal investigation of their, and every other
    member and former living member of Congress, ties to
    lobbyists. Even if only some of Edmond’s allegations are true,
    it’s our blood and money on the line and the ongoing pattern of
    corruption of our Congress must be stopped.

    Reply

  38. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    questions…I’m not looking for patterns…I’m looking for answers, under oath and on the record…you are the one looking for patterns…
    questions…more on the art of not seeing what one doesn’t want to see…selective inattention…USAF General at a hearing on pre-9/11 intel…
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x378585ot
    My question, question, is how could you not have a clue on 9/10 and know the names of the alleged perpetrators on 9/12?
    Again, you are projecting your own desire to find patterns on to those of us who simply have unanswered questions, so you can categorize us as “crazy”..and therefore. easilly dismiss..
    As Bill Maher has said to “Truthers”, “Take your meds”.
    You ask what would constitute a “satisfactory” answer, as if to imply that perfectly sound answers have been given, but we are obsessed with our conspiracy.
    In another thread, I asked where was NORAD.. your “answer” was that you had already addressed that…excuse me, but were you an air traffic controller on duty that day in Boston or NYC or D.C? Why would you addressing that somewhere in the blogosphere be an “answer” that anyone would accept as anything?
    You have a very high opinion of your own opinion…when you don’t have a satisfactory answer, you slip into your schoolmarm mode and talk down to us…waving questions aside as if you were the ultimate judge of what’s important…no need for an independent inquiry….
    You question Sibel’s ability to analyse intel..so what’s your qualification to analyse news events, satisfactorilly..
    And P.S. we all read lots and lots of sources to research an issue…just because you’re just getting around to it doesn’t mean we all haven’t been there, done that a kajillion hours already ourselves…,by kindegarten teacher I mean your approach…you want numbers, patterns, and approach us as children who should go do our homework..you being necessarilly the best informed in any given dialogue…in kindergarten this is generally the case for the teacher.

    Reply

  39. questions says:

    “About Sibel Edmonds, I just don’t know, but she deserves a fair
    hearing in the mainstream media because she has enough
    evidence to prove that not everything she’s saying is sheer
    fantasy.”
    What evidence does she have? Read the fucking documents and make some fucking citations.

    Reply

  40. Outraged American says:

    Questions said she’s a policy maker, which went into my
    “INDESCRIBABLY FRIGHTENING” file immediately alongside a
    picture of me in the shower.
    I don’t think that Questions is a kindergarten teacher. I think she
    might be a 47-year-old kindergartner who inexplicably escaped
    and is now crafting policy for the US? Israel? Pluto? alongside her
    fellow kindergartner escapees, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wig Wag and
    Perle.
    About Sibel Edmonds, I just don’t know, but she deserves a fair
    hearing in the mainstream media because she has enough
    evidence to prove that not everything she’s saying is sheer
    fantasy.
    And I honestly don’t mean to down you Questions: “You, you
    light up my life, you give me hope, to carry on, you light up my
    day and fill my nights with song.”
    Questions is probably too young, being a kindergartner and all,
    to recognize those lyrics. Debby Boone, Questions, from one of
    the worst songs of the Seventies, which would really be a tough
    race.
    I once sat next to Pat Boone at a celebrity fundraiser. He
    accidentally (well, maybe) flicked a greasy chicken wing on my
    white pants. Virgins always wear white to celebrity fundraisers
    to make them easier to spot. Pat apologized profusely.
    But what was really cute is that they had some kind of kids’ choir
    on who were so out of tune that I’m surprised all the Chihuahuas
    in Beverly Hills weren’t howling, and Pat (Boone) was loving it.
    He was tapping along as the kids wailed and kept turning to me
    and saying, “Aren’t they just great?’
    Gotta love Born Agains (Christians, to clarify for foreign readers
    like POA) — they’re very nice on a personal level. It’s only when
    they start mucking around in US foreign policy and draping
    themselves in Israeli flags as they dance the horah that you
    realize that nice people can be murderers.

    Reply

  41. questions says:

    From bradbloggia, again….
    POA POA POA POA:
    “There appear to be two people (?) posting parallel arguments here and at Steve Clemons site, The Washington Note. I don’t consider that a “concidence”.
    http://www.thewashington…uest_note_by_r/#comments
    So, I will post here an edited response of what I posted at TWN……”
    POA POA POA also write the following sentence:
    “We seem to think alike, Ernest. ”
    Hmm, very sinister, POA. You’re thinking like another poster. Must be a “coincidence!”
    From “cheeky” over at bradbloggia — the “professional journalist” I’ve referred to before:
    “PissedOff “Orlie” American, sorry to disillusion you. I only now clicked on your creation at Steve Clemons’ blog to see what you are talking about.
    Of course, two individuals couldn’t possibly come to similar conclusions because they actually think logically. The only explanation can be that the person posting as “question” and I are one and the same person trying to deceive PO “Orlie” American.
    It is clear in you illogic here that you will announce I am one and the same if I do not deny it, so, no POOA, I am not the poster known as question, nor have I ever met him or her, nor was I privy to his/her comments before making mine.
    Satisfied? I’m sure you’re not, LOL. ”
    POA POA POA POA:
    “Well, its really quite simple. All one need do is read the thread here, and draw conclusions about credibility based on the manner in which arguments are presented.
    Then, one can go over to the Washington Note, and utilize the same manner of examination and conclusion.
    Composition, word usage, punctuation….hmmmm.
    Method of presentation, use of strawmen, methods of denial……hmmmmm.
    Is it ad hominem to draw logical conclusions?? ”
    From “cheeky”
    “POOA, you say the person posting as question and I write similarly in proper English? NO!?
    But you told me last night that my English is weird and so I am surely a Turkish journalist trying to fool you here … fool you into … um … well, I don’t know what purpose I would have for these attempts to deceive you.
    This is becoming amusing, so please do go on. What is my ulterior motive to be here and why am I denying your claim that I am also the poster named question? ”
    POA POA POA POA:
    “As I said above, all one need do is examine both threads.
    “But you told me last night that my English is weird and so I am surely a Turkish journalist trying to fool you here”
    And you know full well that I did not make that statement, and am not the same poster as “John Olin”; as Brad or “agent 99″ should be able to verify, and have my full permission to do.
    Of course, it would be interesting to have Steve and Brad compare notes to check my intuition as to my assertion, but I doubt, considering Steve’s efforts to distance himself from this issue, that he would cooperate. Perhaps Brad could make an off the record inquiry to Steve, just out of curiousity.
    But really, I entertain no hopes of such an exchange ocurring, considering the admittedly petty nature of this kind of argument. The only thing I can think of that would be more petty and shallow, would be the implementation of such a ruse. And we already know my opinion of whether or not that is occurring. ”
    *********
    So here we go again. The main proponent of further investigation into all things sibelous also would like more investigations into whether or not “questions” (with an ‘s’ by the way) is “cheeky” and “cheeky” is “questions.”
    And the evidence please: writing style (mine comes from Warriner’s English Grammar (a godsend of a series of books if you ask me! Where else do you learn that if you write “Walking down the street, the books fell out of my hand” means that the books were walking down the street!!!???) (also, I would like to thank my 11th grade English teacher for forcing me to diagram sentences. What a beautiful exercise! And I guess I should thank my parents, my producer, my director and of course, ME!!!)
    More evidence: my ideas. Hmmm. Well, I read the Bradblog stuff about Edmonds. So then I read the comments. So then I found “cheeky” and I actually agreed largely with a poster. And that kind of influenced me at some level. I certainly cited the influence.
    My use of straw men and “cheeky’s” use of straw men. Well, I have tried giving Edmonds the strongest reading possible several times. Kind of the opposite argument strategy, actually. (Yep, Plato talks about it as the argument from hypothesis — assume this thing is true, then what follows. Assuming Edmonds speaks the absolute truth makes for some crazy thoughts about the size of the conspiracy, the accuracy of her work, her ability to understand things, and the profound power of, now, the TURKISHLOBBY. Good lord, there are so many LOBBIES with outsized influence. One wonders how there’s even a nation left anymore.)
    So, POA, your tendency to find conspiracies everywhere, even in fucking blog discussion threads is really impressive.
    It isn’t possible that some two people somewhere in the universe could have read the fucking documents and come up with the same fucking conclusions? Lordy, even Steve has had a seemingly similar reaction. So “cheeky” and Steve and I are now all the same?
    And I’m supposed to be taking your word for the seriousness of the allegations?? Have you even read anything that isn’t Sibel Edmonds touting Sibel Edmonds’s account?
    Questions have been asked. Questions have been answered. There might actually not be much of a there there (speaking of Pittsburgh.)
    Oh, and POA’s intuitions are never wrong. He said so himself somewhere around here…..Oh my.

    Reply

  42. questions says:

    Kathleen,
    Find me a pattern then. One that indicates that what Edmonds has said, has embellished over the years, is worthy of study.
    The pattern I see is one of increasing complexity over time (there’s a note to this effect in the IG report. I certainly didn’t write that report up.) Her tales get bigger.
    I also see some errors. A lot of confusion about what it was she actually was listening to. She indicates somewhere that some stuff was in English. Did she hear these people directly taking bribes? Did she hear second hand accounts of bribe taking? You’d think that would be out. Maybe it is, but I haven’t found it. I don’t expect anyone posting here to correct it since no one here seems to have put the time in to reading this stuff.
    The IG report noted that there were significant work issues leading to her dismissal. AND that the “whistle-blowing” was an element, but not the whole story.
    Things don’t entirely check out. Some things painted as shocking aren’t so shocking. Some things painted as shocking don’t check out.
    The FBI clearly has a fucked inner office culture. We already knew this, too. Probably there aren’t too many offices that don’t have fucked cultures.
    The IG report recommended that the FBI unfuck itself. Go ahead and read it!
    Either read the documents and respond in kind, or try not to attack me for trying to respond to the actual documents involved.
    Going after “me” as:
    A kindergarten teacher into patterns and numbers (how many 5 year olds do stats a la Nate Silver?? Good lord what a deliberate oversimplification for “effect”.)
    A 47 year old virgin (thanks OA!)
    A major in poly-sci — whatever the hell that is
    A major in Mid-Elisbethean English literature and its effect on French Colonalism in 18 century Indonesia? (had to copy paste that one!)
    An art major
    An insect
    An idiot…..
    One doesn’t have to be a worshiper at the feet of the GOVERNMENT to wonder if the conspiracy crap is super problematic. I direct my questions, then, at the CTers. If I see compelling evidence of government fuckups I’ll send questions that way.
    Please note that the census conspiracy shit all over the internet may have helped provoke a fairly brutal murder of a census worker. This one is under investigation, so who knows how it’ll come out. But the possible political violence underlying conspiracy theory, the bad thinking that goes into the “causal” chains people seem to find — this stuff concerns me as a regular person living in the US.
    If you can’t get the story straight on this, how will you ever know what really goes wrong with government, and how will you design reasonable, lasting institutional fixes? If anything concerns me above all, it is this last point. We need the fucking government to work well, and if all we do is investigate nuts and error-ridden allegations, we aren’t going to get a government that fucking works. And that indeed would be bad.
    Focus more on some other current news: the militarization of the nation’s local police, the financial markets, the disastrous unemployment numbers, the kind of hold Glenn Beck seems to have on a sliver of the society, the revolving door between Congress and lobbies so that MCs are no longer dependent on re-election, health care reform….
    There are a lot of things in the world besides Sibel Edmonds’s ever expanding allegations.

    Reply

  43. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    OA…questions is looking for patterns and finding them when it’s convenient….she has said in another thread, that when people are looking for patterns, they find them so, presumably when they don’t want to find a pattern, they don’t..we aren’t allowed to just have questions without being labelled a conspiracist…only questions can just have questions….giver her enchantment with numbers and poatterns, I would say she’s a kindergarten teacher…I hope she gets overtime for giving up her weekend…heaven knows she’s working it.

    Reply

  44. questions says:

    OA,
    What evidence could you imagine there existing such that Edmonds’s claims would be proven wrong?
    If Edmonds has wrong: Schakowsky, the inner workings of the FBI, all the MCs she mentions, would that be enough?
    If she’s wrong about Dickerson, would that be enough?
    When do investigations end? When you are satisfied? When POA is satisfied? When Edmonds is satisfied? Can anyone give criteria for satisfaction?

    Reply

  45. Outraged American says:

    Once again Questions lumps the nutbars in with respected
    professionals with very valid QUESTIONS, in order to discredit
    the sane.
    What exactly is your degree in, Questions? Poly-sci? Mid-
    Elisbethean English literature and its effect on French Colonalism
    in 18 century Indonesia?
    Plumbing? Because you are good at the last in terms of
    attempting to stop-up honest debate. I feel like I need a
    plunger every time I wade through the effluence of one of your
    essays.
    You need a new moniker Questions, because you are one of the
    people who questions the least, unless it’s mindless dithering,
    on this site. Well, beyond Steve.
    Not that I don’t love reading all the BS you manage to spout,
    because it truly must take work and at least it keeps you from
    doing something else like MAKE POLICY.
    Happy Yom Kippur! Catholics have to do 80 Hail Marys when
    they jay walk and “devout” Jews get to fast for one day and then
    all is not only forgiven, but they can do whatever they want for
    the next ….
    Explains Israel.
    I remember going to the beach a few years ago with one of my
    dearest friends and her friend and they were complaining about
    how much they had to PAY to attend synagogue on the High
    Holy Days.
    The Catholic church would have to pay me billions to get me to
    step back into that den of criminally insane pederasts. But I’d
    do it for the right price, whoever thinks that Catholic girls are
    incorruptible has never been in line at an abortion clinic.

    Reply

  46. questions says:

    I use “so” a lot. Gotta give it up.

    Reply

  47. questions says:

    Well, you’re almost civil for a change, so I will thank you for only slipping once — “idiot” I believe you tossed my way.
    Here’s the problem with more and more “investigation” — Orly Taitz is CERTAIN that a little more investigation will PROVE that Obama was not born in the US. Now, there’s been investigation and there’s been no convincing corroboration of the specific facts she insists are out there. The birthers are absolutely sure that the proof is out there somewhere and everyone who denies it is either an idiot or is in on the conspiracy.
    In my mind, the Edmonds thing heads that direction. She doesn’t seem quite as angelic in the IG report (did you actually read the whole thing or at least the excerpts I pasted above), she doesn’t do 100% on cross-examination either (did you actually read the deposition with a critical eye?). I pasted in stuff that disagreed with me. I’m mixed on the Dickerson issue, so that’s a change from my original position. I am quite open to actual evidence. But I haven’t found any so far.
    So given how mixed the results are from the reading I’ve done and the source checking I’ve done, infinite investigation doesn’t seem entirely warranted.
    If you have found the credible and tenable stuff, go ahead and paste it here or send a link or let me know. I have indicated repeatedly that Dickerson seems iffy, and Hastert I might be willing to go for. Though actual selling of intel or documents or whatever I’d be dubious about. If he sent contracts or voted for arms deals or whatever and then got a job with one of the lobby groups, that would make a lot more sense. It’s probably a little corrupt and is the reason for revolving door legislation — which ought to be strengthened significantly. But the revolving door issues aren’t the mind-blowing stuff of major government scandal. They are standard operating practice, sad though it is.
    Much of the rest seems loony or without support. In my mind at any rate.
    What I have found is that she has a poor ability to interpret documents about her case. She reads the IG report as exoneration, but it isn’t. She reads the letters from the MCs as exoneration, but they aren’t. She reads the fact that some guy from Hawaii is being investigated for espionage (it’s the next link in her letter) as proof that there is actual spying and therefore she’s telling the truth. I am unclear if she ever mentioned this guy’s name. The link is to an obscure website, not a major media production, so already I wonder about the significance. But that’s just me. In fact, it’s not quite right to argue that the fact of spying at all proves these particular allegations, and I believe that case in under investigation, no conviction thus far. If I’m wrong on this one, feel free to correct me.
    The professional journalist poster at Bradblog did the check on the Armenian vote thing and found that Schakowsky didn’t ever change her vote. Some other woman did. But the poster didn’t name names. So the whole Schakowsky thing may well be some red herring or majorly wrong claim. I personally didn’t search for Schakowsky’s votes on the Armenia resolutions. I’m taking a poster’s word for it. And yet, it’s being taken as gospel by many. So really, there’s a responsibility to do the fact checking before doing the alleging.
    So, as with the truthers who just want some proof that the plane hit the Pentagon, or just want some proof that steel weakens significantly at half its melting point, just at the birthers want some proof that Obama really is American, so the Edmondsers (sibilants? shibboleths?) just want an investigation that proves….
    Well, in advance, define the proof. What would satisfy you? What is adequate proof that Edmonds is missing something significant? The Schakowsky errors aren’t enough. The gift thing isn’t enough. The work hours issue isn’t enough. The hearsay problem isn’t enough. Her real serious lack of intell training and experience isn’t enough. The IG report isn’t enough.
    It’ll never be enough because conspiracy theorists have feelings about issues, not facts about issues. So, in fact, you tell me I have foregone conclusions, but I can say what kinds of proof I’d want and in the face of that proof I would change my mind. But you have to do the same. What must this supposed investigation find so that you could let the matter drop?
    So, travel and bank records, some of the conspirators, well-regarded investigative journalism, not merely having hearsay suggestion, some really clear reason for this espionage far more significant than the Turko-Israeli desire to avoid the Armenian genocide issue, something way more specific than “nuclear secrets”. That’s scary word/no content stuff.
    So, as I’ve said, I remain deeply skeptical. The more I read, the less I believe. And I think there’s no other way to read these documents.
    Go through the IG report and the trial transcript and the links embedded in her letter. Don’t just use her words to support her position. Find the corroboration that actually corroborates. I couldn’t find any. In fact I found the opposite.

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    So, it is your opinion that further investigation is not necessary because none of Sibel’s assertions have been proven? Yes, questions, that make a lot of sense; To an idiot, perhaps.
    Please show me where I, Dan Kervick, Brad Friedman, Philip Giraldi, the American Conservative, Harpers, or any other entity claims that all of Sibel’s assertions are the truth.
    The common reaction to Sibel’s accusations, is the feeling that there is enough smoke to warrant looking for fire.
    You load your longwinded essays up with the assertion that everyone is claiming Sibel speaks the gospel. That is a straw argument; bullshit.
    You claim to be doing, finally, the research to justify your position. And that is exactly what you are doing, reasearch, TO JUSTIFY FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS on your part. You could just as easily find credible and tenable aspects of Sibel’s accusations, but those aspects of her story don’t interest you, because it is not about the truth to you, it is about winning an intellectual duel. That is why I find you so despicable. The perverse pleasure you find in playing mind games to win an argument over-rides any moral conviction that should fuel debate and argument.
    Almost to a person, everyone commenting on this issue has expressed a desire to see further investigation and media exposure of Sibel’s claims. You have twisted the whole thing to implying that all of us have argued that Sibel has proven her assertions and accusations. You had to do that, because common sense cries out for further investigation, and you could not frame an argument against further investigation.

    Reply

  49. Outraged American says:

    Sibel Edmonds was gagged by the Dept. of “Justice” when I
    spoke with her, so there was no examination much less cross-
    examination.
    One kind-of must QUESTION why the DOJ did that. Except if
    you’re Questions, who seems to swallow every government
    missive whole. I won’t speculate on what else she swallows.
    When I was a kid my siblings and I were trapped in the house —
    not by our parents who would have sold us to the lowest bidder
    and thrown in the goldfish and a new car to seal the deal — but
    by the heat of the Phoenix summer.
    Guess what was the only thing that was on TV?
    THE WATERGATE HEARINGS.
    Now, the scope of government malfeaseance makes Watergate
    look like a pimple on someone else’s butt. But no one cares,
    well, no one in the government.
    We invaded and destroyed another country based on a
    bogeyman/ former CIA assest/ caveman with drunken, coke-
    snorting henchmen who couldn’t fly a Cessna, who had at least
    one magic passport. A passport that could survive a plane
    crash, fireball, and the collapse of the tallest building in the
    world.
    Did anyone else QUESTION why the names of the 9/11 suspects
    came up so fast?
    I was panicked because I had so many friends living in NYC, but
    still I was like, “How do they know already?”
    It takes friggin’ years to solve a simple burglary — although
    both Phoenix and LA have given that up due to budget cuts as I
    can personally attest to, damn wars –but the government,
    which granted is always on the ball, managed to spit the name
    of the “hijackers” (many of whom seem to have miraculously
    survived) right out.
    We invaded and destroyed a second one based on imaginary
    weapons and the fact that one sniveling ninny “Saddam tried to
    kill my Daddy” was led through the Bible by one of the most evil
    men who has ever lived.
    Although I seriously don’t think Cheney is a human being. I
    think if we peeled off the skin on his forehead we’d find a metal
    plate with the words “KILL / PROFIT/ PROFIT /KILL” engraved in
    a circle around his head like a wedding band engraving.
    Wonder what he’s like to have around at Thanksgiving — they
    probably stash the grandkids in an undisclosed location in case
    he tries to test out a new weapon on them or shoots them in the
    face with a proven one.
    And now we have Mr. Change spreading the Bogey War into
    Pakistan:
    US threatens airstrikes in Pakistan
    ( I don’t know why the Times UK thinks this is “news” as we’ve
    already done this)
    http://tinyurl.com/ybbgt4o
    h/t antiwar.com (buy your Amazon purchase through
    antiwar.com – it’s helping the site a lot. Details at the site)

    Reply

  50. questions says:

    By the way, at the end of the 300-post truther thread, arthurdecco added an afterword that likened me to the bulldozer driver who ran over Rachel Corrie. Quite an image, actually.
    On the the bradblog discussion thread mentioned above, POA invites his co-posters to come over here and gang up on my posts. Quite an image, actually.
    What’s the deal with the underlying violence and gang up?
    This is a discussion thread, and instead of discussion, we get my “bulldozing” over a protester (the way it was written was pretty damned stark), and my need to be ganged up on.
    What I do is take time out of my life, READ a bunch of shit over the course of a couple of days of crazy obsession when I could instead be watching paint dry, running around the block, or counting gnats (since that’s really all I do with my life, clearly). As I read, I think about what I’m reading. I don’t take sources at their word. I compare and contrast, weigh likelihoods, think through other stuff I’ve encountered, weigh likelihoods…. And then I draw a conclusion which I’m always willing to revise if someone provides me evidence. I’m quite willing to the best of my ability to state before the fact what kind of evidence might move me.
    And instead of responses in kind, I get things like: questions says nothing, questions is Rachel Corrie’s murderer, or just like Rachel Corrie’s murderer such that the likeness is uncanny and disturbing, questions is obfuscating, questions is hasbara, questions is an insect, questions is a 47 year old virgin. Wahh, questions doesn’t agree with me and that really pisses me off. Wahhh.
    What about instead, “When questions says… what questions is doing is mistaking this for that….” Or, “questions has this fact wrong. Here in the government report is a line questions misreads. What the IG really says is that everything Edmonds says is true, and here are citations to 50 colleagues who have said exactly the same things in a highly consistent pattern.” (Of course, the IG report says nothing of the kind.)
    Try going through a point at a time, citing reasonable sources that say different, weighing the value of the sources you cite, and discussing the possibilities.
    Remember, if Sibel Edmonds repeats herself, that’s not really support for the first time she made the claim. So Edmonds’s letter supporting Edmonds isn’t evidence. And if Edmonds cites things that don’t really say what she says they say, then that’s not really evidence either.
    So you, POA, go through Edmonds’s CITATIONS that she puts in in support of herself and see if they really support her contentions. That SHE says they do isn’t evidence. That Giraldi or BRADBLOG say they do isn’t really evidence either. Go back to the original text yourself, READ the damned material, quote, summarize, interpret, relate to your main point. And then lather, rinse repeat.
    And remember, if it’s so crucial that your story be put out there, then it’s worth the lost weekend of reading and analysis. I gave up my weekend for this stuff because I think the conspiracy-style thinking is a serious problem.
    Weigh the value of the letters from Leahy and Grassley. How are the letters written? Are they specific? Do they weigh charges and likelihoods? Or are they the kind of general things you’d expect from a staffer who says, “Hey, we should probably cover our asses on this just in case it comes back to haunt us. Wouldn’t want oppo research to find this and run commercials that we ignored allegations of Turko-Israeli-Pakistani-Illionisan-MITish spying and selling of documents.”
    Quote from the letters and explain what the letters mean. Give alternate views.
    Note that her actually being right about one thing doesn’t mean she’s right about everything. Make distinctions. Grossman and Dickerson and maybe maybe Hastert are a little iffier than some other stuff she’s noted. The idea that we supported the muhjideen which then became al Quaeda is so thoroughly documented as to be a non-issue. We all know that Bin Laden had US support in Afghanistan. And we know where that got us. None of this means that Lantos did whatever or Dickerson did whatever or Schakowsky did whatever.
    When you go through the deposition, pay attention to the cross-examination as well. Don’t cite “under oath” as PROOF. People lie under oath. Really. Don’t assume that just because Edmonds heard something, what she heard was a)true, b)properly interpreted c)proof of anything. It takes a lot more than what she thinks she found to PROVE espionage.
    Don’t then say, WELL, the LACK of an investigation is PROOF. Lack doesn’t prove. Lack of investigation can mean a lot of things aside from the truth of the allegations and an ever-widening circle of conspirators. Really.
    It’s not a bulldozer here. It’s what research is about, it’s how one legitimizes or delegitimizes claims. It’s how one avoids being a gossip columnist and actually DOES something.
    Doing something isn’t writing letters to the editor based on whatever internet claims there are. Now, of course, I have no idea if Kervick also sat down for a day and read all of this stuff, but if he didn’t, his letter isn’t doing anything. If he did, he certainly didn’t detail his findings around here.
    The charges are serious, the implications matter, it would be better to do a whole lot of research first. Check the sources of your sources. Read and interpret. Quote and explain. Don’t ask the bradblog universe to come beat me up or whatever. Don’t tell me, OA, you interviewed thus-and-such. If you didn’t do tons of research and give a hostile cross-examination-style interview, you didn’t do much.
    And please, don’t accuse me of running over Rachel Corrie. I’ve never been to Israel or Palestine. I don’t know how to drive a bulldozer. And I admire her courage. I don’t kill living things for pleasure.

