[quote=“j.scholl”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]The pre-prison babblings of H.R. Haldeman may not be the wisest choice of support for your campaign here.[/quote]You think I’m eliciting support for the need of an open and honest government by citing any of Nixon’s henchmen?[/quote]Uh…yes…that is exactly what you have done. Nothing wrong with using that analogy per se…just a bit weird.[quote=“j.scholl”] On the contrary… Haldeman represents the rat’s ass that belittles the importance of uncovering and correcting illegal government activities.[/quote]No history has shown that Haldeman and his antics represents what can happen when a Chief Executive, gov’t or otherwise, is so isolated by his staff from outside contact, transparency and accountability that they are able to cook up and implement hair brained schemes that are contrary to the laws of the country.[quote=“j.scholl”]And if sharing Sibel’s case of injustice and unaccountability within the U.S. Gov. proves to be a campaign, so be it. Campaigning against it provides you and yours something more worthwhile apparently, and I’m interested to read how and why.
color=darkblue[/color]
[/quote]…LOL…my posse vs your crew…super soakers…This Town Ain’t Big Enough for the Two of Us Pardner!
[quote=“j.scholl”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]how do you actually answer his query re:"who worked as translator for the FBI for all of 6 months. "?[/quote]You call it a query?[/quote]Uh…yeah…thats what it says…[quote=“j.scholl”] Why?[/quote]Because it is.[quote=“j.scholl”] Apparently less than 6 months following 9/11 is all it took for a top-secret intel analyst to confront her superiors with evidence of corruption.
And reading beyond her hire and fire dates, what happened when she did the right thing by sounding the silent alarms? She was abruptly fired. Here’s an ACLU overview that might help (mind you they’re providing legal representation):[quote]Edmonds has been fighting the corruption permeating the FBI since her unfair dismissal and sued to contest her firing in July 2002. On July 6, 2004 , Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds’ case, citing the government’s state secrets privilege.
…
Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds’ allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds’ briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.
…
On January 14, 2004 , the Justice Department’s Office unclassified summary of the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s report on Edmonds found that many of her claims “were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.”
aclu.org/safefree/general/18 … 50126.html[/quote]
So does 6 months on-duty represent enough time to uncover dirty secrets and anti-American activities amongst elected and appointed US government officials?
YES, obviously 6 months WAS enough time,[/quote]Ah…so the 6 months figure was indeed accurate. Thank you Mr. Obfuscation…hint:…a simple yes or no would have sufficed.[quote=“j.scholl”]… since our Federal government didn’t feverishly – fire her, raid her home, interrogate family members in Turkey and impose more gag restraints than anyone in history – just for any rat’s ass reason.[/quote]A bit unclear here…did or did not…the Government(US) do these things or not?[quote=“j.scholl”]
TheGingerMan or TainanCowboy - If either of you are done flailing personal attacks,[/quote] My Dear Lad…my comments are nowhere near a personal attack on your delicate self or ego…simply seeking to clarify your hyperbole and rantings. Perhaps others would also appreciate knowing and possibly even understanding what the heck your are on about.[quote=“j.scholl”]… do tell… Is America (and the world) better off by keeping the truth of corruption hidden?[/quote]Is this rhetorical? It appears so.[quote=“j.scholl”]
color=darkblue[/color]
Or do you see any merit to exposing illegal activities that undermine national security?
color=darkblue[/color]
[/quote]Ahh…now this does have the ring of rhetorical reasoning to it. No answer required…right?[quote=“j.scholl”]In case you’re tempted to ask, “Why, if this story IS so hot, hasn’t American media spashed it everywhere a rat’s ass has to read, swallow and find discomfort in?”[/quote]Again with the ‘rats ass’…Do they read now also?[quote=“j.scholl”]You’ll find a couple answers here by the same whistle-blower who brought us those inconvenient Pentagon Papers:
DANIEL ELLSBERG:
Covering Up the Coverage - The American Media’s Complicit Failure to Investigate and Report on the Sibel Edmonds Case (1/20/2008)[color=darkblue]You’ll notice 8 (eight) questions (
i[/i]
)… marked for you to contemplate and remark on.[/color]
When you’re ready, take them one at a time or all at once, its up to you. Lest your attacks be uncivil, and frivolous.[/quote]Pot…kettle…black…
I’m so looking forward to the next installment… :bravo: