Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sibel Edmonds lies.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:23 AM
Original message
Sibel Edmonds lies.
In her accusation against Jan Schakowsky, Edmonds states that Schakowsky was targeted by some shadowy Turks after her mother's death sometime in 2000. She claims that Schakowsky's townhouse was bugged.

"Edmonds says in the Giraldi interview that "in 2000 ... Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual." A female Turkish agent is said to have "struck up a relationship with her," and then, following the death of Schakowsky's mother, the woman is said to have attended the funeral "hoping to exploit her vulnerability."

"They later were intimate in Schakowsky's townhouse," Edmonds tells Giraldi, "which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras."

Oops. Schakowsky's mother died in 1987. And Schakowsky doesn't own a townhouse.

From Rep. Schakowsky's office:

"From the start, the fantasy is riddled with factual errors. It claims that an "intimate" relationship between a fictional female Turkish spy and the congresswoman began at the funeral of the congresswoman's mother after 2000, however, Rep. Schakowsky's mother died thirteen years earlier in 1987.

Furthermore, it is alleged that the "relationship" occurred in the congresswoman's bugged town house even though she has never owned or lived in a town house in her life. Congresswoman Schakowsky shares a small apartment with her husband in a busy Washington, DC apartment building and owns a single-family home in Illinois."

Sibel's claim that Schakowsky was targeted at her mother's funeral is apparently completely fabricated. Why should I believe the rest of the story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
postulater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. It is curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. I expect this to turn into a flamewar.
Kudos for the guts to post it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I've never been sold completely on Edmonds incresingly fantastic claims
And I think extraordinary claims require at least a modicum of evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yep. I've never really posted about her story,
because I was unable to buy most of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. well, someone lies...

Edmonds' has responded with specific points in her own rebuttal to the Schakowsky response, and has included a number of direct questions for the Congresswoman in return. She also states that she is "willing to take (a) public polygraph ... on these points if she accepts doing the same." The BRAD BLOG has shared that rebuttal with Kincaid, and the office has responded to that as well, though they failed to directly answer the questions posed by Edmonds, or accept the challenge to a polygraph test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. why is Sibel's taking a lie detector test contingent on Schakowsy doing so?
Sibel is the one making extraordinary claims with ZILCH evidence. And how has she explained away her claims about Schakowsky's mother's death and that being the catalyst for the supposed affair? Oh, that's right, she hasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Hidden cameras should be able to provide evidence
assuming that part is true too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
26. It's classic redirtection
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 08:53 AM by WeDidIt
What Edmonds is doing by saying "take a polygraph test" is the equivalent of Birthers screaming "but we want the LONG FORM birth certificate".

Classi redirection when the facts don't support your batshit insane conspiracy theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. polygraph tests are crap .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
34. Yep, I have beaten them (in training setting)
and I can't even play poker!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Edmonds wants to take a public lie detector test, Schakowsky does not.
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 08:30 AM by Bandit
:shrug: I would think if she is lying she would be liable in a Civil suit. We shall see if one is brought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. Why the fuck should Schakowsky take a lie detector test and why
should Edmonds say she'll only take one if Schakowsky does? Sibel is the one making extraordinary and damaging accusations.

Not that I think lie detector tests necessarily prove anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. That's harsh.
I don't think she's intentionally lying. I think she believes her fantastic tale to the last letter. I just don't think she's grounded in reality much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. mea culpa: I'm not intimately familiar with her story
I read the wiki entry and she's alleging some serious stuff...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

...but what you have posted here makes her not only a liar but a pretty poor one at that who seems unable to do a simple google search before coming up with some pretty mean-spirited attacks.

So, what's up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BridgeTheGap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
9. Whom does Edmonds claim as the source of this story? A common pratice toward whistle blowers
is to give them a bogus story to run with, expose it as bogus, thereby damaging the credibility of the whistle blower. The CIA has done this one numerous times. I dare say they have it down to an art.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
21. And the planes that we saw hit the buildings were holograms...
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 08:48 AM by Recursion
Half of DU has been waiting breathlessly for 6 years or so for her to talk. Waiting so breathlessly, in fact, that the oxygen supply to their brains seems to have been cut off. After about two years of her saying "I've got an explosive story! Really! And I'm going to tell it soon! I really am!" and never actually delivering the goods, I more or less gave up on her.

It also makes me wonder if the US media never bit on the lead because they talked to her and decided she wasn't credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
12. Schakowsky Was A Back Bencher...
This is the part of this story that doesn't pass the smell test. In 2000, Ms. Schakowsky was a minority in the minority...with little power or influence. What use would she be by being blackmailed during the time when the rushpublicans were in total control...especially in the House where DeLay ran it like a fifedom. If someone were to be targeted and all that time and effort was made to find and then exploit a vulnerability, wouldn't you go after a bigger fish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. "Back benchers" who stay in Congress become Chairpersons or sit on important committees.
Even if she remained a back bencher simply being on certain committees with access to information others do not have would make her a valuable resource.

Your view of espionage and how it is carried out is very narrow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. No...I Just Don't Wear Tinfoil Hats...
You could use that same "logic" on 434 other members most with more seniority and a faster track to leadership. This reminds me of the box some tried to place Speaker Pelosi regarding her knowledge of torture back in 2003 as if she was being blackmailed and thus enabled the Iraq fiasco...when she wasn't even the Democratic leader yet Speaker and, as I posted earlier, operated in a House that was run more like a syndicate than a legislative body. Rules were so contorted that Democrats couldn't even hold hearing except in the basement and their mikes were constantly cut off. And you're saying that a country spent both money and human resources trying to compromise a relatively new and unknown Representative because one day she could rise in the party that appeared to be stuck in the minority for years to come?

Besides the fact that it appears Ms. Edmonds claims about the death of Congressman Schakowsky's mother is off by a mere 13 years kinda makes one go hmm. I was more interested in hearing what she teased about Gym Teach Denny...who was Speaker of the House and was far more corrupatble. Again...going after Schakowsky in 2000 makes little sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #36
56. "Tinfoil hats". So you must be one of those folks who believes that everything in our
government and the world around us is conducted honestly and above board. No such thing as a conspiracy or a plot, eh?

Did you agree with J. Edgar Hoover that there was no such thing as the Mafia? How about the CIA? Do you believe in the CIA and that it acts clandestinely? Remember the KGB?

To think that there are no players in international, or national politics and business, who resort to blackmail, sexual entrapment, financial entrapment is just plain ignorant. This type of clandestine operation has been used by governments and groups of "interest groups" for centuries. Now, with miniaturized video and recording equipment it is possible to peek into the private lives of virtually anyone who doesn't have their own private anti-espionage unit at their behest--and even some that do.

According to your theory, only the most powerful and long-standing elected officials would be subject to attempts to co-opt them through nefarious means. Just from my perspective as a civilian with no clandestine background it seems to me that it would be much easier to target officials when they were "newbies" and less apt to consider themselves targets, then use the damning evidence later to bring them around to the desired way of thinking. What you fail to acknowledge is that this "business" is operated by individuals who are professionals with huge budgets and the time and resources to perpetrate these deeds. Their ability to corrupt or even cause a politician or leader to modify his/her stance can mean huge dividends in terms of money and power.

Whether Sibel Edmonds is telling the truth may be debatable, but the assertion that it's "tinfoil hat" time when someone suggests that elected officials can/could be compromised is ridiculous.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. Sorry Either/Or Don't Cut It
But nice try anyway...

It's definitely tin foil when one conjectures with little evidence...or pushes a story based on rumor and unverified sources.

Now if someone produces a video (as was teased) of the Congresswoman in a compromising situation (and by this I don't mean sexual, I mean taking a bribe or making some kind of quid pro quo promise) then off comes the tin.