    Reply

  51. questions says:

    Oops — “Can Dickerson”! I think with Turkish, “Ca” is pronounced something like a “J” or a “Ch”. Sorry for getting the name wrong repeatedly.

    Reply

  52. questions says:

    Sorry for so many long long posts. Best to read the documents in full, of course, but since many don’t bother, I figured I’d copy/paste a bunch for your reading pleasure. It’s worth the read. Judge for yourself.

    Reply

  53. questions says:

    “n sum, we believe the FBI’s initial inquiries in response to Edmonds’ allegations were seriously deficient. Had they been more thorough, an appropriately focused analysis could have been conducted much earlier. Moreover, even when the FBI was notified of additional information, the FBI still did not promptly document and act on the information provided. The remedial action taken to address one aspect of Edmonds’ concerns was not sufficiently thorough, and the FBI reversed itself prematurely. This was an inadequate response under the circumstances.
    We also note that, at the time of these events, the FBI had no protocol for the receipt and investigation of derogatory information provided by someone within the FBI about a co-worker. In May 2002 (after Edmonds was terminated), in response to the Hanssen case, the FBI created a new counterespionage section, CD-4, to investigate allegations of espionage, including all allegations of penetrations of the U.S. Government. According to the Chief of CD-4, however, if Edmonds’ allegations were made today, they might still be investigated by the Security Office. But he said that at a minimum the Security Office should consult with CD-4 during the investigation.”
    “The OIG interviewed ten linguists who were either named by Edmonds in her allegations or were named by Edmonds as having information relevant to her allegations, including those whom Edmonds specifically stated could corroborate her allegation regarding the alleged instruction to slow down. Only three of these linguists stated that they recalled hearing about the alleged instruction to slow down. Two said they heard the allegation only from Edmonds. The third said that she had heard about the slow down instruction from others in addition to hearing about it from Edmonds, but said she could not recall who those others were. The other seven denied ever hearing about such an instruction.
    We found insufficient evidence to substantiate Edmonds’ allegation that such time and attendance abuse was condoned or occurred. Moreover, given the backlog of translation work at the FBI, we do not believe the FBI would need to intentionally slow down the linguists’ work to support hiring additional translators.”
    “The GIG concluded that the CM was hired and assigned to translate military interviews even though he did not meet the minimum passing score for the position. The FBI took this action without following appropriate written procedures, and without notifying appropriate officials who supervised the CM’s work, and in a manner that created the appearance of a conflict of interest. Although the CM ultimately demonstrated that he could meet the minimum requirements, we found that he clearly had difficulties with his written translation work for the FBI. However, it appears that those supervising the military interviews he helped to translate were satisfied with his translation work.”
    “Edmonds alleged that this “swapping” arrangement was due in part to favoritism on the part of the supervisor. One linguist told the OIG that he had also heard rumors of favoritism. The supervisor adamantly denied any favoritism towards any of the linguists. No other witness stated that he heard similar rumors, and the OIG found no other evidence of any such favoritism.
    We believe that the arrangement was wasteful. At the time these two linguists swapped places, other linguists were available to handle this work in both locations. We do not believe the EC provided to us by the supervisor applies to the time period in which we found evidence of wasteful travel. Moreover, the supervisor provided no explanation for the failure to use the FBI’s computer system to send the work electronically between offices.”
    “Edmonds made additional allegations related to misuse of travel vouchers. She claimed, for example, that some linguists had gone to a distant location to attend a concert and had been improperly reimbursed by the FBI for this travel. She did not identify the particular linguists. The OIG examined FBI travel records and found that only one linguist traveled at FBI expense to the location of the concert during the relevant time period, but this linguist stated that he did not attend the performance. We reviewed documentation that supported this linguist’s assertion that this was a legitimate business trip.”
    “Edmonds alleged that FBI language supervisors received expensive gifts from subordinates. The only specific example she provided to the GIG was that, on his return, the same linguist who she said had been permitted to stay on travel so that he could shop brought back sets of ladies’ and men’s watches for the supervisors. Edmonds said the linguist had told her that the watches cost him $135, and that the supervisor who approved the extension of the travel asked the linguist to give the same sets of watches to the other supervisors so that “no one will ever talk.” Edmonds said that the linguist also gave her a set of the watches, but she returned them.
    The linguist told the GIG that he bought several sets of the watches while he was on the trip, for $10 each, and that he gave the sets to Edmonds, three supervisors, and a Special Agent. He denied telling Edmonds that the watches cost $135, and denied saying that a supervisor instructed him to give the same gift to other supervisors so that no one would talk.”
    “Edmonds does not qualify for “Whistle blower” status under the FBI Whistleblower regulations because she was a contractor, not an FBI employee. See 28 C.F.R. § 27.1(a). However, in examining the question of whether the FBI retaliated against Edmonds because of her allegations of misconduct, we used the principles underlying these regulations.”
    “Rather, the primary reason for the FBI’s termination of Edmonds related to the claim that she had a “disruptive effect” on operational matters. This disruption related primarily to Edmonds’ aggressive pursuit of her allegations of misconduct, which the FBI did not believe were supported and which it did not adequately investigate. In fact, as we described throughout our report, many of her allegations had bases in fact and should have been more thoroughly investigated by the FBI. We believe that the FBI’s failure to handle her allegations adequately contributed to Edmonds’ increasingly vociferous complaints, which ultimately led to the termination of her services.
    We also recognize that Edmonds was not an easy employee to manage, and that some of her complaints, based on her self-initiated reviews, were unsupported and a distraction to her supervisors. Edmonds also aggressively asserted her opinions about the management of the translation program, which was frustrating to her supervisors. But we believe that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.
    In addition, the FBI has not asserted that Edmonds’ contract was terminated because it had no further need of her services. In fact, the Chief of LSS told the OIG that there has been no reduction in the need for linguists to translate the language Edmonds translated. Indeed, at the time Edmonds’ services were terminated, there remained a need for such services.
    We also believe the FBI could have handled the matter much more effectively than it did. For example, as an LSS Unit Chief suggested, the FBI could have moved Edmonds to another location while it pursued a thorough investigation of Edmonds’ allegations. Had it done so, the “disruptive effect” on operational activities created by Edmonds’ persistent complaints could have been avoided or at least minimized.
    In sum, while Edmonds does not fall within the protection of the FBI’s Whistleblower regulations, we believe that the FBI significantly mishandled this matter. The FBI should not discourage employees or contractors from raising good-faith allegations of misconduct or mismanagement. By terminating Edmonds’services, in large part because of her allegations of misconduct, the FBI’s actions also may have the effect of discouraging others from raising concerns.24″
    “With regard to Edmonds’ other allegations of misconduct, most were not supported by the evidence we reviewed. However, she did raise a valid concern about unnecessary travel for certain linguists.”
    ****
    So once again a mixed bag. There was some inappropriate travel. She certainly drove people bonkers with the security complaints and limited work hours.
    The complaints should have been looked into more carefully.
    Cam Dickerson might be iffy, but might not be. It’s a mixed bag.
    How can anyone go quite so crazy about this? How can anyone say this report vindicates Edmonds?
    It’s a mixed bag that faults FBI procedure and some people, that says Cam Dickerson might be an issue. And that’s it.

    Reply

  54. questions says:

