A story that’s getting little-to-no attention in the US press (as far as I’ve seen) is making the rounds on leftist blogs and now has been picked up by the British newspaper, The Independent.
[Sibel Edmunds, a] former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa’ida’s plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.
She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was “an outrageous lie”.
Edmunds’ claim stands in stark contrast to Dr. Rice’s March 22 op-ed in the Washington Post, where she 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.
Normally, I’d assume a story, even in the respectable Independent that gets no attention by mainstream US press is highly suspect, and Edmunds “was fired in the spring of 2002 after she made allegations about security lapses in the agency’s translator program,” but in some quarters Edmunds’ credibility is being touted after her initial testimony received some high-level attention.
I suspect this will at least come up during Dr. Rice’s testimony next week.
Edward,
I mentioned this story last week. Are you aware that Edmunds wasn’t even hired as a translator by the FBI until *after* 9/11, and she was hired to *retranslate* intelligence. Edmunds has made some serious allegations regarding the FBI’s translation unit that should be investigated. She is a credible source for these allegations given that she has some first hand knowledge. That said, she has no credibility for her ridiculous comments regarding Rice. In fact, if her allegations about the FBI were true, they would only serve to undermine her contentions regarding Rice. If FBI translations were so messed up the intelligence wasn’t even making its way up the chain at the FBI, let alone getting to the NSC or White House.
How does a government employee get fired?
Damn.
Scooped by Macallan again!
Roxanne, is it not such that government employees can be fired? Having never been one, I’m not sure.
One of my many character failings is a tendency to overly-strong annoyance when people feel it worthwhile to speak up or write on topics they are ignorant about.
The idea that no one knows about “such information” is an example.
Anyone, be it a “leftist blog,” or The Independent, or, um, anyone else is simply someone who has not followed the testimony to the commission, which was only bloody televised and printed in the major newspapers.
See here for a handy excerpt.
Anyone who hasn’t bothered to follow this simply isn’t qualified to speak about 9/11 and related political debates, it seems to me. Undoubtedly that’s harsh of me, but I’m a fan of the “entitled to an educated opinion” theory. My apologies for my crankiness on this sort of thing. I just hate the “I am revealing secret information!” trope, which wingnut extremes of both left and right are prone to.
Your annoyance is duly noted Gary. As is the absence of any “opinion” on the charge in question.
I’m not clear what you’re asking, Edward. Which charge?
The charge that Rice was either lying or ignorant? That seems true to me; I thought that was clear from my quoting the devastating, irrefutable evidence that her statement was nonsensical. Why else did I quote it at length?
I thought my opinion of what’s been going on in the Administration has been made clear in hundreds of posts I’ve made. I’d trust I don’t need to give cites; just go take a scan of what’s on my current page, if you’ve not done that. I don’t believe I’ve been shy in my opinions. Have I?
The charge that Sibel Edmunds is responsible for some revelation? It’s clearly nonsensical, as I thought I made clear by pointing out that the Commission has already revealed her “revelations” on worldwide tv and documentation; was I unclear in some manner?
Is there some other charge? What opinion have I not made clear?
I do do my blogging on my own blog, you do realize? I come over here to read and chat (as well as on various other blogs, of course), because I like and respect you folks. (I have no objection whatever to reciprocal attention, naturally.)
Gary,
You wrote I’m a fan of the “entitled to an educated opinion” theory
I took that to imply you don’t consider me qualified to offer an opinion on Edmunds’ charge that Rice is lying. I noted that I offered no such opinion, only a prediction that this will/should be brought up during her testimony.
As for your blog, it’s as good if not better than this one, and is rightfully linked to from here…
As for your first comment, it expresses a personal preference of yours. Fine. It also implies a lack of interest in my original post. Again fine.
It contradicts itself via its length somewhat (why go to such lengths to express an opinion about something that doesn’t interest you?), but again, Fine.
I guess I’m nut sure what your point is though. If a post is not worth your time and doesn’t interest you, why not skip over it and comment on the next one that does interest you? There are plenty of actual opinions out there to contradict or agree with.
obviously (or maybe not so) “I guess I’m nut sure” should be “I guess I’m not sure”
The story will air again on 60 Minutes this weekend. Sibel is distractingly beautiful, BTW.