ranting about sibel edmonds, again

I stumbled across this collection of Sibel links - and it led me to this piece in the Baltimore Chronicle by Jim Hogue in Dec 04.

It is fair to say that the Bush administration, through the efforts of Attorney General John Ashcroft, has confirmed its complicity in the 9/11/01 attacks.

In his legal appeal to Judge Reggie Walton to silence FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Ashcroft has inadvertently, through the very language of the appeal, provided eloquent proof of treason and misprision of treason within the highest levels of government.

Their refusal to release the report of the Inspector General, and their original gag order to “block discovery in a lawsuit of any information that, if disclosed, would adversely affect national security” raises obvious questions
[]
In Ms. Edmonds' unimpeachable testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee almost three years ago, she named countries and people who had contributed to the attacks of 9/11.
[]
What Ashcroft has done is to admit that those who have read the reports (Ashcroft himself plus the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee including Senators Grassley and Leahy) know the identities of the countries and persons who are responsible for the attacks. And he has confirmed that those responsible must be protected.
[]
It is most significant, legally, that Senators Grassley and Leahy have repeatedly demanded that Ashcroft release the Inspector General’s report. Note, they “fear that the designation of information as classified in this case serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability.” Senators Grassley and Leahy are telling you WHY it is classified.
[]
The Inspector General's report contains confirmed evidence of intentional, not accidental, criminality. The validity of the evidence has been confirmed by Senators Grassley and Leahy, and by the FBI. It has also been confirmed by Ashcroft. In his appeal to Judge Walton he stated, “. . . statements in this declaration are based on [his] personal knowledge,”--knowledge that “military secrets are at stake”...
[]
In the documents are names like Atta, Ahmad, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Dostum, Khalilzad, and Bin Laden; and groups like Al Qaeda, the ISI of Pakistan, and the Taliban. The names of companies like Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel, Unocal, and Bin Laden Group appear connected to the off-shore banks that hide money for three infamous families: Marcos, Bush, and Bin Laden. And the same names, like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Bin Laden, Zelikow, Woolsey, and Giffen, intersect in the perpetration of unspeakable atrocities in the quest of empire and power.

Man, wouldn't I love to see Sibel's testimony, and the IG report.

I'm not sure how much Hogue knows (he interviewed sibel here), but interestingly, Sibel pointed to Giraldi's piece as the best version in print about her story, and yet it doesn't even mention 911.

Incidentally, in the interview with Hogue is this:

"SE: On the other hand I have seen several, several top targets for these investigations of these terrorist activities that were allowed to leave the country--I'm not talking about weeks, I'm talking about months after 9/11"

I've previously had interest in this comment (can't find it now) - I wonder who she's talking about. The 'not weeks, months' observation is presumably to direct attention away from the bin ladin family flights immediately after 911. We know that Maj. Doug Dickerson left the country in about August, 2002 - are the Dickersons two of the people she is talking about? (note that she says 'several' - which is presumably more than two)

The (scrubbed) VF article says:

" By August (Sibel's lawyer) was ready to depose Douglas Can Dickerson. But before their scheduled deposition, the couple abruptly left the country. Douglas had been assigned to an air-force job in Belgium. Virgil Magee, a U.S. Air Force spokesman in Belgium, confirms that Dickerson remains on active duty in Europe, but refuses to say exactly where. "

Sibel calls the abscondees "top targets for these (911) investigations" - was Doug Dickerson ever a top target? I'd never presumed as much - although it is apparent he was on the take from the ATC gang, and/or Turkey proper - but AFAIK, he wasn't sufficiently senior to say, be involved in the NORAD stand-down (he was an ex military attaché in Ankara, involved in weapons procurement). So my guess is that sibel is talking about 'several' other than the dickersons - so who is it? And how would sibel know that they were 'top targets'?

The dickersons were apparently covering for people in the turkish embassy who were FBI targets. are these the people that sibel is pointing to? it's more than possible that she overheard some of their conversations. which of them left the US months after 911? and how on earth could Turkish embassy staff be 'top targets' of the 911 investigation?

This is also an interesting exchange:

JH: Are you allowed to say that it's the Saudis?

SE: I cannot name any country. And I would emphasize that it's plural. I understand the Saudis have been named because fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

It's difficult to read that in any way other than 'yep, it includes the saudis' - something that i havent really noticed (from her) before.

and this:

SE: However, the names of people from other countries, and semi-legit organizations from other countries, to this day, have not been made public.

JH: And the information that you have been gagged on has to do with that specifically.

SE: Correct. And specifically with that and their ties to people here in this country today.

I don't have a good timeline in my head about when she started discussing different elements (I should probably do that). I suspect that she's talking about the Turkish/ATC stuff here.

and this:

SE: But I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the portion that, even with (Griffin's) book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because then it starts touching some people in high places.

The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels.

I've been meaning to try to untangle this part of Sibel's story forever - because I haven't really got my head around it (she mentions it in a number of places). What is she pointing to when she says 'it's not counter-terrorism, it's counter-intelligence'? What does counter-intelligence cover? Presumably counter-terrorism is strictly that - with a capital T. We know that she often talks about 'arms and drugs' - and presumably the arms component includes both state and non-state (aka Terrorism) arms. So does CI include drug trafficking? Is that the point that she's making?

I'm always a little bit at a loss to understand where the balance is between drugs and arms when it comes to these people. I presume that the routes are similar - so i can understand that the same people are involved, and i understand that the goal ($) is the same - which is why it eventually leads to a money-laundering nexus. And we know that she gets exasperated about the money-laundering aspect - particularly that there is massive laundering going on through banks in places like Malta, Cyprus, and Dubai.

and then there's this:

"JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."

SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.

note that sibel's 'I cannot comment on that' is directly followed by a comment.

here's what she told me:

"You seem to know how to connect some of these dots; do so pretty well. Yet, even some of the savvy media here don't get it (or don't want to!). You picked the Zogby report, even though it was written a while ago (good research); cleverly put it together with Mahmud, Grossman, and even Brewster Jennings."

and then this:

"JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization... Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money."

that's an interesting way to answer the question: "What is al-Qaeda? "

and this:

"JH: Do you believe that 9/11 could have been stopped if information like yours had been properly handled?

SE: At the very least, as early as May/June 2001, we could have issued a red code alert to the public, and we would have issued this very urgent warning system, which would, in return, have increased our Airport and INS security."

note that sibel is stepping back in time a bit here (she didnt start at the fbi till september, although she translated stuff from before then) - although she is quite specific about the timing. also note that this question comes after a question about Behrooz Sarshar - who was apparently the source of the 'blueprints' story, which arrived in July/August 2001. But there is also another story:

"SE: One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks."

again - it's not clear whether she had first hand evidence of this particular strain of intel.

and this:

"JH: ... And if one of the investigations from Phoenix, Chicago, New York, or Minneapolis had been followed through, let alone all four, it would have burst the bubble.

SE: Look, Jim, they had those four pieces you mentioned, and far more than that, believe me, far more than that. And that has not been made public. And for them to say that we did not have any specific information is just outrageous. Because what were they waiting for? An affidavit signed by bin Laden?"

and this:

SE: The only people I have seen who have been truly pushing for the truth are the family members. All they have asked for are three things. They want the truth, the facts, the real facts, the straightforward truth. They want accountability. And they want us to improve our security. That's it. They have no other agenda. And now they're smearing their names.

Arkin (from friday):

I always interpreted the White House's selection of Kerik as a need and a desire to neutralize the 9/11 families.... By appointing Kerik, I thought the President was specifically someone who could represent a sanctioned view of 9/11. Kerik would turn the citizen's movement into just another constituency, a special interest that needed to be dealt with but one marginalized rather than revered.

Hey arkin, fuck you.

So that's Sibel about 911 - and yet she points to the Giraldi article as the most accurate article about her story, and he doesn't even mention 911 (or hastert). (see here for another sibel / 911-related interview)

Now let's revisit what she told me in January:

""You seem to know how to connect some of these dots; do so pretty well. Yet, even some of the savvy media here don't get it (or don't want to!). You picked the Zogby report, even though it was written a while ago (good research); cleverly put it together with Mahmud, Grossman, and even Brewster Jennings.

Working around the gag orders, I tried to put bits & pieces, making sure each could be pointed out to as public info; almost everyone either missed it entirely, or, wandered off on a totally irrelevant road. You took each piece, and with a good research job, started connecting the dots. Now that I've discovered your site, I can send people (reporters) to your site. That's why I want to know a bit more about you, and how you ended up on the right track.

Here is another dot for you:
1. Judge Walton, my original judge (on State Secret Privilege) happened to be 'randomly' appointed to Libby/Plame case. More on Walton later (how he ended up with my case...).

2. Joe Wilson met his wife, Plame, at ATC (American Turkish Council) in 1997. Look up his book, it is there.

3. Brewster Jennings, Plame, dealt with ATC, ATA, and Turkey a lot. Her (undercover) job took her to Turkey more than 4-5 times to Turkey between 1997 & 2001. This info has been printed on the front-page of main Turkish papers.

IAI, International Advisors Inc, owned & operated by Perle & Feith, was set up & registered as 'Agents for Turkey.'

note again, no mention of 911, and she also highlighted that "almost everyone wandered off on a totally irrelevant road" - i presume the 'irrelevant road' she is referring to is the 911 stuff, which is kinda difficult to reconcile - given that she talks about it a lot.

Here's Larisa:

"Again, I think (sibel is) pointing to something and everyone thinks she has the Holy Grail to 911 and she doesn't. She just has certain transactions that may or may not be related - there's just no way to tell. She knows this herself - she knows she can't really clarify - but people are getting a misunderstanding that she somehow holds the grail to 911 and that's not the case. She has pieces that could, if put together in a particular context, and thoroughly verified, could possibly be of import as evidence of certain other people being involved. But this doesn't even in any way implicate any American government officials. It still implicates foreign assets - so again, it's not what people think it is."

Ok - now for my dirty little secret: I don't specifically know how Feith and Perle are involved - other than they are selling stuff and making money, and killing lots of people in the interim.

Here's what i do know:
1. "i think that sibel came to my site by googling ""international advisors inc" and Feith"" (link)
2. she said to me: "You picked the Zogby report" (which mentions the dodgy feith/perle / IAI / israel /turkey relationship)
3. the short giraldi article that sibel loves says: "Doug Feith's International Advisors Inc, a registered agent for Turkey in 1989 - 1994, netted $600,000 per year from Turkey, with Richard Perle taking $48,000 annually as a consultant."

can you see a pattern? It seems obvious that she is pointing to those two 'folks', and IAI particularly, but i dont particularly know exactly what is going on

anyway - lot's there to chew over. i dont really have a point for my post - but it's always interesting going back over old interviews and whatnot and looking at them in the context of what we know now.

(not to mention, i havent ranted about sibel for ages!)