Former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged woman in US history. Attorney General John Ashcroft twice invoked the rarely used States Secrets Privilege in her case under the guise of classified secrets and protecting national security.
In a recent speech, Sibel again emphasized that the reason that she has been gagged is not for reasons of national security, but rather to cover-up criminality, treason, by high level US officials.
As evidence for this claim, Sibel explained that for the three months prior to Ashcroft blanket-gagging her case, the FBI was conducting unclassified briefings for Congress on the case.
In other words, from the beginning, neither Congress, nor the FBI, even considered that this information might be classified, let alone a 'national security' issue.
As Michael Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition, said: "The excuse of protecting national security is fallacious."
During the Q&A session after the speech, Sibel was asked where we should draw the line between disclosure and national security. Sibel responded thusly (mp3 - 3 mins)"
I can tell you, just from my case (and from other whistleblower cases that I've represented) it almost doesn't deal with any classified information at all. That's why they went and retroactively classified the information.
Even with Congress, one important thing that I have tried to emphasize - and unfortunately the mainstream media is not there really as far as these real issues are concerned... When I went to Congress, I didn't know which Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators to go to! Because part of my case dealt with our representatives, (and this was based on some counter-intelligence operations) were getting cash bribery from foreign governments. And when I internally started reporting this, and it was not getting anywhere, this great agent that I worked with... said:
"Well, let's say you go to Congress. How are you going to determine who is clean to go to?"
And to me that was really sobering, because he told me:
Just based on Turkish counter-intelligence operations, you know of FOUR corrupt congressional people. Take a look at this room (of translators), we have the Chinese Department, we have, you know, the Arabic, including Saudi Arabia and everything. How many (other corrupt Congressfolk) do you think they have come across?
[snip] When the two Senators, Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley, one Democrat and one Republican, they heard this information, the FBI discussed the entire case with them during an unclassified meeting - meaning the staff members present during that meeting, none - or most - of them didn't have clearances. So the FBI had decided in the beginning that this was not classified. What happened later? 3 months later? when the Attorney General says 'Oops, this is really going to hurt us' - meaning those who were guilty - 'so we're going to decide to classify it'
I'm a bit of a dunce, and I'd never fully appreciated this. Sibel has repeatedly mentioned that she often had to suggest that certain hearings be held inside SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities) but I had presumed that was simply because the Senate Judiciary Committee staffers didn't really know what they were doing. But here we have the FBI - presumably Counter-Intelligence agents who likely know a thing or two about classification, secrecy and national security - confirming Sibel's allegations in unclassified sessions with Congress.
As I said, I'm a dunce. The ACLU timeline on Sibel's case reads:
"JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004."
You'd think that I'd have understood this already. That's the beauty of the Sibel Edmonds case - there's always something 'new' to learn. And this week I learnt that even the FBI didn't think that the information in Sibel's case deserved to be classified, even as a precaution.
(The 75 min video of Sibel's recent ALA speech is available here (500meg) )
Let Sibel Edmonds Speak Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings: DC phone: (202) 225-3976 LA phone: 323 651-1040 Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498
I've either been a bad or good 'ex'-blogger... depending on your perspective.
There are a bunch of things that i 'should' be ranting about - I'm trying to err on the side of 'not blogging'.
Sibel gave a speech to the American Library Association recently - the whole thing can be see here (500 meg)- I'll be doing a highlight reel - with comment - as soon as I can master the art of video-editing.
Sibel was apparently mentioned in Mueller's testimony on Thursday. The transcript is supposed to be here. I'll have more when the context is available. Apparently:
"Mueller has promised to take action to make sure that whistleblowers will be protected, mentioning Sibel Edmonds (!!!)"
In a recent speech, Sibel again emphasized that the reason that she has been gagged is not for reasons of national security, but rather to cover-up criminality, treason, by high level US officials.
As evidence for this claim, Sibel explained that for the three months prior to Ashcroft blanket-gagging her case, the FBI was conducting unclassified briefings for Congress on the case.
In other words, from the beginning, neither Congress, nor the FBI, even considered that this information might be classified, let alone a 'national security' issue.
As Michael Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition, said: "The excuse of protecting national security is fallacious."
During the Q&A session after the speech, Sibel was asked where we should draw the line between disclosure and national security. Sibel responded thusly (mp3 - 3 mins)"
I can tell you, just from my case (and from other whistleblower cases that I've represented) it almost doesn't deal with any classified information at all. That's why they went and retroactively classified the information.
Even with Congress, one important thing that I have tried to emphasize - and unfortunately the mainstream media is not there really as far as these real issues are concerned... When I went to Congress, I didn't know which Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators to go to! Because part of my case dealt with our representatives, (and this was based on some counter-intelligence operations) were getting cash bribery from foreign governments. And when I internally started reporting this, and it was not getting anywhere, this great agent that I worked with... said:
"Well, let's say you go to Congress. How are you going to determine who is clean to go to?"
And to me that was really sobering, because he told me:
Just based on Turkish counter-intelligence operations, you know of FOUR corrupt congressional people. Take a look at this room (of translators), we have the Chinese Department, we have, you know, the Arabic, including Saudi Arabia and everything. How many (other corrupt Congressfolk) do you think they have come across?
[snip] When the two Senators, Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley, one Democrat and one Republican, they heard this information, the FBI discussed the entire case with them during an unclassified meeting - meaning the staff members present during that meeting, none - or most - of them didn't have clearances. So the FBI had decided in the beginning that this was not classified. What happened later? 3 months later? when the Attorney General says 'Oops, this is really going to hurt us' - meaning those who were guilty - 'so we're going to decide to classify it'
I'm a bit of a dunce, and I'd never fully appreciated this. Sibel has repeatedly mentioned that she often had to suggest that certain hearings be held inside SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities) but I had presumed that was simply because the Senate Judiciary Committee staffers didn't really know what they were doing. But here we have the FBI - presumably Counter-Intelligence agents who likely know a thing or two about classification, secrecy and national security - confirming Sibel's allegations in unclassified sessions with Congress.
As I said, I'm a dunce. The ACLU timeline on Sibel's case reads:
"JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004."
You'd think that I'd have understood this already. That's the beauty of the Sibel Edmonds case - there's always something 'new' to learn. And this week I learnt that even the FBI didn't think that the information in Sibel's case deserved to be classified, even as a precaution.
(The 75 min video of Sibel's recent ALA speech is available here (500meg) ) Let Sibel Edmonds Speak Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings: DC phone: (202) 225-3976 LA phone: 323 651-1040 Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498
When I went to Congress, I didn't know which Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators to go to! Because part of my case dealt with our representatives, (and this was based on some counter-intelligence operations) were getting cash bribery from foreign governments. And when I internally started reporting this, and it was not getting anywhere, this great agent that I worked with... said:
"Well, let's say you go to Congress. How are you going to determine who is clean to go to?"
And to me that was really sobering because he told me:
Just based on Turkish counter-intelligence operations, you know of FOUR corrupt congressional people. Take a look at this room (of translators), we have the Chinese Department, we have, you know, the Arabic, including Saudi Arabia and everything. How many do you think they have come across?"
Sibel worked at the FBI in 2001/2002, so we don't know whether those congress folks are all still in congress, but we do know that members from both parties are included in the four.
Who do you think is on the list?
If you'd like to find out: Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings: DC phone: (202) 225-3976 LA phone: 323 651-1040 Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498
Michael Crowley has a devastating article (liberated in full here) in the latest New Republic.
Crowley investigates the efforts of Turkey's lobbyists in DC to block any recognition by Congress of the 1915 Armenian genocide.
"Even in modern Washington, where it's taken for granted that everyone has their price, flip-flopping on genocide has the ability to shock."
Indeed.
Crowley's article isn't so much about denying genocide, but rather what Sibel Edmonds rightly calls The Highjacking of a Nation:
"Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power."
More.
Crowley's article is much more damning than Ken Silverstein's recent article in Harpers, Their Men in Washington, about lobbying for Turkmenistan. Whereas Silverstein's terrific undercover assignment demonstrates what lobbyists will promise to do for money, Crowley's piece deals with observable facts - and is therefore all the more shocking. This single article ought to replace all Eighth-Grade Civics 101 textbooks.
Crowley's article demonstrates conclusively that: a) Ex-politicians-turned-lobbyists will do anything for the right price. b) These lobbyists have enormous influence over congress man and women. c) These lobbyists are from both parties. d) Incumbent congressfolk of both parties are highly susceptible to the ill-gotten influence of their former associates.
Those of us who have followed Sibel Edmonds' case are familiar with the people, issues and processes that Crowley identifies.
Crowley uses former Democratic minority leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Gephardt, to demonstrate his case:
Even more striking than the historic Turkish-Armenian hatred festering in the halls of Congress, however, is the way Washington's political elites are cashing in on it. Take Gephardt. While the Turks and Armenians have a long historical memory, Gephardt has an exceedingly short one. A few years ago, he was a working-class populist who cast himself as a tribune of the underdog--including the Armenians. Back in 1998, Gephardt attended a memorial event hosted by the Armenian National Committee of America at which, according to a spokeswoman for the group, "he spoke about the importance of recognizing the genocide." Two years later, Gephardt was one of three House Democrats who co-signed a letter to then House Speaker Dennis Hastert urging Hastert to schedule an immediate vote on a genocide resolution. "We implore you," the letter read, arguing that Armenian-Americans "have waited long enough for Congress to recognize the horrible genocide." Today, few people are doing more than Gephardt to ensure that the genocide bill goes nowhere.
It's one thing to flip-flop on, say, tax cuts or asbestos reform. But, when it comes to genocide, you would hope for high principle to carry the day. In Washington, however, the Armenian genocide industry is in full bloom. And Dick Gephardt's shilling isn't even the half of it.
Those familiar with Sibel's case will recognize the Hastert reference. In the Vanity Fair article about Sibel, An Inconvenient Patriot, David Rose wrote:
"For many years, attempts had been made to get the house to pass a genocide resolution, but they never got anywhere until August 2000, when Hastert, as Speaker, announced that he would give it his backing and see that it received a full house vote... Thanks to Hastert, the resolution, vehemently opposed by the Turks, passed the International Relations Committee by a large majority. Then, on October 19, minutes before the full House vote, Hastert withdrew it.
At the time, he explained his decision by saying that he had received a letter from President Clinton arguing that the genocide resolution, if passed, would harm U.S. interests. Again, the reported content of the Chicago wiretaps may well have been sheer bravado, and there is no evidence that any payment was ever made to Hastert or his campaign. Nevertheless, a senior official at the Turkish Consulate is said to have claimed in one recording that the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at least $500,000. "
For the record, I believe that Rose was mistaken. Hastert did indeed receive the $500,000, stuffed into suitcases and delivered to his home - but the bribe was for reasons other than the genocide resolution.
Crowley also discusses some of Turkey's other main anti-genocide lobbyists. There's former Republican House Speaker Bob Livingston, who has taken $13 Million from Turkey since his ignominious fall from grace (which incidentally led to Senator David Vitter's fall from grace, for the same reasons.) Former Democratic representative Steven Solarz is another who has flip-flopped on the genocide issue since he began lobbying for Turkey.
I do hope that Crowley writes another article and looks at Turkish lobbying in general - because then he'd be right in the middle of the Sibel Edmonds case. Crowley would have to take a closer look at some of Turkey's other lobbyists - past and present - and he'd find that Douglas Feith and Richard Perle used to lobby for Turkey (although he'd be hard-pressed to identify exactly what they did for their money.) And he'd find that The Cohen Group (former Defense Secretary William Cohen, General Joe Ralston, former State Dept #3 Marc Grossman) is currently lobbying for Turkey, as is Ret. General Brent Scowcroft.
Crowley would probably find that most of these lobbyists are very close to the American Turkish Council (ATC), "a front for criminal activity," according to Sibel. And Crowley would probably find that although these lobbyists purport to be working for the Republic of Turkey, that might not actually be true. Ex-CIA agent Phil Giraldi says:
"The money involved does not appear to come from the Turkish government, and FBI investigators are trying to determine its source and how it is distributed. Some of it may come from criminal activity, possibly drug trafficking, but much more might come from arms dealing. Contracts in the hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars provide considerable fat for those well placed to benefit."
If Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC, home to all these lobbyists, he'll notice that the FBI has been running a counter-intelligence operation against them since the mid-Nineties. And he'd notice that Sibel's case, in part, is about the nuclear black market. And he'd also notice that Valerie Plame's CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, was also investigating nuclear black market activities within the ATC. Crowley might even think that enabling, and covering-up, black-market nuclear proliferation, today, by Turkey, Pakistan, and other countries is weirder, and much more dangerous, than denying a genocide that took place 90 years ago. And Crowley would probably note that Stephen Solarz, author of the anti-nuclear-proliferation 'Solarz Amendment' to the Foreign Assistance Act, and current lobbyist for Turkey, had flip-flopped on the idea of illegal nuclear proliferation, for a price.
Crowley is correct that flipflopping on genocide denial for money shocks the conscience. It is demonstrably a step below plain-vanilla genocide denial. However, genocide denial is arguably 'just' a thought crime (and a crime of propaganda.) However, the people involved in Sibel's case are arguably much more deplorable, and they demonstrably, actively, endanger the lives of millions. These issues "concern not state espionage but criminal activity... selling classified military technologies to the highest bidder."
"Earning a special commendation for dubious behavior is Washington's Jewish-American lobby. In one of this tale's strangest twists, the Turks have convinced prominent Jewish groups, not typically indifferent to charges of genocide, to mute their opinions."
If Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC, he'll learn that it was established by AIPAC (and JINSA) and that the groups have significant overlap in terms of members, goals and activities. When he appreciates that fact, he might begin to untangle the "strangest twists."
And if Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC and associated groups, he'd likely find that they have a habit of bribing congressfolks - Sibel says that there are four that she knows about - and Crowley would likely notice that the system of corruption has an inbuilt 'Continuity -of-Perma-Gov' plan. Sibel describes it thusly:
These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.
Those 'who still serve' are 'renumerated,' in part, while they stay in office, provided that they serve their paymasters, but they are promised even greater riches when they leave office. In some cases, the ex-congressmen will be given lucrative 'lobbying' contracts where they perpetuate the machine by bribing new congressmen. With rumours that Hastert will soon resign, we can probably expect to see a newly formed Hastert Group hanging out a shiny new shingle.
In other cases, such as that of Marc Grossman, the pay-off can appear in the form of an 'advisory' position. Since Grossman resigned in 2005, one of his new roles is an advisory position with Ihlas, "a large and alleged shady Turkish company which is also active in several Central Asian countries," earning $1.2m per year. Sibel says that Grossman
"used his position within the State Department to secure future higher-level positions while in office — and I would like to emphasize this — while in office..."
In other words, there was an explicit quid pro quo.
If Crowley were to take a closer look at some of these cases, he'd learn that this isn't garden-variety corruption. As Sibel says:
"The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens when the active and powerful foreign entities’ objectives are in direct conflict with our nation’s objectives and its interests and security..."
Treason, in other words. And a clear, present, and ongoing danger.
Crowley would also learn that this state of affairs is an open secret within the US Government. Everybody Knows (youtube). He'd also learn that any attempt to investigate these crimes were thwarted (youtube) by people at the highest levels of the Pentagon, the State Dept, and the Justice Dept.
If Crowley were to investigate all this and write an article about it, the new article would form the basis of the new Eighth-grade Civics 101 text. In the meantime, make sure you read his place-holder.
Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings: DC phone: (202) 225-3976 LA phone: 323 651-1040 fax: (202) 225-4099 Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498
***********
I didn't want this post to focus on the Armenian genocide, or the proposed recognition of the genocide in congress, but last week Turkey's chief lobbyist Bob Livingston made the most craven appeal for genocide denial imaginable in an 8 minute video. I feel dirty just watching it (textual debunking by ANCA):
Do you think there's anything he wouldn't say for money?
"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."
Grassley made that statement in 2002. The WaPo article is from 2004. And we've learnt a lot since then.
More.
The WaPo article, published in the "World Opinion Roundup" section, April 8 2004, began thusly:
The sensational story of Sibel Edmonds illuminates the world of difference between the international online media and the U.S. press.
Edmonds is a 33-year-old former FBI translator whose February allegations to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks directly challenge the credibility of the commission's star witness, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. In an April 2 interview with the Independent of London, Edmonds said she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers.
Given that the 'article' was in the "World Opinion Roundup" section of the newspaper, the purpose of the piece was primarily to highlight what was being discussed in foreign media vis a vis US media, so I don't want particularly want to bash the piece (and it is generally quite friendly to Sibel) but the piece does highlight, particularly in retrospect, a lot of what is wrong with the (lack of) reporting on Sibel's case.
The WaPo piece is very frustrating for a bunch of reasons - large and small - and I can't help myself but to deal with the small reasons (because they do point to larger institutional failings) before we get to the more significant reasons. Firstly, the piece juxtaposes US press vs "international online media." The Independent is one of the most respected English-speaking print publications on the planet. They put (this element of) Sibel's story on the front page.
Secondly, the WaPo piece suggests that maybe "foreign editors are less scrupulous" than their 'prudent' US counterparts because some Murdoch press around the world ran with the "unconfirmed" Drudge story that John Kerry was having an affair with an intern then we ought to take the Independent's front page story with a grain of salt.
And this brings us to the larger issues. WaPo argues "The documents that she says will corroborate her story have not yet surfaced and may not exist." It is true that the documents haven't surfaced - but we have some circumstantial evidence that what Sibel is trying to say is true and valid. Sibel has been gagged by Attorney General John Ashcroft. The US Congress has been gagged by Attorney General John Ashcroft. These simple acts provide a prima facie case that there is some there, there.
WaPo argues that "One possible explanation (for US media silence) is that the heart of Edmonds's story remains unconfirmed." Firstly, the function of journalism is to test whether such allegations are true - usually by getting documents, or people, on the record. There are people who have gone on the record supporting Sibel's allegations - but still the US media ignores the case. Veteran FBI counter-intelligence agent John Cole said:
"I felt that maybe I could be of some assistance to her because I knew she was doing the right thing. I knew she was right...
I was talking to FBI colleagues in the administrative division who had read her file, who had read the investigative report and they were telling me a different story. They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was a 100% accurate, that management knew that she was correct."
As far as I know, the only media organization to report this was Congressional Quarterly, once. English journalist David Rose wrote an 11 page article,two years ago, documenting Sibel's case - actually, just two elements of the case - sourced to people with first-hand knowledge of her case. One of the claims in the article was that Dennis Hastert had received bribes by foreign officials - surely a significant story - but as far as I know, the only reference in the US media was a recent article in Wired magazine.
But the claims are never denied. We only get silence. And the silence of the US media marks them as co-conspirators. We don't get 'he said, she said' reporting, for once. Just silence.
WaPo says:
"The documents that she says will corroborate her story have not yet surfaced and may not exist
"
Maybe the documents exist, maybe they dont - apparently they are the Schrödinger's cat of documentary evidence. For 5 years Sibel has staked her claim, her reputation, on the fact that they exist.
"Put out those tapes. Put out those wiretaps. Put out those documents. Put out the truth. The truth is going to hurt them. The truth is going to set me free."
That's a direct, verifiable challenge. The facts are either true, or they're not. Sibel has done everything she can to make her claims public where they can be tested, with documents. She tried to take her case to the Supreme Court - now her only chance is to get Henry Waxman to hold hearings into her case. She'll testify under oath, she says that all of her bosses will testify under oath. She's either telling the truth, or the USG is going to extraordinary lengths to prevent her from proving that she is crazy.
The LA Times reports that al-Qaeda "is more dangerous than at any time since the Sept. 11 attacks."
A counter-terrorism official told the LA Times that al-Qaeda's "planning-to-execution cycle might suggest summer is the window of choice."
A new article by national security investigative journalist John Stanton argues that "Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden’s playbook," adding "And that’s very worrisome, particularly when each August 6th and 9th come around."
Osama bin Laden has said that al-Qaeda has nukes. Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said that the US Government knows this to be true.
Dick Cheney wants to go to war with Iran and has indicated that any attack, by anyone, will be construed as an act of war by Iran.
In November 2001, in an interview with Hamid Mir (The New York Times calls him "a widely respected Pakistani journalist,") Osama bin Laden said:
"We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them."
At the time, CNN reported that "Bush administration officials said they do not believe the al Qaeda leader has weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them."
The Bush egadministration, famous for fear-mongering, has often said that we need to take Osama at his word, but I must admit that until last week I had no idea that Osama had ever claimed that he had nukes.
Bush has repeatedly said that Osama wants a caliphate that extends half-way across the planet, and that we need to take Osama at his word. And Bush has repeatedly said that Osama wants the US occupation of Iraq to continue indefinitely says that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror (TM), and therefore that the US occupation of Iraq must continue indefinitely.
And we've been told repeatedly that we can't allow Iran to have any nukes because Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map" - but when Osama says that he has nukes and that "The enmity between us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable," we were told that we shouldn't take him at his word, that he doesn't have nukes, and that he hates "us" for our freedom.
The Bush egadministration repeatedly says that "it's only a matter of time" before al-Qaeda does acquire WMD, and "If al Qaeda were to acquire nuclear capability..." - but they never actually refer to Osama's claims that he actually does have these weapons. I find that weird. It appears as though they are trying to thread the needle, suggesting that Osama undoubtedly wants nukes, and that it would be really scary if Osama did actually have nukes, but for some reason the few occasions where I did find the administration apparently responding to Osama's claims were in the few days immediately following the publication of Osama's interview in November 2001, and even then the headlines didn't correlate with the reported story. For example, a CNN story was headlined "White House dismisses bin Laden nuclear threat" but the story, as reported, gave no indication that this was the case. (I want to be clear that I haven't extensively reviewed the reporting. At a minimum, we haven't heard much of Osama's claim since then.) For other contemporaneous accounts which support my position, see Time, Guardian, NYT.
This brings me to Sibel Edmonds, again. In her blockbuster Highjacking of a Nation, she excoriates Porter Goss for playing the "It may be only a matter of time..." card, indicating that Goss and the rest of the US Government "has known for the longest time" that al-Qaeda has nukes.
Sibel was in a position to know. She was involved in the counter-intelligence group at the FBI that was tracking the American Turkish Council (ATC). Valerie Plame's front company, Brewster Jennings, was also tracking the ATC. Both the CIA (Plame) and the FBI (Sibel) were hot on the heels of what is known as A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network - which runs from Russia, the 'Stans, and Turkey, through the US Government (particularly the State Department and the Pentagon) to Pakistan and al Qaeda.
John Stanton has tracked Sibel's case and the ATC very closely. He has a new book coming out called "Talking Politics with God and the Devil in Washington, DC." He argues that:
"Bin Laden’s network/affiliates may have already engineered the deployment of nuclear weapons to US soil. US military and intelligence operatives surely know this. The matter has been discussed by the US security establishment since 1998 and actively monitored through intelligence operations. Nothing has happened yet but now the timing seems about right for an attack. There are far too many instabilities, like those mentioned above, playing havoc with the world’s governments and economies. A devastating blow to a couple of US cities would further weaken the US economy. Following a nuke attack, where would the US strike back? Millions of Americans would believe such an event was the handiwork of the US government like 911. Millions would call for an invasion of some country, any country—even if innocent.
Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden’s playbook. That means going for two cities on the Gulf of Mexico that play a key role in US energy production and interstate commerce. Houston and New Orleans are two such cities. Both are in close proximity to US oil refineries. Houston has the 10th largest port in the world and houses companies who lead the energy industry in the development and production of oilfield equipment. New Orleans is home to a port that is the 5th busiest in the USA handling a sizeable share of US exports and imports. Lockheed Martin and Newport News Shipbuilding operate in close proximity to New Orleans. The stability of the US economy depends, in part, on the free flow of goods that traverse the Mississippi River to and from New Orleans. [] It’s time for some serious conversation with those the US brands as terrorists and rogue nations. Absent that, both sides will continue a fight that may spiral out of control and lead to a global conflagration: just what zealots on both sides want."
We've all been fearful of an attack on US soil, and, separately, we worry about a war with Iran. I really, really hope that New Orleans or Houston, or any other US city, doesn't get blown to smithereens, and I really, really hope that the US doesn't attack Iran. The worst situation of all would be that Cheney would use a nuclear attack on a US city by al Qaeda to launch an unrelated nuclear war of aggression on Iran.
For some reason the Democrats are more interested in holding hearings into Pat Tillman than Sibel Edmonds. Henry Waxman promised that he'd hold hearings into Sibel's case - but he has been silent since the Dems achieved majority status. We need to know what Sibel knows - for a bunch of reasons - not least that it might prevent an unprovoked invasion of Iran.
The AIPAC spy scandal: now this is one case that seems to have been dropped into a bottomless pit, but no, it has merely been delayed by the Scooter Libby-esque tactics of the defense team. Lawyers for Steve Rosen, formerly the Israel lobby's spark plug and chief Washington lobbyist, and Keith Weissman, AIPAC's Iran specialist-in-residence, have subpoenaed everyone from Condi Rice to the Israeli "diplomats" their clients handed off classified information to. The Wall Street Journal reports that lawyers involved in the case are now shooting for an October trial. The defense is "graymailing" the government, by making the price of prosecution so high in terms of revealing U.S. secrets – and potentially damaging national security – that they're hoping the Justice Department just drops the case.
How likely is that? After all this effort, one would think the Justice Department would persevere, but there is a lot of political pressure coming from both parties to quash this case. The Democrats in Congress have no qualms about investigating and holding hearings on the Libby case, but the AIPAC spy trial – or lack of such a trial – is another matter altogether.
Ken Silverstein's undercover expose, “Their Men in Washington: Undercover with D.C.'s Lobbyists for Hire,” in the current edition of Harpers magazine has caused mild panic amongst K-Street lobbyists.
Silverstein's investigative article demonstrates that many of the levers of power - official and otherwise - are for sale to the highest bidder. This fact has long been an open secret (or even 'Standard Operating Procedure') to anyone even peripherally-connected to the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Entertainment-Complex (nearly everyone in the Beltway) but Silverstein's article apparently peeled back the curtain for those on the outside and generated a lot of media coverage.
The lobbying industry, experts at defending and justifying the worst regimes, the worst policies, the worst legislation and the worst industries, have decided to defend themselves and fight back.
In a plan hatched at a panicked 'Rapid Response' meeting at K-Street headquarters earlier this month, the lobbyists decided, according to one participant, "to fight fire with fire. " It was decided that they would send undercover lobbyists to expose journalists as frauds. The results of the plan, so far, can best be described as 'mixed.' In their attempts to strike back at Silverstein, lobbyists may have killed the Golden Goose.
At the initial 'Rapid Response' meeting, it was decided that the best plan of attack was to strike at the core of journalism. Grover Norquist noted that a key function of journalism was to take new information, test it for accuracy and newsworthiness, add some appropriately sourced details, and publish.
The first step in the plan to undermine journalism was to plant a poorly sourced story. If the lobbyists could demonstrate that journalists essentially lie about the motivation of their sources, then the score would be: Silverstein: 1, Lobbyists: 1. It was decided that Dennis Hastert, pending lobbyist, would be sent to a journalist to plant a story about how much Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards spent on haircuts. It was decided unanimously that the lobbyists' newest (pending) member, Dennis Hastert, (who, incidentally, had spent $300 on dinner the previous night at his favorite Chicago restaurant) would provide a Politico journalist an 'on background' tip that Edwards had spent $400 on a haircut. When Hastert was asked about attribution, he was to reply that he was a "Former high-school wrestling coach." The story went ahead as planned as was soon propelled from Politico to every major news organization in the country. Two days later, the lobbyists put out a press release identifying Hastert as the "former high-school wrestling coach" source for the story. To their surprise, the story of the fake sourcing didn't get any traction, apart from some 'left-wing' blogs, and the Edwards haircut story was repeated ad nauseam in the corporate media.
Not to be dissuaded in their attempt to strike back at Silverstein by undermining journalism generally, a new plan was hatched. Richard Perle was recruited to approach journalist Michael Gordon of the New York Times and suggest, anonymously, that Iran is behind all the mayhem in Iraq. Within days, Gordon's article appeared, above the fold, on the front page of the Times, suggesting that Iran had essentially declared war against the US. Three days later, the lobbyists leaked the fact that Perle was the source and that there was no factual basis for the story. Blogger Glenn Greenwald was outraged and Amy Goodman did a ten minute piece on the controversy, but for weeks afterwards, other journalists and administration officials referenced Gordon's story as fact. NBC's Meet The Press had a round-table discussion on whether the claims in Gordon's article were "an act of war." Host Tim Russert asked his guests whether it was "reasonable to ask if the Bush Administration had gone soft on Terror" by not invading Iran.
The K-Streeters were now in a bit of a bind. In their panic at Silverstein's piece they hadn't really thought things through. They had wanted to make a mockery of journalism, but they didn't want to cut off their channel of planting favorable, false stories in the media.
One earnest K-Street intern was working late last weekend, reviewing Grover Norquist's plan ("...a key function of journalism was to take new information, test it for accuracy and newsworthiness, add some appropriately sourced details, and publish....") to strike back at Silverstein by discrediting journalism and realized that another plan of attack (other than publishing false stories) might be to take a story that is actually true and demonstrate that the media refuses to publish certain stories - even though they are valid, true and important. Surely that would indict corporate journalism! The intern contacted Sibel Edmonds - former FBI translator who uncovered evidence of congressional bribery and corruption of high level officials - and organized a conference call with Sibel and a bunch of leading journalists. Edmonds' claims are supported by documents, by witnesses, by senators who are familiar with the details, by the FBI, by the Dept of Justice - surely the silence of the corporate media on her case was the perfect indictment of 'journalism' that the intern's bosses were looking for. Take that, Silverstein!
Dick Cheney shot the intern in the face.
/satire
(OK - satirizing these people is difficult. Lobbyists trying to prove that journalism is corrupt? Sheesh! I'm gonna need more practice)
The fabulous emptywheel hosted Book Club at FDL with Marcus Stern and others who wrote the book (and broke the story) about Duke Cunningham. Fascinating stuff in the comments there...
For example, this is Stern:
"Charlie Wilson frequented the parties at the Watergate and later the Westin. We had several interviews with him for the book. He defends earmarks. But he adds something interesting, I think, even though we have never reported it, not even in the book. He said he had to use earmarks to get money for the mujahideen in Afghanistan back in the 1980s because there wasn’t public support for that effort or even support within the CIA. But, he notes, there is a lot of public support and support in the administration for the war on terror. So he would not need to do today what he did then, he notes. The Cunningham scandal shows us that a lot of the earmarking today is blatant profiteering rather than policy kibitzing."
The President's decision has confounded both critics and supporters alike, although most observers believe that the decision is an attempt to deflect the negative attention surrounding Miers' refusal to testify yesterday.
In a written statement, President Bush said "Sibel Edmonds is a true patriot. Sibel has been trying to blow the whistle on treasonous activity since 2002. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Some of Sibel Edmonds' supporters are ecstatic. English journalist David Rose, who wrote an article about Edmonds' case in Vanity Fair in 2005 disclosing that former Speaker Dennis Hastert took bribes from foreign interests, said that Edmonds "is a national hero. She deserves a ticker tape parade through New York."
Other Edmonds supports were more circumspect. Online journalist Mike Mejia noted that President Bush's directive that Miers testify is welcome news, although he has two concerns: "Firstly, it's not clear that Miers knows anything about the case, and secondly, Henry Waxman has not actually announced any hearings." Mejia adds "(Waxman) appears unwilling to take on messy scandals like the Edmonds case, which reflects well on neither Party. Edmonds and a coalition of civil liberties and good government groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Citizens for Reform and Ethics in Washington (CREW), presented Waxman with a petition containing over 15,000 signatures in March asking Waxman to hold hearings. But Waxman has to date refused to give any response."
In fact, Waxman has long been familiar with Edmonds case and has read the classified version of the FBI's report confirming Edmonds' allegations. He was "stunned" and "outraged" and promised to hold public hearings into her case once the Democrats regained control of Congress.
Bloggers on the Right have yet to coalesce around a coherent position, and many appear conflicted. "We don't like Harriet Miers very much. We single-handedly derailed her SCOTUS nomination, you know!" said Michelle Malkin, "but if she can help the President defeat the Islamofascists in the Global Perma-War on Terror, then maybe we should support her. On the other hand, the Edmonds hearings are likely to prove that Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have been colluding with Islamofascists, helping them get weapons and so on, and we kind of like Perle and Feith so I'm not sure we want hearings where that sort of thing will become public. On the other hand, Clinton did it too! Marc Grossman is a Clintonite, as is Stephen Solarz. We're also conflicted about Turkey - yes, they're great friends with Israel, but they are still ragheads, at least on the inside."
Pundits are somewhat baffled by President Bush's directive that Miers appears at the hearings, particularly given that Democrats in Congress haven't given any indication that any hearings are scheduled. David Brooks at the New York Times notes that this is a "bold" move by the Commander-in-Chief. Brooks makes the case that if the President can "direct" Miers to ignore a subpoena to appear in front of Congress for some hearings, then "precedent" demands that he can certainly "direct" her to appear in other unspecified hearings. Brooks adds "If Democrats in Congress defy the President and refuse to hold hearings so that Miers can testify as "directed" then Teh American People will correctly punish the Dems for their obstructionism." David Broder at the Washington Post takes a different position, arguing that "Reasonable people can quibble about the legal minutiae of the President's decision to prohibit Miers from testifying in the Attorney 'scandal' hearings yesterday, but his directive that Miers appear in a separate case is a game-changer. How can anyone argue that he is obstructing justice now? The Democrats must either rise to the occasion and hold hearings into Edmonds' case, or forfeit the right to complain about Miers' absence yesterday."
Constitutional lawyers are flabbergasted. Glenn Greenwald, author of New York Times bestsellers, writes "Suffice to say, it is self-evidently outrageous." Greenwald apparently doesn't think it appropriate that the President 'balance' his refusal to allow ex-WhiteHouse employees to fulfill their subpoena obligations in one situation by demanding that Congress hold hearings in other cases. He adds "At least under the Bush presidency, nobody is less interested in uncovering government criminality and corruption -- nobody is more bored by it or eager to keep it concealed -- than our establishment political press."
Unsurprisingly, the Democratic leadership was caught flat-footed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "I'm pleased that the President is aware that Congress is a co-equal branch and we hope to work with him in the future, but at the moment all hearings are off the table." Pressed for a specific comment about the Edmonds case and the fact that Hastert, her predecessor, took "suitcases of cash... knowing that a lot of that is drug money," Pelosi said "Listen, those bribes were under the table. Off the table, if you will. I refer you to Chairman Waxman's statement silence on this issue." Pressed further, Pelosi added "Yes, the American Turkish Council is a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC, and, yes, when it comes to Iran, all options are on the table."
Henry Waxman could not be reached for comment, but his staff were happy to provide the following statements:
Thank you for your enquiry. Sibel Edmonds' case is part of an ongoing investigation and therefore we can't comment.
and
Thank you for your enquiry. Sibel Edmonds's case is old news and therefore we have no comment.
Sibel Edmonds didn't comment directly on President Bush's directive but reiterated that:
My goal has been exposing the criminal activities: money laundering, narcotic activities, and nuclear black market converging with terrorist activities.
"I am not the only one who knows about this. Too many people know this!
The fraudulent 9/11 Commissioners, every single one of them knows about my case and the details, and the names, and all the specifics.
Several people within the U.S Congress do know.
Everybody in the FBI, involved, they know!
Everybody in Department of Justice, they know!
Put out the tapes, put out the wiretaps! Put out those documents! Put out the truth! The truth is going to hurt them, the truth is going to set me free!"
The 911 "Truth" movement is also excited about the possibility of hearings into the Edmonds case. They are likely to be disappointed if they expect new revelations, but perhaps they'll be happy that the 'old' revelations actually get covered in the US media. For example, Edmonds' story will reveal that relevant information was hidden from Teh American People, including the fact that there was specific information in April 2001 that:
1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.
Self-proclaimed 'Sibelologist' blogger Lukery could not be reached for comment about Bush's directive, but he presumably urges Patience.
/satire
*****************
Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings: DC phone: (202) 225-3976 LA phone: 323 651-1040 fax: (202) 225-4099 Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498
Chris Mooney was on DemocracyNow today discussing various science-y stuff ("Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming").
Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: What about the politics of carbon credits and carbon counting for companies, for industry?
CHRIS MOONEY: It’s a new thing. And, you know, there’s a lot of questions that have been raised about carbon offsets and, you know, what are they actually paying for and is this really offsetting emissions?
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what they are.
CHRIS MOONEY: Well, I use, for example, carbon offsets from a company called TerraPass, so it offsets my emissions when I do air travel. And there’s a variety of different sort of programs. When Al Gore says we should do something in our personal life, this is the kind of thing that he’s talking about. And it’s kind of a new economy, and there’s a lot of uncertainties, I think, about many aspects of it. But what it’s doing is it’s showing that carbon dioxide emissions have an economic implication and that they shouldn’t be ignored. When you’re engaging in some kind of economic activity that burns fossil fuel, you need to be taking that into account. It has consequences.
I have some travel coming up in the next few months, and I really wasn't aware (in a practical sense) of how to offset. Mooney mentioned/endorsed Terrapass (his recommendation suffices for me) so I looked into it. As it happens, my flight cost me about $1500, and the offset will cost me less than $50. I couldn't wait to give them the $50.
In related news, the usually terrific ABC - the oz equivalent of the beeb - has found itself in the middle of an almighty storm. They are broadcasting 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' at this very moment...
I've renamed my blog 'Monosyllabic Fish' - for no good reason other than Mark Morford used the term in an SF Chron article last week.
I suspect that the name change will be temporary because 'Monosyllabic Fish' is a stupid name for a blog.
update: damien in the comments thinks that 'Monosyllabic Fish' is a stupid name and thinks that maybe we should hold a little competition to determine what the blog should be called. Feel free to add your suggestions in the comments - and I may or may not take any notice of them.
Anthony Gregory has a post at Strike The Root called Hating Bush where he runs down a litany of possible reasons for hating the president. About halfway in he writes:
Maybe it was the steel tariffs...
For the record, believe it or not, I think it was literally the steel tariff issue that caused me to see the light.
Weird.
I have a short post over at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak called 'Can we get Cheney & Libby?'
Hey Democrats in Congress! Wake the hell up! Are you just going to continue to treat this issue as a nonissue?
Now that you Democrats have been given temporary control of Congress by we, a fed-up citizenry, we, the citizenry who put you there, demand that you answer this question: Why the hell hasn't the Sibel Edmonds 9/11 espionage/spy scandal case been brought front and center into the public spotlight, open hearings and all?
What possible reason or mealy mouth excuse do you offer up to try to justify your continued silence and lack of investigation using every power and tool at your disposal? You just continue to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist - probably hoping Sibel Edmonds will just go away or that we'll forget - to the detriment of the nation's security and the enormously generous benefit of possible traitors in (or formerly in) your midst. Are you all so compromised with your own skeletons in the closet that you'll refuse to uncover such a huge betrayal of and threat to this country?
Sibel Edmonds has tried repeatedly to get you to act like you actually give a crap that she's uncovered highly probable treason by persons at the highest levels of our government, espionage, infiltration of spies with direct U.S. military ties into our intelligence apparatus caught trying to cover up vital intelligence intercepts regarding the events of September 11, 2001, etc.
Shame on the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House and Senate. You should all be run out of town on fast horses come election day, should you not get this into open hearings under sworn testimony, get to the truth, ferret out and remove the bad guys and hold those accountable who deserve to be held accountable. Your silence on the issue equates to complicity in the cover-up. Your silence betrays your loyalties, and it clearly isn't to the U.S. Constitution, the citizenry, or any real and honorable sense of Justice that deserves to be referred to as such. Corruption is destroying this country, rotting it to the core from within, and the federal government, whether it be democratic party or republican party at the helm of the levers of power, just keeps proving that it amply deserves the complete and utter disdain that the citizens hold for it.
(grfx love to One Pissed Off Liberal )
