Friday, February 26, 2010

Sibel Edmonds Makes Hustler

No scratch 'n' sniff centerfold, but in the "news" part of the magazine. It's written by Brad Friedman, and if I'd realized he was this dishonest, I would never have returned his phone call a few years ago.

For instance:

“Absolutely, she’s credible,” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told CBS’s 60 Minutes when he was asked about her in 2002. “The reason I feel she’s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.” Edmonds’s remarkable allegations of bribery, blackmail, infiltration of the U.S. government and the theft of nuclear secrets by foreign allies and enemies alike rocked the Bush Administration. In fact, Bush and company actually prevented Edmonds from telling the American people what she knew—up until now.


But of course what Grassley was talking about back then was not bribery, blackmail, infiltration of the US government and theft of nuclear secrets by foreign allies and enemies alike. It was petty bureaucratic fief-building by a superior who told her to go slow on translating documents so that more people would be hired in her division. But eight years later, Friedman recycles the quote to make it seem like Republicans still believe her increasingly bizarre and unlikely tales.

There's some very weird language in the piece; sounds like the lawyers were heavily involved in the rewriting. Consider this:

Former Congressman Bob Livingston (RLouisiana), who was set to become Speaker prior to Hastert until evidence of a sexual affair was revealed by Larry Flynt, was described in Edmonds’s deposition as having participated in “not very legal activities on behalf of foreign interests” before leaving office in 1999.


What the hell does "not very legal" mean? I presume it doesn't mean "very illegal".

Labels: , ,

46 Comments:

At 26 February, 2010 10:47, Anonymous G. Shumway said...

Chatter box attention whore...

Cue Kingfisher to enter and tell us what cowards we are for not challenging this drivel spewing bitch.

 
At 26 February, 2010 10:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds like you failed to debunk shit, just another friday...

 
At 26 February, 2010 11:32, Anonymous Fucktard Patrol said...

"sounds like you failed to debunk shit, just another friday..."


Yep - shit is what it is and therefore no debunking required.

Thanks for your comment asshole.

Now pick a damn name fucktard!!!

 
At 26 February, 2010 11:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat writes, "...What the hell does 'not very legal' mean? I presume it doesn't mean 'very illegal'."

That's a good question.

Is it possible that the phrase "not very legal" has a more-or-less benign interpretation? For example, I'm aware that certain professionals--attorneys, tax lawyers, accountants, etc.--specialize is skirting the gray areas of the law on behalf of their clients. Is it possible that this is the real meaning of the phrase "not very legal"?

 
At 26 February, 2010 12:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The second sentence of the third paragraph should read,

"...For example, I'm aware that certain professionals--attorneys, tax lawyers, accountants, etc.--specialize in skirting the gray areas of the law on behalf of their clients."

Sorry. My bad.

 
At 26 February, 2010 12:11, Anonymous Dave said...

You know, I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. But it's the little asides that she throws into her story that make me question her crediblity. Like in the American Conservative piece she notes that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is bisexual. Who cares and what does that have to do with any of this?

 
At 26 February, 2010 12:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

still an epic fail!
fuck a name who needs one.
knowing my name won't help you're "debunking"

 
At 26 February, 2010 13:06, Anonymous Fucktard Patrol said...

"still an epic fail!"

"epic fail"??? OK - you are 12 years old and addicted to youtube.


fuck a name who needs one.
knowing my name won't help you're "debunking"

"you're" debunking? You mean "your"?

What has the attention whore proven that needs to be debunked?

How about I just call you The Ambulating Zit?

Fucktard is so harsh.

 
At 26 February, 2010 14:17, Blogger NoIdentity said...

Am I the only one who thinks that what she has to say about nuclear proliferation is a much bigger bombshell (assuming its true) than her claims about 9-11?
Spy rings co-opting Washington's elite, Turkish-Israeli collaboration, nuclear secrets and drug smuggling, she should really turn it into a movie script, it would make a great thriller.

 
At 26 February, 2010 14:20, Blogger Pat said...

GB, but that is exactly the problem; the phrase is open to interpretation. Not very legal could mean just about anything. If she had said "not legal" we would all understand what she meant (even if it was not the best grammar).

 
At 26 February, 2010 14:22, Blogger NoIdentity said...

