Paul Craig Roberts and Sibel Edmonds

On her podcast former interpreter Sibel Edmonds interviews former economist Paul Craig Roberts. Neither has much credibility at this point to begin with, but they actually manage to undermine what little they had. Roberts rants on for several minutes on the Osama bin Laden killing, amazingly arguing that it was not believable that the Navy SEALS could have engaged in a 40 minute firefight with bin Laden without "suffering a scratch". Nevermind that the 40 minutes is how long they were on the ground total, the firefight itself was only part of that, there is also the the fact that SEALS are pretty damn good at what they do. If they visit you in the middle of the night, the odds are you will lose. Then to get even more bizarre he argues that we should just "cut off any movement in, and any movement out" and wait for bin Laden to surrender so we could interrogate him.

Gee, I can't see any problems with that approach...

Anyway in response to Roberts' claim that al Qaeda was made up by the CIA, Edmonds insists that none of the translators at the FBI had heard the term before 9/11:

But these language specialists, these are people with Top Secret clearances they said that they never dealt with anything that had al Qaeda in it. This group included all the FBI’s language specialists who had been there for 15 years, 10 years, 20 years never dealt with the name al Qaeda before September 11th.

OK, well aside from the fact that these were FBI translators, not foreign intelligence specialists for the CIA or NSA, so it is entirely possible they did not come across it in their official duties, I seriously doubt that Islamist sleeper agents in Florida are going to send e-mails with "al Qaeda" in the signature line, it is just silly to pretend that this was a post-9/11 creation. In fact it was in common usage before 9/11, even by people who were not Arabic language specialists. I first heard the term in 1998 while watching a documentary on Osama bin Laden. 9/11 Myths has a partial line up here.

Pathetic.

Sibel Edmonds: Jews Run the USA

I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you to learn that Sibel is parroting the usual anti-Semitic tropes.

Are the elections results of US presidential elections determined by 2% of the population? Can the five million or so Jewish population be counted as the US majority? Does the Israel lobby shape the majority of US voters’ decisions? Is Israel the main determinant of political elections’ results when it comes to high US public offices? I don’t know your take or answers to these questions, but we do have ‘theirs, on the record, loud and clear, and of course, delivered with hubris and cockiness:

Her proof? Well, an article in the Jerusalem Post notes that some rabbi in Israel claims that Obama's reelection depends on whether or not he releases Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from prison.

Of course, the rabbi is blowing it out his hindquarters. For one thing, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush managed to get reelected without releasing Pollard. Indeed, Sibel acknowledges this in the comments, but look how she phrases it:

For example: Pollard remained inside through several presidents, and ’some’ got reelected;-)

"Some"? Sibel is clearly trying to imply that the one that didn't, George Bush, Sr., lost because he failed to pardon Pollard. Never mind that, as Wikipedia's page on Pollard notes, the first Israeli effort to free Pollard came during Clinton's first term.

Sibel goes on to make the usual claim about how the Jews control the media:

Click here if you want to read the report detailing how ‘they’ successfully control, direct and shape American media.

Sarshar's Incredible Expanding Story

Sibel Edmonds gives us what Behrooz Sarshar supposedly told to the 9-11 Commission. Taken at face value it's a pretty explosive story:

1. Reasonably specific warnings of the terrorist attacks of 9-11, including mention of specific US cities:

‘According to my guys, Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this (I assumed he meant the CIA or the White House).’

2. Mention of tall buildings possibly as targets:

‘I’ve been thinking about this; trying to make more sense out of it myself. The source mumbled something about tall buildings. Maybe they will blow up the plane over some tall buildings; I don’t know.

3. That the attack was imminent (as of the Spring of 2001):

‘No specific dates; not any that they were aware of. However, they said the general timeframe was characterized as ‘very soon.’ They think within the next two or three months.’

There's just one little problem with the above; Sarshar has already discussed much of what he had to say with the Chicago Tribune way back in 2004 (around the time of his testimony) and none of those allegations appeared in that story.

Specific US cities? Nope:

According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.

It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be "possibly here, but more probably overseas." The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.

The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training."

Note that the current article does not mention Europe at all as a possible target; Texas sharpshooter fallacy, anybody? The 2004 article does not mention tall buildings at all, although obviously this would have been a spectacular revelation. And the specific time frame mentioned in the current article? The Tribune piece is quite adamant about that:

According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.

Note as well the dramatic point in the piece on Sibel's site:

Now the informant had our full attention; the agents seemed very alarmed, since their main unit of operation was under the WFO Counterterrorism division. They asked the guy to stop, asked him to repeat that again, and ordered me to take verbatim notes as I translated.

But that's not what Sarshar himself reported in 2004

According to Sarshar, the two FBI agents who interviewed the Asset were not visibly surprised by his report. It was his impression, Sarshar said, that the agents weren't sure whether to believe their informant, and that even the Asset wasn't convinced his information was true.

Note as well that in the current article, Sarshar names the two FBI agents who were with him as "Tony and John". But in one of the few unredacted portions of Sarshar's interview:

He couldn't remember the name of one of the agents.

I would love to see Sarshar's testimony unredacted; based on what we already know there is no real good reason for keeping it secret. But I'm guessing that it bears little resemblance to the account at Sibel Edmonds' site.

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".

Sibel Edmonds, 9-11 Truther

Well, well. Brad Friedman assured me in a telephone conversation about a year and a half ago that Sibel was not a Troofer, but it looks like that no longer applies.

Alex Jones: So you wouldn't be surprised like many others, because of the evidence and the cover-up you've seen, if 9/11 was an inside job?

Sibel Edmonds: At this point, I'd have to say no, I wouldn't be surprised.

Alex Jones: Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?

Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, considering the level of cover-up and the length at which they have gone to gag people and prevent information-- this information from coming out, I would say yes.

Hat Tip to Debunking the Debunkers. No matter how much John-Michael dances around the point, the fact is that Sibel lied to the 9-11 Commission about the contents of the Chicago Tribune article she cited in her letter.

Feith and Perle On Sibel Edmonds

Looks like they share my assessment of Nancy Drew:

Perle, today a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and board member for or adviser to other think tanks, including the National Institute for Neareast Affairs and the Center for Security Policy, emphatically denied Edmonds’ claims in an interview with Military.com.

“This woman is a nutcase. Certifiable,” Perle said. “She makes wild accusations. She was fired from her job, and has been on a vendetta against … imagined demons ever since.”

Feith, in an email to Military.com, said: “What I’ve read on the Internet about Ms. Edmonds’s claims about me is wildly false and bizarre.”

The Sibel Edmonds Article

Up at the AmCon, and it's a snoozer as far as "9-11 Inside Job" goes. Remember all that hoopla that supposedly Bin Laden was on the CIA Payroll up till 9-11? Well, here's how that plays out in the interviews:

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

And no kidding, as far as I can see, that's the whole tie-in to 9-11. Now I think anybody faced with the headline "Bin Laden on CIA payroll" might some questions in mind, but when you say "Bin Ladens on CIA payroll" there should be one obvious question: Which Bin Laden?

Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely some explosive allegations in the article, specifically that Richard Perle and Douglas Feith provided information to the Turkish embassy that could be used to blackmail secrets out of defense department officials with highly classified information:

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

But if you want to chow down on that one, use a couple pounds of salt, because Sibel lied in her letter to the 9-11 Commission.

And I do have to wonder at her claims. Is she seriously saying that Feith and Perle were selling us down the river to the Turks? But I will let others handle that part. For the moment, Sibel once again has nothing to tell us about 9-11. But maybe next time, Truthers. She's got a pony for you, just keep digging!

Nancy Drew Hits the American Conservative

The article will apparently be available online tomorrow. Look for more revelations from the low-level translator of Turkish for the FBI, who was hired after 9-11 and fired six months later. It's amazing all the information she picked up and forgot to mention on that 60 Minutes interview 7 years ago.

My Problem With Sibel Edmonds

This comes up periodically as in the comments on the Melissa Rossi thread. Sibel Edmonds has some reasonable credibility to novices on the 9-11 topic. Her supporters can point to her appearance on 60 Minutes, and the front-page story about her claims which appeared in the (UK) Sunday Times last year. We know at least that she's not another ridiculous fraud like Lauro Chavez or Mike the EMT.

I don't express any opinion about her revelations on the mainstream coverage of her because they're not part of our bailiwick. But I do have some problems trusting her because of the letter she wrote to the 9-11 Commission. Looking back I can't see where I've posted about that here, so I thought I'd take care of that today.

Here's the passage that concerns me:

More than four months prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information 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. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing 302 forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and a report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004, stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001.

Note the high degree of specificity:

1. Attack in the US targeting 4-5 cities.
2. Attack will involve airplanes.
3. Some of the attackers already in the US.
4. Attack coming soon.

Now, let's go to the Chicago Tribune article she cites. It's not on the Tribune's webpage anymore, but it's been archived on many 9-11 "Truth" sites like this one. Here's the nub:

Although the Asset has lived in the U.S. 25 years and speaks some English, the FBI has had trouble understanding him in the past. To guard against any misunderstanding, the two FBI agents assigned to interview him in April 2001 brought along an FBI translator fluent in his native language, Farsi.

The interview followed the standard FBI format. The agents posed their questions in English, which were then translated into Farsi. The Asset's replies were translated back into English as the agents took notes.

According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.

It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be "possibly here, but more probably overseas." The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.

The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training."

So based on the article we can say the following about Sibel's specific claims:

1. Attack in the US targeting 4-5 cities. Status: False. In fact the article quite clearly states that the impression of the official was that the attacks would be overseas.
2. Attack will involve airplanes. Status: True
3. Some of the attackers already in the US. Status: False. No discussion of this in the article, and indeed, given that the belief was that the attack was more likely to take place overseas there is no reason to believe this claim.
4. Attack coming soon. Status: False. "...no mention of when or where the attacks might take place."

So, that's one out of four; not a bad average for a shortstop, but unacceptable for a whistle-blower.

Sorry, Sibel

An FBI translator doubts her claims:

[Redacted] does not agree with Sybel (sic) Edmond's allegations. Edmonds claimed that supervisors were encouraging her to work slowly. He thinks that there is nothing there and that she is totally wrong. A supervisor would never do this, in his opinion.

Hat Tip: Mike W (at JREF).

Valerie Plame Endorses Sibel Edmonds

In one of those rare moments when two people collide who have little credibility for me but might have some for other people.

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson says the recent disclosures in the UK's Sunday Times concerning the sale of U.S. nuclear secrets to the foreign black market, as aided by high-ranking government officials, are "stunning"...

Read it and decide for yourself, but remember that Plame's husband was caught in serial lies by the Senate Intelligence Committee and Sibel clearly made two glaring misstatements of fact in her letter to the 9-11 Commission.

Right now I'm playing a little poker; I'm ready to check-raise anybody foolish enough to doubt the above.

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.

Sibel Edmonds Tells All

Or some. I have been pretty critical of Sibel in the past, largely because she has been used by some of the 9-11 Troofers who claim she's the whistleblower that everybody asks them for.

A couple of months ago, the BradBlog stated that Sibel was prepared to risk jail to tell what she knew, in violation of several gag orders that have been placed on her by the courts. I was pretty suspicious, but after a long conversation and numerous emails with Brad Friedman I decided to hold any further fire while they tried to get a US media outlet to handle the story.

They were apparently unable to get a US paper or major network to tackle the story, but the Times of London has published a piece today on Sibel's allegations. It seems potentially blockbuster:

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.”

Friedman posts today:

While that "well-known senior" State Department official is not named by the paper, Australia's Luke Ryland, perhaps the world's foremost expert concerning the Sibel Edmonds story, has told The BRAD BLOG that the official, unnamed by the Times, is Marc Grossman.

Grossman was the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey ('94-'97), the Asst. Sec. of State for European Affairs ('97-'00) and served under Colin Powell and Richard Armitage at the State Department from 2001 to 2005 as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He's currently employed as the Vice Chairman of the D.C. and China-based consulting firm, The Cohen Group, founded by the former Republican Defense Secretary for Bill Clinton, William S. Cohen.

Getting to the topic of this blog, 9-11 Conspiracies, the Sunday Times piece notes:

The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official.

Edmonds said: “I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2½ years. There are almost certainly more.”

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

It's tempting to groan over part about the $100,000 wire transfer; no doubt the kooks will now claim that the Times of London "proved" the payment when of course all they have done is note that an accusation was made. But I hope that some reporters will now be encouraged to go after that story and either prove it or debunk it once and for all. It makes no sense that anybody would be wiring a large sum of money to Mohamed Atta immediately before the attacks; indeed the 9-11 Commission reports Atta was wiring small sums of money out of the US in the last few days before the attacks.

And:

Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.

Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”

The four suspects on the list were released from interrogation and extradited.

A little vague there, but again, let's have it investigated.

Update: Long discussion of the article here without a lot of conspiracy theorizing.

Still Moron Sibel Edmonds

Bradblog attempts to flog its story from a couple weeks ago, that Sibel Edmonds is prepared to "tell all". Except there's nothing new here, so they wheel out Daniel Ellsburg to let us know that this is even bigger than the Pentagon Papers.

As usual, Sibel does her hootchie-kootchie dancer routine, pretending to be about to show us everything while the choice bits remain unseen. She's made sure to set the bar so high that network TV is unlikely to bite, but when alternative outlets are mentioned, somehow they are unacceptable:

"What about the BBC? Would you do that?," we asked.

"Why am I going on BBC? This is about this country! This is about this country, and more of America needs to know the true face of the mainstream media," she exclaimed.

As usual with cranks like Sibel, the entire media is in on the plot, as are the Democrats:

Edmonds revealed an additional tasty morsel while wrapping up one of our recent conversations. One that might help explain the American media's reluctance to jump at the chance for a scoop: apparently many of them already know the story.

"I will name the name of major publications who know the story, and have been sitting on it --- almost a year and a half."

"How do you know they have the story?," we asked.

"I know they have it because people from the FBI have come in and given it to them. They've given them the documents and specific case-numbers on my case."

"These are agents that have said to me, 'if you can get Congress to subpoena me I'll come in and tell it under oath.'"

Yet, despite promises she says she had received from staffers in Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) office to hold hearings once he became chairman of the House Oversight Committee, they no longer respond to her. "The only reason they couldn't hold hearings [previously]," they'd told her, "was because the Republicans were blocking it."

They're not blocking it anymore. Ever since the Democrats have taken control of the House. Nonetheless, there are still no plans for hearings. Even with more than 30,000 people having signed her petition, calling on Waxman to do so.

Jersey Girl Falls for Con Man

The Troofers are all excited over Patty Casazza's recent appearance at a Troofer rally where she revealed that some unnamed "whistleblower" met with the Jersey Girls at the side of a road in Maryland and revealed that the government had known all about the 9-11 attacks.



I am amused that Jon Gold, who trumpets endlessly his support for the families, introduces her as Patty Casava. Correction: It is pointed out in the comments that the person introducing Patty is not Jon Gold. Looking at the video, it sure looks like him, but it does not sound like him, so my mistake.

She starts out talking about how the planes should have been intercepted immediately as soon as the transponders were turned off. But later:

Sibel brought us many whistleblowers and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the chairman of the Commission, and I said, "These people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed." And he promised me to my face that every whistleblower would be indeed heard. And most were not heard. Sibel was only heard because we dragged her in to surprise the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them, that we had her with us. We met other whistleblowers on the side of the road of Maryland, you know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us, by the way. But they had information, and basically, the government knew, you know, other than the exact moment, they knew the date and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. And none of this made it to the mainstream media.

The sad thing is that some con man probably did tell them this. Which gives me a renewed distaste for Sibel Edmonds

Joe Biden Blows Chance for SLC Endorsement

Unfortunately the fruitcakes have learned to be less, well, fruity, when approaching the candidates these days, so Joe doesn't get a chance to go "mano-a-mano" with the "Truthers"; instead it's "Do you think we've learned all there is about Able Danger?"

Able Danger is apparently going to get some significant discussion in Loose Change The Final Insult. The advantage the Troofers have here is that a lot of people like Able Danger for reasons of their own. Many in the conservative blogosphere embraced the Able Danger story because it shifted the blame for "letting" 9-11 happen to the Clinton administration. Biden may like it for similar reasons, given that he's running against Hillary. But the story has never really made any sense to me, starting with the obvious: Why was Atta supposedly a member of the "Brooklyn Cell"?

Sibel Edmonds to Tell All!

All they've gotta do is get her on national TV, live and unedited.

But if you'll sit down and talk with her for an unedited interview, she has now told The BRAD BLOG during an exclusive interview, she will now tell you everything she knows.

Yawn. Remember, Sibel was hired after 9-11. She claims to have huge 9-11 relevations, but I suspect she's just stroking everybody along to keep her name in the news.

I guarantee you, if she does tell "all", the Troofers will all be moaning, "That's it?"