Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edmonds Issues Formal Response to Schakowsky's Denial of Lesbian Affair with Turkish Operative

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
 
BradBlog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:00 PM
Original message
Edmonds Issues Formal Response to Schakowsky's Denial of Lesbian Affair with Turkish Operative


Edmonds Issues Formal Response to Schakowsky's Denial of Lesbian Affair with Turkish Operative
Formerly-gagged FBI translator/whistleblower invites Congresswoman to 'pursue facts' of the case, use her position as member of House Intel Committee to find the truth about allegations of bribery, blackmail, nuclear espionage...

As she had promised on Tuesday night, former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has responded to a parting shot taken at her by Rep. Jan Schakowsky's office, concerning Edmonds' allegations that she overheard details of a blackmail scheme directly involving the 9th-district Illinois 's 9th-District U.S. Congresswoman, while working on the FBI counterintelligence division's investigation into the Turkish lobby following the 9/11 attacks.

She has now issued a formal letter to the Congresswoman, asking her to join in her "Pursuit of the Facts", in her role as a member of the U.S. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The letter is posted in full at the link below...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7433
Recently related...
EXCLUSIVE: Schakowsky Responds to Edmonds Claim, Vehemently Denies Lesbian Tryst With Turkish Agent
FBI whistleblower rebuts Illinois Congresswoman's response with details, specific questions and polygraph challenge...
FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7429

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. This whole story is such bullshit n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks for your 2-cents. It's worth every penny. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's illegal to purger yourself to congress I hope this edmunds woman goes down!
I went to Schakowsky's town hall meeting. She's great! She had 8 pages she gave to everyone explaining the house health care bill (including public option) and it's scheduled implementation.

She doesn't need some looney tune making up crap about her.

She had enough looney tunes coming to the town hall and trying to trash her.


I'm just glad the local media here in Chicago is ignoring this lying woman who can't get any "facts" straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. 'a parting shot taken at her by Rep. Jan Schakowsky's office'?
Are you trying to imply that Schakowsky is somehow running away from Edmonds' allegations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BradBlog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Yes, a parting shot...
I'm not trying to imply anything. If you inferred it, I'm sorry. But read the full story, and the various responses back and forth between Schakowsky's office and Edmonds, as linked via the URL in the OP.

I've been working to be as crystal clear, and as far as possible to ALL sides in this story. Where you feel I haven't been, I hope you'll point it out, so I can clear up any misperceptions accidentally offered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I have read it, in detail. I just wondered why you chose that phrase
If you didn't mean anything bigger by it, then OK. I think there's more to fairness than just quoting both sides' statements, but since I don't carry any particular torch for Schakowsky I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's not that I think you're biased so much as it seems to me you're milking the story rather than investigating it.

Let me ask you this, which you can answer or not as you see fit: Schakowsky asserts matters of fact which flatly contradict Edmonds' account - to wit, the death of her mother occurring back in '87, 12 years before she entered Congress, and her historic lack of residence in a townhouse, which I suppose could be verified with a trawl through public records, albeit at some minor expense. Edmonds declines to address these contentions in her rebuttal, and reverts to telling her own story rather than supply any substantive detail to corroborate her earlier remarks.

Given this lack of substantive rebuttal or checkable corroboration, how much longer can this story go on? To me it raises very basic questions about the reliability of Edmonds as a source. If (for example) she were to claim that she's just reporting what she heard the Turks speaking about and can't vouch for its accuracy, then she is ill-advised to describe Schakowsky's supposed affair to AmCon as if it were a matter of fact, and even less to challenge the congresswoman to a lie detector test.

Indeed, various luminaries have attested to her general credibility, but this can only take a story so far - Washington is full of people who pay lip service to someone for transient political advantage because talk is cheap - in DC, it seems to be very cheap indeed. But when push comes to shove, and we get down to matters of verifiable fact - like when someone died or which property somebody owned, matters of public record and therefore checkable - Edmonds' story seems to fall apart, and it's disturbing that her 'rebuttals' don't even address the facts in dispute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BradBlog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
41. All good points, aningbrowl, so let me try to speak to them...
I have read it, in detail. I just wondered why you chose that phrase"


Again, meant no imlied message one way or another. Trying to tell the story, as mentioned, as fairly as I can. It WAS a bit of a parting shot (which you likely know if you read the formal response), and -- though I failed to answer this in reply to your first note here -- Schakowsky's office DID avoid answering the direct points that Edmonds raised. Perhaps they had good reason to (eg. "we won't even entertain such outrageous questions", or some such), but they did not answer the 3 direct points that Edmonds asked them. They could have, but they chose not to. And I verified that with them several times to make sure they definitely did not wish to issue a direct response to those questions.

I think there's more to fairness than just quoting both sides' statements, ... It's not that I think you're biased so much as it seems to me you're milking the story rather than investigating it.