Please don't waste your time attempting to project what I think or not on topics I'm not discussing...thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
45. I agree.
The blackmail story just doesn't add up. She was a first-term congressperson, and far enough from the party mainstream to never be considered for a position of leadership. That doesn't sound like a target for international blackmail somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #12
47. Yeah, wouldn't Mark Foley have been a better "mark" for a blackmail plot?
Just askin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. As Long As We're On That Subject...
If you go back and look at some of the evidence in the Foley investigation, roads lead to Gym Teach Denny in either ignorning or covering up Foley's escapades. There were many questions at the time about Hastert's relationships and before much could come to light, Hastert quickly stepped down as Speaker and then resigned before his term was up. IRC, he also was implicated with Turkish connections (I think it was Ms. Edmonds who threw his name out there) and was far more influential on foreign policy and spending than Ms. Schakowsky was.


Always good to ask...the only way to learn.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. It's scary to think of our leaders being compromised
however, I know that a lot of us here- not entirely without justification- are convinced that Buscho, with Rove at the helm, intimidated a lot of Democrats into political acquiescence after 9/11/01. I think that it was even revealed not too long ago that Jane Harman had actually been wiretapped by Buscho at one point. Who knows what happened to other members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican?
As to Edmonds' allegations regarding Shankowsky, attemped foreign surveillance and blackmail of members of the minority party at the time like Shankowsky wouldn't have made a lot of sense but they all have access to sensitive materials, so.............? Shankowsky's arguments (i.e. the timing of her mother's death and her ownership of a townhome), if true, do seem rather at odds with Edmonds' allegations, however but then again, we may never really know. Admitting to a lesbian tryst with a foreign spy probably wouldn't be admitted to by a sitting Congresswoman very easily I imagine. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
13. Sibel could've been 'fed' bad info deliberately to tarnish her credibility on other matters
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 08:34 AM by blm
which has been a standard operating procedure for BushInc. Works like a charm every time, especially with the press. BushInc got an entire book by James Hatfield stopped from being published for one inaccurate story Hatfield was told by.............Karl Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. ++ eleventy1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
35. Then she doesn't have the common sense ghu gave a toadstool.
Five minutes with google wouldn't have been too much to ask for before going public with these kinds of accusations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. You just made my case unknowingly.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. No - she repeated what she testified that she HEARD.
You prefer she edit accordingly, but, is one supposed to do that when they are repeating testimony given based on what they HEARD?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. oh c'mon. she's done a lot of editorializing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. That may be to some extent, but, there is no denying that inaccurate info dropped in the middle
of really damaging material has worked to discredit whistleblowers and journalists in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
14. That means nothing.
If she heard lies in the course of interpreting and was led to believe they were truth, that makes her a victim of lies and an unknowing conveyer of false info.

It also doesn't invalidate everything else she said.

Scakowsky's "denial" is a CLASSIC non-denial denial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Schakowsky's denial is crystal clear. It's Sibel who's endlessly vague
Yes, it's possible that Sibel heard bad information. Why didn't she check it out- at least stuff that could easily be checked out. An d no, I don't think it invalidates everything she's claimed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. "Why didn't she check it out- at least stuff that could easily be checked out"
I agre that THAT is the single most bizarre thing! Either it shows her to be really really stupid and ignorant about the internet, etc. OR it strongly suggests that she is NOT intentionally lying. I favor the latter explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. Occam's Razor says she's just batshit insane n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Occam's Razor can NOT be used for the actions of individuals.
Again with the "life is simple! Whee!" thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. I just did it.
And Denial is not a river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
46. I re-read it. It was indeed a non-denial denial.
She never denied having communication with TACA .

She did the equivalent of "it depends on the definition of 'is'".

Schakowski said:

-My mother died in 2000, not 1987 (this is immaterial. Sibel 'heard' operatives speaking on audio in her job as interpreter. Someone said 'the mother'. She did not really know who's mother and it doesn't matter anyway.
-I don't have a townhouse. (again, a classic, classic non-denial).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. Sibel Edmonds is more batshit insane than Orly Taitz. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Clearly you think you have a winner with that analogy. You have said it 10 times in 5 minutes.
But it didn't impress me. Nor the Bev Harris one.

It's basically a stupid comparison. I would stop if I were you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Because it's true
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 08:50 AM by WeDidIt
and anybody on the left who fall for her bullshit are the equivalent of Birthers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Wow! A bad analogy for everything. Hint:
Not EVERYTHING is like SOMETHING ELSE.

Try dealing with things on their own. Stop reducing things to a simple profile that you feel you can "handle". It may be simplified, but you lose accuracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Actually, falling for Edmonds bullshit is WORSE than the birthers
Edmonds used classic redirection in her response to the response and failed to address ANY of the fatual inconsitencies between reality and her story.

This is classic redirection when the facts fail to support your weird ass conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. Recc'd..nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
20. Sibel Edmonds is now pulling a Bev Harris while acting like Orly Taitz. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #20
59. Whoa! That's industrial-strength crazy right there.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
33. Some of her other accusations seemed credible enough but why go with this story?
where the facts show she is clearly not correct? Now its making me question other things she has said in the past.
Her original claims seemed to be correct but she seems to have gone off the deep end. I would take any of her current claims with a grain of salt. She might not be Orly Taitz crazy but she may have forgotten that just because someone tells you something is true does not mean it and repeating it to others does not make it any more true. And it may be dragging an innocent person's name through the mud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
37. Hey guys! Here's an idea!
How about we admit that--whether true or not--Schakowsky's sexuality is just that--HER'S!

So what if it's true, I hope it's true, we need more people like that to represent their communities. If it is true the only "crime" is that Schakowsky wouldn't trust us to support her. Hell, even the GOP'ers rallied to Cheney's daughter but we act as if there is something worth being defensive about.

Envision this:

ACCUSER: *waving arms frantically* Congressman Whatshisface is homosexual/bisexual/transgendered person!

PUBLIC: So?

--The End--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. .
:hug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. The charge isn't about her sexuality. It's a claim that she was seduced
by foreign agents and exposed herself to potential blackmail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. It can only be used as blackmail if the victim
feels they have something to hide.

I understand what you're saying--especially since you're obviously working against these allegations--but I can't help but wonder if this excuse is being used to bar the GLBT community from public service in the military and elsewhere.

If gays and other were allowed to be themselves then they would need to hide and hence they wouldn't be susceptible to having their lives destroyed over petty nonsense.

And I don't wish to sound impatient with you, it's not you but people's ridiculous prejudices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
44. I give up.
There are those who will believe Edmonds (or suspend disbelief) regardless. She fingered many Republicans in her rants and that conforms to our notions here. Implicating the FBI in 9/11 conspiracies? All the better.

She would have been discounted out of hand if she had fingered as many Democrats in the implausible, many tentacled Turkish takeover of every branch, bureau and contractor of our government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. I've always been doubtful about many of her charges. Not the initial one
about her co-worker, but the ones she kept adding on and adding on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. Me too, Cali, but I thought if ignored, it would go away.
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 09:37 AM by LiberalAndProud
Evidently not. Thanks for nothing American Conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #44
52. Similar to Bev Harris
When Bev Harris claimed that black box voting was helpful to Republican causes, she was the darling of the left. After 2006 she shifted over to making the same claims about Democrats and became a darling on Free Republic.

Watch for Sibel Edmonds to become a star over there now for making these unfounded (and realism challenged) accusations about one of the most liberal members of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. OT - Athough there are some similarities,
I'll keep Bev Harris in a class of her own. What she did to Andy and other who worked with is unforgiveable. It is less her BBV work and more her personal transgressions that I hold against that woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
51. Did you confront her head-on? After all, she is a member of DU. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
57. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC