So, Pat Curley from of Screw Loose Change blog had a look at my blog entry "FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is Credible... and Yes... She is a Truther Too!," he writes, "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."
Well, thanks for the hat tip. :)
Now to my accompanying jig. Let's think this out. Sibel asked the Commission to look at an article that would prove she was lying to them? That makes no sense at all.
I think an exchange in Pat's comment section highlights this quite well...
Boris Epstein said, "What Chicago Tribune article would that be, Pat?"
Pat replies, "Boris, did you ever learn how to follow links? Go to the Debunking the Debunkers post, and then follow their link to my post on Sibel explaining how she lied."
Boris Epstein replies:
Well, guess what, I found this link. All it illustrates is that what Ms Edmonds says differs from what the Star Tribune had reported. Note that the actual record of the unnamed FBI source's revelations is not presented; hence we have a potential for misinterpretation or deception. The potential exists for both the Star Tribune and Sibel Edmonds. You clearly have not accounted for that; perhaps this is why you wouldn't simply furnish the relevant links but would rather hide them under the layers of references hoping no one would check on that.Pat replies, "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. Except that the Chicago Tribune report did not say what she said it did. In fact, it contradicted her on several points."
Boris Epstein replies, "Pat, Sibel Edmonds may have not been precise in what she was saying; the FBI acknowledged the receipt of the information, yet characterized it differently. I don't know if there is deception involved here on anybody's part; that does not cancel the fact that many improprieties Edmonds reported were acknowledged as legitimate by none other that the FBI/DOJ officials."
As I pointed out in the original post, just because anonymous FBI officials claimed the warning was "very vague and doubtful" does not make it so. Edmond's point in citing the Tribune seems to have been simply to point out that the information she laid out in her letter was presented to the FBI. It's either that or she cited the Tribune in the manner that Pat suggests, as if the allegations she said were made in the meeting with FBI officials were backed up in the article. She obviously knew they were not and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. She testified under oath about these issues on August 8, 2009:
A better attempt at debunking came in the comments by "Marc" who first quotes my blog, "Edmonds saying that Osama bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11 has much supporting evidence. This evidence includes a report from one of the most reputable French papers, Le Figaro, which claims that a CIA agent met with bin Laden two months before 9/11."
Marc then states:
"Reputable" and "French paper" do not often go together. I certainly would not cite them as a source. While we're talking about sources the gold-standard is three independant sources and all three have to be on the record. An unnamed source, if reliable, should be able to lead you to a named source. There are no named sources other than Edmonds. Thus, sloppy research leads to sloppy logic."If Marc doesn't want to accept the "oldest and second-largest national newspaper in France" as a source that is his choice. Feel free to add a section on Wikipedia explaining why Le Figaro is not worthy of being cited as a source. Or you might try re-doing the article "Media of France" on WikiPedia and prove to the world how French papers cannot be trusted. Just remember, "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
And I'm sure it stands to reason that this part of my blog didn't mater:
French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It "is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989." - SourceMarc then quotes a bit more of my blog:
Author Richard Labeviere later wrote a book, where he said "a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain" confirmed the meeting, which had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia.Everything except the last line quoted here actually comes from the "debunking" website 9/11myths.com, which I pointed out tries to cast doubt on the validly of this report, while at the same time admitting possible confirmation.
Confirmation? Maybe, but again we don't know the source, so there’s no way to determine its accuracy.
Hasn't this site ever heard that a good reporter never reveals their sources?
Marc's answer to all this, "Labeviere is notorious for making shit up."
Yeah well, Labeviere has an answer or two to such charges.
Marc then quotes my blog again, "The evidence supporting Edmonds also includes a CIA commander stating the U.S. let bin Laden escape from Afghanistan, French soldiers stating they could have killed Bin Laden, but were not allowed by American commanders, and an Al Qaeda trainer who it turns out worked with the Green Berets, CIA, and FBI!
Let us take these one by one.Filmmaker Oliver Stone was reported in 2006 to be considering making "Jawbreaker" into a feature film. Here was his take on the situation:
In the books "Jawbreaker", and "Kill Bin Laden", both authors express frustration that they were not allowed to pursue bin Laden into Afghanistan. However, if one actually reads these books (which are both outstanding) it becomes clear that there were two main factors on the ground in Afghanistan: 1- During the final push on the AQ stronghold there was a devistating break in the assault initiated by the local warlords to negotiate a surrender. This turned out to be a trick to let AQ escape.
"This will be partly about the ground war in Afghanistan, among other things," Stone said. "We've been discreet because we didn't want 'World Trade Center' to be affected unnecessarily by political bullshit about Afghanistan."Question: When do astounding SNAFUs surrounding the events of 9/11 end and conspiracy begin?
"World Trade Center" was marketed as a heroic rescue tale, but Stone recognizes it will be harder to avoid political discussions on "Jawbreaker." In a memoir heavily vetted by the CIA (there are pages of blacked-out lines), Bernsten details feeling stymied by bureaucrats in President Bill Clinton's administration who prevented operatives from engaging a growingly malicious Al Qaeda and Bin Laden presence. While Bernsten describes how he and his cohorts were stunningly told to stand down when they had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, he writes approvingly of President George W. Bush's handling of the invasion.
But Stone, an outspoken critic of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, said Bernstein's tome does look skeptically at the situation, too. "Gary might be a defender of the administration, but he certainly had very clear criticisms of bureaucratic snafus in Afghanistan," said Stone.
Next from Marc, "2- There were zero French soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 when this campain took place. The only foriegn personel were a few British SBS and SAS operators."
Nowhere was it claimed that the issue concerning the French Soliders had anything to do with the operations in Tora Bora in 2001, from the link provided:
Two French filmmakers and reporters, assesses and confirms the claims of French soldiers that they could have killed Usamah within two operations, but the American forces prevented them...Of course we can't trust French soldiers and filmmakers any more than we can trust French journalists and counterterrorism experts. You just can't trust french people. Long live freedom fries!
Even though French soldiers have insisted on this in the battlefield many times, the Elysees Palace in Paris and the White House in America have rejected this, and the Afghan leadership does not have any information about it yet!
And finally Marc replies, "3- It is true that AQ had a mole at Fort Bragg at the JFK Special Warfare School. We got skunked. However, we didn't know the guy was AQ." Marc probably bases his statement off of an August 2006 National Geographic special on Ali Mohamed, however, as Dr. Peter Dale Scott points out in his article "How the FBI protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer.":
...This TV show, just before the 9/11 anniversary, was itself another cover-up. It suppressed for example the information given it about Mohamed’s detention and FBI-ordered release in Canada. According to Peter Lance, the principal author for the show, the show suppressed many other sensational facts. Here is Lance’s chief claim: that [U.S. Attorney Patrick] Fitzgerald and his FBI counterpart on the Bin Laden task force, John Cloonan, learned shortly after 9/11 that Mohamed “knew every twist and turn of” the 9/11 plot.20Just more SNAFUs I guess.
Within days of 9/11 Cloonan rushed backed from Yemen and interviewed Ali, whom the Feds had allowed to slip into witness protection, and demanded to know the details of the plot. At that point Ali wrote it all out - including details of how he'd counseled would-be hijackers on how to smuggle box cutters on board aircraft and where to sit, to effect the airline seizures.
If all these latest revelations about Ali Mohamed are true, then:
1) a key planner of the 9/11 plot, and trainer in hijacking, was simultaneously an informant for the FBI.
2) This operative trained the members for all of the chief Islamist attacks inside the United States – the first WTC bombing, the New York landmarks plot, and finally 9/11, as well as the attacks against Americans in Somalia and Kenya.
3) And yet for four years Mohamed was allowed to move in and out of the country as an unindicted conspirator. Then, unlike his trainees, he was allowed to plea-bargain. To this day he may still not have been sentenced for any crime.22
Peter Lance has charged that Fitzgerald had evidence before 1998 to implicate Mohamed in the Kenya Embassy bombing, yet did nothing and let the bombing happen. In fact, the FBI was aware back in 1990 that Mohamed had engaged in terrorist training on Long Island; yet it acted to protect Mohamed from arrest, even after one of his trainees had moved beyond training to an actual assassination.
Nitpicking the Nitpickers: Curley's Mistranslation