Wednesday, September 23, 2009

FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is Credible... and Yes... She is a Truther Too!


Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog thinks that the article "Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?" recently published in the American Conservative Magazine is a "snoozer as far as '9-11 Inside Job' goes." Here is the excerpt that leads him to that conclusion:
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.
Pat states, "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?"

As the George Washington Blog has pointed out, 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. The 9/11 "debunking" website 9/ tries to cast doubt on the validly of this report, while at the same time admitting possible confirmation, they state:
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.

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? In the words of John Coulter of the Irish Daily Star, "If you can't keep your gob shut about your sources, never, Never, NEVER become a journalist."

That being said, Labeviere did reveal some details about his sources, through whom he revealed very detailed information, including the name of the CIA station chief in question! A 2003 Reuters report states:
Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.

The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.

Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Department...

Labeviere named Larry Mitchell as the CIA station chief who met bin Laden, describing him as a colorful figure well-known on the Dubai social circuit.
And as points out:
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.
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!

This is evidence that Edmonds is surely aware of and when viewed in conjunction with the information found in the American Conservative article, is anything but a "snoozer!" She is more than justified in her belief than bin Laden was an American asset up until 9/11.

But the bottom line is that bin Laden WAS a CIA asset and there ARE legitimate reasons to question when this relationship ended.

Pat Curley then goes on to claim that "Sibel lied in her letter to the 9-11 Commission." Here are the allegations in Edmond's letter as outlined by Pat:
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.
Here is a collection of mainstream news articles on the subject from I'll highlight the one thing that Pat is using to try to claim that Sibel was lying about everything except the attack involving airplanes:
April 2001: FBI Translators Learn Al-Qaeda Suicide Pilots Plan to Hit Skyscrapers in US and Europe
FBI translators Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar will later claim to know of an important warning given to the FBI at this time. In their accounts, a reliable informant on the FBI’s payroll for at least ten years tells two FBI agents that sources in Afghanistan have heard of an al-Qaeda plot to attack the US and Europe in a suicide mission involving airplanes. Al-Qaeda agents, already in place inside the US, are being trained as pilots. By some accounts, the names of prominent US cities are mentioned. A report on the matter is filed with squad supervisor Thomas Frields, but it’s unclear if this warning reaches FBI headquarters or beyond. The two translators will later privately testify to the 9/11 Commission. [WorldNetDaily, 3/24/2004; Salon, 3/26/2004; WorldNetDaily, 4/6/2004; Village Voice, 4/14/2004] Sarshar’s notes of the interview indicate that the informant claimed his information came from Iran, Afghanistan, and Hamburg, Germany (the location of the primary 9/11 al-Qaeda cell). However, anonymous FBI officials will claim the warning was very vague and doubtful. [Chicago Tribune, 7/21/2004] In reference to this warning and apparently others, Edmonds will say, “President Bush said they had no specific information about September 11, and that’s accurate. However, there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand, and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should’ve alerted the people to the threat we were facing.” [Salon, 3/26/2004] She will add, “There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers.” [Independent, 4/2/2004]
I guess anonymous sources are OK if they support a so-called debunker's premise! Look at all of this information and then decide for yourself. As always, we truth seekers are confident that the facts speak for themselves, it's just a matter of having enough information at hand to actually determine what the facts are. But when considering all of this sometimes conflicting information keep in mind that Sibel is credible. How do I know? A comment on Pat's blog actually sums it up pretty well, I'll correct the falsehoods it contains below:
Re: Sibel’s Credibility -

The State’s Secret Privilege was invoked twice on Sibel. The SSP is the neutron bomb of legal gag orders. Anytime it is used it is a significant occurrence, and its application automatically lends some credibility to the person it is subjected to. That kind of legal firepower is not rolled out to gag someone, if they are fabricators or can be easily discredited.

Vanity Fair’s (a publication this website boasts of having been mentioned in) article about Sibel cited that Sibel’s story and what she knows as being backed up by several current and former FBI Agents. The magazine’s fact checking department requires something be confirmed by at least two sources; my understanding is that this was raised to 3-4 sources due to the incendiary nature of the story.

The Sunday Times of London found her allegations about nuclear proliferation to be sufficiently credible, and was able to confirm it to run a series of articles last year about it.

The man who conducted this interview and had previously written about Sibel’s case, Phil Giraldi, is a former intelligence officer who served in both the CIA and DIA, including a tour as deputy chief of base in Istanbul. A man with such a HUMINT background and in the subject matter would be easily deceived by a fabricator.

Sibel has been embraced and championed by 9/11 Truthers; there is little she can do about that, and this does not necessarily mean she endorses them or subscribes to all their theories. In fact I believe that the information she has related to 9/11 is small and probably not of huge significance. The information she has on other matters is however, is great and of huge significance.

And for the record I am no fan of Truthers either.
Sorry bud, Sibel is a truther, in the past she openly discussed the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job with radio talk show host Alex Jones. When asked if she believed "the evidence" was "leaning towards that," Edmonds stated, "I would say yes." More recently, Edmonds signed the 2009 Truth Statement at, she is signatory number 8 underneath the first two lists of "notable Americans and family members." Her signature reads, "Sibel Edmonds, Founder & Director-NSWBC, Formet FBI Language Specialist & Whistleblower, Publisher"

Speaking of her blog 123RealChange, this is the post for today, "The American Conservative Article & the Credibility Question."

Related Info:

Sibel Edmonds, SNAFUs, and Freedom Fries!

And It's Not Only Sibel Edmonds Who Says So

Listening To Sibel Edmonds - Profile: Sibel Edmonds