    Lots more from the IG report….
    “On February 26, an FBI Special Agent wrote an EC analyzing the additional information the Language Supervisor had requested as a result of Edmonds’ allegations of deficient performance by the co-worker. The Special Agent believed that a remedial measure would adequately address the performance aspect of Edmonds’ allegations. The remedial measure was then implemented. No other action was taken as a result of the review. However, the remedial measure was rescinded, at the request of this Special Agent, less than three weeks later, and Edmonds questioned the decision to rescind the remedial measure.”
    “The Security Office decided that polygraph examinations would be helpful in making determinations about Edmonds’ security allegations and the security violation committed by Edmonds. In a four-page request for polygraphs, drafted on February 25, 2002, the Security Officer stated that “preliminary investigation” indicated that the co-worker had not made any threats to Edmonds, but the polygraph was needed to thoroughly pursue these issues and determine whether or not the co-worker posed a security risk. The Security Officer also noted that “preliminary investigation” indicated that Edmonds had written, on her home computer, multiple memoranda containing classified information, had retained an attorney, and had threatened to go to the press. The Security Officer asked that a polygraph be conducted of Edmonds to determine whether she had written additional memoranda on her home computer or whether she released classified information to unauthorized parties. 16″
    The FBI supervisor was suspicious of Edmonds even as Edmonds was suspicious of Cam Dickerson. Keystone Kops kind of thing!
    “The Security Officer and other FBI managers later expressed disappointment with the questions asked in the polygraphs. The Security Officer said the questions were not responsive to the allegations raised by Edmonds. An FBI manager said that the polygraphs should have been “customized” to obtain optimal results and that he was hoping the polygraphs would be more conclusive in the investigation of these allegations. The Chief of the Polygraph Unit later told the analyst that more precise questions could have been asked.
    We also concluded that the polygraph examinations of Edmonds and the co-worker were not ideal. In addition, we found that despite the concerns about the polygraph, the FBI never considered doing any additional polygraphs and continued to rely on the polygraph as support for its position that Edmonds’ allegations were unfounded.”
    “Between February 8 and March 22 (the day the FBI stopped using her services), Edmonds’ relationship with FBI management deteriorated significantly. By the end of February, the Language Supervisor was becoming increasingly frustrated with Edmonds’ allegations. For example, on March 5 the Language Supervisor began taking detailed notes of all his interactions with Edmonds.
    At the same time, Edmonds seemed to become increasingly frustrated. In addition to meeting frequently with the Language Supervisor about her suspicions, Edmonds wrote numerous e-mails and memoranda raising additional complaints. Edmonds also warned the Language Supervisor of the penalties for retaliation against a Whistleblower. Edmonds also requested information about any allegation made against her. The Language Supervisor declined to provide the information requested by Edmonds.
    On March 8, Edmonds complained that work she had been asked to translate had not been loaded properly onto her computer, and that FBI Special Agents had been waiting for the translations for three weeks. The Language Supervisor responded that since February 22, 2002, Edmonds had only worked one day, on March 8,2002. The Language Supervisor also stated that Edmonds did not indicate which work she was referring to until March 5, 2002, when she was in the office briefly. In response, Edmonds repeatedly complained to the Language Supervisor about the fact that she never was provided information about the polygraph or the allegations against her.”
    See, it gets a little uneven here. Edmonds doesn’t come out quite as angelic in this report. Her polygraph was questionable. Her irregular work hours were a problem. Many interpretations for the same events. That’s why there’s cross-examination, and why we shouldn’t just deify Edmonds. There is another side or many other sides to the story.
    “On March 15, the relationship between the Language Supervisor and Edmonds became even more tense. Edmonds asked the Language Supervisor why the Special Agent who she assisted had not been in contact with her in over a month. Edmonds also inquired about her work assignments. The Language Supervisor responded that he did not know why the Special Agent had not met with Edmonds and that, due to Edmonds’ limited work hours and the need to have certain work assignments completed, he had requested that linguistic resources be reallocated. In response, Edmonds stated that in the past few weeks, “coincidental” to her reports of wrongdoing, she had received no new assignment and no offers of temporary duty (TDY) assignments.
    Later that day, the Language Supervisor informed Edmonds that he would not submit for payment an invoice of Edmonds’ that included 5.25 hours spent in meetings related to her allegations. Before advising Edmonds that he would not submit the invoice, the Language Supervisor consulted with the FBI contracting office and was told that CLs are paid only for “actual hours worked.” Edmonds ultimately disputed this decision, and the FBI relented and paid her for the time.”
    “Edmonds also wrote that the Language Supervisor had told her that the Special Agent was unhappy with her performance and personality and he did not want to deal further with Edmonds. Edmonds requested a IS-minute meeting with the Special Agent and the Language Supervisor to iron out any issues and re-establish a proper working relationship.
    In a lengthy EC the Language Supervisor wrote on March 19 to an FBI manager and the Security Office, the Language Supervisor denied ever telling Edmonds that the Special Agent was unhappy with her work. However, the Language Supervisor also said that the Special Agent would not meet with Edmonds because he had been instructed not to do so due to Edmonds’ fabrications.
    On March 19, a Supervisory Special Agent wrote that he did not want to use Edmonds’ translation services anymore because she had been a complete disruption to the office, often making groundless accusations. The Supervisory Special Agent said that he already had devoted too much time to the matter, and he had lost faith in Edmonds’ ability to carry out her assignments. He cited her security violation and recommended that Edmonds be removed from working his assignments in light of security concerns and some other “agenda” she was pursuing.
    Tension between Edmonds and her colleagues also increased during this period. On March 20, the Language Supervisor noted that he had to act as an intermediary of behalf of Edmonds with others due to these tensions. The Language Supervisor also expressed frustration with Edmonds’ impatience at the time it took to resolve her allegations, writing that Edmonds did not seem to the Language Supervisor to understand that he had more pressing issues to deal with at times.”
    “By March 20, the FBI manager had drafted an EC recommending that his office discontinue using Edmonds’ services. In the introductory paragraph he mentioned that Edmonds had raised issues concerning security, performance, and favoritism. Without further discussion of Edmonds’ individual allegations, he wrote that the Security Office’s inquiry had concluded that some allegations of Edmonds were not substantiated and that she had not been completely forthcoming about the extent of the sensitive and classified information on her home computer. In the EC, the manager said he found it most telling that Edmonds had written to other high-level FBI officials nine days before his first meeting with her, and he commented that Edmonds seemed inclined to put forth additional complaints, as the discussion continued, that were not mentioned previously. He wrote that she had a propensity to inflate and misstate facts, and he described the tone of her letters to the Language Supervisor as condescending and somewhat threatening. The manager also noted in the EC his frustration at the pace of efforts by the Security Office to resolve the matter in a clear-cut manner [i.e., to revoke Edmonds’ security clearance]. He remarked that Edmonds was using her newly claimed whistle blower status as a “club” against her supervisors. He concluded that no action taken by his office would be satisfactory to Edmonds. He recommended that LSS immediately discontinue using her as a linguist, and that her FBI access badge be cancelled and taken until “this situation” was resolved. The manager e-mailed the draft of his EC on March 20 to the LAAU Chief and others.”

    Reply

  55. questions says:

    From the IG report itself:
    “We closely examined nearly a dozen separate allegations by Edmonds against the co-worker which, when viewed together, amounted to accusations of possible espionage. We sought to determine, with respect to each individual allegation, whether the facts supported or refuted the allegation. However, the ultimate determination as to whether the co-worker engaged in espionage, as Edmonds’ allegations implied, was beyond the scope of the OIG’s investigation. We communicated to the FBI during our review that the OIG was not making such a determination, and that the potential espionage issue should be addressed by the FBI, not the OIG. Instead, our investigation focused on the FBI’s response to the complaints Edmonds raised about her co-worker and other language translation issues.”
    *****
    So far, nothing about the actual guilt or innocence of Cam Dickerson. The issue the OIG dealt with is whether or not Edmonds’s pissing supervisors off is what got her wrongly fired. NOT whether or not there was merit in Edmonds’s complaints, but regardless of merit of the complaints, was complaining itself the cause of termination. I believe that the conclusion is that it was partially to blame. Very different from saying she was right. But I’ll keep reading and see if there’s a reason to change my view….
    ***********
    Here’s more:
    “With regard to some of Edmonds’ allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts. However, Edmonds’ assertions regarding the co-worker, when viewed as a whole, raised substantial questions and were supported by various pieces of evidence. While there are potentially innocuous explanations for the coworker’s conduct, other explanations were not innocuous. Although the exact nature and extent of the co-worker’s security issues are disputed, it is clear from the OIG’s investigation that the facts giving rise to Edmonds’ concerns could have been uncovered had the FBI investigated Edmonds’ allegations further. We believe that the FBI should have investigated the allegations more thoroughly. We also believe the FBI’s handling of these allegations reflected an unwarranted reluctance to vigorously investigate these serious allegations or to conduct a thorough examination of Edmonds’ allegations. As will be discussed in the next section, the FBI did not, and still has not, conducted such an investigation.”
    I’m on Section F at this point and it looks like a mixed bag of “The FBI coulda shoulda been more careful in checking out the complaints” but the occasional noting that Cam Dickerson seemed credible.
    Once again, nothing seems to be an airtight case. And the support for Edmonds that the OIG report gives thus far is not quite the support one might think it is if one didn’t bother reading the whole document.
    I’ll be back when I’m done with it.
    Another lost weekend. Kinda wish POA would stop telling me how to spend my time…. I have some bugs to feed….

    Reply

  56. questions says:

    What was supported according to the NYT piece she links to in Bradblogland is the notion that there were translation-related problems in her division. There was no list of the problems. Perhaps the problems are more bureaucratic than espionagish. And this is a huge issue for Edmonds.
    Much of her complaint may be more SOP than pathology. She was unfamiliar with the agency, she worked irregular, short hours for a very short time. Not enough time to get into the culture of the agency. She lacked any intel background. She wasn’t given context….
    She could be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth FROM HER PERSPECTIVE, but hers isn’t the only perspective.
    Everything I read of hers just raises more credibility questions.
    Guess that’s the jackass in me. No pat anwers. No easy outs. Not at all convinced that there’s a MAJOR espionage network that links Congress, the FBI, MIT, many many Turkish groups, many many Israel-affiliated groups, umm, the Saudis, Pakistan, Jan Schakowsky and her hubby, Chicago, Washington, a bunch of other cities, drugs, weapons, suitcases of cash, revolving door politics, lesbian trysts, townhouses, Marc Grossman (who does sound problematic), Can Dickerson (who MIGHT be problematic) ….
    And in all of this, no regular bureaucracy, no personality issues, no jealousies, no motives aside from major espionage. It’s an amazingly single-minded group of people assembled for the sole purpose of selling stuff and keeping that damned resolution out of Congress.
    Clearly, I am a jackass!
    Time to get to work POA!!

    Reply

  57. questions says:

    http://www.nswbc.org/Reports%20-%20Documents/RequestforInvestigation-SA_Graham_docs.pdf
    Can anyone explain the significance of this one? Edmonds refers to it in her letter, and since I’ve been instructed to go point by point through the letter and refute it… I’m giving it a try. But near as I can tell, the complaint is bureaucratic, not espionage-ish.
    Thanks for the insults POA! You make my day, every day. It’s become a badge of honor and a source of domestic delight! the rats and roaches I share my basement space with enjoy hearing from you each and every day!
    And the alleged professional journalist from BradBlog does indeed have a valid point.
    Don’t forget, Edmonds has been deemed the most gagged whatever since whenever — that’s in the letter too.

    Reply

  58. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Proffessional journalist”. Thats funny.
    You are every bit the cheeky jackass I have long claimed you to be.

    Reply

  59. questions says:

    POA,
    You’re dissing me again!! Thanks!
    “Over at TWN, the usual suspect is working hard to shove Sibel’s story into the same chapter the birthers have been consigned to. And he has far more time to flood the issue with obsfucation and bullshit than I have to rebut his every post. Its a shame that those of you that are in the know on this issue, far more than I am, aren’t making an effort to carry some water for Sibel over there. Its an important blog, and some reasonable informed debate about Sibel has the potential to grow legs.”
    Now I’m the “usual suspect” with too much time on my hands while you’re too busy to rebut everything I’m saying. Wow. Maybe you could ask some TWN poster to go after me as well.
    Or take a weekend the way I have twice now and go a point at a time through things. Just do one or two. I mean, I read a 200 page deposition today, the AmCon thing, the 60 Minutes transcript, more of The Looming Tower, and I did the normal things that 47 year old virgins do (thanks again OA for helping me to know myself) — and it’s only Saturday.
    The “professional journalist” poster at BradBlog has some good points — whether or not journalism actually does do the fact checking, in fact, it SHOULD do the fact checking. And what Edmonds provides is something akin to hearsay. Hearsay with some facts off. Hearsay that is supported by other hearsay. Hearsay that isn’t analyzed. We don’t know what is boast, what is true, what is counter intelligence, what is disinformation, what is standard operating procedure and what is pathological…. But you’re all set to KNOW what happened. If Edmonds says it’s so, it must be so. Regardless of any context at all.
    Here’s a reading suggestion (if I have this right) — Rashomon. It’s about how different people have different interpretations of the same event — one single event, and yet I think it’s 5 completely different accounts. So maybe Edmonds heard what she heard. But maybe what she heard wasn’t what she heard. Kinda crazy to think about.
    Go ahead and sic some others on me….

    Reply

  60. questions says:

    She was paid 35-40 dollars an hour, and never worked even a 40-hour week. That’s a lot of scandal in very little time. 20-25 hours a week was the average.
    Maybe the OIG report is less than supportive of Edmonds?? Not all her charges were backed up by them.
    p. 180 or so — she doesn’t know a whole lot about genocide, and earlier, she doesn’t seem to have a background in lobbying or much of the other stuff she’s alleged. I think the basic strategy of the lawyer who is cross-examining is to make it clear that she doesn’t have the background to do analysis.
    Also, he pushed her towards noting implicitly that though she alleges SERIOUS SERIOUS threats to American security, she has not in the least followed through with that and instead worked quite a bit on her own legal defense and the whistle blower organization she founded. She let the security stuff slide for quite some time. Lawyer’s ruse? Interesting point? Sibel Edmonds as advocate for herself? (I think this was one of Steve’s issues.)
    And finally and at the end, it comes out that she hasn’t gone to Holder to ask for a new round of investigations.
    So what does it all mean?
    I’m still on the skeptical side….
    But cross-examination is always interesting. Makes you look from a different angle.

    Reply

  61. questions says:

    Well, I’m around page 115 or so of the court depostion — the cross examination in which it is coming out that:
    She was not compelled to testify (did she volunteer so that she would have a chance to go into all the spy stuff….)
    She has no background in intell prior to her FBI translations — meaning maybe she wasn’t a great analyst of the documents…
    Cross-examination is part of the story too. But I’m not done reading!
    I can see why Steve ended up punting!

