Why I Didn't Apologize to Sibel Edmonds

Because she's still a fruitcake. I linked to the piece on her in the Sunday (UK) Times, because I was impressed that she managed to get a newspaper of that caliber to run her latest explosive allegations. Brad Friedman was pleased, but bitched about the fact that I didn't pull down some of my less complimentary pieces on Sibel.

Well, typically, she's back doing the hootchie-kootchie again at BradBlog:

From one side of the globe to the other, as expected, the explosive whistleblower allegations concerning highly-placed, well-known U.S. officials in the Departments of State and Defense involved in an illicit, for-profit scheme to develop and protect a network of spies, who then stole and sold American nuclear secrets to the international black markets via Turkey, Israel and Pakistan, is now worldwide news!

That, even though the Times only covered "about 20%" of the story she has to tell, according to Edmonds, with whom we spoke late last night.

Let's see, she accused major state department and defense officials with selling nuclear secrets to Pakistan who sold them to North Korea, and she accused those same people with getting some people who knew about 9-11 beforehand out of the country, and that's about 20% of what she knows?

There's a compound word for that, and the first part is bull. Come on, low-level contract translator for the FBI turns out to be Nancy Drew who knows everything after six months? The stuff that she really had, which got her on 60 Minutes, was petty bureaucratic fief-building. Appalling in the post 9-11 era, but pretty small beer compared to what she's claiming now.

We get the usual moaning about how no US outlet will touch her story:

Here in the United States, the mainstream media coverage included:

That's right. Nobody. None of them. Zilch. Not a one.

You know how it is; that's evidence that it must be true, because we all know the American media is in on every coverup.