Guest Post by Riz Khan: For the Greater Good. . .

-

riz khan 2.jpg(Riz Khan anchors the Riz Khan Show on Al Jazeera English. This “Note” is part of a series of posts that personalities from Al Jazeera have been sharing with readers of The Washington Note.)
New York is going into rehab – to use an increasingly popular term.
The locals are finally recovering from the craziness of that week of United Nations General Assembly, Clinton Global Initiative, and a host of other events, such. The Global Creative Leadership Summit is one such gathering I particularly enjoy attending as it brings together not only leading political figures, but also a host of great minds from the worlds of science, business and the arts, in the hope of putting a fresh perspective on some of the issues facing the world today.
Cynics say that the UNGA doesn’t really achieve much – except give some of the more eccentric or less-favoured world leaders a chance to rock the boat – as in the case of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gadaffi, who put on quite a show this year.
The gathering does, however, create a unique opportunity for “bi-lateral” meetings, where countries that don’t often meet in obvious public situations get to sit down and do some serious talking. The results of these bi-lateral and side-line meetings usually take some time to make it to the media – by which time they seem to have no connection to the circus in New York.
The Obama administration is certainly taking a different approach to foreign policy from the preceding Bush administration – with the idea that engagement could work better with countries such as Iran, North Korea and Myanmar (formerly Burma).
But not everyone is convinced President Obama is on the right path. His recent plan to scrap the multi-billion dollar missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic had his critics jumping up and down, claiming he had crumbled under pressure from an angry Russia. Pragmatists say it is a far less simple explanation than that.
Either way, whether or not the Obama administration can manage a path of pro-active engagement hand-in-hand with allies – versus a lonely unilateral march across the globe will be something to look out for in the coming weeks and months.
At Al Jazeera English, we are constantly looking to highlight international issues and cover parts of the world that are often neglected by others.
While the UNGA is now over, we’ll continue to examine the constantly changing relationships around the world at a political, business and social level… and always welcome direct input from our viewers across the globe.
We hope you can tune in and participate in this global conversation.
In the DC area, Al Jazeera English is available on Comcast channel 275, Cox channel 474, and Verizon FIOS channel 457, and anyone can catch us 24/7 streaming live and for free at www.livestation.com/aje. If you don’t have AJE on your TV and want to send a note to your cable or satellite provider in the US or Canada to carry AJE, or just want to find out more about AJE, I encourage you to head to www.iwantaje.net.
Thanks again to Steve for letting me write a few short notes on his site during what was a crazy yet exciting experience in New York. And thank you for all your feedback, I look forward to speaking to you again.
— Riz Khan

Comments

77 comments on “Guest Post by Riz Khan: For the Greater Good. . .

  1. August Spies says:

    comment is awaiting approval POA.
    your answer is coming.

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    BTW, cruise on over to Brad’s site. Look for evidence of anti-semitism.
    There ain’t any.

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Amazing, Brad seems to have attracted a wide range of jackasses seeking to discredit him.
    It seems that trying to get to the bottom of the Sibel Edmonds story attracts distracting trolls like shit attracts flies. Why is there such a concentrated effort to block investigation into this story??
    All using one technique….
    Click click….whir….zoom…click click….attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…Attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger…attack the messenger……………..
    And is anyone really fooled by this back and forth questions/answers bullshit?

    Reply

  4. August Spies says:

    Brad claims: I have no control over my “followers” (which is an absurd suggestion to begin with).
    Hmmm. But your moderator does, right? A significant amount of control, even if only through deletion of some comments and hurried publishing of others’ comments.
    I looked into the strange “control” operating at Bradblog after I’d suffered comment deletion, banning and being lied about by Bradblog. I was denounced as “insane” – for posting an article by the London Guardian which BradBlog repeatedly deleted. Weird, I thought.
    Following up on the habitual posters at Bradblog led me to find some strange goings-on……specifically amongst the group around BradBlog’s Moderator, Agent99 ie (plunger, Big Dan, Z etc)
    Over at Big Dan’s Blog, Brad’s moderator Agent99, Plunger, Z and Big Dan wax lyrical about jewish world conspiracy.
    The anti-semitism is deep, consistent, and extreme. Here’s just a few examples (there are many, many more):
    Plunger claims “ALL media= LIES = jewish owned and complicit.” Plunger’s recommended reading list on ‘the jewish question’ includes William Pierce (founder of Nazi National Alliance, author of Turner Diaries), Lindbergh, Ford’s The International Jew, and even Hitler’s Last Will and Testament! Plunger repeats fabricated anti-semitic fantasies such as the canaard that Sharon was reported to have said on Kol Yisrael that “We the Jews Control America!”. Every far-right weebsite in the world carries that obvious lie.
    Note – over at BigDan’sBlog, Agent99 (Brad’s moderator) is asked by plunger to “speed his comment” through moderation. It’s done. (No control, Brad?)
    Z posted across several comments that the media was 96% owned by “jews”. Z proceeded to detail the names of (jews) in prominent positions within the media. The same article appears at Stormfront…..and is a rip of William Pierce (again!) and his “Who Controls America?”…..another screed beloved of the far-right.
    Big Dan himself links to Willis Carto’s AFP…..justifying it on the grounds that AFP is a good news source! Big Dan claims Christopher Bollyn, associate of Willis Carto, is “fighting fascism”! He’s also a source for many 911 Truther angles which target Israel/Zionism/Jews.
    I have been banned from Big Dan’s Big BLog for asking Z and the tight little coterie over at Big Dan’s why “being Jewish” is so relevant to media control, or anything else for that matter.
    I have been prevented from continuing to confront them about their support for far-right propaganda sources……their indulgence of far-right memes….their anti-semitism……their perversion and obfuscation over the meaning of “fascism”….etc
    In light of the actions and clearly anti-semitic conspiracy theories which these BradBlog regulars propound, (including Brad’s moderator, of course), I tried posting at BradBlog to ask Brad Friedman what on earth he was doing mixing with such folk, especially allowing one of them to MODERATE his own blog…….
    Of course, such questions were deleted and not addressed. It is with irony I see Brad and his commentators rail against media censorship and lack of accountability. The real question I have is what really underlies BradBlog’s criticisms of the mainstream media, and the functioning of liberal democracy? BradBlog’s commentariat and his moderator seem distinctly of the opinion that the issue is really about “joooos”. Is that what Brad means when he criticises the media? Is that what he means when over at VelvetRevolution they campaign to prevent “media monopolies”? (VR has a campaign running to oppose media concentration — which in light of the comments of his own moderator’s friends can only mean “jooos”. Yet alongside VR, Brad is working with the ADL and SPLC! So which is it, Brad, support the ADL or anti-semitism? You’re facing both ways. And that makes people rightly suspicious.)
    And so what of this “concern” about election fraud….? The far-right, for example, have a vested interest in promoting “election fraud”…..as a means to undermine faith in, and legitimacy of, liberal democracy, a la Weimar model. It’s a major goal of the far-right…..why should I not suspect BradBlog of pursuing the same agenda? The far-right are all over BigDan’sBigBlog – where Brad’s moderator is a fixture – along with his friends, who just happen to regular BradBlog commentators.
    And why should we care for Brad’s denouncing of the mainstream media when his own moderator and commentators clearly believe the problem is jewish media? And what credibility can BradBlog maintain when it simply deletes OBVIOUS questions arising from these disturbing facts?
    BradF: We do our best to keep The BRAD BLOG fully open for discussion, without registration or moderation, with only a very few rules we ask commenters to follow. So I can’t speak to your “protect your bandwidth” or “weird dynamics” comments.
    I can. Why did you delete my questions about the rampant anti-semitism flowing through a group your own moderator is closely tied to? Why do you delete well-meaning, civil comments from left-wing commentators? Why do you lie about the reasons for such deletions? Why do you employ the Stalinist denunciation of “mental illness” to well-intentioned, civil, left-wing, first-time posters? WHY???
    BradF: Open discussion can get ugly at times.
    I can’t imagine how you know. BradBlog does not have “open discussion”. Euphemistic anti-semitism is fine, apparently, but you’ve repeatedly deleted a London Guardian article I tried posting. The Guardian is too dangerous for BradBlog, but indulgence of anti-semitism and Hitlerite jewish world conspiracy is fine? How so, Mr Progressive?
    BradF: Though we do our best at The BRAD BLOG to keep it from becoming as ugly as I’ve seen here. Many of the comments (yes, including those made by POA) would not be allowed, or would be deleted with public notice, since one of our rules disallows personal attacks on other commenters.
    Ah – but that doesn’t stop your own moderator claiming commenters are “insane” and “mentally deranged” does it? Hypocrite. You deny a voice, and then publish lies and defamation. Thanks for that.
    So……what of it BradFriedman? Why do you have a moderator whom (along with a group of regulars at your blog) engage in Hitlerite jewish world conspiracy? Why do you have a moderator and a group of regulars (friends of your moderator) that support Willis Carto as “a good source of news”? Why do you lie about commentators at your blog? Why do you defame them and prevent them replying? Why do you delete questions about the obvious and deep anti-semitism circling BradBlog and its moderator?
    What is your REAL interest in election fraud, Bard? To promote it? To undermine confidence? To further the notion, via euphemism, of jewish world conspiracy?
    There’s something very strange going on here: BradBlog is full of people denouncing “fascism”, whilst at the same time they’re promoting Willis Carto, Christopher Bollyn, Rense, Alex Jones, Eustace Nazi Mullins, William Nazi Pierce, Mike holocaust-denying Rivero, etc etc etc. Seemingly there isn’t an anti-semite or fascist they won’t embrace and promote.
    And as for Sibel Edmonds……hers is a cause celebre amongst the far-right…..hoping as they do she will provide ammunition to support their conspiracy theories (by implicating Israel, of course. That’d be Isra-Hell according to the BradBloggers). All makes sense……kinda.
    Any of the far-right behind you, Brad? Is that who and what you’re working for?

    Reply

  5. questions says:

    Answers, sometimes I need to sleep. Sorry. Please do read the whole dossier. Quote from it and explain what’s going on. I’ll be checking the site.
    POA: Media Matters, the Nation, Cockburn/CounterPunch (which I don’t always agree with but I find often interesting), Z Magazine (haven’t kept up with in a while), Extra!, Washington Monthly, The New Yorker publishes a lot of really solid pieces at this point. I’m sure you’ll find reasons to disbelieve anything you don’t already believe — it’s all part of a conspiracy for you. But at any rate, these are some of the things I have read over the years. As others occur to me, I’ll let you know.
    You can also look at the blog rolls from HuffPo, TPM, kos, and the like. You end up with an interesting range of views from a variety of sources and you don’t get locked up in paranoid conspiracy theorizing that is so self-referential and so mutually back scratching that you no longer have any judgment at all about anything at all.

    Reply

  6. answers says:

    Wow, that’s a crazy list of accusations. It’ll take me a while to investigate them. I was hoping for a response from questions when I refreshed this page, but instead I found this attack on Mr. Brad Friedman. I’m currently fascinated by the Israeli branch of anger focused on this story. For me, I’ve been concerned about the Turkish side of the story, but here at this blog it seems to be a matter of Israeli espionage. Don’t protest too much. It only makes people more curious. Seriously, most people don’t hate Jews. Really. I don’t.

    Reply

  7. Prepostericity says:

    Brad says he can’t control what the posters at his blog write. Well, he has one moderator named Agent99 who blogs quite frequently at a place called Big Dan’s Big Blog. One can check that place out and then easily verify that anti-semitic memes are being astroturfed. Over the years, sources have been presented linking them all to Willis Carto, Alex Jones, Michael Rivero and other dubious right wing propagandists.
    A lot of crazy stuff has found its original mojo through Democratic Underground. There is a person named Tinoire who runs a place named Progressive Independent. That place is affiliated with Michael Rivero, one of the most widely known freeper conspiracy theorists on the net. Tinoire and her group would like folks to think they are left wing communists and socialists. Funny thing about that is that again, Tinoire has been a big supporter of Michael Rivero. Not only that, she registered Republican and voted for Ron Paul. Not only that, she said on the Ronald Reagan forum that she worked in military intelligence. Not only that, her forum has been affiliated with Velvet Revolution!
    I recently came across proof of Rivero having had direct ties to McDonnell Douglas, the largest military contractor at the time. Fancy that.
    One more tidbit, and then I’ll stop there. Brad has a close friend named Larisa Alexandrovna who is editor of a place called Raw Story. A few years ago she said that acclaimed New Yorker journalist Mark Singer wet himself with his work exposing Brett Kimberlin. She said Brett had been exonerated and won a huge settlement. All lies. Brett Kimberlin has also been trying to portray himself as an ex-political prisoner. This is the guy who created Brad friedman. No Brett Kimberlin, and we’d all be asking Brad who.
    Hmmm, I see the other thread here where Brad did a mea culpa concerning Joe Lauria. I can see why Brad is trying to get Joe’s article tied to his efforts to establish credibility with his own part in this story. Brad’s desperate to show credibility. I think the donations are drying up as more and more people uncover who he really is, and how Brett created him. Brad Friedman isn’t a journalist, far from it. He is a tabloid brand. And finally, I would like to say that it is not just the one person here claiming different gadfly types get accused of being one and the same. Brad’s moderator Agent99 does that a lot. So does Larisa Alexandrovna. Intrepid reporters should contact Lori Grace and other VR donors. They should find out how much that group has raked in over the years through their various confidence tricks. While Bev Harris took a lot of heat as being a “grifter,” it appears that something even worse has been going on concerning Velvet Revolution. There have been no convictions due to electoral fraud because of whatever they do, and the Brett Kimberlin aspect is simply fascinating. That is the true story behind this, that of internet convolution. To repeat, if there was no Brett Kimberlin, then there would have been no BradBlog the way it is today. Brad was a nobody before him. All roads are leading to the Speedway Bomber, if one wishes to truly understand how Brad Friedman became a successful product.
    And ok, one last point. It is highly doubtful that Brad is unaware of the anti-semitism coming from his moderator. So why does he still allow her to moderate his den of sensationalism? I also went through Brad’s archives trying to figure out why and when she was granted the position. I see nothing. She simply seems to have appeared and become part and parcel of BradBlog. Why is BradBlog moderated by someone with close ties to Jew haters? Now there is some FBI dude and that CIA dude being added on as “proving” the credibility of the Sibel Edmonds piece. I don’t have any paystubs to prove it, but my gut is telling me a lot of this stuff goes beyond simply grifting.

    Reply

  8. Prepostericity says:

    Brad Friedman should be investigated. Anyone who does so will see why no one with any media gravitas takes anything coming out of his website seriously.
    Maybe Mr. Freedom of Speech can explain why he has put a robots.txt block on the wayback machine for bradfriedman.com/BradBlog? Is it because embarrassing questions were posed to him concerning one of his earliest hoaxes, the Clint Curtis one?
    Brad doesn’t want the public to realise that he was a no-name until convicted bomber and drug smuggler Brett Kimberlin started supplying him with so-called whistleblowers. Brad claimed in a Time Magazine interview that he had heard of Brett’s reward offer for info leading to an election fraud conviction, and then the two of them started Velvet Revolution. Uhm, that would have been two days later according to the whois information on velvetrevolution.us.
    At the end of each of Brad’s Sibel Edmonds story, he has begged the public for donations. Perhaps Brad can supply how much VR has raked in from gullible new agers concerned with electoral integrity. I know of one wealthy donor named Lori Grace, an heiress to the Oliver Grace Estate, who has donated to them. Perhaps Brett’s wealthy Aunt Harriet Crosby has also relinquished a small fortune to VR?
    Now I understand why my extensive expose on Brett Kimberlin was completely deleted from Democratic Underground. Brad has inside power at that forum. One can look into their 2004 archives and see how he was showcased as one of their bloggers. Excuse me? Now why would someone with no journalism training be highlighted like that? Was it to pave the way for when Brett would utilise Brad’s public image later on in late 2004 to start raking in the bucks?
    It is very true that sincere posters with questions about Sibel Edmonds or anything else pertaining to that tabloid blog will be treated like dirt. One of the last things Brad suggested to me during my last days as a BradBlogger was to dig up dirt on himself. You see, I had come up with startling information about the Director of the Election Science Institute tying him to an astroturfing chain running the gamut from promoting Republican Matt Damschroder, people like Bev Harris and Brad, to ironically people dissing folks like Bev and Brad, to even supporting Ron Paul and talking about psychological operations. Brad buried the story. I had even come up with proof that the Director’s brother, I am pretty sure they are brothers, was one of the first assemblymen to sponsor a bill for new electronic voting technology after the 2000 Presidential vote debacle in Florida. The director named Steven Hertzberg had been accused by many in the electoral integrity community of whitewashing the 2004 Ohio results.
    Anyway, it didn’t take too long to uncover Brad’s big achilles heel, that being the Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin. That name may sound familiar to folks. He’s the one who claimed to have sold pot to Dan Quayle. It turns out that was even made up, just like Brett’s claims that Michael Connell was fearful of his life due to Karl Rove. A common theme coming out of Brett Kimberlin Productions has been of the right winger turned whistleblower. Folks new to BradBlog can quickly see the deep holes in Sibel’s story. Well, check into some of the other crapola coming out of BradBlog and VR over the years, and you can see a recurrent pattern. There is a solid reason why Brad’s stuff never gets any play in the mainstream media. That is because it all appears to be nothing more than the work of confidence men.
    {continued}

    Reply

  9. answers says:

    OK, this is a message for questions. I couldn’t read this whole thread but I did peruse it. Seriously, y’all love to debate. And so, I guess, do I.
    Anyway, I’m glad there appears to be some agreement between the left and right that voting machines without any hard copy results are stupid. I mean, c’mon. Really? No way to verify that the election wasn’t rigged?
    That said I mean to come back here tomorrow or the next day and put up what I’d like to call the hopeless optimist version of support for the Edmonds story. It’ll be difficult as I need to try to find as many sources that aren’t directly from the Bradblog or Sibel Edmonds herself that still indicate support for the credibility of her claims. It’ll involve searching for the names of senators and such who support her claims. I think the info is out there.
    So that will be fun. I mean trying to put together a list of people far more respected than me who believe her story to be credible and worth investigating will be enjoyable.
    Sorry again Mr. Khan that this debate has taken over one of your threads. That’s probably POA’s fault. God bless him, agree with him or not, he means well.
    Speaking of POA, I’d like to address him directly by questioning his belief that Cheeky and questions are the same person. You must consider all of the possibilities.
    They very well aren’t. Besides the use of parallel arguments, the use of accusations of paranoia, and the word ‘yikes’, they seem to be different people in there tones. Cheeky was a jerkish person determined to obfuscate, while questions seems to be far more open to possibilities.
    Just for the sake of consideration, can’t you imagine obfuscationist working from the same set of talking points simultaneously? Why do they have to be the same person? Just open yourself up to all the crazy possibilities.
    Well, whatever. I’ll be back tomorrow to present my hopeless optimist version of why this story could be true, and I fully expect questions to be a hopeful skeptic. Otherwise the debate won’t be honest.

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    Brad Friedman: “So yeah, I don’t really give a damn what others do or don’t report, if
    that’s the measure of any particular stories legitimacy. If I see news worth covering, I
    cover it. The pack journalists and pack bloggers can catch up later when/if they want to.
    I have no control over that.”
    I like your attitude, Brad Friedman. Keep up the good work!

    Reply

  11. WigWag says:

    Brad, you’ve kindly responded to my comments; let me see if I can clarify my position for you.
    1) You own a widely read and extremely successful blog. My guess is that your blog (which I read myself from time to time and frequently enjoy) is one of the most highly respected progressive blogs in the United States. Only a very talented person could have accomplished building the franchise that you have; you should be proud of what you have accomplished; it is very impressive.
    2) Being an accomplished blogger does not make you a journalist. Blogs are great places to discuss opinions; share any particular expertise that you may have and discuss issues of the day. But being a blogger is not the same as being an investigative reporter. If it was, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck who also have blogs could consider themselves “investigative reporters.”
    3) You ask how much I know about your background and your work. I know only as much as the “biography section” on your website reveals.
    4) You say that the Sibel Edmonds story has been picked up by the mainstream media; that is partly true but you are being disingenuous and I suspect you know it. While “Vanity Fair” or “60 Minutes” or a few other mainstream outlets may have published articles or run stories about Edmond’s accusations, the story simply has no legs. After writing about the story once, no outlet follows up or attempts to expand their coverage and the rest of the mainstream media, which has a notorious herd mentality, continues to demur. Either there’s some type of conspiracy amongst thousands of media outlets not to give the story the coverage it deserves or there have been hundreds if not thousands of independent decisions by media types that the story simply has too many holes to justify covering.
    5)Your claim that the mainstream media failed to cover “the outing of a CIA operative” is simply not true; the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson story received extensive coverage in the mainstream media both print and broadcast. While the New York Times and others certainly got the “weapons of mass destruction” story dreadfully wrong at first; they did belatedly correct the story. Judith Miller was fired; the Times ran an expose on itself apologizing to its readers for the poor job it did and the issue has been vetted extensively since. As for your suggestion that the mainstream media has refused to carry stories about what you call war crimes; your statement is factually incorrect. Both print and broadcast media throughout the United States provided extensive coverage to the Abu Ghraib scandal, to conditions at Guantanamo and to errant missile strikes in Afghanistan. Of course the mainstream media isn’t perfect but then neither by your own admission is the Brad Blog.
    Your coverage of the Sibal Edmonds story has presented some interesting facts and several credible people in addition to yourself (e.g. Lee Hamilton) have suggested the Edmonds story is worth exploring. I don’t doubt that this may be true.
    But the fact that scores if not hundreds of real investigative reporters, working for real media outlets, are familiar with the story but declined to pursue it, suggests to me not that there is a conspiracy, but instead that there is less to the story than meets the eye.
    You certainly have been tenacious about pursuing Edmund’s accusations; that’s commendable, but it’s not enough. Ultimately for the story to have legs you have to convince other mainstream reporters that there’s “there” there.
    If you can’t even make that prima facie case, why should anyone without a preconceived notion about what they hope the story will show, take you seriously?
    Have you read Sean Hannity’s blog? Have you seen the dossier that he and the other right wing bloggers have prepared about Obama’s birth? Have you noticed that the people at the right wing sites have as much passion about their story as you and your readers have about yours?
    Why exactly should an objective reader take your position any more seriously than they take Sean Hannity’s position?
    Being Sean Hannity isn’t enough to demonstrate credibility.
    With all due respect, the same applies to Brad Friedman.

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But, there are plenty of really good, not totally corporate organizations out there whose work I really trust”
    Then name them.
    Interesting that WigWag, after insulting Brad, does not have the guts, or the integrity, to apologize, or offer a response to Brad’s rebuttal.
    It appears that Brad sees the same gaping hole in both Wigwag and questions argument that I do. In fact, its not really a “hole”, because it is far too inane to call it such. The premise that Brad is not a journalist, and this story is not a worthy news story, because it is not being widely carried by our derelict and corrupted
    “Fourth Estate”, is ridiculous on its face.
    I note WigWag did not comment on my citation of the “message force multipliers” that were salted throughout the news coverage of the Iraq war con job. Here you have REAL EVIDENCE of widespread governmental involvement, in cohorts with the Fourth Estate, purposely misleading the American public into believing the people that were supposed to be giving them “news” were actually tasked by our government to cast war policies in a favourable light. That is called propaganda, and it was widespread throughout the full spectrum of our domestic media outlets. And who can forget Armstrong?
    Yet Wigwag and questions would have you believe that these same media sources would not conspire to assist our government in hiding important facts, stories, and intrigues from the American public. The above cited examples of governmental control over the Fourth Estate are not “conspiracy theory”, but are rather a matter of record.
    Read this thread again. Do you see specific items listed by questions or Wigwag that rationally or logically target Sibel’s quite specific assertions and accusations? No. It is all about attacking the messenger. It has to be, because there is no logical or rational argument that can be lodged against further investigation of Sibel’s story. If you think she’s a wackjob and a liar, her serious assertions and accusations need to be disproven. If you believe she is credible, than it goes without saying that her assertions MUST be investigated.
    In any case, WigWag owes Brad an apology. And we all know, he won’t get one.
    So, WigWag insults Brad, then crawls back under her rock, too cowardly to directly confront Brad, and questions calls Brad to task for being a bit “snarkie”?

    Reply

  13. questions says:

    The point about the link is the following (hope this is direct enough) — assuming you’re an expert in computerized voter tally fraud (and it certainly takes some serious expertise given what the computer guru guy I heard somewhere and read somewhere was talking about) — that expertise in computer programming, republican operatives and so on is simply not the same as expertise in the inner workings of the FBI, various levels of sting operations and so on.
    As I recall (and I’m going by memory, nothing in front of me right now) you said something about not knowing how to check on the alleged Schakowsky mother’s funeral “thing” that Edmonds brought up. How to find out if she went to one…. Now if I’m remembering this right and you really did write something to that effect, what does that say about your basic investigative skills on the Edmonds matter. If I’m wrong, just say so. But I feel pretty sure I read something like this on your site.
    But that aside, the fact that you’re good/very good/totally amazing on the computer issue (which may or may not have been massively exploited — I’m reserving judgment but I’m pretty easily convinced on this one after all I’ve read about the ability to exploit data transfer) — this fact doesn’t mean you have the FBI down, the connections down, the whole context of Edmonds’s alleged findings down.
    (And by the way, paper ballots can disappear, and there’s vote fraud everywhere except, it seems, through ACORN. Funny how that goes!) Vote fraud matters most when elections are very very close, and less so when there’s a mile between party preferences. I’m sure every election has had some level of fraud — it’s too tempting, too easy, and too utterly worth cheating for there not to be cheating. So keep up the good work on this one.
    As for Edmonds, again, I am just not seeing what you see with the passion you see it.
    Sorry for the occasional bits of snark. It’s not like you’re innocent of the charge either, but that’s not really an excuse for my snark. Oh well. (Note how you address WigWag, for example.)
    As for the investigation stuff — I’ve made this point before. At some point, investigations become undesirable (Whitewater, Orly Taitz, birtherdom, death panels — we know these don’t need to move anywhere. But still, people have questions about each one of these, questions they feel DEEPLY are worth answering. The 9/11 parallels I’ve been over as well.) When do we stop asking people’s seemingly reasonable questions? In my judgment, maybe we’re there on Edmonds. It’s been a lot of years, and not a lot of new and improved stuff has come out, near as I can tell. And I read a lot of material a couple of weeks ago. I lost two days or so of my short life on earth going through the court deposition and the various transcripts….
    And in the end, I’m just not entirely convinced of anything you’ve been pushing.

    Reply

  14. Brad Friedman says:

    Quoting “questions” here:
    “I still don’t see much of a link between Edmonds and computerized vote tally fraud.”
    The main “link” was originally my point that simply because others in MSM and blogosphere aren’t covering as they should, is no gauge of the legitimacy of the information I’ve reported. As has been the case, many times, the coverage from both spheres comes years later.
    There is, however, a *serious* national security issue at the heart of the e-voting story, as I’ve been reporting for years (whether you read about it at BRAD BLOG or elsewhere or not). And I’ll offer you this one link to give you just a small, but chilling taste of it:
    “CIA Warning: ‘E-Voting Not Secure’ – U.S. EAC Finally Releases Complete Transcript of Cybersecurity Expert’s Stunning Remarks”
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7021
    “You can be touchy about the credential issue, as you seem to be.”
    The comments made about me and/or my credentials above were uninformed, obnoxious, and, more to the point, extraordinarily misleading. But I don’t believe I’m the best person to speak up for my own credentials, so I tried not to, other than to correct some misapprehensions posted.
    “There’s just, in my sense of the world, less here or more and less simultaneously, than what you have presented.”
    Fair enough. And that’s why I — and so many others — are calling for investigation from Congress, law enforcement, media, etc.
    “there are plenty of really good, not totally corporate organizations out there whose work I really trust. And they haven’t run with the Edmonds story”
    Which is why I tried to point out, above, several other cases (among many) where that happened, and that it’s no measure of a story’s credibility, in my opinion. Bloggers can be just as frightened as MSM, and just as influenced by others reportage, or lack thereof, as the MSM.
    “I really need a lot more material from non-Edmonds-y sources: not her direct colleagues who joined her whistle blower group, not her best friend or her husband, not someone else who was fired from the FBI, not anyone with grudges or possible grudges, not anyone who seems to have a crush on her”
    Me too. Much of that is already out there, even if it seems you’re unaware of it. But I agree there needs to be more information from all sources. But if the story is to be dismissed because others haven’t bothered to collect enough such information — well, hopefully you see the self-defeating Catch 22 there.
    “What I remember of RFK Jr. was hearing him freak on the radio a few times … and then not finding much in the way of computer vote tally fraud’s actually happening.”
    Feel free to read his two, lengthy exposes in Rolling Stone on the issue. I don’t believe what he found and reported on is as you’ve characterized it above. You should also know that his partner/co-host’s law firm (Papantonio, Levin) took a number of e-voting whistleblower cases thereafter, and also joined the case in Sarasota in the 2006 FL-13 Congressional race where the ES&S voting machines simply LOST some 18,000 votes in a race ultimately decided for the Republican by 369 votes.
    I hope these comments have been helpful to you.

    Reply

  15. Brad Friedman says:

    (And here’s that original comment, sorry it’s somewhat out of order with the other comments at this point! Blame Steve’s comment system! 😉 )
    WigWag said: “The Sibel Edmonds story is in “Siberia.” That’s where it will remain until some genuine and trusted journalistic enterprise picks it up.”
    They already have. Just not in the U.S. (lately). Here, for example, is what the UK Sunday Times reported in their exclusive three-part front-page series just last year:
    – SEE URL ABOVE
    – SEE URL ABOVE
    – SEE URL ABOVE
    Not a single corporate mainstream outlet in the U.S. bothered to investigate or pick any of those stories up. Since I have no evidence as to why that is (I generally only report things which are independently verifiable, since I don’t think anyone should ever have to trust me — or the NYTimes, or the AP, or the WaPo, for that matter) I’ll leave the speculation about it to others.
    WagWag further wagged: “If there is any “there” there; the story will have legs; if not, Brad Friedman can continue to cultivate his audience of paranoid idiots.”
    Very impressive, Wag. Those comments, and the similarly absurd ones in worshipful praise of the NYTimes (who, btw, have frequently quoted me and/or BRAD BLOG’s coverage) should reflect smartly on Steve Clemons’ cultivated audience I guess? Good lord.

    Reply

  16. Brad Friedman says:

    And here is the 2nd story (the third one is posted above above! Yeesh.)
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
    Finally, I’ll repost again the originally moderated comment that had all three in it, in reply to an older WigWag post in a second. But without the URL’s! :-)

    Reply

  17. Brad Friedman says:

    Whoops! Looks like posts with more than ONE URL get held for moderation! So here is the first link from the UK Sunday Times:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece

    Reply

  18. questions says:

    And by the way, sorry for the informal moments within the rather stilted prose. I think I use phrases like “the Air America Kennedy guy” to soften my tone a bit.
    Feel free to make fun of it though, as you seem to enjoy doing so!
    (What I remember of RFK Jr. was hearing him freak on the radio a few times, getting the comic book from some magazine or other (did the Nation carry it?) and then not finding much in the way of computer vote tally fraud’s actually happening. Hard to gauge the seriousness of it given the outcome of the election. Cheney didn’t win.)

    Reply

  19. questions says:

    As I noted, I don’t follow your blog. Again, I’m glad you pushed on the vote tally issue. I don’t think it ever got as huge as it could have, and it’s quite possible that your work made for a kind of national vigilance that headed off worse.
    I still don’t see much of a link between Edmonds and computerized vote tally fraud. I think they are in utterly different spheres of expertise and I think that the analysis of sources is really crucial. I cannot say that I know that you know how to analyze national security sources.
    You can be touchy about the credential issue, as you seem to be. Though you say you aren’t trying to shore up your credentials, it does seem to me that you’re kind of headed that way. But the credentials issue is one of many many issues, only one. There’s just, in my sense of the world, less here or more and less simultaneously, than what you have presented.
    I don’t have a blog/MSM issue. Blogs do some decent work at this point, and the MSM falls down. But, there are plenty of really good, not totally corporate organizations out there whose work I really trust. And they haven’t run with the Edmonds story, likely for some of the reasons I outlined in the previous thread, and likely for others that are way outside my expertise.
    I’m sure you feel like a lone voice of reason in the wilderness of questions’s posts (I seem to have that effect around here) and for that, I’m sorry. I really need a lot more material from non-Edmonds-y sources: not her direct colleagues who joined her whistle blower group, not her best friend or her husband, not someone else who was fired from the FBI, not anyone with grudges or possible grudges, not anyone who seems to have a crush on her (omg, look at Bill Kristol and Sarah Palin — no judgment there!), not from Edmonds herself under or over oath…. It’s a lot of sources I’m excluding because all of these have some issues with bias. And so far, that’s the only stuff out there.

    Reply

  20. Brad Friedman says:

    (Reposting, but with 2 links, instead of 3, since “questions” points out such posts are dropped)
    WigWag said: “The Sibel Edmonds story is in “Siberia.” That’s where it will remain until some genuine and trusted journalistic enterprise picks it up.”
    They already have. Just not in the U.S. (lately). Here, for example, is what the UK Sunday Times reported in their exclusive three-part front-page series just last year:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
    (Third link will be posted in next reply to avoid moderation queue.)
    Not a single corporate mainstream outlet in the U.S. bothered to investigate or pick any of those stories up. Since I have no evidence as to why that is (I generally only report things which are independently verifiable, since I don’t think anyone should ever have to trust me — or the NYTimes, or the AP, or the WaPo, for that matter) I’ll leave the speculation about it to others.
    WagWag further wagged: “If there is any “there” there; the story will have legs; if not, Brad Friedman can continue to cultivate his audience of paranoid idiots.”
    Very impressive, Wag. Those comments, and the similarly absurd ones in worshipful praise of the NYTimes (who, btw, have frequently quoted me and/or BRAD BLOG’s coverage) should reflect smartly on Steve Clemons’ cultivated audience I guess? Good lord.

    Reply

  21. Brad Friedman says:

    “Here’s one of the places I have concern regarding your sense of the Sibel Edmonds issue. You may well have a “nose for news” as the expression goes. Or you may have hit two fairly easy to understand stories in ACORN which I’ve been reading about all over the place for a very long time, and the voting issues which also have turned up all over the place (outside of what you might call MSM, but still in respectable magazines like the Nation).”
    I’d be happy for a cite to the Nation coverage you mention on the e-voting issue. I suspect it comes well after my coverage and/or doesn’t offer nearly the detailed concerns I reported on years before folks like Princeton, State of CA, State of OH, State of CO, etc. jumped into the game to scientifically confirmthe concerns I’d had my hair on fire about for years.
    Either way, I was citing a very few quick examples for you where your yardstick of “credibility” does not measure up, with all due respect. And yes, some of the stories I mentioned DO concern “complex, intra-governmental, office-politics, national security-ish” issues. That you seem to fail to understand that is another point worth taking into account.
    “the Air America Kennedy guy has been on it.”
    The Air America Kennedy guy is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And, years after I was covering the story, he jumped into it following a phone call he made to me. If you go back to his earliest coverage of the issue (years after mine), you’ll note his cites to my own coverage. You may also note that I have been a frequent guest on his show — have even sat in as Guest Host for him — and, in fact, that discuss my coverage of this very issue on this weekend’s show (you can hear the short clip posted here today: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7456 )
    Your suggestion that the issue is one of “vote tally fraud” and your apparent misgivings about my coverage of the entire matter (including “voter intimidation” etc.) only further seems to highlight your leap to conclusions without fully bothering to examine the available information at hand. Whether on this issue, others, and perhaps the Edmonds issue.
    “I would prefer analysis by someone with a deep background in intra-governmental affairs, the spy business, national security, the Turkish presence in the US, the Turko/Armenian connection, the drug/MC/FBI connection if there is one….”
    I prefer that as well. That’s why I often quote such credentialed folks in my coverage (veteran CIA, FBI officials, etc.) and rely on them as both credited and background sources. Have you actually bothered to read any of my coverage of this matter? Or anyone elses for that matter? There is plenty such analysis by such folks out there. All of which, so far, tends to corroborate, rather than debunk Edmonds allegations. That doesn’t make her allegations accurate, but it does make your apparent dismissal of them seem rather thin and uninformed.
    But again, I’m not looking to shore up my journalistic creds here. I’m simply trying to point out that if your measure of “credibility” (and/or WigWag’s) is based on who else is covering any particular issue — whether in the MSM or the blogosphere — I’d suggest you consider a new yard stick.

    Reply

  22. questions says:

    Oh, regarding the links issue — this site doesn’t allow more than 2 links in a post. So the three link post is lost to posterity. It’s some anti-spam thing I think.
    Anyway, it’ll never turn up, so if you want the links to show up here, split them into no more than two links per post.
    I guess every blog has its thing.

    Reply

  23. questions says:

    Here’s one of the places I have concern regarding your sense of the Sibel Edmonds issue. You may well have a “nose for news” as the expression goes. Or you may have hit two fairly easy to understand stories in ACORN which I’ve been reading about all over the place for a very long time, and the voting issues which also have turned up all over the place (outside of what you might call MSM, but still in respectable magazines like the Nation).
    There’s nothing complex, intra-governmental, office-politics, national security-ish… about these two stories. They are really straightforward and the writing about them has been thus as well. There’s some computer guru whose name escapes me who’s been writing about vote tabulation fraud, and the Air America Kennedy guy has been on it. You’ve been on it. And that is really good. I’m not sure how huge vote tally fraud has been; it strikes me as a big problem when the vote is close to a statistical tie, but not as big a problem when voter preferences are clear. And so I have some questions about this issue, but I’m willing to grant its general legitimacy given the potential seriousness.
    (And I’d toss in the notion that voter intimidation is possibly a much larger issue than is vote tally fraud. There are some pretty unfortunate ways to keep people away from the polls in the first place. You do that and you don’t need any fancy computer codes….)
    ACORN and you, I don’t know the relationship. ACORN has done wonderful work but is an easy mark for the republicans. Defending ACORN is noble, but ACORN does occasionally set itself up for its own problems. I’d love to see them succeed, though as their presence in low income communities is likely irreplaceable.
    But the Edmonds thing is far and away a different issue. There are so many pitfalls when you get into the spy game, and there are so many ways that what seems true might not be that I would prefer analysis by someone with a deep background in intra-governmental affairs, the spy business, national security, the Turkish presence in the US, the Turko/Armenian connection, the drug/MC/FBI connection if there is one…. And so though it’s good to have vigilant independent voices “out there” the fact is that analysis takes a high level of expertise. The first two stories you’ve touted don’t really lead to the third, near as I can tell.
    Again, I’ve been through specific points on the previous thread and I’m not going to go back to that. And I will emphasize that I am not credentialed to make great judgments about the Edmonds matter. The questions I raise are those of a neophyte, but one who works to read fairly carefully and to weigh sources and evidence rather than accept pretty much anything on face value. I also really really dislike conspiracy theory, and that prejudice is pretty strong in me.
    As for your tone on your site, it is totally your space, but I do not find it particularly welcoming of dissent — maybe because dissent is regarded as dishonest or suspect at some level. I’m a major dissenter on the Edmonds front, and I’d never post there about it because of the tone of your responses and the way that the other posters seem to see your light. But again, it’s your blog, not mine, and it’s not one I’ve ever clicked on before the Edmonds stuff started popping up here.
    And I suppose that if you called me “that dude” as POA suggests you did above somewhere, that would be all the more reason not to post over there.

    Reply

  24. Brad Friedman says:

    questions said:
    “Mr. Friedman, it isn’t just mainstream media that have avoided the story. I read a lot of stuff that isn’t entirely mainstream, that did cover the WMD issues, that denied much of what Bush at al were claiming, and no one is going near this story except for you and a few others”
    I just posted a reply to WigWag with links to three front page stories in the UK Sunday Times from just last year on this, but it’s currently being held for moderation (likely auto-triggered into the mod queue due to the several links in it), but hopefully that will be approved shortly, and you’ll be able to enjoy just some of the recent “mainstream media” coverage of the story.
    That said, you also wrote “Plenty of reasonable people seem to have looked this over and have not seen what you’ve seen.”
    Yup. Same has been true, over the years, of MUCH of what I report at The BRAD BLOG. Just a few examples would be my years long coverage of concerns about e-voting. For years, it was very lonely reportage that nobody — and I mean nobody — in the corporate MSM would touch, other than to describe it as “conspiracy theory” (see the NYTimes, for example), until they realized it wasn’t (see the NYTimes Magazine’s cover story on it just days before the NH Primary, finally, in 2008, when it was too late to do anything about it).
    See my coverage of the GOP’s phony “voter fraud” operation (Thor Hearne and his ACVR), created and funded in earnest just after the ’04 election. None of that was covered for years by *anybody* until it was found to be at the heart of the US Attorney Purge. Suddenly I became quite popular thereafter.
    See my coverage of the GOP’s disingenous attacks on ACORN (somewhat related to the above), and the years I spent details the actual story of that scam, virtually alone, with the MSM ignoring (actually misreporting it), and the progressive blogosphere afraid to touch it, other than to send me notes akin to: “Hey, Brad, are you sure you want to go there?” The answer, of course, was “Yes, I want to go there! Because it’s a scam and the Dems and Progressives afraid to push back are being played!” Then, finally, Rachel Maddow, just last week — years later — devoted a four-part series to the years-long scam after the damage was done.
    That’s just a few examples of my track record, and the MSM/blogosphere’s woeful record of missing the story. So yeah, I don’t really give a damn what others do or don’t report, if that’s the measure of any particular stories legitimacy. If I see news worth covering, I cover it. The pack journalists and pack bloggers can catch up later when/if they want to. I have no control over that.
    “You have followers who scream at those who bring up reasonable-seeming questions. You take a nasty tone to posters on your site when you don’t like what they post. That was pretty clear. You protect your bandwidth, I guess. It all makes for some weird dynamics.”
    I have no control over my “followers” (which is an absurd suggestion to begin with). We do our best to keep The BRAD BLOG fully open for discussion, without registration or moderation, with only a very few rules we ask commenters to follow. So I can’t speak to your “protect your bandwidth” or “weird dynamics” comments. Open discussion can get ugly at times. Though we do our best at The BRAD BLOG to keep it from becoming as ugly as I’ve seen here. Many of the comments (yes, including those made by POA) would not be allowed, or would be deleted with public notice, since one of our rules disallows personal attacks on other commenters.

    Reply

  25. Brad Friedman says:

    WigWag said: “The Sibel Edmonds story is in “Siberia.” That’s where it will remain until some genuine and trusted journalistic enterprise picks it up.”
    They already have. Just not in the U.S. (lately). Here, for example, is what the UK Sunday Times reported in their exclusive three-part front-page series just last year:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece
    Not a single corporate mainstream outlet in the U.S. bothered to investigate or pick any of those stories up. Since I have no evidence as to why that is (I generally only report things which are independently verifiable, since I don’t think anyone should ever have to trust me — or the NYTimes, or the AP, or the WaPo, for that matter) I’ll leave the speculation about it to others.
    WagWag further wagged: “If there is any “there” there; the story will have legs; if not, Brad Friedman can continue to cultivate his audience of paranoid idiots.”
    Very impressive, Wag. Those comments, and the similarly absurd ones in worshipful praise of the NYTimes (who, btw, have frequently quoted me and/or BRAD BLOG’s coverage) should reflect smartly on Steve Clemons’ cultivated audience I guess? Good lord.

    Reply

  26. questions says:

    Mr. Friedman, it isn’t just mainstream media that have avoided the story. I read a lot of stuff that isn’t entirely mainstream, that did cover the WMD issues, that denied much of what Bush at al were claiming, and no one is going near this story except for you and a few others (American Conservative….) It seems that Ms. Edmonds is her own media outlet at some level and is the source for everything.
    There’s a whole thread around here somewhere, I think “answers” may have linked to it above in which I went through my own issues with the Edmonds thing while reading a decent-sized chunk of the dossier. I’m no expert in FBI studies, and I’m not a lawyer, so who knows how good my analysis is. I have always been open about that.
    Plenty of reasonable people seem to have looked this over and have not seen what you’ve seen.
    You have followers who scream at those who bring up reasonable-seeming questions. You take a nasty tone to posters on your site when you don’t like what they post. That was pretty clear. You protect your bandwidth, I guess. It all makes for some weird dynamics.

    Reply

  27. Brad Friedman says:

    WigWag said: “It’s much more reasonable to conclude the story has largely been ignored by the conventional media because there are important holes in what Edmonds has to say.”
    And “the conventional media” largely ignored things like no WMD in Iraq, outing of a CIA operative by the White House, war crimes by same, because I guess there were “important holes” in those stories too?
    He/she further said: “No mainstream media outlet is above reproach; they all make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are bad. But that’s hardly a reason to believe everything you read on a blog or any other internet site.”
    I concur.
    And then: “If Brad Friedman is on to something, he will manage to get some legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprise to examine it.”
    They already have. Have you not bothered to pay attention to this story?
    I have been a guest on Mr. Kahn’s show in the past, discussing a story which I broke, investigated and covered for years, which was eventually made into a documentary film. I’d be happy to come on to discuss this story as well anytime, along with concerns, criticism and skepticism of it. His producers have my direct contact information. Better yet, he could contact Edmonds or Cole to go more directly to the sources if he prefers.
    As to the discussion of my credentials as a journalist, about which WigWag may or may not be aware (I don’t know), I’ll allow them to speak for themselves, as I couldn’t be less interested in wasting time on such nonsense with actual news that deserves actual coverage out there.

    Reply

  28. questions says:

    POA writes:
    “Steve Clemons’ main stated reason for being “skeptical” of this story was his contention that Sibel may have stumbled upon a covert reverse sting or misinformation intelligence operation. A Congressional panel looked into that possibility, and discounted it. Now, Steve uses some sort of “spat” with Sibel as his reason for discounting this story.”
    Doesn’t there appear to be deep suspicion of Steve Clemons’s motives expressed in this? This isn’t the first time you’ve brought up such suspicions. I assume that you assume that everything is related to Israel. So I figured you figured Israel had its claws in Steve’s blog.
    If not Israel, then what? What does it mean that Steve “uses” something as a reason? Can’t he just, ummm, reason about things and think that Brad of Bloggia is just, ummm, possibly wrong?
    But he can defend himself, at any rate. I’m defending me.
    And yes, you’re insanely wrong about the BradofblogcheekyTWNquestions connection. You’re constantly suspicious and it does matter. It’s at the heart of how you think. And it’s off the deep end. Really off the deep end. Many people think Edmonds’s case is off. And many of us write with reasonable prose. No conspiracy.
    Thanks for paying attention to my posting schedule. It makes me feel so, ummm, stalked? Is that the right term? I don’t even know my own posting schedule. Didn’t know I had one. If there’s a computer in front of me and I don’t have urgent tasks….

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Straw.
    The rest of the posters here can think for themselves. They can examine the threads, discount or agree with my conclusion. Frankly, I really don’t give a shit, questions. As far as you go, it appears more and more people here are tiring of your constant bullshit and obsfucation. If I’m wrong about the Bradblog thing, so what? Do you think it somehow proves I’m “paranoid”, or gives your constant smoke a higher degree of credibility?
    And where do I accuse Steve of being a “tool for Israel”?
    I will tell you this, Steve will undoubtedly flood this blog with fresh topics, because I highly doubt he wants to respond to Brad’s direct queries. This thread will probably be pushed to the archives in a hurry. Hopefully I’m wrong, because it is time for Steve to clearly explain to Brad why he has consigned Brad into the ranks of a “cult leader” and conspiracy theorist. And, by association, placed me in the ranks of a cultist. I expect such tactics from you and Wigwag, but not from Steve.

    Reply

  30. questions says:

    Steve is highly suspect as a tool of Israel. I’m sure that’s why he thinks the Edmonds thing is not worth covering.
    Yeah, right.
    POA, is Brad of Blogland the only person above suspicion in your univers — excepte for his defense of Rachel Maddow?
    The rest of the world is bought out by Israel????

    Reply

  31. questions says:

    It is interesting indeed. POA writes,
    “Its interesting that both “questions” and “Cheeky” introduced identical straw arguments, on the two blogs, and kept the exact same posting schedule, retiring and appearing at almost the exact same time on both blogs, for three days. Look for yourself, Read the thread at Bradblog. Judge for yourself if I am “paranoid” to believe that questions was masquerading as a “proffessional journalist” over at Bradblog…”
    I am very very interested in the connection between two people who have similar or the same ideas. Nevermind that in fact we didn’t really. In fact, we differed on the reasons for suspicion. BUT the fact that we suspect means WE ARE THE SAME PERSON.
    “Cheeky” had a mistake about the exposure to English that was actually covered by Edmonds somewhere and “Cheeky” went on about this point for a while…. But, of course, in POA’s fevered imagination, any two people in the blogosphere who have issues with Edmonds’s account and who write reasonably good prose must be, in fact, ONLY ONE PERSON because there can’t be two such people in all the whole universe — which is why so many journalists are covering the Edmonds saga!!!!
    I am alone with me and my personae. That dude am I.

    Reply

  32. questions says:

    That dude (me?) was referring to Brad’s defending Rachel Maddow under your attack.

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Interesting thatr Wigwag cannot seem to cite the “holes” in Sibel’s story, nor name the “legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprises” that she claims we still have in the complete and utter absence of the Fourth Estate.
    All she has for rebuttal to Brad’s journalism, Sibel’s assertions, Cole’s collaboration, Vanity Fair’s investigative piece, the UK Times article, and the 60 Minutes piece is an attack on Brad and me. Attack the messenger, ignore the story.
    And Questions??? The same tactic, with a healthy dose of straw, and some dishonesty and twisting thrown in for bad measure. Heres his tactics, best described in his own words….
    “”POA, you really are more paranoid than you realize. Even Brad was getting uncomfortable with your views, and he’s so into his stunning revelations that I’m surprised he noticed”
    Yet, here is Brad’s response….
    “”Uncomfortable with your views”? No clue what that dude is talking about. But I guess he’s desperate to come up with something?”
    So, for questions, a tactic was a dissingenuous effort to drive a wedge between my interest in this story and my credibility, by dishonestly implying the even those most informed on this topic seek to separate themselves from my “paranoia”. The truth is, the one poster that questions aligned himself with on Bradblog, this “cheeky” character, was the one discredited by Brad’s informed and direct responses to his attempt to bring in straw arguments and vague points of rebuttal.
    Its interesting that both “questions” and “Cheeky” introduced identical straw arguments, on the two blogs, and kept the exact same posting schedule, retiring and appearing at almost the exact same time on both blogs, for three days. Look for yourself, Read the thread at Bradblog. Judge for yourself if I am “paranoid” to believe that questions was masquerading as a “proffessional journalist” over at Bradblog…
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7433
    Ask yourself where the direct rebuttals are to the grist of Sibel’s assertions and accusations. Ask yourself why a former Congressman, accused of high crimes and treason does not respond, and is now employed by the very people that Sibel maintains used him in covert actions against the United States.
    Ask yourself why such accusations, by a former FBI translator, is not a story unto itself. And ask yourself, why, on blog after blog, it is the posters that are most vocal in thier defense of Israel, that want to see this story die on the vine. And ask yourself if a perjurer and a liar, making false accusations out of whole cloth, fights lengthy FOIA court battles, at great expense, to obtain documents and testimony to back up her “lies”.
    Steve Clemons’ main stated reason for being “skeptical” of this story was his contention that Sibel may have stumbled upon a covert reverse sting or misinformation intelligence operation. A Congressional panel looked into that possibility, and discounted it. Now, Steve uses some sort of “spat” with Sibel as his reason for discounting this story.
    It seems those that seek to bury this story have very little to offer for reasoning, yet the argument for investigation has plenty. So, if all else fails, they attack the messenger.

    Reply

  34. WigWag says:

    Sorry, POA, you suggest that I have an aversion for the Sibel Edmonds story because of its possible relationship to Israel but you have it backwards. The only reason you are paying any attention to the story is because you hope it will make Israel look bad and given your hatred of Israel that is something you desire.
    You’re completely transparent, POA. It’s your motivations that are nefarious, not mine.
    All of your ridicule changes nothing. The Sibel Edmonds story is in “Siberia.” That’s where it will remain until some genuine and trusted journalistic enterprise picks it up.
    In the meantime all it will do is circulate on the blogs and amongst a bunch of kooks, kind of like the “birthers” issues do.
    If there is any “there” there; the story will have legs; if not, Brad Friedman can continue to cultivate his audience of paranoid idiots.
    And yes, POA, the Jerusalem Post is a legitimate journalistic enterprise, so is the New York Times despite Judith Miller.
    But you can continue to get all your news from the Brad Blog and the American Conservative.
    As a matter of fact, that explains alot.
    You know, POA, every day you come to resemble the Glenn Beck of the Washington Note more and more.
    Maybe the American Conservative or the Brad Blog will give you a column; after all, it doesn’t seem that their standards are all that high.

    Reply

  35. questions says:

    answers,
    (why do I feel like I’m talking to the mirror!?)
    Nuance is all. My agreement with you at the end of the thread is oh so tentative and careful, and at the end of a long thread after a really really long couple of weeks steeping myself in conspiracy theory and being really tired of it. You may have missed the whole 9/11 Truther thing in an earlier thread — that one went to 300 posts or so and took up maybe a week of my brief time on earth.
    I am deeply skeptical, but willing to say there might be something that someone with a whole lot more training in covert ops, the FBI inner culture, Turkish spying, Schakowski studies… might find. I am not trained in any of this stuff. I read the dossier. Things seemed awfully weird to me in numerous places. the skepticism is there. An intrepid, and well-trained, journalist might find something one day. I’m capable of changing my views if something arises. I don’t think it will, but I haven’t closed off the possibility.
    As Steve has pointed out, the Edmondsiana-ists are perhaps their own worst enemies. POA, one of the chosen few, has routinely accused me of posting under multiple names, working for the government of Israel, lying, deliberately obfuscating (his words) and so on. Well, I know the truth about me even if POA doesn’t, and his accusations just make him seem utterly crazy to me, and to those I’ve discussed this with (come to think of it). So if POA dives in whole-heartedly to the Edmonds saga, I start out a little extra skeptical. And as I read through the literature on Edmonds, I noticed that most of it actually comes from Edmonds. That’s a warning bell. I noticed that there seem to be some factual errors. Warning bell. I noticed that the IG report suggested that she sometimes stretches tales over time. Warning bell. I noticed that her time at the FBI was limited to a short period of short work weeks, that she was mildly promoted at a time when the FBI was desperate for warm bodies and that her education doesn’t necessarily put her in a position of being able to analyze what she was to analyze. Warning bells…..
    And so it goes. The warning bells scream louder than the belief bells (sorry about that!)
    But I don’t have a degree in FBI Studies or in Edmondsiana, so my bells could be off key. Adn that’s the range of agreement with you I have come to. Very narrow, very skeptical, but willing to make for peace on earth and goodwill towards answers. And since Obama has won a Nobel peace prize and even WigWag is trying for peace after a little bit of an explosion, I, too, will do the same. Who knows, maybe the Nobel Committee reads the comments here!

    Reply

  36. DGP North says:

    Posted by WigWag, Oct 08 2009, 11:22PM – Link
    “POA — taunting journalists is not going to gain the Sibel Edmonds story any traction.” Of course, I concur. I know that when folks taunt me to cover this or that, I have a lot less interest in doing so. (Brad Friedman)
    With all due respect, you have an interesting and entertaining blog and it’s great that several notables have provided you with testimonials, but don’t you think calling yourself a “journalist” might be going a little too far?
    I like to play golf; does that make me Greg Norman?
    Posted by WigWag, Oct 09 2009, 12:30AM – Link
    And by the way, in case you didn’t read the first sentence of Brad Friedman’s comment, he said that taunting does nothing to establish the credibility of the story. I think it’s fair to say that carrying on like a maniac doesn’t help too much either.
    That’s twice you have attibuted Steve Clemons comment to Brad , shit , the first time you even typed Brads’ name after it !
    Third times a charm.

    Reply

  37. answers says:

    “POA — taunting journalists is not going to gain the Sibel Edmonds story any traction. Her story is out there. Lots of folks know about it — and few are trusting what is out there. The reason that few want to write about this or even comment on it is the moment they try to credibly investigate the story, they are attacked by her followers or Sibel herself if they raise inconvenient questions.
    I want nothing to do with the story any more because the movement is seeming less and less like a whistle blower issue and more like a cult of personality. I hope she gets somewhere with what she is trying to do. It’s clear that she was close to some pretty interesting intel work…but there are other explanations, potentially, for some of what she saw than the explanations she has offered. And someone like Giraldi should know this.”
    Mr Clemons, I’m in partial agreement with you. That is, as much as I agree that POA’s manner of debate is foolishly confrontational.
    That said, I’d like to refer you to the following link-
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/09/guest_note_by_r/
    I’d like to ask you if my manner of questioning was in the manner of an attack? I certainly did not mean to question the skepticism of questions. Nor am I now questioning yours. I only wish to refer you to the discussion to point out that, it seems, questions finally agreed to me the possibility of this story, under some unusual conditions.
    Anyway, sorry this debate hijacked your thread again, Mr. Khan. As a side note, though, you really should consider covering this story. Most of America would never hear about it even if you did.

    Reply

  38. ... says:

    wigwag is blowing smoke and nothing more…

    Reply

  39. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “As I said, POA, he has an entertaining blog. When some real journalists pick up the story then alot of people will pay attention including me. If none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of legitimate news outlets in the country are willing to cover the story, it makes me skeptical that there’s any “there” there”
    You mean the “real journalists” like those at Fox News???? Or perhaps Olberman and Maddow, who won’t touch one single thing that is critical of Israel?
    So, in your opinion Brad is not a “journalist” because he is investigating a story the mainstream won’t, or hasn’t yet, touched? Whats that make Woodward and Bernstein, Wiggie?
    American Conservative, 60 minutes, the UK Sunday Times, Vanity Fair…what do you call the authors and commentators of these media entities, Wiggie, if not “journalists”?
    I think you are blowing smoke about a story you don’t want exposed because of its implications for the Israeli lobbying bloc. And the only way you can attempt to discredit the story is by discrediting the messenger. And your immediate response to Brad’s comment was an exhibition of knee jerk ignorance, which you have now compounded by advancing the asinine premise that Brad is not a “journalist” because some un-named “legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprise” isn’t covering the same story. Why don’t you name this entity, Wiggie? The Jerusalem post? Or perhaps you’d prefer DEBKA?? Or a quality “journalist” like Miller or Armstrong??? One of the members of the infamous “message force multipliers”, or is their past existence and use on virtually ALL the mainstream networks just “conspiracy theory”???
    Lets hear your opinion of who, or what, is a “legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprise”. Name it.
    “It’s much more reasonable to conclude the story has largely been ignored by the conventional media because there are important holes in what Edmonds has to say”
    You know of such holes? Why aren’t the “legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprises” pointing these “holes” out??? After all, a former FBI translator has, under oath, accused key members of our government, past and present, of high crimes and treason. That isn’t a story in itself, even if her accusations are baseless? You don’t think there is a need to “clear” Hastert and Grossman of these accusations, or prosecute Sibel for perjury, as you are hinting that she lied under oath?
    You are transparently punting, Wigwag, and your knee jerk bullshit doesn’t hold water. But hey, I’ll play. Why don’t you tell us who, exactly, these “legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprises” are.

    Reply

  40. WigWag says:

    As I said, POA, he has an entertaining blog. When some real journalists pick up the story then alot of people will pay attention including me. If none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of legitimate news outlets in the country are willing to cover the story, it makes me skeptical that there’s any “there” there.
    That is unless you believe in crackpot conspiracy theories like the idea that media outlets across the land are conspiring to keep the story quiet.
    A blog is a blog. Brad owns his blog; he can say whatever he wants. I have no basis for either accepting or questioning the veracity of what he says.
    But only the delusional or the paranoid could believe that the story is being suppressed by some sort of media conspiracy. It’s much more reasonable to conclude the story has largely been ignored by the conventional media because there are important holes in what Edmonds has to say.
    Could Brad Friedman be right? Sure. Could the facts he’s presenting be skewed or half-truths? Sure. There’s nothing about the reputation of Brad Friedman or the Brad Blog that makes anything he says particularly compelling.
    I’m willing to consider the possibility that there may be enough information in the public domain to suggest some type of objective inquiry is called for. But the mere fact that a blogger is calling for an independent investigation is, of itself, not particularly compelling.
    No mainstream media outlet is above reproach; they all make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are bad. But that’s hardly a reason to believe everything you read on a blog or any other internet site.
    Glenn Beck has a blog too. So does Sean Hannity. Should we run out and call for investigations every time they make some allegation on their blogs?
    If Brad Friedman is on to something, he will manage to get some legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprise to examine it.
    Until then, it’s just noise.
    And by the way, in case you didn’t read the first sentence of Brad Friedman’s comment, he said that taunting does nothing to establish the credibility of the story. I think it’s fair to say that carrying on like a maniac doesn’t help too much either.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Why, Wiggie? Care to enlighten us as to your opinion why Brad’s journalistic recording of his investigation into this story is anything less than the actions of a “journalist”?
    Be specific.
    It wouldn’t be because Sibel’s assertions cast the Irsraeli lobby in an extremely unfavorable light, would it? Therefore you have to discredit the messenger instead of addressing the facts and assertions that he uncovered AND PRESENTED TO US IN A JOURNALISTIC MANNER????
    Lets hear it, Wiggie, why doesn’t Brad Friedman deserve to be called a “journalist”?

    Reply

  42. arthurdecco says:

    “I like to play golf; does that make me Greg Norman?”
    Even for U, that’s as Lame as Lame gets, WiggyWaggyZiggyZaggy.

    Reply

  43. WigWag says:

    “POA — taunting journalists is not going to gain the Sibel Edmonds story any traction.” Of course, I concur. I know that when folks taunt me to cover this or that, I have a lot less interest in doing so. (Brad Friedman)
    With all due respect, you have an interesting and entertaining blog and it’s great that several notables have provided you with testimonials, but don’t you think calling yourself a “journalist” might be going a little too far?
    I like to play golf; does that make me Greg Norman?

    Reply

  44. Brad Friedman says:

    In reply to Steve’s comment above (and, forgive me, I haven’t read the entire thread here, but was pointed to that one note):
    “POA — taunting journalists is not going to gain the Sibel Edmonds story any traction.”
    Of course, I concur. I know that when folks taunt me to cover this or that, I have a lot less interest in doing so. This story, however, is quite troubling as I see it, so I know folks get very passionate about it. All of that said, you continued…
    “The reason that few want to write about this or even comment on it is the moment they try to credibly investigate the story, they are attacked by her followers or Sibel herself if they raise inconvenient questions.”
    Who has tried to “credibly investigate the story”??? The ones I’m aware of, such as the UK Sunday Times which ran a three part front-page series, or Vanity Fair who ran a 5,000 word expose seem to have done just fine. I’m unaware of anybody being “attacked by her followers”, whoever they are, but if they did, that would be inappropriate. That said, I’m unaware of the credible investigations you seem to mention beyond my own, Phil Giraldi’s, UK Sunday Times’, 60 Minutes’, Vanity Fair, several members of Congress and the DoJ Inspector General. I don’t recall any attacks on any of them, and each of them seems to have found a good deal of credibility in Edmonds’ allegations.
    “I want nothing to do with the story any more because the movement is seeming less and less like a whistle blower issue and more like a cult of personality.”
    Well, I can’t speak to that. But I do agree that it needs to be investigated. More than ever, now that you’ve got an 18-year FBI counterintel/espionage veteran executive calling for a Special Counsel and accountability in the matter, and corroborating some of the key elements of her allegations.
    As I reported this week here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7449
    …the FBI’s John Cole has said, among other things, that Edmonds has been “one hundred percent right on the money, on the mark”, he corroborated the “decade long investigation” of Marc Grossman (top Bush State Dept. official and alleged US ringleader in the Turkish espionage scandal) and that back in 2002 “Everybody at headquarters level at the bureau knew that what she was saying was extremely accurate. … They were trying to figure out ways of keeping this whole thing quiet, because they didn’t want Sibel to come out.”
    He also added (among other similar points found at the link above):
    “I would love to see, especially with the allegations that Sibel has come out with, her allegations — which I believe are in fact true, I have no reason to doubt what she’s saying — I would love to see somebody take that, a Special Counsel or whatever, some group of people that you could trust, have them investigate those allegations and have people’s feet held to the fire. Have them be held accountable for their actions — and prosecuted if they’ve done wrong.”
    “You know, no one’s above the law, and no one should be above the law … You know, it really irritates me that people are getting away with murder, in some cases. They should not be allowed to get away with that. There needs to be accountability. And that’s what I’d love to see.”
    Seems noteworthy to me.
    And one other point in reply to this comment from Steve: “It’s clear that she was close to some pretty interesting intel work…but there are other explanations, potentially, for some of what she saw than the explanations she has offered. And someone like Giraldi should know this.”
    I would love to know what those “other explanations” are, because when I’ve looked into the “other explanations” I came up with, they didn’t seem to pan out. So I do welcome your thoughts here. Have talked to Giraldi quite a bit, and not sure if he is a aware of other credible explanations either at this point.
    You have my personal contacts, Steve, and I’d be delighted to pick things up via email. Including any skepticism you may have. I try to have plenty. I wrote to you a week or two back about this, but hadn’t heard back, so thought I’d jump in here.
    Best,
    Brad

    Reply

  45. WigWag says:

    Well it sounds like the Qatari Emir thinks Saban would be a good owner for Al-Jazeera.
    As a matter of fact, the reporting tonight suggests that this isn’t the first time the Emir has considered selling a stake in Al-Jazeera to Saban.
    In 2003 Saban travelled to Qatar with Bill Clinton to attend a conference aimed at promoting Middle East peace. Reports suggest that he met with the Emir at that time and they discussed the sale of a piece of Al-Jazeera to the Saban Capital Group. But that was before Al-Jazeera hit the financial skids so a deal was never made.

    Reply

  46. arthurdecco says:

    “Sounds like Saban might be just what the doctor ordered for Al-Jazeera.” WigWag
    Hokay…another media conglomerate spewing Zionist propaganda. Yup, that sounds JUST like something we need to help us reach sensible conclusions.

    Reply

  47. WigWag says:

    More on the Haim Saban purchase of Al Jazeera
    Another reason the Emir is thinking of selling Saban a 50 percent stake in Al Jazeera’s broadcast operations is Saban’s history of turing around unprofitable media companies.
    In 1997 Saban and Murdoch’s NewsCorp purchased the Family Network from Pat Robertson for $1.9 billion; just four years later Saban (who controlled 49.5% of the Company) sold it to Disney for $3.2 billion.
    In 2007 Saban led a consortium that purchased Univision and currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Univision. Saban also owns 25% of Direct TV and has a substanital stake in Societe Television Francaise 1 (French Channel TF-1)
    In 2003 Saban purchased ProSiebenSat.1 Media, Germany’s largest broadcasting group then in bankruptcy for $300 million. Saban served as ProSiebenSat.1’s Chairman of the Board. until he sold the controlling stake in the company to German published Axel Springer in 2007 for $3 billion.
    In addition to his “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” franchise, Saban also owns a stake in the “X Men” franchise and he is part of the group that just sold Marvel to Disney last month.
    Of course, Saban also owns one of Israel’s largest television networks.
    Sounds like Saban might be just what the doctor ordered for Al-Jazeera.
    Who knows, Mr. Khan, after Saban polishes up the company for you, there might even be enough money for all the reporters to get a big raise!

    Reply

  48. WigWag says:

    Saban to by 50 percent of Al Jazeerah?
    It’s not just al jazeerah English; if the rumors are to be believed the Qataris are thinking of selling Saban 50 percent of the entire broadcast operation including the Arabic language satellite network.
    According to reports, despite it’s huge popular appeal, al jazeerah is apparently only marginally profitable at best and the Emir seems to think Saban has the know-how to turn it around.
    Saban has developed numerous cooperative ventures with Fox and NewsCorp and despite being a political liberal and a Democrat, Saban is very close to Rupert Murdoch.
    There is widespread speculation that Murdoch (to be more precise, NewsCorp) is a “silent partner” in Saban’s offer.
    It strains credulity to think that this deal might go through, but with the price of oil off its highs, and given the Emir’s reputation as a moderate Arab monarch, who knows?
    By the way, Saban is fluent in Arabic.
    This would not be the first time Saban has cooperated with an unlikely partner. For a while in the 1990s, Saban was a partner with Pat Robertson and then in 1997, Saban and Fox purchased the Family Channel outright from Robertson for $1.9 billion. Ultimately Saban sold his stake in the Family Channel for a huge profit and used some of the funds to expand his “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” franchise. I’ve read that Saban created an Arabic language version of the cartoon which is hugely popular in the Muslim world. According to some, just the Arabic version of the cartoon generates many millions of dollars in revenue for Saban annually.
    If he does buy half of Al Jazeera the natural question is; will there be an Al Jazeera Israel?
    Come on, Riz Khan, we know you’re reading these comments. Tell us what you think. Do you want Saban to be your new boss?

    Reply

  49. arthurdecco says:

    al jazeerah (English) had been co-opted for some time now.
    I’m too lazy to search for the links but they do exist. Follow the investment trail and the political blackmail trail to date. (Since the good ol’ USA deliberately murdered their staff and destroyed their HQ in two war torn regions, I mean.)

    Reply

  50. ... says:

    thanks for the note wigwag…
    interesting timing…
    how ironic we appear to now be getting more ”access” to al jazeera – for what it’s worth, lol…

    Reply

  51. WigWag says:

    And getting back to the original post from Riz Khan, perhaps Mr. Khan will comment on how he feels about this article,
    Israeli media mogul Haim Saban mulls stake in Al Jazeera
    By Nimrod Halpern (Last update – 12:51 08/10/2009)Haaretz
    Israeli businessman Haim Saban is negotiating with Qatar’s emir the purchase of 50 percent of the Al Jazeera television network, the independent Egyptian newspaper Al-Mesryoon reported earlier this week.
    Saban, an Egyptian-born Jew, was first reported to be negotiating the purchase of half the Doha -based network in 2004, after visiting the emirate with former U.S. President Bill Clinton.
    The media mogul, estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, brought the Power Rangers franchise to the Arab world and made a fortune out of developing and selling the Fox Family cable network together with News Corp. In Israel, Saban owns a controlling stake in Bezeq.

    Reply

  52. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And, I just discovered, if you click on the “Study in Warm and Cool” picture, to view it full size, theres a fifties lead sled reflected in the windshield, replete with pontiac spinner hubcaps, and full fender skirts.
    Almost makes me want to cruise back through Boron, and see what other treasures are lurking in that shithole town.

    Reply

  53. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Nina has the rat rod picture posted. Damn, I forgot how cool that machine is. It has James Dean written all over it, with a touch of funk that even Dean would have been hard pressed to carry. There is no place on earth more suited to this car’s existence than Boron.
    http://deepintoartlifewestgallery.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  54. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I’d sit in a radio studio with POA, but only if his mother brought a pacifier and I got to bring a baseball bat”
    Wigwag hasn’t returned your dildo yet??

    Reply

  55. Outraged American says:

    OK, now we’re talking about drywall and glue on a foreign policy
    blog, which is appropriate. Congress is the drywall, money is
    the glue and the Zionists are going to be the squatters who tear
    the house down.
    I’d sit in a radio studio with POA, but only if his mother brought
    a pacifier and I got to bring a baseball bat.
    The latter would only be to defend Wig Wag, –I really am the
    chivalrous sort– in case she lets loose with one of her
    pornographic translations of Shakespeare, and Norheim or
    Kervick got so turned on they tried to jump her.
    Undoubtably though, Questions would start some kind of lecture
    on the relativism of rape as it related to the foundation of civil
    and literate societies in free and Socratic democracies, in places
    that had them many times before, like Afghanistan, and
    Norheim and Kervicks’ weenuses would be drooping before they
    got Wig’s Depends off, or they’d be asleep.
    Don’t think it’s going to work Steve, all your FANtasies aside.
    I do think that reading the comment section here can be a cure
    for insomnia, so am challenging Steve and his policy wonk
    friends to an Ambien free night where we all wade through the
    10,000 word posts fortified by cups of warm Kahlua and a few
    stale pretzels and see who can summarize them the best into
    two sentences or less.
    The Cliff Notes of a Kervick/ Wig Wag exchange are sure to be a
    best seller in DC circles.
    POA, I’m with Steve in that I’m not sure what to make of the
    Edmonds’ case, and I’ve interviewed many of her fans. It’s
    Steve’s decision to leave it alone, and there are many other
    people who are blogging about it. I do agree with you that
    further investigation is needed.
    And I do agree with Steve that we should try to be nice to his
    guest commentators, which sometimes is almost impossible,
    and each other, ditto.

    Reply

  56. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Arthur, these shots were taken before my good camera took a dive. Hopefully, in the next day or so, Nina will put up some engine shots that are pretty cool, both automotive and aeronautical. Thats the plan, anyway.

    Reply

  57. arthurdecco says:

    Steve Clemons said: “The reason that few want to write about this or even comment on it is the moment they try to credibly investigate the story, they are attacked by her followers or Sibel herself if they raise inconvenient questions.”
    I remember when reporters were portrayed as hard-drinking, hard-boiled cynics who’d seen and heard and lied about everything in the search for the one and only Real Story. Or was that just Hollywood’s version too? I had no idea today’s reporters pout and run home to editor mommy-dearest for reassignment when given a hard time by those resisting their inconvenient questions.
    In all seriousness, Mr. Clemons, can you list a few of the questions asked of Sibel and her supporters that have led to the reporters in question being attacked?
    I’d be interested to know what kind of inconvenient inquiries push Sibel and her supporter’s buttons and what their real responses have been, sans spin, to the insistent curiosity of an intelligent, committed, curious, insistent and gifted American reporter.

    Reply

  58. arthurdecco says:

    “There is no phenomena on earth that is a match for the American car culture.” POA
    Especially So Cal Car Culture!

    Reply

  59. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Further, if you do have pops with screws, it’s usually because the screw was driven too deeply and the head broke through the paper surface of the drywall”
    Actually, it is more often than not because the drywaller did not get the drywall tight to the stud or ceiling joist. A screw that has penetrated the paper should not be a problem, if the sheet rock is tight against the stud, because the screw spacing is close enough to compensate for such occasional mistakes. A good framer will hold a straight edge horizontally along the studs, and use cardboard furring strips on any “lows”, and will plane any “highs”. The majority of “screw pops” occur when pressure is applied to the sheet rock in an area that is loose on the stud.
    As far as glue goes, I have not yet read any accounts of what is causing the corrosive effects of Chinese sheetrock. A good portion of it, particularly on the east coast, is emitting something that is actually corroding copper piping.
    What glue IS used in the sheetrock process, at least on the houses we build, is on metal or plastic corners, square or bullnose. A spray contact cement is applied before the corners are nailed, quaranteeing a seamless corner with excellent structural integrity.
    Be careful of “joe homeowner” websites, if the guy knew what the fuck he was talking about, he’d be out there doing it.
    David, Nina is going to post an interesting rat rod picture at her blog. We were going through somne old shots I took, and ran across an old Model A pick-up fifties rat rod I shot in Boron, California. The car was right at home in that hellhole. Its not on her blog yet, but will be, in the “gallery” section, by morning. Check it out. There is no phenomena on earth that is a match for the American car culture.
    http://deepintoartlifewestgallery.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  60. WigWag says:

    I stand corrected about the drywall glue, David. This is from handyman.com
    Q Someone told me that gluing drywall to the frame is good insurance against nail pops. But how can I glue the drywall on the exterior wall when I have to use a plastic sheet for a vapor barrier?
    A You can’t. Leave the vapor barrier in place and attach the drywall with drywall screws. Ultimately, having a vapor barrier is more important than any concern about nail pops.
    Even though you can experience some popping with drywall screws, the chances are far less than with nails. Further, if you do have pops with screws, it’s usually because the screw was driven too deeply and the head broke through the paper surface of the drywall. You can still glue and nail the interior walls, but you’ll probably save time and have just as much success if you skip the glue entirely and use screws on the whole project.
    By the way, in case you haven’t heard, Tom and Ray Magliozzi are immortal.

    Reply

  61. David says:

    Sidenote: Drywalling does not involve glue. It involves a variation on plaster of Paris. Dry sanding is good for a variation on silicosis, but wet sanding is non-hazardous. So no loss of neurons because of drywalling. Carpet glue, on the other hand, and even moreso contact cement for affixing formica…
    And Car Talk will never die – Click and Clack, maybe, but not Car Talk. It will evolve into a more psychology-oriented self-help show – they already do some pretty funny stuff along those lines. Or maybe Big Oil will become its major corporate sponsor and it will become How I Learned to Stop Worrying about the 350 ppm Threshold and Love the Warmth.

    Reply

  62. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And I’m afraid that Pimples is a bad choice as well, for he would undoubtedly spend his time flicking his finger on the mike in series of threes, while muttering in between clicks…
    “Can you hear me now….can you hear me now?”
    Why not just let Wigwag MC the debate, while Varanazi and Ironbelle moderate? That way the managers at PBR only gotta pay one person.

    Reply

  63. Paul Norheim says:

    A motel? The person least likely to sleep or be a detached and neutral moderator during
    the conspiracy theory segments is you, Questions! You`ll let them go on for hours!

    Reply

  64. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Questions is incapable of moderating such a show, as he would use up the entire airtime explaining to the audience that what they were about to hear might not be what they actually hear, if in fact they can hear at all.

    Reply

  65. questions says:

    The UN is a tool of the USISRAFPAK regime. I’m guessing they’d appear only as holograms.
    But I will put it all aside to be a fair moderator, as long as Paul brings the fog lights and a roach motel so I have a place to sleep during the conspiracy theory segments.
    …, you can play the intro.

    Reply

  66. Paul Norheim says:

    A large, permanent contingent of UN blue helmets would have to be deployed in the
    studio, with an unambigous mandate from the Security Counsil to discourage and
    prevent hostile actions between the main participants in the show.

    Reply

  67. WigWag says:

    I resent that Clemons!
    Click and Clack will never “go under!”
    Car Talk rules!

    Reply

  68. ... says:

    steve it is ever interesting what gets you and what you get off on… – thanks for the comments section regardless…

    Reply

  69. Steve Clemons says:

    You guys need your own show!! Perhaps when Car Talk finally goes under, National Public Radio might option something with POA, Outraged, WigWag, Dan Kervick, and Nadine.
    Questions, …, and Paul Norheim could be guest moderators.
    As ever — your fan,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  70. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hmmm. I see. If he writes about “the Iranian nuclear threat”, he’s a dupe of Israel???
    Yes, I agree, Wiggie.
    You should try honesty more often, its quite refreshing.

    Reply

  71. WigWag says:

    “Or he could get reeeeeally journalistic, and tell us how in danger we are of getting nuked tomorrow by this bad nasty holocaust denying boogie man in the devil’s land of Iran. I mean if he’s gonna report in English, he might as well do as the natives do, eh?”
    So now POA thinks Al Jazeera reporters are dupes of the Israelis.
    Apparently all that drywall glue he’s been sniffing has destroyed the small number of functioning neurons POA had left.
    ps: POA, no need to get a dictionary; neurons are brain cells.

    Reply

  72. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But seriously, stop taunting every person who posts here. It’s disrespectful and irritating — and undermines the credibility of the Sibel Edmonds movement, which it is now”
    My apologies. Perhaps I should be prodding him to get with the really important stuff, like who Letterman screwed last week.
    Or he could get reeeeeally journalistic, and tell us how in danger we are of getting nuked tomorrow by this bad nasty holocaust denying boogie man in the devil’s land of Iran. I mean if he’s gonna report in English, he might as well do as the natives do, eh?

    Reply

  73. David says:

    Glad to see a post from someone at Al Jazeera English. They seem to me to be an actual news organization.

    Reply

  74. Steve Clemons says:

    POA — taunting journalists is not going to gain the Sibel Edmonds story any traction. Her story is out there. Lots of folks know about it — and few are trusting what is out there. The reason that few want to write about this or even comment on it is the moment they try to credibly investigate the story, they are attacked by her followers or Sibel herself if they raise inconvenient questions.
    I want nothing to do with the story any more because the movement is seeming less and less like a whistle blower issue and more like a cult of personality. I hope she gets somewhere with what she is trying to do. It’s clear that she was close to some pretty interesting intel work…but there are other explanations, potentially, for some of what she saw than the explanations she has offered. And someone like Giraldi should know this.
    I won’t go into this because of an experience I had with Sibel early on, after I tried to dig into it when you, POA, encouraged me to. I will not do it again.
    But seriously, stop taunting every person who posts here. It’s disrespectful and irritating — and undermines the credibility of the Sibel Edmonds movement, which it is now.
    all best, steve

    Reply

  75. PissedOffAmerican says:

    How do you spell “Sibel Edmonds”, Riz??? Remember her?
    Or are you aspiring to be like the eunich journalists we have here in the MSM? Is it about money, or information?? If its just about money, welcome to the ranks of the cowardly.
    Is there such a thing as a “journalist” anymore? And if so, where are they?

    Reply

  76. Steve Clemons says:

    Riz — We at The Washington Note really appreciate your interest in and support of this blog. You are welcome to offer your “notes” (i.e. guest posts) here any time! And we look forward to other of your colleagues at Al Jazeera joining us as well.
    Thanks again — and I agree that it was an interesting week in New York — with reverberating effects still playing out in global political posturing.
    Best, Steve Clemons

    Reply

Add your comment

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