"Not very legal" is an interesting phrase. The question regarding Edmunds' allegations probably involves whether or not certain government employees were engaged in treason. For a congressmen or employee of the State Department to advocate for a policy that would benefit a foreign country isn't necessarily illegal, though it certainly could be. There's a lot of "gray area" there. Most of her allegations center around the Turkish Americna Council, which as a private organization is free to lobby on behalf of Turkey, but she said there was much more than lobbying going on.

 
At 26 February, 2010 15:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"gray areas"?

I'm in bad shape today :)

Of course, I meant to write grey areas.

Sorry. My bad.

 
At 26 February, 2010 15:38, Anonymous Cooper Harris said...

Go try to read her blog. It obvious she has major issues with Turkey and had these issues for years.

She is so full of shit she makes Walt look like he just got a fire hose enema.

 
At 26 February, 2010 15:50, Blogger Triterope said...

Am I the only one who thinks that what she has to say about nuclear proliferation is a much bigger bombshell (assuming its true) than her claims about 9-11?

So she's got secrets on nuclear proliferation now? Wow, this woman's a regular Indiana Jones. Can't take a step without tripping over a major global conspiracy. Or she's completely full of shit. Guess which interpretation I subscribe to.

 
At 26 February, 2010 16:55, Blogger NoIdentity said...

I'm not so sure she's completely full of shit. She's certainly not objective on Turkey as she herself is a Turkish American. She speaks Turkish, Azeri, and Farsi, making her a linguists dream. Of course, translations all have a degree of subjectivity in them, especially from languages so distant from English like Turkish or Azeri.
I thought nuclear proliferation was the crux of her whistle blowing. She basically alleges that Turkey and Israel are running a spy network through AIPAC and the Turkish American Council, a group AIPAC helped create in the 1990's in exchange for Israeli access to the Anatolian plateau. She also says that this network tried to recruit her. Personally I think she stumbled upon and is misinterpreting clandestine operations, possibly even sting operations. But the story she tells isn't that far-fetched.
Israel does spy on us. I can't really hold it against them, if I were in charge of Mossad I'd be spying on us too. The idea that Turkey spies on us is completely believable. I'd say the idea that they don't at least try to spy on us is far-fetched. It's only a small stretch to then claim that Israel, to some extent, facilitated Turkish intelligence capabilities vis-a-vis the United States.
She goes further though and claims that this cabal is actively spreading nuclear secrets and furthermore claims that it's acting against US counter-intel. She claims that it was Elliot Abrams who outed Brewster Jennings, Plame's front company, a year in advance of Robert Novak's article.
Of course these are all just claims by one woman. Once I found out she was flirting with 9-11 truth she kind of lost credibility with me.
I still think it would make a good spy thriller.

 
At 26 February, 2010 18:06, Anonymous Troofers R Us said...

Sibel = the female (I think) version of our own beloved Walt the pussy.

To quote the empty-headed cunt:

"We’ve been complying with all that. We get to the checkpoints, and as one woman told me:

‘I just go into this auto pilot mode. I remove my shoes and other items. I move forward towards the screening machine while looking into empty space and avoiding any eye contact. I step in there, slightly spread my arms and legs, pause, and step out on the other side. I then let out a deep breath for making it, without sounding off any alarm bells, and without having to be touched, groped and patted everywhere…Then I walk away quickly and try to wipe away all the memories of those long minutes…It’s the best way to deal with these things…’

Again, this sounds very familiar. Just read through documented victim accounts on dealing with highly traumatic experiences. I used to read about and listen to such victims. A woman telling the story of being molested and raped by her father:

‘I used to pretend not being there…you know, almost like an out of body experience. He’d quietly come to my room, his breath reeking with alcohol…I’d close my eyes when he pulled down my panties…I’d spread my legs, close my eyes, and imagine not being there…imagine it was not happening…It was quicker that way. He’d be done and gone. And I would go on trying to forget, pretending I forgot…trying to erase all the memories and the feeling of being violated…’

Doesn’t it feel that way? Don’t we feel violated? Don’t we feel powerless? Doesn’t it feel like total submission to a force greater than any one of us, and obviously the total of all of us?"

Anyone that compares going through airport security to being raped is full of shit period.

What's funny is the bitch just got back from vacation. Hope they made her go through the checkpoints twice.

 
At 26 February, 2010 23:13, Blogger daniel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 February, 2010 09:05, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.Anything on the latest revelations about the CIA and Jundullah? As if it isn't obvious that the CIA funds terrorism around the world.Not to mention its extensive connections to the heroin trade.There's nothing so special as the Debunker Cult when their cement headed leaders start to parse words and phrases in the manner of Bill Clinton.Schlumpfway,back with relish and the typical debunker misogyny.Pathetic stuff,Pat and JoggingJamesB.

 
At 27 February, 2010 10:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Debunker Cult"

Blather.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Slither in the America-hating sewer that is trutherism.

 
At 27 February, 2010 13:04, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Anything on the latest revelations about the CIA and Jundullah?'

The source for these 'revelations' being the Iranian government, although the latter haven't been kind enough to provide that thing we call 'evidence'.

Arseholie/Walt fucks up yet again.

 
At 27 February, 2010 13:19, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'On Feb. 25, Iranian state television broadcast footage of a supposed confession made by Rigi, saying he was flying to Central Asia to meet with American handlers at the U.S.-run Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. Intelligence Minister [Heydar] Moslehi had already pointed his finger at Washington and the hand of the CIA, claiming to have evidence that Rigi was earlier housed at a U.S. base in Afghanistan and set up with fake documentation by the Americans.'

The Iranian Minister of Intelligence - he's got to be a totally honest man, and there's no way he could be telling a porkie.

Abdolmalek Rigi - the Iranian regime has a perfect record on human rights, and there's no way he could have been tortured prior to making his statement:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1968126,00.html

Welcome to Planet Arseholie - where just about anything is possible (including three-year combat tours in Iraq).

 
At 27 February, 2010 15:06, Blogger NoIdentity said...

It's probably the Saudis and/or Israelis backing Jundallah. Of course in the imaginary comic book world where some people live, both Saudi Arabia and Israel are client states of the US who march to our orders as opposed to sovereign nations that are capable of acting on their own.
And if we are backing Jundallah, so fucking what?

 
At 28 February, 2010 07:31, Anonymous RolandofGilead said...

For someone who is considered to be the most gagged woman in America, Sibel Edmonds sure talks alot. Of Course, in Hustler, being gagged takes on a different meaning.

 
At 28 February, 2010 08:47, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'For someone who is considered to be the most gagged woman in America, Sibel Edmonds sure talks alot. Of Course, in Hustler, being gagged takes on a different meaning.'

Pardon me for also stating the obvious, but I expect that most blokes who buy 'Hustler' don't exactly purchase it for its reportage.

 
At 28 February, 2010 10:01, Anonymous RolandofGilead said...

Pardon me for also stating the obvious, but I expect that most blokes who buy 'Hustler' don't exactly purchase it for its reportage.

The one I recently looked at seemed to have more political opinion in it that it did porn. Of course, that could just be me as I don't really like Larry Flynt too much.

 
At 28 February, 2010 12:42, Anonymous Arhhoolie said...

Sackgarbage,you really nailed it on the head! Raising the issue of torture and confessions proves just what a cement head you actually are.If he was tortured even once,that's 183 less times than your fountain of information KSM.You're living in a dream world if you don't think that the CIA is funding terrorism in Iran.It's been in all the news over here for years that they are engaged in "destabilization efforts" in Iran.I guess when knuckleheads like you read that the US is allocating millions of dollars to "support and enable opposition groups in Iran" you think it's all for office space and flyers! How gullible are you?

 
At 28 February, 2010 13:42, Anonymous RolandofGilead said...

Hey, Arhoolie, can you actually back up those claims that your ass is preaching?

 
At 28 February, 2010 14:21, Blogger NoIdentity said...

Why shouldn't we be trying to destabilize Iran? Come on, I want to hear some self-righteous preaching!

 
At 28 February, 2010 15:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Say what?

 
At 28 February, 2010 16:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey, Arhoolie, can you actually back up those claims that your ass is preaching?

There's a claim in there somewhere?

 
At 28 February, 2010 17:15, Blogger NoIdentity said...

Say what?

Why shouldn't we destabilize Iran?

 
At 01 March, 2010 07:32, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It's been in all the news over here for years that they are engaged in "destabilization efforts" in Iran."

Some GOOD news for a change and I missed it?

Drat.

 
At 01 March, 2010 08:36, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Give PornBoy credit,he's a Troglodyte and up front about it!

 
At 01 March, 2010 11:08, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'If he was tortured even once,that's 183 less times than your fountain of information KSM.'

