Weapons of Mass Discussion

Further Politicization of 9/11

The UK paper Independent has an article on their website that tells the story of Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator with top-secret security clearance.

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "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."

Here is another case of somebody who thinks, "if only somebody inportant thought I was important enough to listen to I could have stopped 9/11 and been a big hero." Now, don't get me wrong, I believe 9/11 was a tragedy that should never have happened. But all these people with a political axe to grind are not going to help fix the problem.

What I find interesting about some of the folks who shout "What did he know and when did he know" and then state as fact that the President knew before 9/11 are people who were not there. Mrs. Edmonds is one of these people.

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission ­ 90 per cent of it ­ related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

So, we're supposed to take this woman's word? She was hired AFTER the attacks and claims that she "heard things." That's credible. What's next, she's goning to be a mind reader? Yep.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

Mrs. Edmonds KNOWS what Rice meant when she said "we" because, she asked her? No. Surely Edmonds wrote the speech then? Nope. Then how does she know what Rice meant? She doesn't.

Here's the telling thing...and take note that this is the LAST PARAGRAPH of the story.

It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.

This woman is passing off her opinion as fact, that's why it can't be verified. She doesn't know anything useful, but she's talking anyway. Who knows...maybe she'll get a book deal.

MARK CHIMES IN

This woman is only coming out because she wants some attention, and because she saw all the press Clarke received. Let's look at the facts:
1. She was hired AFTER 9/11, and began work AFTER 9/11.

2. She translated FBI documents. Well, we know there were suspicious goings on, the problem was the Physical and Communicative Wall between the CIA and FBI, enhanced by Clinton/Reno. Therefore, it does not matter what a given piece of paper or memo said, because it probably went no farther than the writer of it and his/her superior.

3. This woman says she heard things and saw things. Great specificity there, lady. She says she gave specifics to the 9/11 commission. If it is anything like the fun semantic word games she plays with Condi's comments, then her allegations are full of holes and arrogant supposition.

4. She does not have the courage to do this publicly in the American media. No, instead she goes to a NOTORIOUSLY left (even socialist) leaning rag in the UK and tells this drivel of a tale.

5. Again, she was hired after Sept. 11 to translate documents in possession of the FBI. You ever think this gives credence to the claim that we were so underfunded and lacking in resources for our counterterror BEFORE 9/11? I mean, sure, we may have had documents, but maybe resources were so scarce we did not get them translated til after the tragedy, you know, when PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH ACTUALLY BECAME THE PRESIDENT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT AL QUEDA AND GLOBAL TERROR! EVER THINK OF THAT????? Further proof of th e lack of resources provided by Clinton and Co., in my book.

This woman is even worse than Clarke, because she is politicizing after Clarke laid the groundwork. She is building off a foundation of lies.