Reply #44: LARED: "Is everyone happy now???????" (sic) To which the answer is:

[Bismillah]

Nope. You'll have to do better than that. (By the way: One question mark suffices, in English, and the question is not made any more compelling by a string of them.)

1. You quote one line from Rowley, out of context (I don't know exactly which context, because you don't deign to provide a link), and you reply with a single, vacuous, content-free, carefully fence-sitting line. I know what your beliefs are; the only thing I'm interested in hearing about is what facts support those beliefs. I have the impression you get most of them off the TV.

"The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel <...> continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause. In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!"

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

2. Sibel Edmonds is in fact called Sibel Edmonds, and not Sibel Edwards, as your one-line, out-of-context quote makes clear. This shows an admirable attention to detail on your part. And you spared yourself no pains, googling CBS to find out what she'd actually said. (In fact, she said a hell of a lot more than that, even in the mainstream press, as you could easily have found out if you'd tried. Anyone might think you weren't interested):

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Sibel Edmonds managed to say this despite the fact that the regime you support is doing its level best to gag her. You are so interested in what she has to say that you cannot be bothered to notice her name, even when you're quoting it.

3. "I am not familiar enough with Kwiatkowski to comment." No surprise, and speaks for itself. It's just strange to see you admitting it. Here's what she says, then:

The new Pentagon papers

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

By Karen Kwiatkowski

March 10, 2004 ]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp/index_np.html

So you confirm my points, LARED. Rejecting the option of silence, you are forced to resort to evasion and sarcasm. And if you really believe that this persistent pattern of obstruction, corruption, suppression of information and twisting of the truth can be explained by incompetence in high places, shouldn't you be perceptibly concerned that those notoriously feckless Keystone Kops are still in charge of your nation's security? (The answer is "Yes". But you're not. Which, once again, speaks for itself.)