I'll not speak to the "milking the story" part, but rather leave that to your opinion and others. I believe the story merits the coverage I've been able to offer it (and much more, if I had the resources, frankly!), but that's just *my* opinion in contrast to yours. But as to your first point, I concur. There IS more to fairness than just quoting both sides.

To that end, in my original story, offering up the background, the specific allegations (from both the sworn deposition and the recent AmCon interview) and quoting everybody's direct responses, and replies and rebutals to each of those, I had another long, incomplete section that attempted to untangle what was what at the end, and whose stories held up and where, etc. which I removed before publishing. Reason for removal was largely two fold: a) The story, as is, with everyone's additional responses to responses had already grown longer and longer and longer and b) The "fact-check" type section at the end, trying to sort it all out, had also grown both *really* long, and yet, still incomplete, since there are a number of unexplained issues on both sides of the story.

But I felt it was important to get Schakowsky's response to the very serious charges, up in full, as quickly as possible, since the allegations had been out, at that time, for at least 24 hours. So I didn't want to hold that up while trying to investigate, figure out what was what in the rest of the already very long piece.

Let me ask you this, which you can answer or not as you see fit: Schakowsky asserts matters of fact which flatly contradict Edmonds' account - to wit, the death of her mother occurring back in '87, 12 years before she entered Congress, and her historic lack of residence in a townhouse, which I suppose could be verified with a trawl through public records, albeit at some minor expense. Edmonds declines to address these contentions in her rebuttal, and reverts to telling her own story rather than supply any substantive detail to corroborate her earlier remarks.


All good points. And those issues were among the ones in that additional section that I ultimately didn't run (though may in the future, as i can fill in more of the details).

Sibel has told me she plans to offer more information in the coming days, as I noted at end of the piece, and I have made further inquiries to Schakowsky's office, which they may or may not chose to answer. The date of the mother's funeral is certainly a hole in the original allegation. Though that could be explained by determing the death date of one Schakowsky's mothers-in-law, for example. That's one of the points I'm trying to look into. (I welcome anybody's help on such points, btw!)

So that detail requires more investigation, as far as I'm concerned. While I could have run really really long and pointed that out (along with other similar details and questions), I chose instead to get "what we know" from all parties, on the record as is for the moment. Hope that helps to explain.

Given this lack of substantive rebuttal or checkable corroboration, how much longer can this story go on? To me it raises very basic questions about the reliability of Edmonds as a source. If (for example) she were to claim that she's just reporting what she heard the Turks speaking about and can't vouch for its accuracy, then she is ill-advised to describe Schakowsky's supposed affair to AmCon as if it were a matter of fact, and even less to challenge the congresswoman to a lie detector test.


Can't answer to "how much longer can this story go on". There seem to be VERY substantive questions in regard to not just Schakowsky (a rather small piece of the much larger story, in fact), that need to be investigated. If anybody else in the media bothered to jump in to investigate such things, perhaps it could all be refuted as stuff and nonsense in short order, and then the story goes away. But currently they aren't doing so. Similarly, if they jumped in to investigate, they might find there is much more there, as UK's Sunday Times did when they ran a three part series of front page articles on these claims, and were able to corroborate a number of elements of them independently.

Your questions are good and legtimate, as far as I'm concered, and demand answers. Let's hope we can get them!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hey, Brad. Can you find a better word than "allegations"?
It makes it sound like Edmonds accused Schakowsky of doing something wrong. I don't see how that's gonna get us anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. And once again your misunderstanding of the English language...
...clouds the issue. "Allegations" has no negative connotations. It simply means that certain things have been alleged to have occured. The fact that you confuse this word with "accusations" is your problem, not the OP's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You're incorrect. Look it up an come back so I can make a proper fool of you.
Edited on Thu Sep-24-09 10:24 PM by BuyingThyme
Candy from a baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. "Your incorrect"
Oh, I see you've fixed that little gem now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. And you thought you finally got something right.
Edited on Thu Sep-24-09 10:33 PM by BuyingThyme
Listen, simple one. Sibel has not made any accusations or allegations regarding anything.

She has only discussed what she translated. She does not know whether or not the things she translated are true or not.

Now, I have just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you do not even begin to understand what's going on here.

Please dig a little deeper so I can lower your coffin.

Again, candy from a baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Why do you continue to insist that words do not actually mean what they actually mean?
Listen, simple one. Sibel has not made any accusations or allegations regarding anything.
She has only discussed what she translated. She does not know whether or not the things she translated are true or not.


Well then what the hell is this exactly?


EDMONDS: Yes, thats correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).


Saying that she was doing all of this with the cover of "oh, that's just what I translated" is just bullshit. It's not what she's doing and it's not what she's saying. It's what you're saying that she is saying and her own words deny your claims. She made the allegation, or the accusation, or whatever convoluted word you want to call it.

Now, I have just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you do not even begin to understand what's going on here.

The only thing you have proven is your continued insistence on denying that words mean what they mean. Continuing to insist, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that she has not made any accusations or allegations is simply nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. On the contrary
His disagreements are rational and well sourced. In the meantime, it is perfectly correct to speak of Sibel Edmond's 'allegations' since she alleges Schakowsky had a lesbian affair, and indeed has challenged her to a lie detector test (which would seem to imply she thinks Shakowsky is being dishonest).

Is this going to be like the bizarre thread yesterday where you claimed the Schakowsky was not denying having a lesbian relationship?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Edmonds is telling what she heard on the tapes.
Schakowsky is the one making brutal allegations about Edmonds and Edmonds is thus looking to clear her name by way of exploring the facts.

It's not complicated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. So why is she issuing challenges to take lie detector tests?
If Sibel Edmonds can't vouch for the accuracy of the content on the tapes, then she would do well not to describe the tapes' version of events as fact. In that case, Schakowsky's denial (with simple, verifiable facts like the date of her mother's death) would suggest the tape was wrong, and call into question the reliability of everything else Edmonds had heard on these tapes. They might be recordings of someone who was very poorly informed, for example.

But Edmonds suggests Schakowsky take a lie detector test. That means one of two things - either she is very confident about the reliability of the tapes and regards their content as factual, or (more likely) she just expects Schakowsky to blow her off and ignore the challenge. And if she doesn't seriously expect Schakowsky to go through that process, why should we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. She did not describe the tapes' version of events as fact. You made that up.
Sibel has been attacked by a nasty old lady who likened her to a Birther. A nasty old lady who thinks this whole thing should be kept from the American people. A nasty old lady who despises the concept of open government.

Now Sibel has to find a way to get this nasty old lady to participate in democracy. Why don't you support that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. No, I did not. Indeed, this is why I find her AmCon interview so troubling.
She very much does talk as if she were recounting facts.

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clintons attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowskys mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowskys townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I dont know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.


Here, she's talking about the FBI and Justice department investigations. Not what the Turks think of them, but what the FBI and DOJ were doing. And from there, she just segues right into talking about Schakowsky, still in terms of fact. Not 'TI translated Turkish claims that xxxx happened', just saying they happened with no qualification whatsoever.

Sibel has been attacked by a nasty old lady who likened her to a Birther. A nasty old lady who thinks this whole thing should be kept from the American people. A nasty old lady who despises the concept of open government.

Now Sibel has to find a way to get this nasty old lady to participate in democracy. Why don't you support that?


Nasty old lady? what is this, a children's story? Sibel Edmonds is giving interview to the American Conservative suggesting that one of the most liberal members of Congress had a lesbian affair with a Turkish spy...that's a hell of an accusation to make. And yes, she is making it. This is being presented very much as a matter of fact, and that Sibel Edmonds is suggesting the Congresswoman take a lie detector test is tantamount to saying her denials of this are untruthful.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Stop it. There's no disagreement about the circumstances by which
Edited on Fri Sep-25-09 01:28 AM by BuyingThyme
Sibel translated the tapes. Nobody but you and the other poster are making the case that there's something else to it.

And yes, a nasty old lady attacked a class act. The nasty old lady could have simply explained what's going on here, but she decided to attack. Schakowsky likely knows exactly what Edmonds listened to. So why the hell did she decide to attack instead of explaining what's going on?

To hell with her. I expect better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. Why should I stop? The is widespread disagreement
That search box up in the top right will provide numerous examples. Here's just a few examples from the last 7 days:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard...

Sorry BT, there's a lot of people questioning Edmonds' credibility, not just me and the other poster in this thread. Yet again, if she's just passing on what she heard on some tapes, why does she keep demanding Schakowsky take a lie detector test? Does Edmonds believe in the content of these tapes or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Again, Edmonds asked for the lie detector after Schakowsky attacked her.
It doesn't even matter whether Edmonds believes the content. Who the hell cares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. She would do better to explain the factual inconsistencies in her account
Like explaining how a Turkish agent was supposed to have developed a relationship with Schakowsky after her mothers funeral, when that event took place in 1987 and Schakowsky wasn't in Congress until 1999, or even an elected representative in Illinois until 1990.

Or why Edmonds refers to affairs taking place in 'Schakowsky's townhouse' which had been bugged with microphones and hidden cameras, then backtracking and saying she doesn't know whose townhouse it was when Schakowsky points out she has never owned or lived in such a residence. Yanno, if you don't know whose house it was, maybe you shouldn't go round saying it was her house?


When Edmonds insists Schakowsky take a lie detector test, she's basically asserting that her story, and everything she heard on the tapes, is true and that Schakowsky isn't. But it's just a bluff, because she knows perfectly well that nobody in Congress is going to fit themselves up for a lie detector test like some BS reality show. And so it goes on.

But here's a thought: if Edmonds wanted her claims verified, why not just name the supposed Turkish lesbian agent? She's already named a member of Congress, so why worry about concealing the identity of this supposed sex spy? Spill the name and let's see if someone can track her down provide some independent confirmation. I feel pretty comfortable guessing that this will never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. She's trying to explain the inconsistencies now.
It would sure be easier were Schakowsky not playing this game and instead would take the time to explain what she knows about this. (It's not like she didn't see this coming.)

The only thing an Edmonds lie detector test would determine (if you believe in lie detector tests) is whether Sibel actually believes she heard the things she's saying she heard. The lie detector test taken by Edmonds would not, in any way, help to determine whether or not the events she heard described actually occurred.

As for the name of the agent, that's a good question. Maybe Brad will see your question here and ask Sibel (if he hasn't already). I'm sure she'll be happy to answer. My guess is that there was no name used during the taped conversations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Indeed. I don't think she's doing a very good job of it.
It would sure be easier were Schakowsky not playing this game and instead would take the time to explain what she knows about this. (It's not like she didn't see this coming.)

Of course, she would only have seen it coming if Edmonds' tale were true. If it is not, and I have great doubts about its reliability, then it would have come as a complete surprise to her. You know, if she did not in fact have any relationship with a Turkish lesbian spy, she would not know anything that needed explaining to begin with.

It's kinda like those 'when did you stop beating your wife' questions...to which the answer seems to be 'wife? I've never been married.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
43. Lie detectors are unreliable. Not admissible in court.
Challenging someone to take a polygraph test is just grandstanding.

It does not mean anything legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. No. No no no. Saying it more times does not make it true.
Edited on Fri Sep-25-09 12:38 AM by Cessna Invesco Palin
I just pointed this out to you two posts ago, and reproduced the quote in its entirety to demonstrate that she is making statements of fact as opposed to simply recalling what she translated. You keep ignoring this. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. Y'know, I think I'm done here.
Have fun stormin' the castle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. Candy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. No he isn't
I'm sorry, but you seem to be on some completely different planet from everyone else who reads English. It might be that AmCon edited the interview to be more punchy (though Edmonds hasn't repudiated it), or it might be carelessness on her part, (though she hasn't clarified it) but she speaks throughout as if she were reporting events, not relaying some Turkish embassy/government version of events. I know the difference between direct speech and reported speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. What angle did she use to convince you she has knowledge beyond the tapes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. You seem to have misunderstood what I have been saying.
I am extremely skeptical about whether she has any real knowledge of events, not least because her account of events seems to be deficient in fact and she has sidestepped those disputes in her rebuttal.

If you mean why I think she is employing direct speech rather than reported speech, I can only refer you to the American Conservative interview and a book on English grammar. It's a long interview, and I have no intention of analyzing it on a sentence-by-sentence basis. If you are unable to distinguish the difference then I can't help you - I'm not here to give reading comprehension lessons. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. She doesn't claim to have any real knowledge of events...
beyond what she heard on the tapes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Then she should consider her words more carefully, because that is the impression they create.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. I see that Edmonds is trying to find out the truth. I think it is fair she make her allegations
Edited on Fri Sep-25-09 01:25 AM by avaistheone1
known. I think Schakowsky needs to be honest. Schakowsky is a public figure. She needs to acknowledge whether what Edmonds is saying is true. Was Schakowsky compromised?

The Truth, I think that is all this is about for Edmonds and for those of us that have been following the story. Edmonds was not a witness to it. She just translated it.

Edmonds is making allegations, true. But allegations are not facts. I think it would be helpful if
Schakowsky would cooperate, state what is a fact and what isn't, and how we can know what is a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Oh no. She can't be bothered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Schakowsky has already pointed out major factual errors in Edmonds' account
I mean, look at her statements as reproduced on Brad Blog (I'm too tired to go cut and pasting them, just read them over there...) She says her mother's funeral was back in the 1980s, she never owned or lived in a townhouse, and there was no such Turkish agent, lesbian or otherwise. what more do you want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. I want to know what Schakowsky knows about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. ...
Edited on Fri Sep-25-09 01:11 AM by avaistheone1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
45. war is peace. up is down, black is white.
It's not complicated, but it's way over your wee head. Edmonds made allegations. Schakowsky said those allegations weren't true. too bad you can't grasp something even that basic.

Your posts are by far the most idiotic on DU. The most pathetic. The lamest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
masuki bance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
19. Is there a list somewhere that shows any of Sibel Edmonds statements
that ended up being proven true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
44. thanks for your work on this important story, Brad - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
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 Sun Jul 23rd 2017, 02:49 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