    Reply

  62. questions says:

    To quoe POA, “Gads” — I’m wasting the day reading the transcript from Sibel Edmonds’s court deposition.
    She reads calm and matter of fact.
    I cannot tell if the Brewster Jennings thing is a major breach or a deliberate co-intel set up.
    The stuff she raises about how the US funds Islamic groups in the ‘stans and finds it to be against US interests seems to me to be a misreading of US policy. In fact, that’s what we did. So no scandal there. We played one group off another in the hopes of creating something like stability. It kinda backfired.
    The money stuff for MCs doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If these people have safe seats, they don’t need the bribes as campaign donations.
    The revolving door issues are significant, but public, so I don’t see a whole major scandal there.
    And honestly, how “inimical” to American interests is it if the genocide bill doesn’t pass? So making this out to be anything huge is a little off.
    Arms deals and nuclear secrets would seem to be the main concern then, and the chances of multi-directional scheming go up dramatically on this one.
    So I’m still very much in the skeptics camp on the whole thing.
    If it were a rainy day, this would be a pleasant way to spend it, I guess….. Like a spy novel.

    Reply

  63. questions says:

    Just read the Vanity Fair piece, and the only part that seems possibly reasonably conspiratorial/spyish is the Melek Can Dickerson person. And even there, it’s not a perfect case. There are leaps from conversations and suggestions that might be overmuch, the main “hard” evidence would be incomplete transcripts and calls marked as unimportant.
    The hiring of the incompetent and unvetted seems to be agency-wide. My personal guess is that it’s government-wide.
    The author of the piece says right out that the Hastert thing — the whole Chicago thing, it would seem — could easily be empty boasting. So what they have on Hastert is Turkish conversations saying that they paid him off — no Hastert confessions. And they have his having received more than a usual amount of small donations without names. Not airtight at all.
    So what does this add up to? Bureaucratic crap for sure. Turf defense which one expects. A weird visit with Dickerson and spouse who are up in the Turkish world. A possibly weird request from Dickerson to cover particular individuals’ conversations such that she’d have the opportunity to monitor the people herself and not pass on information if she chose. And a possible threat to Edmonds that her Turkish family might be harmed — this is the threat thing I alluded to above but misread as a defense of another translator’s refusing to translate everything. Unless in fact my first reading was correct and Edmonds saw a threat where there wasn’t one. who knows.
    Also, learned that Edmonds is Iranian with Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani and well as English.
    The interview was in 2005.
    Now is it a little more umphy than the 60 Minutes piece? Does the drama increase over time, or does she just get more comfortable telling tales or have more people come to her quietly over time and so she has more ammunition or do the journalists do more investigation? I do not know.

    Reply

  64. questions says:

    According to Bradblog, the interview was done in 2002, and she was “gagged” and so couldn’t speak. But I gotta say, Blagojevich claims to be gagged but was on Jon Stewert the other day and managed to talk around the gag and hint that there was lots more. Didn’t see anything like that in the 60 minutes transcript.
    So if she doesn’t hint at it, why does it come up later?
    I’m thinking out loud here. And I’m pretty skeptical.

    Reply

  65. questions says:

    I just read the 60 Minutes transcript — I’m going to lose another weekend over this crap….
    And the main complaints in that transcript are that:
    1) The FBI hired underqualified people in a rush to get warm bodies in place right after 9/11
    2) Translators were told to slow down/had work deleted from their computers (Sibel Edmonds, that is) in order to make their work infinite and their budgetary commitments fabulous.
    3) Important sections of dialogue were left out of transcripts possibly because people were afraid of being implicated in 9/11 detective work after the fact. (Someone worries about the risk of harm over translation work and so leaves out damning sections.)
    So far, this doesn’t sound very conspiratorious, does it? It sounds pretty standard bureaucracy-ness to me.
    Now, if we grant Edmonds her strongest case, at this point in the discussion, what we get is fairly typical incompetence and bureaucratic behavior. This interview was conducted in August 2004 near as I can tell.
    So why does it all get so much more elaborate in 2009? Was she lying in 2004? Ill-informed?
    Does it all hang together?

    Reply

  66. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Read Sibel’s letter. Then search questions’ three posts for anything that even vaquely calls into question the extensive collabration that Sibel offers.
    Questions’ short evasive nothings are once again replaced by longer nothings.

    Reply

  67. questions says:

    Now, we know that Bin Laden was a CIA asset for quite some time. We know that the US government is routinely involved in a range of covert activities in order to get information about other governments. We support insurrections that come back to smack us in the face over and over again. We know there’s drug dealing and arms dealing.
    So what is the real shock of the spy stuff as opposed to the sex stuff?
    Saddam Hussein was our client for a long time. And then he wasn’t. Osama Bin Laden was our client for a long time, and then he wasn’t. Are these tales of Edmonds’s so completely out of the ordinary?
    Note that I’m arguing both sides here because I don’t really know what’s what. I wouldn’t be surprised about drugs and arms and money. But I would assume that there are some standard policy preferences behind the deals. Arms for hostages, after all, was intended to move US policy along.
    So, assuming for the moment that it all happened just the way she says, what’s the shock? That nuclear secrets move around? That there are bargains? That we funnel shit to Pakistan to help support a crappy regime? But isn’t that US policy already?
    Don’t we always/often support crappy regimes in whatever ways we can?
    Why would Edmonds’s claims, then, blow the lid off of anything? This, assuming they are true rather than crazed.
    My brain cells are working overtime on this one. I’d appreciate answers, and again, not snidities.

    Reply

  68. questions says:

    And a couple more, while I’m on it….
    Who bugged the alleged Schakowsky townhouse? If it was the Turks, then isn’t there some FBICIANSC concern about foreign governments’ bugging MC homes? Has there been an investigation into this part?
    If the FBI bugged the alleged Schakowsky townhouse, then what led the FBI to run the sting? Where was Schakowsky in her career at this point?
    Were the FBI and the Turks cooperating in the sting?
    If this was directed at her husband more than at her, why was it done this way? She had this tryst, they wanted the tape to be able to blackmail her, what would the blackmail be? Make your husband do this thing, or we’ll tell him your active bi? How would she make him do this thing, whatever it is, under these circumstances?
    What is the Turks’ motive for the blackmail? Just the Armenian-genocide vote? Would it be worthwhile? Bugging, listening, blackmailing (or not blackmailing, but being ready to blackmail). It’s a lot of work.
    And what is the evidence for this event? What or whom exactly did Edmonds hear on tape?

    Reply

  69. questions says:

    Sincere questions if anyone has any answers rather than snidities I’d appreciate it.
    Did Edmonds listen to tapes made by the FBI or by the Turks? Or by both?
    Was the FBI running stings on the CIA? On members of Congress?
    If there are such stings, is this entrapment? Setting up Schakowsky this way would seem, in my head, to constitute something like entrapment. If it happened that is.
    Who set up the alleged Schakowsky sting? If the Turks, why does the FBI have the sex tape?
    Does the FBI have the actual sex tape, or does it merely have hearsay about the sex tape? Do the Turks have the sex tape?
    If the conversations are largely dealing with US members of Congress, then they wouldn’t likely be in Turkish or Azerbaijani, so why the translator?
    If the conversations are really in Turkish, then they are hearsay and not evidence? Is this correct? Is there a lawyer who could explain?
    If the FBI collected all these tapes only to ignore them, if the FBI ran stings only to have them dealt with by incompetent translators, WHY? Why run the stings in the first place?
    How competent a translator is Sibel Edmonds? And if she’s Turkish, could she be more implicated than not? I really don’t know. But spy stuff is intricate and interesting.
    Is the FBI snooping on the CIA? Are both snooping on Congress? Would the committee staffs of the relevant committees necessarily know any of this stuff?
    Maybe the answers are out there already. Maybe the questions are really stupid. But they’re running through my head and I sincerely would like answers to these as I try to figure out what the whole thing is about. Stuff doesn’t add up in my head, so if there’s someone out there better at “math” than I am, please reply.
    So if anyone could go a point at a time through, I think I’d have a lot more clarity than I do now, and maybe I’d change my mind about the whole thing, as I am deeply uncertain, though leaning.

    Reply

  70. arthurdecco says:

    “No conviction, no substance, offered with no integrity.” referring to questions, typed by POA
    nuf said.

    Reply

  71. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Once again, with all of questions many words, did you see him rebut one single aspect of Sibel’s letter? Did you see him rebut or discredit one single collaborative witness, file, or court transcript cited in Sibel’s letter?
    He offers NOTHING in argument. His posting on this thread is actually comical in its lack of depth or substance.
    Argument for argument’s sake. No conviction, no substance, offered with no integrity.

    Reply

  72. pauline says:

    Edmonds claims that during her time at the FBI (September 20, 2001 to March 22, 2002) she discovered that intelligence material had been deliberately allowed to accumulate without translation; that inept translators were retained and promoted; and that evidence for traffic in nuclear materials was ignored. More shockingly, she charges that Mark Grossman arranged for Turkish and Israeli Ph.D. students to acquire security clearances to Los Alamos and other nuclear facilities; and that nuclear secrets they acquired were transmitted to Pakistan and to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the “father of the Islamic bomb,” who in turn was selling nuclear technology to Libya and other nations.
    She links Grossman to the former Pakistani military intelligence chief Mahmoud Ahmad, a patron of the Taliban who reportedly arranged for a payment of $ 100,000 to 9/11 ringleader Atta via Pakistani terrorist Saeed Sheikh before the attacks. She suggests that he warned Pakistani and Turkish contacts against dealings with the Brewster Jennings Corp., the CIA front company that Valerie Plame was involved in as part of an effort to infiltrate a nuclear smuggling ring. All very heady stuff, published this month in the Times of London (and largely ignored by the U.S. media).
    She does not identify Grossman by name in the Times article, but she has in the past, and former CIA officer Philip Giraldi does so in an extremely interesting article in the American Conservative. From that and many other sources, I come up with the timeline that appears below. But first, some background on Grossman. A graduate of UC-Santa Barbara and the London School of Economics, he was a career Foreign Service officer from 1976 when he began to serve at the U.S. embassy in Pakistan. He continued in that post to 1983, when he became the Deputy Director of the Private Office of Lord Carrington, the Secretary General of NATO. From 1989 to 1992 he was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Turkey, and from 1994 to 1997, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. As ambassador he strongly supported massive arms deals between the U.S. and Ankara.
    Thereafter he was Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, responsible for over 4,000 State Department employees posted in 50 sites abroad with a program budget of $1.2 billion in 2000. In 1999 he played a leading role in orchestrating NATO’s 50th anniversary Summit in Washington, and helped direct U.S. participation in NATO’s military campaign in Kosovo that same year. As Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration to January 2005, he played a bit role in the Plame Affair, informing “Scooter” Libby of Plame’s CIA affiliation.
    Grossman is close to the American Turkish Council (ATC) founded in 1994 as a sister organization to the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). Its founders include neoconservatives involved in the Israel-Turkey relationship, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, as well as Henry Kissinger, Brent Snowcroft and former congressman Stephen Solarz. (Perle and Feith had earlier been registered lobbyists for Turkey through Feith’s company, International Advisors Inc. Parle was at one point making $ 600,000 per year from such activity). Edmonds says this is “an association in name and in charter only, the reality is that it and other affiliated associations are the U.S. government, lobbyists, foreign agents, and Military Industrial Complex.” (M. Christine Vick of Grossman’s Cohen Group serves on the Board of Advisors.) Grossman is also close to the American Turkish Association (ATA), and regularly speaks at its events.
    The both ATA and ATC have been targets of FBI investigations because of their suspected ties with drug smuggling, but Edmonds claims she heard wiretaps connecting ATC with other illegal activities, some related to 9/11. The CIA has investigated it in connection with the smuggling of nuclear secrets and material. Valerie Plame and the CIA front group Brewster Jennings were monitoring it when Bush administration officials leaked her identity in July 2003.
    Edmonds, Giraldi, and researchers Christopher Deliso and Luke Ryland accuse him of suspiciously enriching himself while in government service. Nevertheless he was awarded the Foreign Service’s highest rank when President Bush appointed him to the rank of Career Ambassador in 2004, and received Secretary of State’s Distinguished Service Award the following year.
    A dual Israeli-American national, Grossman has promoted the neocon agenda of forcing “regime change” in the Middle East. “[T]he time has come now,” he declared on the eve of the Iraq invasion, “to make a stand against this kind of connection between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. And we think Iraq is a place to make that stand first the great threat today is the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.” But he has not been as conspicuous a war advocate Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Bolton, and some others. (Perle and Feith, one should note, were also deeply involved in lobbying activities on behalf of Turkey as well as Israel in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Edelman was ambassador to Turkey 2003-05 where, chagrined by the Turkish failure to enthusiastically support the U.S. occupation of Iraq, he deeply offended his hosts.) Grossman seems less an ideologue driven to make the world safer for Israel than a corrupt, amoral, self-aggrandizing opportunist. Anyway, here is an incomplete chronology of his alleged wrongdoing, along with other relevant details.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01292008.html

    Reply

  73. questions says:

    POA, I have other things to do besides spending another crazed 40 hours at the computer researching another crazed CT.
    I don’t at all see eye-to-eye with you on this. I don’t have conspiracy thinking in my very DNA. I disagree with your interpretation of the whole Edmonds thing. I have laid out my arguments. I stick with the earlier as well as later ones. I don’t feel like repeating myself over and over again.
    I don’t trust Edmonds’s reports. I don’t trust the statements in support of her. I don’t trust Giraldi to be without agenda. Things don’t stack up for me. I don’t think the Schakowsky thing makes a lot of sense. The rest of the charges are a little on the nutty side for me as well.
    But because I’m honest about things (regardless of what you say) I will say it loud, say it proud, I don’t have proof one way or the other. I have tendencies and leanings. And I tend away from the Edmonds worldview. Is she lying? Deceived? Misinterpreting? Fed crap to report crap? Being tested to see if she spoke up or not? Who the hell knows. I certainly don’t. But the case is on the kooky side for my sense of the world. And it fits beautifully with yours. We’re different that way.
    She worked for 6 months. Not a lot of time. She unearthed this insanely huge conspiracy that no one else seems to have been aware of because, umm, the FBI wants this all to happen? But the FBI knew enough to tape these secret trysts? Or was it the Turks doing the taping? Or was the FBI taping the Turks taping the criminals? Oh, I get it. The FBI and the Turks are in on this together. They tape all this stuff in Turkish — that’s why they needed the translators because in fact, Schakowsky’s bisexual/lesbian trysts are all conducted in Turkish and Azerbaijani. So of course it would be something for Edmonds to be translating.
    How do you say, “Oh yes!” in Turkish?
    Or did Edmonds merely hear some Turkish conversation in which this was all described? In which case it becomes something closer to, umm, hearsay?
    Maybe Giraldi explains this all. I have certainly not read every word on the topic….
    Who really knows. But I’ll bet you have a retort for this one too….
    Any suggestion I make that hints that the dossier is off a bit will be met with your insistence that I’m hasbara or a buffoon.
    So there you go.

    Reply

  74. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Questions argument gets weaker and weaker the further he moves himself away from arguing against the actual accusations and alleged “facts”. Note…
    “It’s quite possible that Edmonds thinks she saw/heard what she saw/heard. That doesn’t mean her interpretation is correct”
    …which fails to rebut the existence of the substantial amount of colloborative contacts, files, and authorities that she cites in her letter. Out of the volume of collaborative wtnesses she offers, questions says “And Grassley is on your side?”.
    Only Grassley?
    “my side”???
    What, exactly, did he just rebut?? Nothing.
    Argument for arguments sake. Weak. Unconvicted. Dissingenuous. And despicable in its intent.

    Reply

  75. Paul Norheim says:

    For the US, EVERYTHING involving Turkey is a delicate and sensitive matter. I doubt
    there are many US allies more important (actually and potentially) than Turkey after
    the cold war, due to geography, political and cultural ambiguities and crossroads etc.
    Sibel Edmonds may have stumbled upon exactly what she claims, or something bigger, or
    some other delicate matters or mine fields that she has partly misinterpreted due to
    her limited access of information.
    In any case I think it`s premature to conclude that her claims just represent another
    example of a bunch of lunatics finding a new conspiracy theory.

    Reply

  76. questions says:

    POA,
    It’s quite possible that Edmonds thinks she saw/heard what she saw/heard. That doesn’t mean her interpretation is correct. The gagging happened under Bush when everything was a state secret. And on and on and on.
    Think Judy Miller. She got played.
    And Grassley is on your side?
    There’s not enough for me, but there’s plenty for you. We’re different that way. Maybe it’s Free Gaza redux, maybe not. But since I am not personally or professionally involved in this one, again, it doesn’t matter what I think. But I still think that it’s not a straightforward case of massive governmental conspiracy involving Turkey, Israel, filmed trysts, and Congress.

    Reply

  77. PissedOffAmerican says:

    From Schakowsky’s original response to Sibel’s assertions….
    “A 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”
    Hmmmm. Something tells me Schakowsky ain’t gonna break any speed records getting around to seeing that “a simple review of the facts” is actually conducted.
    I wonder if she’s read Sibel’s letter yet. I hope so, because after two or three days of not getting any sleep, she’s gonna start making mistakes. I wonder how many people have contacted her by now and told her to keep her mouth shut.

    Reply

  78. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wow. That is one awesome letter. If you’ve read it, read it again at Brad’s blog, and click on Sibel’s links.
    Its Schakowsky’s move. And it better be a damned good one.
    I sincerely hope American Conservative runs this letter.

    Reply

  79. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wow!!!
    Sibel just knocked one out of the ballpark with a formal letter addressing Schakowsky’s office’s response to Sibel’s accusations.
    From Bradblog…
    (Be sure to click on the link, as Sibel’s links to the various people cited are included within Sibel’s letter, but can’t be inbcluded here at TWN…..)
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7433
    In Pursuit of the Facts
    Inviting Ms. Schakowsky to Join…
    Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky:
    It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations.
    When I became aware of incriminating evidence against high-level U.S. officials—elected and appointed—I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and fought for five years in court. I bore tremendous cost, financially and emotionally, to make this data public. Here is the court case identification: C.A. No. 1:02CV01294 (ESH).
    Few citizens have gone this far in a FOIA case to make covered-up information available to the public. No one gains financially from fighting this kind of thing in court, and I am no exception. You have called me a fantasist, but would a fabricator pay as dearly as I did to have her claims investigated?
    I fought another court case to expose government criminality through key witnesses and documents. As in the FOIA case, I bore tremendous costs and was again blocked by the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege and National Security. The court case identification is Civ.No.1:02CV01448(JR)).
    No other citizen has twice had the State Secrets Privilege invoked. But why would the government, with the support of congressional representatives, go to such lengths to quash, gag, and classify the files and operations in question if they were “fantasy, lies, and nonexistent” as you say?
    I complied with the whistleblowing rule and took my case to the Office of the Inspector General and provided all of the information they allowed me to. They interviewed dozens of witnesses and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents in their investigation of my credibility and the validity of my case. Here is the link to their confirmation that I and my case have merit: DOJ-IG Report. Here is the redacted report that shows how our government censored more than 90% of this report to the public: Redacted DOJ-IG Report. Very few national security whistleblowers have been granted this level of validation and vindication. The Justice Department’s own Office of the Inspector General disagrees with your characterization of me and my case.
    Several senior members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle–have also investigated and publicly confirmed my credibility and the grave nature of my disclosures. This is what Senator Leahy had to say: Leahy Statement. This is what Congresswoman Maloney said: Rep. Maloney Statement. Here are the assessments of Senator Lautenberg–Sen. Lautenberg Statement—and Senator Grassley–Sen. Grassley Statement. By attacking my credibility, you are also attacking your colleagues, including many on your side of the aisle. Are you accusing these senators and representatives of being fantasists too?
    You have been described as a “true blue” civil libertarian, so it will surely interest you to know that the ACLU has declared me “the most gagged” person in the history of this great nation. Are you also attacking the ACLU and calling their characterization of this case a fantasy?
    I have testified under oath, and my public biography will provide you with information about my educational background, financial background, and family life. I am fully aware of the consequences of perjury, and as you can see, I would have a lot to lose were that the case. I am sure you are familiar with my sworn testimony, but you can review it here. I’ve done more than my share through the courts, IG offices, Congress, and media. I don’t have your power. You sit on the House Intelligence Committee, and you are one of the members of the majority party in Congress.
    Here is what you can do: Call for an investigation and a hearing before your committee on this long covered-up case. Subpoena the files and call the witnesses. Bring in retired Special Agent Gilbert Graham and have him testify on the official report and complaint he filed with the DOJ inspector general in 2002 regarding the FBI counterespionage investigations involving Turkey and Israel in which targeted US representatives were illegally wiretapped. This is not fiction. Here is the official and signed public version: SA Gilbert Graham Report.
    Also bring in former FBI Counterintelligence Operations Manager & Espionage Investigator John M. Cole and have him testify under oath regarding espionage cases involving State Department officials, Pentagon officials, and Congressional members. Here is a preview of some of the information disclosed and confirmed by Agent Cole: Interview and Radio Interview.
    Also bring in the sworn testimonies of current FBI special agents in the Chicago and DC field offices who dutifully and patriotically led the counterintelligence operations on Turkey and corrupt US officials, only to see their investigations blocked and covered-up. Their names are public.
    Order the Justice Department to release the two main Counterintelligence Operations Files on Turkey and “US persons of interest”—one from FBI Chicago Field Office-1996-2002, the other from FBI DC Field Office-1996-2001. These will help bring out the facts regarding your story too. I have documentation supporting the existence of these files.
    Recall that I did not accuse you of any criminal or espionage-related activity.
    The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government. It would be far better if you used your position to bring out the facts. I will be delighted to assist you.
    Sibel Edmonds

    Reply

  80. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “POA,much of the same stuff could be said of some combination of aluminum tubes and the birth certificate “controversy””
    Oh really???
    We had sworn depositions, OIG confirmation, FBI collaboration, and stiff gag orders applied to the birther’s claims and the aluminum tube horseshit???? As well as a media blackout????
    Golly, I musta missed that.

    Reply

  81. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yaaaaaawn.

    Reply

  82. questions says:

    POA,much of the same stuff could be said of some combination of aluminum tubes and the birth certificate “controversy”. Journalists, MCs, intel people, people in the highest levels of government….
    What I can’t see is why you’d trust all these people on this issue but wouldn’t trust them on, say, 9/11 or aluminum tubes — you trust the government when they say what you want, and don’t trust them the rest of the time.
    I’m just not convinced.
    But don’t worry. I’m not in a position to authorize or not authorize an investigation. So it doesn’t really matter what I think about Edmonds’s allegations, does it now? Any investigation there will be, will be, regardless of me.
    But why is it you trust this time, and not on 9/11 stuff? 9/11 seems to me to cohere much better than Edmonds’s accounts.
    And come to think of it, it’s not like I have anything to do with AIPAC. I just have issues with the direction of causation in money/Congress relations, and I have issues with the nature of “power.” The former will one day be dealt with by Nate Silver and the latter by some philosopher or other who finally explains what “power” is such that AIPAC is included or not. Then I’ll know.

    Reply

  83. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Questions musta missed this part of Kingfisher’s post….
    “But you mischaracterize Giraldi’s reasons for
    trusting Sibel. Sibel’s accusations have been found credible by 1) the OIG which investigated them after she was wrongfully terminated 2) multiple congressmen to whom she gave classified
    briefings, basically telling them everything in the Giraldi article and more. Go do a search and look for the letters sent to the DOJ by Leahy and Grassley. 3) Multiple journalists including Joe Lauria writing for the Sunday Times and David Rose for Vanity Fair. Both of whom did tons of background research and got confirmation of her accusations from multiple independent
    sources inside the FBI and other agencies”
    But at least questions is diligent in latching onto the sex scandal part of the narrative, and is certainly conscientious in his liberal insertion of the “conspiracy theory” bomb in his skepticism.
    I am always amazed at question’s powers of deduction, which, in a just a few short days can deduce away the credibility of such wacko conspiracy theorists as these nut jobs Kingfisher cites in his comment. Leahy, Grassley, David Rose, Friedmman, Giraldi, Waxman, the OIG, various FBI agents, Lauria…..
    Yep, this questions fella is a regular powerhouse of repudiation, ain’t he? Two days of study, and he’s discredited years of compiled evidence and investigation by Friedman and Giraldi. WOW!!!!
    He has also dispelled the myth of the power of the Israeli lobbies, such as AIPAC. Now what more evidence do we need to consider him the voice of reason?

    Reply

  84. questions says:

    jbnhm (hope I got that right),
    She’s the founder of the whistle blower group you refer to above (at least I think I read that) and so her being pres. doesn’t mean a whole lot.
    Because a lot of her stuff doesn’t ring true to me, because there are timing issues, Schakowsky inaccuracies, because there’s a kind of grandiosity to the whole tale, I remain a deep skeptic. She may well have heard a bunch of stuff on the tapes, she may well not have the right interpretation of what she heard. She may have embellished her tale over time, or maybe it’s because of the “America’s Most Gagged” status. I dunno.
    Everyone calls for investigations of everything. Should we do one for Obama’s birth cert? After all, there ARE inconsistencies and some MCs who seem to be happy to go along with it.
    Investigations are fine up to some indeterminate point, at which point they become the means to damage our ability to govern. A full-throttled look at Obama’s birth situation is unnecessary, but would provide a kind of legitimacy for political insanity. A full-throttled look at whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon is a little loony. I think, thus far, a full-throttled investigation into Edmonds’s claims is more on that end of the spectrum.
    Note, by the way, how you have to distance yourself on the google conspiracy issue. For me, Edmonds’s tale seems more on that end of things. I’m sure people will keep digging, and maybe something will turn up. But, as with the 9/11 stuff, a conspiracy THIS LARGE needs to have had a lot of participants and Edmonds is insufficient in my view. Especially given the Schakowsky errors. Or at least, seeming errors.
    And again, on the amount of stuff she translated and heard about — I don’t do translation, but I know some translators. It’s a lot of work, getting the nuance correct takes time. The deadline pressure keeps translators up all night. It’s not instantaneous. If she put in normal work hours over 6 months, how much really could she come across? Remember, this stuff has to be listened to in real time, with all the umms and ahhs and pauses. And then it has to be rendered into the appropriate language, transcribed, edited and grammar-proofed, and idiom-checked. Given the seriousness of the tapes, she would have to work extra extra carefully to make sure she, say, doesn’t have someone calling for the annihilation of Israel when in fact he’s saying the Holocaust is no excuse (or whatever it is that’s been said about Ahmadinejad’s words.) Either the conversations were already vetted, in which case she was handed some very specific stuff to deal with, or there weren’t that many, in which case the conversations were part of a targeted investigation that was ongoing. Or she couldn’t have gotten through a whole helluva lot in 6 months. Especially if she was also interviewing and writing up notes and the like.
    On the document and file numbers — could she be making it all up? Could she feel pretty certain that no documents will ever be released? I couldn’t answer for sure. But this issue isn’t enough of a push for me to be willing to swallow the whole tale.
    So, in the end, I still remain deeply skeptical. Maybe I would have been just as skeptical at the arms for hostages thing (but I wasn’t actually, come to think of it — it made a lot of sense to me at the time). On this one, I’m just not biting so far.
    But thank you much for the balanced tone in your note. It’s kind of a nice change of pace from the usual around here.

    Reply

  85. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The sun don’t shine much in the Pacific Northwest”
    Thats not true. Having had spent seventeen years in North Idaho, I am sure I saw the sun once, in 1983. I know that for a fact, because thats the year I managed to get my car to start.

    Reply

  86. Kingfisher says:

    Sibel has made her claims, and has stated that she is willing to provide the case file numbers to where the evidence that supports her claims is located. It is simple; if you think Sibel Edmonds is fabricating any of this, do this: call her bluff.
    If you think she is full of BS then push for the Government to look into the files and publicly make the case that she is full of it.
    Steve,
    I think highly of you and The Washington Note; if you think this is a non-story then prove it by doing this to shut everybody up about it. At this point anything less and I will think less of you as a professional and as a man.
    Sincerely,
    KF

    Reply

  87. jbnhm says:

    @questions
    I don’t want to turn this whole thread into something about Sibel
    Edmonds. It should be about lots of other things as well.
    Nevertheless while I’m not so concerned with Google News and
    see no conspiracy there. As you correctly point out that has a lot
    to do with algorithms and search methods and how they select
    sources etc. But you mischaracterize Giraldi’s reasons for
    trusting Sibel. Sibel’s accusations have been found credible by
    1) the OIG which investigated them after she was wrongfully
    terminated 2) multiple congressmen to whom she gave classified
    briefings, basically telling them everything in the Giraldi article
    and more. Go do a search and look for the letters sent to the
    DOJ by Leahy and Grassley. 3) Multiple journalists including Joe
    Lauria writing for the Sunday Times and David Rose for Vanity
    Fair. Both of whom did tons of background research and got
    confirmation of her accusations from multiple independent
    sources inside the FBI and other agencies.
    To answer your question about how she learned all this in 6
    months. She was translating tapes left over from 96 all the way
    up to 2002 and also participated in direct questioning of some
    suspects. In addition she was president of the National Security
    Whistle Blowers Association which has over 140 members from
    many many agencies of the government including NSA, CIA, DIA
    etc. She has lots of contacts inside the intelligence field from
    which she has gotten information to flesh out her story and
    provide the context you seem to think she’s missing.
    This is not to say she’s right about everything but her claims are
    certainly worthy of investigation. No one who looks at it
    objectively could conclude otherwise.

    Reply

  88. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Sorry, heres the link to Brad’s blog and comment….
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7429

    Reply

  89. PissedOffAmerican says:

    My apologies to Brad for calling him “Fieldman” in my above response to “questions”. I had just finished shooting some extremely close photo shots of a bull elk that was across the street from my house, and I had a bit of adrenalin going. Seems the bull was not real enthused about me getting too close to the cow he had hanging with him. Lot of grunting and prancing going on, so I tried to stay close to a tree I could scale should he try to close the fifty feet we had between us. Kinda rattled me, to be honest. I’ve seen an angry bull in action before, and its amazing how fast they can move.
    Nina posted a couple of the shots on her website….
    http://deepintoartlifewestgallery.blogspot.com/
    Meanwhile, from the Bradblog……
    COMMENT #45
    … PissedOffAmerican said on 9/24/2009 @ 10:21 am PT…
    Damn, people, I could use a little help here….
    http://www.thewashington…uest_note_by_r/index.php
    ….do you want this story to go mainstream or not?????
    ——————————————————————————–
    COMMENT #46
    … Brad Friedman said on 9/24/2009 @ 10:48 am PT…
    Thanks, POA. I’ll try to jump over there. Happy to appear any time on Riz’s show. Was on it last October, video here, so hopefully they still no how to reach me.
    Unfortunately, I’ve got to spend the next hour or two finishing up today’s Green News Report, so don’t know if I’ll have time to go post over at TWN. You are free to pass this on.
    I should add, btw, Steve Clemons and the Washington Note were mentioned by Joe Lauria (who co-wrote the 3-part UK Sunday Times expose on Sibel’s story, read ’em all here, here and here) during his interview with Scott Horton Tuesday.
    Apparently Steve was offered the exclusive on the Edmonds deposition before we had it even posted here at The BRAD BLOG. For whatever reason, and I’m sure there plenty of good ones, Steve seems to have declined, according to Lauria in the interview, despite the very hot, exclusve on-ramp he would have had to this story.
    Anyway, I’ll do my best to jump over to TWN, but I likely won’t be able to do so for at least an hour. Pass on whatever of this note that you like until then. And, as mentioned, Riz’s AJ folks should have my phone number already if I can be of service over there.

    Reply

  90. Paul Norheim says:

    Let`s hope that Riz Khan or other journalists at Al
    Jazeera reads the comments here.

    Reply

  91. PissedOffAmerican says:

    My apologies to Brad for calling him “Fieldman” in my above response to “questions”. I had just finished shooting some extremely close photo shots of a bull elk that was across the street from my house, and I had a bit of adrenalin going. Seems the bull was not real enthused about me getting too close to the cow he had hanging with him. Lot of grunting and prancing going on, so I tried to stay close to a tree I could scale should he try to close the fifty feet we had between us. Kinda rattled me, to be honest. I’ve seen an angry bull in action before, and its amazing how fast they can move.
    Nina posted a couple of the shots on her website….
    http://deepintoartlifewestgallery.blogspot.com/
    Meanwhile, from the Bradblog……
    COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
    … PissedOffAmerican said on 9/24/2009 @ 10:21 am PT…
    Damn, people, I could use a little help here….
    http://www.thewashington…uest_note_by_r/index.php
    ….do you want this story to go mainstream or not?????
    ——————————————————————————–
    COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
    … Brad Friedman said on 9/24/2009 @ 10:48 am PT…
    Thanks, POA. I’ll try to jump over there. Happy to appear any time on Riz’s show. Was on it last October, video here, so hopefully they still no how to reach me.
    Unfortunately, I’ve got to spend the next hour or two finishing up today’s Green News Report, so don’t know if I’ll have time to go post over at TWN. You are free to pass this on.
    I should add, btw, Steve Clemons and the Washington Note were mentioned by Joe Lauria (who co-wrote the 3-part UK Sunday Times expose on Sibel’s story, read ’em all here, here and here) during his interview with Scott Horton Tuesday.
    Apparently Steve was offered the exclusive on the Edmonds deposition before we had it even posted here at The BRAD BLOG. For whatever reason, and I’m sure there plenty of good ones, Steve seems to have declined, according to Lauria in the interview, despite the very hot, exclusve on-ramp he would have had to this story.
    Anyway, I’ll do my best to jump over to TWN, but I likely won’t be able to do so for at least an hour. Pass on whatever of this note that you like until then. And, as mentioned, Riz’s AJ folks should have my phone number already if I can be of service over there.
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7429

    Reply

  92. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yes, but considering the way the Goldstone report is being handled by Obama and crew, it is especially important that Al Jazeera revisit the issue, and underscore the veracity of the claims made in the Goldstone report. PARTICULARLY the english version of Al Jazeera. God knows, our own media is not up to the task.

    Reply

  93. Paul Norheim says:

    “and the carnage inflicted upon the Palestinians by
    Operation Cast Lead.”
    Al Jazeera certainly covered that in detail last
    winter. And Al Jazeera`s Bagdad headquarter was
    bombed by the Americans during the invasion.

    Reply

  94. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And by the way, Riz, addressing the issue you market above does not exactly invite redemption for failing to note the million or so dead Iraqi non-combatants and the carnage inflicted upon the Palestinians by Operation Cast Lead.
    In truth, I have no idea whether or not you have raised these issues or not, and am not accusing you of the customary cowardice we have come to expect and accept from our own media. But one hopes you are not using the American media whores for inspiration in achieving whatever journalist plateau you imagine retiring upon.
    When I see Al Jazeera covering, (at the very least), Sibel’s sworn and recorded testimony, then perhaps we can consider it a notch or two above the old soviet propaganda arm, TASS. But unfortunately, our own media has proven itself to be no less state controlled than TASS, and I have to admit, I’m not all that optimistic about Al Jazeera.
    Prove me wrong.

    Reply

  95. questions says:

    Oh, and go ahead and “ask google”: how does google choose news stories — or some such phrasing. They seem to be open about it all.
    And you will find all sorts of information about the number of sources, the algorithm they use to figure things out, and at least a suggestion I saw that in fact you have to petition google to be included in their news search. Not sure about this and I’m not in the mood to blunder again.
    Maybe there aren’t a lot of magazines and minor news sources in the google news stream. Maybe what some people think of as “news” isn’t what you think of as “news.” Hmmm.
    There’s some interesting tech stuff behind all of this about how to rank sources and stories and quality of information and do it within an algorithm. But go ahead and add it to the conspiracy pile. The googles are out to get you…..

    Reply

  96. questions says:

    The sun don’t shine much in the Pacific Northwest. Will that do for you?
    No rebuttal isn’t proof of anything.
    People lie in sworn testimony.
    She might be telling the truth about what she heard in the tapes but might not be correct in her interpretation of it. (Disinformation, I believe, is what Steve was hinting at.)
    LBJ is famous for advocating levying charges at people in order to hear them deny the charges, because a denial might as well be a confession around here.
    It goes along with the old line, “When did you stop raping your grandmother?” Of course one never “stopped” because one never “started” — how do you answer things like that?
    But you have it all figured out along with disappearing websites and reappearing Chertoffs.
    Giraldi is not necessarily someone whose every word I’d hang on, American Conservative is not a publication from which I’d necessarily recite the gospel, and an interviewer isn’t the same as corroboration. So all Giraldi can say is, “Sibel said so and I looked deep into her eyes and saw she was telling the truth.” AND “It squares with what I saw in my work on clandestine matters.” Neither of these is iron clad.
    There’s enough pushback on this one, and enough oddities — Edmonds worked there for 6 months and found all of this? Edmonds is a translator with how much intel experience? Edmonds’s top secret clearance allowed her to listen to surveillance tapes and translate them. It didn’t guarantee that she had access to full contexts for what she was listening to. And finally, if she was the most squished or silenced or gagged human being in the history of all human kind, perhaps it’s because she walked into something well beyond what it seems to be. Or maybe, typical Bush admin, everything is a state secret including the weekly grocery lists….
    (OOOOHHHHH — I’m out-conspiracizing you!!! This is fun. Ok, so there’s this pipeline that has to be built from Illinois to Turkey, but there are three crucial Armenians who won’t participate unless Turkey accepts the genocide charges, but there are 5 crucial Turks who won’t accept the charges, but Shakowsky’s husband is an honorary godchild of a Turko-Armenian who hate pipelines, but loves this one Israeli……….)
    Oh, and why don’t you prove Giraldi a point at a time — you don’t because you take it on faith and you can’t prove it anyway. I can’t disprove it, but it’s off the wall enough that it seems pretty dubious. So I find what I think are holes, and it turns out I’m not the only one who wonders about the same set of holes. Maybe because the holes are real. Maybe because we all work for the FBISRAEL.

    Reply

  97. PissedOffAmerican says:

    You can shove your “conspiracy theory” rants where the sun don’t shine, questions.
    Come up with ONE LOGICAL REASON that the MSM is not covering AT THE VERY LEAST Sibel’s sworn testimony.
    Yeah, questions, despite FBI collaboration, sworn testimony, and no rebuttal from Hastert, Grossman, etc, YOU are able to single handedly discredit Sibel’s accusations.
    Shit yeah, you obsfucating dissingenuous genius, you know FAR MORE than Philip Giraldi, Brad Fieldman, Sibel Edmonds, Henry Waxman, etc. Why you’re just a one man conspiracy theory crusher, aren’t you?
    And why disregard the FACT that Google does not bring up the Sibel Edmonds news articles when doing a “News Search”. Isn’t that what the “Advanced Search” and “News Search” options are for? Using your logic, yeah, the news articles are there in google, and all you have to do is search through a million or so hits to find them.
    Why don’t you take Giraldi’s commentary, cited above, and rebut it point by point. Short that, why don’t you just put a cork in it??

    Reply

  98. questions says:

    POA,
    Stop with the google news search stuff. It shows up on TEH GOOGLE itself, so just fucking use GOOGLE SEARCH instead of limiting it to NEWS. The stuff is out there. Even if there’s a conspiracy at the NYTIMESAIPACISRAELTURKEYCONGRESSUNITEDSTATESOFGOOGLE to keep it away from us, it all shows up on google.
    Now let me get something else straight —
    IF NO ONE COVERS the story, it’s PROOF POSITIVE there’s a conspiracy.
    IF EVERYONE COVERS IT but debunks it, it’s PROOF POSITIVE of a conspiracy.
    The only way it works out right is if everyone covers it AND AGREES with Edmonds despite the occasional “factual error” she makes. Now that would finally be proof there’s no conspiracy.
    Do you see how you stack the deck in advance whenever you’re on one of these kicks? It’s a rhetorical game you play over and over. The ONLY position is yours. All else is hypocrisy, jackassery, bullshit, stupid, corrupt…. All else.

    Reply

  99. Paul Geraghty says:

    Would love to hear Sibel Edmonds interviewed too. That interview could make waves around the world. She’s pretty good-looking, too, so might make up for the missing supermodels.

    Reply

  100. Dan Kervick says:

    Mr. Khan,
    Since Turlington speaks on behalf of CARE, perhaps you should contact them for suggestions on a stand-in. I’m sure they are keen to reach Al Jazeera’s audience on the topic of child and maternal health care. Here are their officers:
    http://www.care.org/about/board.asp

    Reply

  101. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Actually Steve, the Turkish press has been on it for some time now. The British Press has also given it some attention.
    A shame you aren’t willing to reach out to Brad, or even Giraldi, who commented on the original thread you did on Sibel. Both of them, I’m sure, would answer any questions you may have, or address specific points that feed your skepticism. Real guts would invite them to do a guest post.
    Did you know, if you do a google news search on Sibel, the American Conservative article doesn’t show up? Nor do the London articles, or the Turkish articles. Strange, eh?
    Even considering your skepticism, you hafta admit, the lack of media engagement is intriguing. As is the effort to keep this away from public consumption.
    Josh Marshall’s failure to address it is especially cowardly and telling, considering the nature of TPMuckraker, and their supposed purpose of exposing corruption and graft.
    Maddow, Olberman, Hannity and Limbaugh are “famous” too. Does that make them responsible members of the Fourth Estate? Sorry, but “fame”, these days, is hardly a glowing endorsement of journalistic integrity.
    BTW, Giraldi makes an compelling argument, above, does he not? What we DON’T see is compelling arguments that are able to justify, rationalize, or explain the reasoning behind NOT reporting on Sibel’s accusations. If you all are so convinced that Sibel is lying, why not expose her with some investigations that unearth the facts, instead of the ethereal reasoning and vague doubts that seem to be the basis for your skepticism? Or hey, you can join the crowd that just drools on about “conspiracy theories”, while never quite rebutting the assertions and accusations.
    I gotta kick out of Kervick’s letter to Hodes. I respect Dan’s attempt at activism, but a short google search on Hodes shows him to be one of the last people that would investigate this affair.
    And you gotta love that Reid, eh? Isn’t he one of your favorites? Shows real loyalty to his Pres, eh? I wonder what scheme he’s cooking up today to humiliate Obama on the world stage? Considering Sibel’s accusations, how are we to judge what kinds of “incentives” compel our leaders, such as Reid, to directly undermine their President’s policy advocations? Why’d Reid suddenly and inexplicably drop his Phase Two demands?
    I don’t envy you Steve, you are rubbing shoulders with some world class scum. Perhaps you’re just too smart to rock these criminal’s boats. Its a dangerous world, ain’t it?

    Reply

  102. Steve Clemons says:

    POA — Riz is super famous. But it is interesting that I haven’t seen much coverage of Edmonds’ whistle-blowing commentary in the Middle East press. All best, steve

    Reply

  103. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “It’s hard to get upset at supermodels (!), but as I write this, my team and I are scrambling to find either alternative guests or an alternative topic for today”
    So good for you, Riz. Now, do you REALLY want to be a journalist instead of a gossip columnist or a mewling mouthpiece??? Then cover this story on Al Jazeera. You do it right, and it will make you famous.
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/09/23/listening-to-sibel-edmonds/
    Listening to Sibel Edmonds
    by Philip Giraldi, September 24, 2009
    Sibel Edmonds, the FBI Turkish translator turned whistleblower, is the most gagged person in the history of the United States. The Justice Department under George W. Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft twice silenced her using the rarely employed state secrets privilege. The government and the mainstream media have presented a united front against her, calling her a “kook” and a liar, even though the gag order in itself confirmed that she had a tale to tell about massive government corruption that was all too credible and would embarrass Democrat and Republican alike.
    Sibel’s day in court came in early August when she was allowed to give a detailed deposition under oath in connection with a lawsuit filed in Ohio. Her deposition, naming names and providing corroborating details was predictably ignored by the mainstream media but was a sensation on the blogosphere. It led to my conducting an interview with Sibel for The American Conservative magazine, which appeared this week.
    Why is Sibel’s tale important for every American and why is it being ignored by our elected officials and the Fourth Estate? The story is important because it is about massive and systematic corruption of our elected officials and senior bureaucrats with the active connivance of the media. Worse, the corruption was carried out by agents of several foreign governments and involved nuclear secrets stolen from American defense laboratories and military bases that were, in some cases, sold to the highest bidder. Some of the congressmen involved are now retired and working for those very same foreign governments that stole America’s secrets.
    To those who claim that Sibel Edmonds is a fraud and that she is propagating lies for reasons of her own I would observe the following: Sibel has been interrogated by two US Senators, by the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office, and by suspicious fact checkers working for the television news program 60 Minutes, for the Times of London, and for Vanity Fair. She has been found to be a credible witness by everyone who has taken the time to talk to her and no one has ever been able to disprove any aspect of her story.
    Could it be that Sibel Edmonds is a clever and possibly even diabolical fraud artist who has manipulated me and others? Of course it’s possible, though I would point out that she has convinced a number of skeptics that there is substance to her allegations. I for one spent twenty years in Army intelligence and the CIA listening regularly to scoundrels, liars, and thieves spin their tales. If Sibel Edmonds is a fabricator, she is a damned good one. I would also note that there is a fundamental flaw to the criticism of Sibel, which is that she claims that every single statement made by her is backed up by actual documents in FBI investigative files dealing with the activities of foreign agents who were suborning our elected officials and senior bureaucrats. She has even provided the numbers of the files. At the end of the day, either the files and the evidence they contain are there or they are not. If they are not, then the government should make its case publicly that fraud is being committed by Sibel and her supporters and take whatever legal action they consider to be appropriate. I would suggest that the silence from the government over this matter in itself confirms that the allegations are true in every detail.
    Why does no one want to look into Sibel’s accusations? I would guess that it is partly because her tale involves Washington’s most powerful foreign policy lobby, that of Israel, and also the less powerful but undeniably important lobby of Turkey. But it is also due to the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are the evildoers in her story as well as senior officials in the Pentagon and State Department who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is a can of worms that no one wants to touch, which is precisely why it should be opened and examined if the public is every to regain faith in government.
    Some of Sibel’s allegations would be extraordinary at any time and are almost hard to believe. She reports that the CIA was covertly supporting al-Qaeda linked groups in the Balkans and central Asia right up until 9/11. She tells how a reporter at the New York Times was fed material by senior state department official Marc Grossman who was at the time taking bribes from Turkish contacts while alerting Turkish and Pakistani intelligence officers to the fact that Valerie Plame’s company Brewster-Jennings was a CIA cover unit engaged in preventing nuclear proliferation. Sibel names Pentagon insiders who obtained personnel information on government employees and contractors so that they could be targeted by foreign intelligence officers. She reveals that congressman Tom Lantos was openly passing classified information on to the government of Israel and that Israel would take what it wanted and then pass the remainder on to the Turks. Sibel describes how highly sensitive information from US defense labs would be collected by foreign graduate students carefully inserted into the labs then sold to the intelligence services of countries like Pakistan that were developing their own nuclear weapons. She details how one married Democratic congresswoman who was bisexual was targeted by Turkish agents and filmed being seduced by a woman who was provided for her, possibly to enable blackmail to secure the congresswoman’s cooperation. Sibel’s tale includes descriptions of how other congressmen received bribes and illegal political contributions and were rewarded by being given well-paying jobs ever after, with several of them now working for Turkish companies or as lobbyists for Turkey. She confirms that the Bush Administration was seeking to attack Iraq long before the twin towers fell, detailing how before 9/11 several Pentagon officials discussed with the Turkish government the invasion and division of Iraq into “spheres of influence” between Washington and London. The talks broke down when Ankara decided that it wanted its own slice of the pie.
    And no one seems to care. Congressman Henry Waxman, formerly chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, seemed interested in Sibel Edmonds’ story and appeared willing to open hearings, but his enthusiasm vanished at some point and he refused to return her calls. Was it because Israel was involved that Waxman developed cold feet? Was it because some of the traitors were Democrats? Quite possibly a combination of the two, though it is only my speculation. The current chairman of the committee Edolphus Towns has displayed no interest in the Edmonds case in spite of the Obama Administration’s pledge to bring change to government.
    It is clear that if the citizens of the United States are every actually to hear what Sibel Edmonds has to say it will be because the people demand it. It is time to call one’s congressman and ask “What about Sibel Edmonds?” It is time to write letters to the newspapers and television news media demanding that her story be told. If there is ever to be even a minimum of accountability and a restoration of some measure of integrity in government it has to start somewhere. Why not start by listening to Sibel Edmonds?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *