Gagged to Protect the Bush Administration Guilty: Sibel Edmonds, and Her HUGE Ticking Time Bomb of Testimony

Good morning Lex, or whatever other loser 30%er that just db1ed me. Glad I could make your day, putz!

The Bradblog?

Are you serious?

That's not HUGE, Ron. That's pathetic. Whoever the hell "Brad" is, he doesn't fit any reasonable definition of a "reliable source".

Ever wonder why no reputable media outlet stays away from her? Because she's just another tin-foil-hat-wearing lunatic.

Yeah, well, that was eight long months of sitting on his ass doing absolutely nothing about something he'd been amply warned about by the Clinton administration, now wasn't it?

David,
She was previously interviewed for 60 minutes, but the DOJ classified the interview. She's no nut, and Bradblog is a highly respected source on the hackable voting machine scandals, breaking many of the leading stories on it. Just because you, in your never ending quest to never read anything but Dush propaganda have not heard of it, does not make it a questionable source. Unless you know something you aren't divulging, discrediting a source, just because it appeals to you is just BS.

"highly respected source"

By whom?

Ron,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. She has been muzzled, I'm afraid. I don't think the real story will come out until our present commander in chief is out of office.

Well, you won't give this any credence, but I think others will. The New York Times said they should be given a Pulitzer for their work on the voting machine scandals. That's one, and there are others that have expressed similar views.

Joe, I sincerely hope you are wrong. If she has information on what she says she has, and the Government seems to believe her credible, then we need to hear it.

Ron, thanks. Now repeat after me, Speigle, Le Monde Diplomatique, BBC, Washington Post, The Nation, Air America, Times of London. Get it in print, television will follow.

David, as to her being a nutcase:

"She has met with, and told her story to, U.S. senators including Republican Charles Grassley and Democrat Patrick Leahy, both of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both who found her extremely credible. 60 Minutes producers may remember when Grassley told them, "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

In fact, the FBI itself has done so. Their Inspector General found her allegations, as described in the unclassified version of his report, to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."

As far back as 2002, Grassley and Leahy co-wrote letters on Edmonds' behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to the allegations she's made."

"As we reported last Spring, Veteran FBI counterintelligence agent John Cole has said he's "talked to people who had read her file, who had read the investigative report, and they were telling me a totally different story" than that given publicly by FBI officials. "They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was 100 percent accurate," he said, "management knew that she was correct.""

That do you, David?

I will be, throughout the day, reposting this, as I feel it is a story EVERYONE should know about. Please sign the petition to have her voice heard, as well, the link is:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/LibertyCoalition
/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1728&t=Liberty%20Coalition.dwt

you may have to cut and paste in two operations to get it all in the address box, but the link was not coming through, on one line here.

Typical, attack the messenger when unable to assail the message. The firefighter's oral histories were covered-up because at least 118 of them had damning evidence of explosions throughout the buildings that were brought down. Silencing Sibel Edmonds fits the mold. And the wingers unable to answer the message, attack the messenger.

Yeah, it's typical, Stephen. Thanks for reading and commenting.

i see what other people are surmising; what their opinions are, Ron. That doesn't doesn't classify as proof.

If Leahy believes so much in the woman's credibility, call her before the Judiciary Committee and have her tell her story, under oath (since Leahy is so fond of doing that to administration officials). He's got the power to do that. Subpeona the Justice Department and the FBI for the relevent documents. He has that power, too.

Wonder why Pat hasn't done that in the 10 months he's had the gavel? Maybe because he knows it's all BS? It's not like he's prone to hiding information that could be damaging to the President -- quite the opposite, in fact.

He doesn't Ron, because even Pat knows he better not cross that line.

Move on, Ron.

I heard that, Stephen, and you are right, there is a pattern to the silencing of information in this administration that goes far beyond this, but until more sources like Sibel here, decide to take the courageous path and tell all, regardless of the consequences for themselves, none of it will be brought to general public attention. She's a HUGE hero, in my book. there is also a link to her legal defense fund, there, if anyone feels moved enough to donate. This lady deserves our respect and admiration, but in addition, we need to help support her in her actions on our behalf, because that's who she's doing this for, you and me, the shmuck on the street.

Maybe she hasn't been brought before the committee because they haven't had a chance to prepare. She has no incentive to lie, David.

I don't expect this to go far because there has been too many attempts to muzzle the truth. The truth is that the Clinton administration informed the Bush administration that an attack was imminent. Richard Clarke (Against All Enemies) has all but confirmed this. He also pointed out that the Bush administration considered it a Clinton problem but not their problem. Condi Rice told Clarke this. So, Sibel is just another amongst a string of agents to speak out and get muzzled.

Now, I don't believe in conspiracies. There was no conspiracy. Al Qaeda did this. So, before you question my remarks think again.

David,
Did you just forget to read the section where it says the FBI's own unclassified report says she's credible?
"In fact, the FBI itself has done so. Their Inspector General found her allegations, as described in the unclassified version of his report, to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."
That's the FBI saying that. I suppose they're a leftist organization now, since they say something you don't care to hear. You are a real piece of work. Of course I have witnessed your inability to see the writing in front of your face before, if it's about your hero's inept and corrupt administration, and about one more instance of that, and I will no longer bother with you at all. I'm not interested in your desire to spread propaganda, without any attempt to even try to apply reason, in the face of irrefutable evidence, as you did with the story about the two fake war critics in the NYTimes.

"She has no incentive to lie, David."

And, you know this, how, Joe?

"...has all but confirmed this."

Meaning - he hasn't confirmed this, but we sure wish that he would, so we'll weasle our way into that interpretation.

"Condi Rice told Clarke this."

She told him to bring back actionable intelligence, not supposition.

David - you are blinded by your penchant in favor of the president. All things Bush are good. I think that it is possible that Sibel E. has valuable information. I also, don't think that it will get anywhere at this point. The climate is too apathetic.

That's what she said, but the truth is, she wasn't prepared, or qualified, according to her own words, at that point about anything to do with the Mideast and was wary of Clarke's expertise, and blocked any access to the president, in the fear he would embarrass her.

"Did you just forget to read the section where it says the FBI's own unclassified report says she's credible?"

No, I read that, Ron. That's his opinion, or maybe he was just polite. He concluded, however, that her allegations could not be proven.

Lex, First off, FO on your insulting drivel, but to your question, I'm not, entirely, but here's the thing, it needs to be brought out, even if it turns out to be pelosi and reid, as far as I'm concerned, because there is treason involved here. And if it wasn't the BA blocking it, it wouldn't be so easy to draw the conclusion, you know?

Thanks, Ron. The BEST we can say about this adminstration is that they are terminally negligent of their duties and grossly unqualified for their positions.

The WORST we can say is that they are intelligent and very qualified - enough so to allow a terrorist attack to happen and provide the applicable shock and fear in a nation that would allow them to essentially hi-jack the United States government and carry out their war plans in the middle east, their plans to extend the powers of the executive to the point where laws are meaningless and the country's other branches of the governement are powerless to stop them, and secure the economic security and power of themselves and their friends in the energy business.

No, David - she said that it was Clinton's problem not the Bush's problem. Clarke pointed this out in his book.

It's a shame that she didn't listen to Clarke. The entire incident might have been thwarted.

Oh for craps sakes, David, that's the Inspector General of the FBI, In an official report, I doubt polite has a thing to do with it, but his opinion, as the inspector general deserves a lot more respect than that your totally biased opinion. Shall we just descend to "I know you are, but what am I?" here? That's just infantile.

"David - you are blinded by your penchant in favor of the president. All things Bush are good. I think that it is possible that Sibel E. has valuable information. I also, don't think that it will get anywhere at this point. The climate is too apathetic."
Joe T., Nov 1, 2007, 11:39am EDT

Joe, I'm not blinded by any penchant in favor of Bush or anyone else. I don't think all of what Bush has done are correct. I do agree that this is a waste of time, however.

I never said that it was a waste of time, David. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that the current climate is too apathetic.

David - I've read your remarks about the issues of the day. You are all about the glories of Bush. You defend anything said about him and are quick to draw conclusions based on your insidious habit of not thinking about the issue.

Lex, you have no ability to debate, so you insult. If you have arguments, bring them, but otherwise, you can kiss my liberal ass, you brain dead moron.

"Clarke pointed this out in his book. "
Joe T., Nov 1, 2007, 11:47am EDT

Then it MUST be fact! Goodness knows Dick wouldn't put anything self-serving in his book to cover-up his incompetence and disdain for, "that woman telling him what to do."

I'll stick with Condi's version, thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"...your totally biased opinion."
Ron (& Budi, Bad Humun, Bad BUG!) W., Nov 1, 2007, 11:47am EDT

My opinion is based upon what he said in the declassified report that YOU refered me to, Ron. You have a problem with what he said, take it up with him.

"You are all about the glories of Bush. You defend anything said about him and are quick to draw conclusions based on your insidious habit of not thinking about the issue. "
Joe T., Nov 1, 2007, 11:50am EDT

Generalizations are usually incorrect, Joe; and your's is no exception. I'm frequently disagree with the President and have stated right here on Gather when those disagreements arise. Perhaps you are projecting just a bit, because it seem to me that you have an "all-things-Bush-is bad" perspective.

This issue is about squashing the truth. Her testimony might be enlightening but you, David, are quick to discredit her because it doesn't fit within your agenda. I stand by my assessment of you.

David - you do not disagree with President Bush. You are quick to defend him, even before you have all of the facts. You are great with finding information but then you twist the information to your own liking rather than to the truth.

"My opinion is based upon what he said in the declassified report that YOU refered me to, Ron. You have a problem with what he said, take it up with him."

Not hardly, your opinion may be based on the first several paragraphs, but not on the full report, by any means. SOME of her allegations could not be substantiated, that is true, but the undeniable theme is that the FBI botched up, then covered up, and they recommended further investigation, and provided their recommended solutions to the problems.

Lex,
It would be entirely impossible for you to recognize anybody with your head up your ass that far.

From the FBI Inspector General's Report:

"IX. CONCLUSION
The majority of the allegations raised by Edmonds related to the actions of a co-worker. The allegations raised serious concerns that, if true, could potentially have extremely damaging consequences for the FBI. These allegations warranted a thorough and careful review by the FBI.

Our investigation concluded that the FBI did not, and still has not, adequately investigated these allegations. Our review also found that many - although not all - of Edmonds' allegations about the co-worker had some basis in fact. This evidence does not prove, and we are not suggesting, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that espionage or any improper disclosures of FBI information occurred. However, we believe the FBI should have taken Edmonds' allegations more seriously and investigated them more thoroughly. As discussed in this report, the FBI's investigation of the information regarding the co-worker was significantly flawed. Had the FBI investigated the claims thoroughly, it would have found that many of Edmonds' allegations regarding the co-worker were supported by documentary evidence or other witnesses. Instead, the FBI seems to have discounted Edmonds' allegations, believing she was a disruptive influence and not credible, and eventually terminated her services. Even now, the FBI has not carefully investigated the allegations about the co-worker to determine if the co-worker compromised any FBI information. In light of the need for FBI vigilance about security issues, as demonstrated by the Hanssen case, we believe the FBI should have investigated these serious allegations more thoroughly.

Edmonds also alleged that the FBI retaliated against her by terminating her services as a CL. We concluded that Edmonds' allegations were at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services. We recognize that the FBI Whistle blower regulations do not apply to Edmonds because she was a contractor rather than an FBI employee. We also recognize that her varied and insistent allegations of misconduct may have been frustrating, and that not all of her allegations were true. However, many of her allegations had a basis in fact, and the way the FBI responded to her allegations contributed to her persistent claims. Moreover, we believe the FBI should not discourage employees or contractors from raising good-faith allegations of misconduct or mismanagement and the FBI's termination of Edmonds' services may discourage others from raising such concerns.

With regard to Edmonds' other allegations of misconduct, most were not supported by the evidence we reviewed. However, she did raise a valid concern about unnecessary travel for certain linguists.

Finally, our review also found problems in the oversight of FBI CLs. The FBI needs to more carefully oversee and monitor their work. Towards this end, we made several recommendations regarding the FBI's hiring and oversight of CLs. We believe that the FBI should carefully consider these recommendations, which we believe could help improve the operation of the FBI's language translation program."

Ron, don't waste your time or energy on Lex. He has no arguments or logic... just fifth grade name calling. Best thing to do is ignore him.

The gainsaying arguments of others isn't a good position to argument from either. Can't dispute the facts, so they muddy them up. Edmonds has a gag order on her. The admin has stonewalled with documents from many requests. Leahy can request documents, Lugar can request documents... the whole damn Congress can request documents... unless the admin coughs them up, and Justice lets them push the legal limits, these criminals will do as they please. A classic tactic to keep a cover-up covered-up.

Stephen,
I just want ol' Lex to know that I hold him in the same high regard that he holds me. A mutual admiration society is probably in the offing. lol as for the rest of your comment, I heartily concur.

Absolutely agree, Stephen.

I say again...."their plans to extend the powers of the executive to the point where laws are meaningless and the country's other branches of the governement are powerless to stop them". The biggest problem I have with this administration is that they hold themselves completely above the law, answerable to no one.

Lex, you need to fire your writers. If they're not paying you to use their gags you're getting cheated.

Here's a link to the original 60 Minutes story. Fascinating stuff although it seems to be mostly about the FBI's Language Division having incompetents at the helm.

LOL, Lex! Keep coming up with those gems - I use your comments as examples of the sorry state of education in this country - please, don't stop!

"Here's a link to the original 60 Minutes story."
Nippy Katz *too freaking long*, Nov 1, 2007, 1:31pm EDT

60 minutes? Are you serious? That's ALMOST as bas as Ron's Bradlog.

David,
Feel free to not comment on my articles from now on, if you're going to disparage perfectly good sources, and put up articles yourself that are nothing but passed on email.

Like I said, can't dispute the facts...

What is valid about 60 Minutes is the fact the woman is in front of a camera with a national audience. She is not going to make false statements lightly without lots of people knowing about it. David's comment is not to dispute the facts of what she alleges, he can't come up with a cogent argument to do that, but simply to muddy the waters.

I understand that no television network will take her on...yet. It is for the same reason that they broadcast only the news they are told to and allowed to. They are owned by the corporations, and they could be shut down.

I hope she can get heard before too much longer.