Who admitted responsibility for 9/11 well before his arrest. As you've been told repeatedly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/alqaida.terrorism

'living in a dream world if you don't think that the CIA is funding terrorism in Iran.It's been in all the news over here for years that they are engaged in "destabilization efforts" in Iran.'

Where exactly is 'here', and which planet is it on?

And yes, I know that the Iranian state media say that the CIA are funding 'terrorists' in Iran. They also say that Ahmadinejad won last June's election fair and square, and that the Holocaust didn't happen. Only a cretin (i.e. someone who tries to pose as an OIF veteran and claims to have done a three-year tour on top-secret special ops in Iraq) will find any of these claims convincing.

 
At 01 March, 2010 13:06, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Poor,poor pitiful Sackie.His cement head is his only attribute.You are beyond wide eyed and bushy tailed when it comes to swallowing disinfo and propaganda.Do you jackoff to the Star Spangled Banner? Yea,it's all Iranian government disinfo.They've turned the lovable,cuddly ol' CIA into monsters haven't they? You don't know jack shit DogBoy.

 
At 02 March, 2010 08:10, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'You are beyond wide eyed and bushy tailed when it comes to swallowing disinfo and propaganda.'

Says the cretin who believes everything IRIN broadcasts.

'Do you jackoff to the Star Spangled Banner?'

Er, no. As you understand fully, I am not a Yank, and unlike you I'm neither a deviant or a fantasist (Mister three-year-tour-in-Iraq).

'Yea,it's all Iranian government disinfo.'

Ever wondered why they haven't been able to substantiate their claims? No, off course not. You're a truther. Why do you need evidence?

'They've turned the lovable,cuddly ol' CIA into monsters haven't they?'

If they had evidence of US (or British) black-ops like they claim, then why the lack of a formal diplomatic protest? Why no appeal to the UN General Assembly? That is because - numbnuts - they are putting out propaganda for their domestic audience (at a time when much of the latter is heartily pissed off with Ahmadinejad and Khameini) about foreign 'subversion'. Of course, the existence of PJAK and Jundollah - not to mention the rioting in Khuzestan - has got nothing to do with the fact that Kurds, Baluchis and Ahvaz Arabs are treated by the Persian majority as third-class citizens. It's gotta be a plot!

The funny thing is that most Iranians haven't fallen for this BS. But of course you - being a short-bus passenger for all your life - swallow it hook, line and sinker. And if you think that's true, then maybe you think Uncle Mahmoud's got a point about the Holocaust as well.

'You don't know jack shit DogBoy'.

Says the mong who claimed that Ronald Reagan encouraged Iraq to attack Iran, even though the latter was invaded two months before the 1980 Presidential Elections, and four months before his inauguration.

FOAD, Walt. Come back here when you can count without using your fingers and toes.

 
At 02 March, 2010 09:57, Anonymous Glenn Maxey said...

Of course, all this neoconservative phantom Iranian menace babble is just dropped into the turd bowl without even a sliver of evidence. As usual. And when evidence is cited, it's likely another cryptofascist like Ledeen, or some CIA/Pentagon mouthpiece invited to chant the imperialist mantra for the fifteen minutes of hate on Faux News.

But, when you're dumbunker cultist, why would you need "evidence"? It's an alien concept. You just invade and murder at random if the opposite party can't prove a negative! It's called "The Bush Doctrine".

Nevermind funding, training and equipping islamic terrorists as an ongoing, front line effort in this "global war or terror".

Sack cloth and splashes.

High five!

 
At 02 March, 2010 11:58, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Repeat after me,SackStar:It's an open secret that the US government is funding and carrying out destabilization efforts in Iran,like they do in Cuba and loads of other places.Saying the obvious doesn't make one an admirer of the Iranian mullahs.You're so desperate you even started lobbing "Jew Hater" grenades into the mix.As far as dim bulb Ronnie,you need to bone up on what Bill Casey and Poppy were doing in Paris BEFORE the 1980 election.The information can be found in Gary Sick's book and Barbara Honegger's (a whistle blowing Bush Sr, aide) "The October Surprise".Never doubt the lenths the Bush crime family will go to realize their goals.Go get'em Tigerboy!

 
At 02 March, 2010 15:47, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Repeat after me,SackStar:It's an open secret that the US government is funding and carrying out destabilization efforts in Iran,like they do in Cuba and loads of other places.'

Is 'open secret' a euphemism for 'voices in your head'?

'As far as dim bulb Ronnie,you need to bone up on what Bill Casey and Poppy were doing in Paris BEFORE the 1980 election.'

OK, so that's a claim (made by a Carter administration official) that prior to November 1980 Reagan's campaign team were trying to persuade the Iranian government to delay any release of the embassy hostages until after the results of the Presidential Election (which was something that Tehran was going to do regardless of the US political process).

What has that got to do with your BS claim that the Reagan administration encouraged Iraq to attack Iran? I tell you what, Walt. It means fuck all.

You've also tried to sidestep the issue about Iran's lack of proof concerning its repeated allegations over US and UK subversion in its country. Again, a child of 4 could spot the disinfo, but you can't. But then you tried to claim that you were a combat veteran who served three consecutive years in Iraq, so nothing surprises me anymore.

 
At 02 March, 2010 16:04, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Incidentally Glenn, I noticed the fact that you called me a 'kike' on a previous thread on this site ('Agreeing with our Rebunkers').

Arseholie is just a cretin, and he can't help that. But you are truly obnoxious. If you fell into an open sewer, you'd pollute it.

It comes as no surprise to me that the 'truth movement' has attracted you like a turd attracts a fly. You are a truly disgusting individual and I hope you cycle into an AIDS tree.

 
At 03 March, 2010 08:58, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Poor Sackerly,he fails to even know that Barbara Honegger was in the Reagan administration and blew the whistle on those scumbag drug dealing lowlifes.That doesn't prevent Sad Sack the Occupation Soldier from spewing his "oh so elegant" garbage. That's treason she was talking about,in case you've already toppled off your stool! "Iran's lack of proof".Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,that's rich DogBoy.The CIA hasn't changed it's spots anytime recently.

 
At 03 March, 2010 12:06, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Poor Sackerly,he fails to even know that Barbara Honegger was in the Reagan administration and blew the whistle on those scumbag drug dealing lowlifes.'

Barbara Honegger describes alleged efforts by Bill Casey (who at the time wasn't even the CIA Director) to persuade the Iranians to keep hold of the embassy hostages until after the 1980 elections. She doesn't describe CIA black ops in Iran.

In any case (as Mark Bowden shows in his book 'Guests of the Ayatollah') the regime in Tehran didn't need any persuading to keep hold of the hostages until after November 1980. Khomeini and co wanted to humiliate Carter, and so even if Bill Casey was encouraging the Iranians not to help Jimmy (which is still unproven) he didn't have to work too hard.

And in any case, what's this got to do with your BS about the CIA sponsoring 'terrorism' in Iran?

You seem to be shifting the goalposts again Walt (which is what you usually do when you're made to look like a tit by someone who's smarter than you - i.e. just about everyone else on this planet).

Remember, next time you try and pose as an ex-soldier, it's 12-15 months for an overseas tour.

 
At 03 March, 2010 12:09, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Here's another question for you to dodge, Walt. Let's just say - for argument's sake - that Rigi the Jundollah leader is a CIA asset, launching 'terrorist' attacks on Iran from Afghanistan. He's on his way to meet his 'handlers' in Kyrgyzstan. So what does he do? Take a flight from Bagram to Manas with the USAF? No. He travels to Dubai, and takes a commercial flight to Bishkek, overflying Iranian territory in the process.

Only a mong like you would think that's plausible.

 
At 03 March, 2010 12:15, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Oh, stop the press. Honegger's account is supposedly 'confirmed' by Ari Ben-Menashe. The same Ben-Menashe who tried to set up Morgan Tsvangirai (of the MDC) in 2002, and the same Ben-Menashe who was put through a lie-detector test by ABC news, and was assessed that 'on a scale of reliability from zero to minus eight "on every major question Menashe was recorded either minus eight or minus seven':

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d201993c-3da2-4821-8221-f375a4429b97&p=3

Wow, Walt. Even by your standards of utter gullibility and abject stupidity that takes some beating.

 
At 03 March, 2010 21:01, Anonymous Glenn Maxey said...

Debunker cult

 
At 04 March, 2010 11:59, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Well done Glenn. You managed to type a comment which didn't make you come across as a complete retarded bigot. Maybe the ritalin is working at last.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home