Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: WaPo: "Sensational Story Of Sibel Edmonds" Almost Uniformly Ignored By U.S. Press

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,736

    WaPo: "Sensational Story Of Sibel Edmonds" Almost Uniformly Ignored By U.S. Press

    WaPo: "Sensational story of Sibel Edmonds" almost uniformly ignored by U.S. press.

    Video
    Click Here (GooTube)

    By lukery
    Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:06:03 AM PDT

    Washington Post:
    "(Sibel) Edmonds's story has been almost uniformly ignored in the U.S. daily press."
    That's certainly true. Why?

    WaPo:
    One possible explanation is that the heart of Edmonds's story remains unconfirmed.
    That's not true. Senator Charles Grassley said:
    "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.

    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.

    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
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #2
    Chana3812 Guest
    I'm glad the Sibel Edmonds story back in play again, because I have a question about all this. I always wondered about this part of the 9/11 puzzle.

    If I maintain a MIHOP point of view about 9/11, and Sible Edmonds claims to have proof that she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers ..... then how can I claim that it was an inside job?? What's the point of pursuing Sibel's story because it clearly disproves the MIHOP theory - doesn't it??

    I think the al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers part of the story is a planted story, and the puppermasters who made all this happen want to make it look like Bush & Rice et al failed miserably to protect the US.

    If that's Not the scenario, then why is Sibel Edmonds story so important ?? (other than they are trying to gag her!!)

    Someone explain this, please

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Chana3812
    I'm glad the Sibel Edmonds story back in play again, because I have a question about all this. I always wondered about this part of the 9/11 puzzle.

    If I maintain a MIHOP point of view about 9/11, and Sible Edmonds claims to have proof that she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers ..... then how can I claim that it was an inside job?? What's the point of pursuing Sibel's story because it clearly disproves the MIHOP theory - doesn't it??

    I think the al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers part of the story is a planted story, and the puppermasters who made all this happen want to make it look like Bush & Rice et al failed miserably to protect the US.

    If that's Not the scenario, then why is Sibel Edmonds story so important ?? (other than they are trying to gag her!!)

    Someone explain this, please
    That's easy. If your belief is that the United States Government perpetrated the attacks from top to bottom, you might be correct, but what does that mean?

    There is evidence to suggest that the American, British and Israeli Governments have influence over what "Al-Qaeda" does (through their connections to the ISI). Imagine 100 "radical islamists" (people who have been screwed over because of poverty, dictatorships, and policies that favor Israel imposed by the United States that have essentially become mercenaries for the "cause"), and a few CIA/ISI agents ordered to infiltrate that group to give them missions of sorts... missions that help the Military Industrial Complex...

    Those "radical islamists" could have been directed to carry out 9/11 by those means... It is a distinct possibility, which would explain for the information that DOES EXIST that implies "hijackers" were on those planes (maybe not who we were told entirely).

    Which would explain why Able Danger was shut down, because the individuals they were monitoring were meant for another purpose (9/11).

    Imagine American, British, Israeli, Saudi, Turkey Governments funneling money into different banks throughout the Middle East, covertly, to fund "Al-Qaeda." Look at Mariane Pearl who is suing "Al-Qaeda" and the "Pakistan-based Habib Bank Ltd over the 2002 abduction, torture and murder of her husband."

    Habib Bank Limited is one of Pakistan's biggest banks. The lawsuit alleges the bank and its subsidiaries knowingly conducted financial transactions on behalf of charities linked to extremist groups.

    I wonder if any American, British, Israeli, Saudi, or Turkey money finds it's way into the Habib Bank Limited?

    Anyway, Sibel is all about the money connected to finance 9/11, and the people in D.C. it is connected to.

    A lot of that is theory by the way, but substantiated by a lot of information.

    Sibel said an informant of 10 years spoke of planned attacks using planes, etc... Who's to say there wasn't a plan? Who's to say he didn't stumble across the plan, and try to warn the FBI? Apparently MANY FBI agents were aware of a plan to attack us using airplanes...

    Where did that "plan" originate from?!?!?

    People think Foreknowledge is LIHOP. I don't acknowledge that phrase. I don't know what happened, but I know information exists that indicates our Government may have been involved in some way. Whether it was by influencing "terrorists" to attack us, whether it was by financing the "terrorists", whether it was by remote controlling the planes, whether it was by controlled demolition for the towers, whether it was the ordering of a stand down for the U.S. military, whether it was a "black op" (and all of the information I know is just a made up fairy tale), I don't know.

    I do know that the 9/11 Report is "pathetic" as Lorie Van Auken said.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,736
    Chana... I hate to break it to you dear, but we don't know what happened on 9/11. There is information that DOES EXIST that indicates our Government (and others) were complicit in the attacks, which is why we do what we do, but we don't KNOW exactly what happened down to every detail because we simply DO NOT HAVE ACCESS to all of the information. A lot of what is promoted in the 9/11 Truth Movement is theory, based on facts, but not proven. However, the facts behind those theories are scary enough to push us to do what we do, but we don't KNOW.

    That being said... we don't KNOW, but I've been willing to give up my life for the last 5 years because I believe I'm right, and that they were complicit. However, we'll never know until there is a real investigation.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,736
    I hope that helps.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  6. #6
    Chana3812 Guest
    Yes, it helps. Jon, you're a fountain of information. I knew you would help me connect the dots.

    I agree that several governments must have been involved in the planning and execution of 9/11, and we don't know exactly what happened. And I'm glad you mentioned Able Danger because that was another area where I was confused about the connection to 9/11.

    Anyway, Sibel is all about the money connected to finance 9/11, and the people in D.C. it is connected to.
    This is what I learned today - something that I hadn't known about before !!

    Thank You

  7. #7
    simuvac Guest
    I think what gets in the way of right thinking about 9/11 (and many other things) is the concept of the nation state. People insist on thinking of the world as a collection of nation states, and within those nation states exist homogeneous governments of consistent policy and action.

    Power runs diagonally, not up and down. It crosses boundaries of all sorts (nationality, ethnicity, class, etc.). So it's entirely conceivable that some conglomeration of disparate interests (Saudi intelligence, ISI, Mossad, neocons, MIC, etc.) converged on 9/11, not necessarily all aware of the others.

    If it was MIHOP, for example, some small faction of the MIC could have taken an existing plot from its CIA/ISI contacts and put measures in place to enable the plot to happen, to increase the plot's effectiveness (bombs at the WTC), and to provide a cover story to obscure its own participation.

    Maybe only a few people were aware of the extent of the plot (clearly, some people knew), and others did their part not knowing how it fit into the rest of the plot (or that there was a plot). For example, maybe the Mossad put bombs in the WTC because (a) it would be easier for them to access the buildings than, say, Saudis or Pakistanis, and (b) the use of a foreign intelligence group creates plausible deniability for the neocons or whoever was plotting from the inside. The hijackers had obvious connections to the ISI and Saudi intel. The coverup required White House complicity.

    All of these groups have benefitted from 9/11. The White House has expanded the MIC and imposed draconian laws on Americans. Pakistan has received record aid from the War on Terror. Israel has witnessed economic expansion and a useful political weapon (the "terror" trump card). Saudi Arabia is a more essential ally to America than Israel, because of the oil, and it remains a leader in foreign military aid from America.

    Obviously, I am just speculating. But my point is that the networks of power criss-cross all sorts of competing interests and nationalities. And I think this is what the Sibel Edmonds case is about: the connection between the American Turkish Council and AIPAC, and the illegal sale of arms enabled by this connection. The Plame case is also related.

    So, looking at one country or one group (Al Qaeda) is insufficient, and I don't think one uniform group could have committed 9/11. It was far too complex, and it definitely required both foreign and domestic participation.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-20-2009, 03:33 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 09:09 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 06:47 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-19-2007, 02:35 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2007, 08:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •