Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Out With The Old, In With The Older | Main | Kids These Days »

December 17, 2010

Comments

anduril

Why we've been there for all these years and what strategic good it's done for the US is anyone's guess.

Rob Crawford

Unhappy Is The Land That Needs A Hero

Unhappier still is the land with the need, but no heroes to step up.

Captain Hate

what strategic good it's done for the US is anyone's guess.

Mourning Saddam Hussein and all the good he brought to the world?

Jack is Back!

what strategic good it's done for the US is anyone's guess.

More than you can imagine and I wouldn't shit you, Anduril, you're my favorite turd.

inspector clouseau

Around this time three years ago, one recalls McCain was being derided at the Times, among other places, for visiting Baghdad, and saying that the surge was working, at the time, the 'Civil War' meme was in effect, and the Anbar Awakening wasn't spotted, so just
put in the birdcage liner.

Ignatz

Invading Iraq to eliminate both a threat and a monster seems to me a good thing.

Asking whether it has been worth the succeeding six years of occupation and nation building seems like a legitimate question.
Same goes for Afghanistan.

In any event the stories indicate there are many people of good will even amongst the Mohammedans. Maybe some day there will be enough to transform their societies.

bgates

I agree with every word of what Ignatz just said.

Clarice

When Iraqis set up a fund to compensate the family of such heroes, we'll know our job is completed.

I R A Darth Aggie

what strategic good it's done for the US is anyone's guess

You think Sadaam would have stood idly by and allowed Iran to try and build a nuke?

No, something would have to give, and it wouldn't have been pretty.

Of course, you're also forgetting that Uncle Muammar al-Gaddafi gave up his nuclear ambitions (and materials) without much fuss in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. I call that a win.

anduril

Cecil finds my "modified grovel" inadequate, and offers some criticism, which I excerpt (my bold):

Sibel Edmonds founded the NSWBC, a coalition dedicated to leaking anti-war information. (opinion) Much like Susan Abulhawa, she's an enemy propagandist (or an allied propagandist if you're on the Islamists' side), and her utterances are worth absolutely nothing (regardless of whether an IG has found some grains of truth in her litany of disinformation). (/opinion)

The NSWBC is, of course, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, found at http://www.nswbc.org/. Here's their statement of purpose:

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. more....

I googled "nswbc leaks" and came up with what I consider a dry hole. I'd like to see Cecil document his claim that the NSWBC is "dedicated to leaking anti-war information." As opposed, for example, to members of NSWBC publishing articles in opposition to current US foreign policy. What I did find, was NSWBC members seeking to testify to Congressional oversight committees, which is perfectly proper and legal. Testifying before Congress is just a leetle bit different than "leaking."

Cecil is being quite disingenuous with regard to my contention that Sibel Edmonds had important information to offer. My defense of Edmonds has never extended beyond the information that she acquired during the course of her employment with the FBI, which employment ended on 3/22/2002. NSWBC was founded nearly 2-1/2 years later. I have stated in the past that my interest is in the factual content of Edmonds' statements and that I don't necessarily accept her interpretations of those facts or endorse all the conclusions that she draws from those facts.

Cecil is also being quite disingenuous with regard to DOJ OIG's conclusions re Edmonds claims: "regardless of whether an IG has found some grains of truth in her litany of disinformation."

First of all, DOJ's Office of the Inspector General is not merely "an IG." It is the office that is tasked with reviewing the work of DoJ entities, including the FBI, and over the decades has established a considerable expertise in National Security matters, including conducting damage assessments of most major espionage incidents. Cecil's attempts to deny DOJ OIG's expertise in this area don't pass the laugh test.

Since DOJ OIG is the organization that had access to all documentation, testimony and witnesses re Edmonds and her claims, their assessment is uniquely well informed and must be taken seriously. Here is OIG's assessment:

“We found that many of Edmonds' core allegations relating to the co-worker were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds. … With respect to an allegation that focused on the co-worker's performance, which Edmonds believed to be an indication of a security problem, the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations. … With regard to some of Edmonds' allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts. However, Edmonds' assertions regarding the co-worker, when viewed as a whole, raised substantial questions and were supported by various pieces of evidence. … Rather than investigate Edmonds' allegations vigorously and thoroughly, the FBI concluded that she was a disruption and terminated her contract. We concluded that the FBI could not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have terminated Edmonds' services absent her disclosures. … We believe that many of her allegations 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.”

Please note: while OIG found no evidence for "some" of Edmonds' allegations and, like me, questioned "the inferences that she drew from certain facts," overall OIG found that Edmonds' "core allegations" were strongly corroborated: they were "supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds." In a particular instance within that "core," OIG judged that "the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations." In sum, OIG found the FBI clearly at fault for not investigating Edmonds' allegations "vigorously and thoroughly" but instead firing her: shooting the messenger bearing bad news.

So, it's quite clear that Cecil's claim that DOJ OIG found only "some grains of truth in her litany of disinformation" is, um, disingenuous. In fact, Cecil's claim is a clear and either deliberate or reckless misstatement of the facts. So also is his smear that Edmonds is nothing but a "nut."

Now, as to why I called Rich "stupid and/or dishonest" I can be brief.

Rich put a lot of energy into trying to show that Edmonds had no credibility and was (quoting Sun Tzu) a "dead spy" sent to disrupt US intelligence. As part of that effort he cited Edmonds' pre-FBI employment with the Rostropovich Foundation, and documented that employment by citing, that's right, the DOJ OIG report. He then posed the question: So tell me again why Edmonds got a job and clearence [sic] so quickly?

I checked Rich's link to the OIG report and found that the brief section that Rich quoted from re the Rostropovich Foundation was the same section that documented that Edmonds' hiring process with the FBI, far from being quick, had taken much longer than usual: a total of four years, which included repeated security checks that ordinarily would have been conducted only once. The brief section Rich cited contains 5 paragraphs. The first paragraph mentions the Rostropovich Foundation; the next 4 paragraphs are entirely devoted to Edmonds' extra long hiring process at the FBI. Clearly, Rich was doing nothing but looking to cherry pick information that he thought might be damaging. Even worse, he was making false allegations even though the contrary evidence was staring him right in the face.

I call that being stupid and/or dishonest. You may disagree, but I think most will agree that that was extremely foolish when arguing against a person like myself who is very well informed in these matters. And that's the kindest thing I can think of to say for Cecil serving as Clarice's mouthpiece: extremely foolish.

anduril

I R A Darth Aggie,

Your arguments actually work against your thesis. Militarily, Saddam was in no position to do a damn thing about almost anything Iran chose to do. That means if he felt threatened by Iran he would have been under considerable pressure to seek assistance from powers that would have been in a position to help him. The only such power I can think of is the US.

Re Libya, obviously preventing proliferation is a good thing, but your contention that the only way to have prevented Libya from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability was by invading Iraq is, well, unconvincing.

Ignatz

--Rich put a lot of energy into trying to show that Edmonds had no credibility and was (quoting Sun Tzu) a "dead spy" sent to disrupt US intelligence.--

The term is "doomed spy". You put quotes around it thereby misquoting Rich. You're just making stuff up. You're disingenuous at best, perhaps stupid and dishonest as well. Certainly extremely foolish.

People perceive things differently and differ in their opinions and occasionally make mistakes.
That doesn't make them liars or any of the other things you routinely accuse them of any more than your misperceptions, typos, poor recollections or opnions make you any of those things.

anduril

Hmmmm, Commentary has an essay urging the canonization of Pius XI (not a typo--that's XI, not XII). Personally, over the years I've come to conclude that the canonization process is misguided, but Commentary of course has a right to their input on the process.

anduril

Oh, you can find the link to the Commentary article at Real Clear Religion.

Cecil Turner

Gee, what a shocker. The troll returns to true form. Oh, and it's my fault, natch.

As to the NSWBC leaking, that took a full couple seconds with Google:

Tice has publicly identified himself as a possible source for the report, saying that he talked to Times reporters before it was published.
And it ain't like Daniel Ellsberg joined for the camaraderie. Bottom line: still a liar, still a troll.

anduril

The term is "doomed spy".

I was, of course, quoting from my own recollection of Sun Tzu's classic work. This google search will amply illustrate why I used the term "dead spy" even though Rich did, in fact, write "doomed spy":

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=sun+tzu+dead+spies

Other translations use "doomed spy":

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=sun+tzu+dead+spies#hl=en&expIds=17259,27642&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=sun+tzu+doomed+spies&cp=13&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0v&aqi=&aql=&oq=sun+tzu+doomed+spies&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=a20cfd04ba3c5cf9

anduril

Cecil, I was well aware of Tice, who got in trouble for the same reason Edmonds did: complaining about a fellow employee.

1. Tice has repeatedly asked to testify before Congress, and eventually did so. This supports Tice's contention that

he refused to divulge classified information to the press, but only to people with the necessary security clearances, called the subpoena an attempt to harass and intimidate him into remaining silent about government wrongdoing."

2. You need to think about what you read, and then think some more before you write. You quote this:

Tice has publicly identified himself as a possible source for the report, saying that he talked to Times reporters before it was published.

There is no contradiction between the two statements. Tice could be "a" source--i.e., one of several or even many--and yet not have disclosed classified information. That also has been the pattern of Edmonds' activities: carefully adhering to the law.

You really should have included both statements if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

anduril

And it ain't like Daniel Ellsberg joined for the camaraderie.

No? What has he leaked since NSWBC was founded in 8/2004?

anduril

From Wikipedia re Tice (I read this before my lengthy post)--I offer no opinion, except to observe he's not exactly a Daniel Ellsberg clone:

Alleged reprisals

In early 2001, Tice first reported his suspicions about a young woman he worked with at the DIA whom he believed to be a Chinese spy. He claimed that the woman voiced sympathies for People's Republic of China, traveled extensively abroad and displayed affluence beyond her means. Tice said he "basically got blown off by the counterintelligence office at D.I.A.", but he continued to push the issue until he was transferred to the NSA in 2002.

In April 2003, while Tice was still working at the NSA, an FBI investigation into a Chinese double agent in Los Angeles named Katrina Leung had become international news. She had been receiving classified information from two FBI agents. These revelations of Chinese spying prompted Tice to raise his concerns again.

In a 'secure' e-mail message to the DIA counterintelligence office, he demanded to know what had happened as a result of the 2001 report he had filed outlining his suspicions about his former co-worker (not to be confused with Leung). "At the time, I sent an e-mail to Mr. James (the DIA official handling his complaint) questioning the competence of counterintelligence at FBI," Tice wrote to the Inspector General of the Pentagon's Civil Reprisal Investigation unit, which investigated his 2003 complaint. In the e-mail, he mentioned that he suspected that he was the subject of electronic monitoring.

In April, 2003, shortly after the e-mail message, Tice was ordered to undertake a psychological evaluation, which he believed was retaliatory. The Defense Department psychologist concluded that Tice suffered from psychotic paranoia. "He did this even though he admitted that I did not show any of the normal indications of someone suffering from paranoia," Tice said in a statement to the Inspector General.

Two months later, in June, 2003, the NSA suspended his security clearances and ordered him to tasks such as maintaining the agency's vehicles, pumping gas, and driving officials around. By April 2005, after 14 months of paid leave, Tice was relegated to unloading furniture at the NSA's warehouses and cleaning them.

anduril

With all this NS chatter, I forgot to link this:

Freakonomics Radio: Do More Expensive Wines Taste Better?

Cecil Turner

Good grief. First there was VIPS, who made no bones about it:

The 25-member group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, composed mostly of former CIA analysts along with a few operational agents, is urging employees inside the intelligence agency to break the law and leak any information they have that could show the Bush administration is engineering the release of evidence to match its penchant for war. [. . . ]

VIPS say their appeals to CIA staff are an attempt to evoke another Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers [. . .]
[emphasis added]

That's illegal of course, so they don't claim to've done it themselves or advertise membership. But membership includes Edmonds, MacMichael, and McGovern, who have signed as "steering goup" members and are also members of NSWBC (along with Ellsberg). NSWBCers claimed not to be doing what they publicly supported under their VIPS hats, but somehow those leaks just kept on comin'.

As to the most damaging leak, that was the one Tice was investigated for:

In December, Justice opened a criminal investigation after the New York Times disclosed the existence of the eavesdropping program, which allows the NSA to monitor telephone calls to and from the United States without a court order if one party is linked to suspected of links to terrorist groups.
But it wasn't him. Cuz he said so. So anyone drawing a conclusion that these folks were leaking on purpose must be lying. Because the troll said so. [Do we really need a /sarcasm tag here?]

Charlie (Colorado)

Why we've been there for all these years and what strategic good it's done for the US is anyone's guess.

There are none so blind as those who can't listen to the answer.

inspector clouseau

Assange seems like the perfect cutout for those purposes, and no I don't think he and Ellsberg met for the first time in June.

MayBee

AP just told my iPhone that we've sent three missiles into Pakistan today. Death toll at 54.

anduril

There are none so blind as those who can't listen to the answer.

Wow! That sounds really wise! Did you make that up yourself?

Clarice

Just so we don't waterboard anyone, MayBee.

anduril

The two organizations are nevertheless separate. I have seen nothing to suggest that NSWBC supports illegal activity, and you haven't presented anything. One reason is that the NSWBC member list is fairly extensive and includes, to my knowledge, a fairly diverse range of opinions on NS matters. I doubt that they could reach a consensus on such a divisive issue as illegal disclosures.

In addition, I was unable to come up with any information regarding who in VIPS was behind that statement, except for McGovern. Judging from the Wikipedia page, VIPS seems to be highly personal to McGovern. It seems to have no website and its contact is two email addresses for McGovern. Here is membership information from Wikipedia:

VIPS Steering Group

Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe, NM
William Christison, Santa Fe, NM
David MacMichael, Linden, VA
Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA
Richard Beske, San Diego, CA
Patrick G. Eddington, Alexandria, VA

Other Alleged VIPS Members

Eugene Betit[4]
Ray Close[5]
Larry Johnson[6]

No Edmonds. MacMichael is not on the NSWBC list, McGovern is. Next to no overlap.

There are some date issues as well. The Fox story is dated 3/17/2003. NSWBC wasn't founded until 8/2004. There is no sourcing for the Fox story that can be recovered--the links at Wikipedia are broken and there is no indication who was on the VIPS board at that point. The link you provide to the steering committee is dated in 2005, two years after the Fox article.

From all this it's almost impossible to draw conclusions re attitude toward illegality. In that situation I'll go with a combination of the statement of purpose and the behavior of the members. If you can trace any leaks to NSWBC involvement of any sort, please say so. If not...

anduril

But it wasn't him. Cuz he said so. So anyone drawing a conclusion that these folks were leaking on purpose must be lying. Because the troll said so.

LOL

What conclusion do you draw from the fact that Tice was not indicted and was, naturally, never convicted?

What conclusion would you draw if he had been indicted but not convicted?

What conclusion would you draw if he had been indicted AND convicted?

Please relate all the above to the Scooter Libby case.

Please also relate all the above to Constitutional guarantees as well as established standards of proof.

anduril

AP just told my iPhone that we've sent three missiles into Pakistan today. Death toll at 54.

On another topic entirely, where's JOM having its New Years party?

narciso

Well with everything I've seen lately, I would conclude he wasn't guilty if convicted.
Now as to the point of the thread, a suicide
bomber that wasn't stopped in 2006 inSamarra, touched off the 'Civil War' that is the significance,

Cecil Turner

This isn't really that hard. From the link above:

Memo to the President
Try a Circle of Wise Women
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
[yadda yadda . . . skip down to signature block]
/s/
Gene Betit, Arlington, Virginia
Sibel Edmonds, Alexandria, Virginia
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, Maryland
David MacMichael, Linden, Virginia
Ray McGovern, Arlington, Virginia
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Ann Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

And yeah, I got the fact she wasn't on the Wiki list. But that obviously isn't exhaustive.

From the NSWBC list:

Lipsky, John, Supervisory Special Agent, FBI

MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA

Mansour, Joe, Occupational Safety Specialist, Federal Bureau of Prisons

So other than the fact that Edmonds is listed amongst the Steering Group for VIPS and President/Founder of NSWBC, has overlap of about a third of the known VIPS members and their Rabbi (Ellsberg), and admits to a mission right up to the legal limit of the illegal one espoused by VIPS, yeah, no connection.

Cecil Turner

Tice wasn't convicted? Musta been somebody else. Oh, wait, that's right, nobody was convicted. Conclusion: he's a Democrat.

(It actually may have been one of the Congressional staffers he briefed, but as he admits being one of the sources for the story . . .)

anduril

Skipping over points that have already been covered, the hapless Cecil appears to be utterly incapable of fathoming elementary distinctions--or, as likely as not, wishes to draw attention away from them.

1. My interest is and always has been in what Edmonds has to say about the period of her FBI employment, which ended in 3/2002--something I once again made clear in this thread. What she has done since that time is no particular concern of mine. All of my efforts have been devoted to pointing out that her core claims regarding what she learned during her FBI employment appear to be reliable--as stated by OIG.

2. I have never defended illegal leaking--quite the contrary, despite what Cecil clumsily attempts to imply. I have occasionally cited members of VIPS or NSWBC when they have something sensible to say, but I always draw a line between my views and those of anyone else.

Frau Leseratte

Thanks, narciso, for moving right along.

Cecil Turner

Shorter troll: Having been proven incorrect, he wants to move on.

No thinking person could possibly regard Edmonds as a reliable source. Calling someone else's integrity into question because they refuse to accept her as one is at best clueless.

(Though I have to admit, after seeing the above silliness, "clueless" appears to be the main problem.)

Chubby

((Invading Iraq to eliminate both a threat and a monster seems to me a good thing))

You'd think the green left would have been all for it as well, if for no other reason than his draining of the millenia old marshlands and in the process killing off umpteen species of wildlife and fish. (We won't even talk about the human marsh dwellers.) Drained so the marshes wouldn't get in the way of his transporting his armies. The sucessful restoration of what he did to Iraq's wetlands remains to be seen.

anduril

No thinking person could possibly regard Edmonds as a reliable source.

And your proof that DOJ OIG has no thinking persons is?

We could construct a syllogism:

1. No thinking person could possibly regard Edmonds as a reliable source.

2. But DOJ OIG regards Edmonds as reliable (within the scope of their investigation),

3. Therefore, DOJ OIG has no thinking persons.

Formally correct, but there's a big problem with the factual premise. If an investigative agency (DOJ OIG) with a highly regarded track record finds that Edmonds is reliable--based on both documentary records and corroborative witnesses--then the presumption should go the other way. In that case we come up with this syllogism:

1. DOJ OIG has an established record of investigative excellence including evaluation of National Security matters.

2. But DOJ OIG has concluded that Edmonds core assertions regarding events within the scope of her FBI employment are corroborated by both documentary evidence as well as witnesses other than Edmonds.

3. Therefore, Edmonds should be regarded as having provided reliable information regarding the scope of her FBI employment.

anduril

Chubby, I read Sir Wilfred Thesiger's classic The Marsh Arabs (1964) back when it first came out. I'm in sympathy with your concerns, but I don't think the US can solve all world problems, and the attempt to do so can have detrimental effects.

Cecil Turner

Just in case anybody is wondering, the term "reliable" did not appear in the DOJ IG report.

This little bit is instructive:

We also recognize that Edmonds was not an easy employee to manage, and that some of her complaints, based on her self-initiated reviews, were unsupported and a distraction to her supervisors.
Also flat wrong in places, as when she accused her co-worker of skipping work during her polygraph. And that's the "pro Sibel" side, prior to her VIPS and NSWBC involvement.

Chubby

((I'm in sympathy with your concerns, but I don't think the US can solve all world problems, and the attempt to do so can have detrimental effects.))

my only concern in this matter is the hypocrisy of the left

Cecil Turner

Moreover, there are several things in the report which support a negative interpretation, especially when viewed in light of her future actions. For example:

The Security Officer also noted that "preliminary investigation" indicated that Edmonds had written, on her home computer, multiple memoranda containing classified information, had retained an attorney, and had threatened to go to the press.
And:
On March 19, a Supervisory Special Agent wrote that he did not want to use Edmonds' translation services anymore because she had been a complete disruption to the office, often making groundless accusations. The Supervisory Special Agent said that he already had devoted too much time to the matter, and he had lost faith in Edmonds' ability to carry out her assignments. He cited her security violation and recommended that Edmonds be removed from working his assignments in light of security concerns and some other "agenda" she was pursuing.

Cecil Turner

And here's the other side of the story:

. . . the FBI thoroughly investigated this matter and determined that retaliation was not the basis of her termination. Your report makes reference to her "increasingly vociferous complaints," and found "insufficient evidence" to substantiate multiple additional allegations made by Edmonds. Under the totality of the facts and circumstances, the FBI was justified to terminate her contract and did not retaliate against her.
But the bottom line is that she simply isn't much of a source at all. She worked for the FBI a grand total of five months:
Edmonds began working for the FBI on September 20, 2001, first as a Contract Monitor (CM), and shortly thereafter as a CL.3 As we describe below, on March 22, 2002, the FBI stopped using Edmonds' translation services.
And considering the last month was mostly devoted to her "other agenda" . . . it's a pretty dang thin resume.

anduril

Why did I practically have to bludgeon you to get you to finally address the real issues?

Sibel Edmonds was a high maintenance employee--imagine that! Whoever said intelligence was simple or necessarily straightforward? John Walker's wife was an alcoholic who used to call the local FBI office when drunk and tell them that her ex was a spy. They blew her off repeatedly, before finally checking her out. You take your sources as you find them and evaluate them carefully. OIG did so. I myself quoted their reservations:

With regard to some of Edmonds' allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts.

and have in the past indicated the limits of my own support for her assertions. Nevertheless, OIG still concluded:

“We found that many of Edmonds' core allegations relating to the co-worker were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds. … With respect to an allegation that focused on the co-worker's performance, which Edmonds believed to be an indication of a security problem, the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations. … With regard to some of Edmonds' allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts. However, Edmonds' assertions regarding the co-worker, when viewed as a whole, raised substantial questions and were supported by various pieces of evidence. … Rather than investigate Edmonds' allegations vigorously and thoroughly, the FBI concluded that she was a disruption and terminated her contract. We concluded that the FBI could not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have terminated Edmonds' services absent her disclosures. … We believe that many of her allegations 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.”

I'm edified that you now quote the FBI as a credible authority. Yes, the FBI wrote a perfunctory (one brief paragraph), self serving letter as a blanket denial of OIG's findings--no details or discussion of the documentary evidence or corroborative witnesses. What would you expect, an admission of institutional malfeasance? Not the bureaucratic way. Try reading the FBI responses to OIG re some recent high profile fiascos if you want to see how a bureaucracy responds.

And the FBI found a mid level employee to diss Edmonds. If he wanted to be promoted he'd better have done so.

anduril

She worked for the FBI a grand total of five months:

Thanks for the news. Do you have any idea how much information a person in her position could come across in 5 months? Obviously not. She was hired to help with a huge backlog of work in her field.

Cecil Turner

I see the troll is still living in fantasy land. That crap isn't the issue, it's simply a recapitulation of the fact that even taking the most favorable parts of the most favorable report, you can't make her look good . . . only somewhat less nutty.

The OIG said the FBI should've investigated further . . . not that they'd have found anything. And that it raised questions . . . not that they had answers. Bottom line: not much there there. I suspect you mainly like the report because it favorably mentions you.

But who cares? All that is irrelevant to whether we should treat Edmonds as a reliable source. That much is obvious: no. No experience, nothing compelling to say, and her subsequent actions have shown beyond any doubt she does in fact have "an agenda" and it's closely tied to the Code Pink and VIPS types. What little credibility she might've had went South with her standing up NSWBC.

anduril

The OIG said the FBI should've investigated further . . . not that they'd have found anything. And that it raised questions . . . not that they had answers.

Yes, they said all that, and they said that the reason the FBI should've investigated further was because her allegations were credible, based on documentary evidence and corroborative witnesses. IOW, taking everything into account, they found her to be credible in her core allegations. That doesn't mean that an investigation would have gotten an espionage conviction, but it DOES mean that her allegations were based in verifiable fact and hung together. And that's what's at issue:

many of Edmonds' core allegations relating to the co-worker were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds.

With respect to an allegation that focused on the co-worker's performance, which Edmonds believed to be an indication of a security problem, the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations.

We believe that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough,

For my part, my primary interest is not in those allegations but rather in her description of what she learned while on the job. That has been corroborated by other FBI employees.

anduril

And, my interest is not in her extrapolations from what she learned but in the bare facts. You have to learn how to evaluate those kinds of things and experience is a big help.

anduril

One indicator is the brevity, the perfunctory nature, of the FBI's reply. If they were really confident that they had the facts on their side, they might have offered a somewhat detailed response to OIG, but what they offered was essentially nothing but boilerplate--pretty much the type of reply I get from JOMers, except that they didn't call OIG anti-semitic.

I'm no expert in employment law, but I wonder whether the nature of the FBI reply was dictated by legal concerns--would a frank admission of wrongful dismissal, of mal- or nonfeasance, have opened them to liability? So they denied everything in as few words as possible. That should not make anybody very confident in the rectitude of their position.

anduril

Wow! We're home alone tonight, and my bride cooked me seared scallops with shallots and spinach--super! Washed down with 2009 Botani.
http://www.jorge-ordonez.es/vistas/producto/Botani2.aspx

Cecil Turner

Gosh, I guess we have to accept Edmonds as an expert then? [eyeroll]

And I wonder if anyone gives a crap about a troll's "primary interest"? Does the demonstrated inability to stick with a subject results in an entitlement to set standards for a debate? Somehow I'm not buying that one either.

Cecil Turner

"result"

Is physics next?

As far as I can tell the whole Edmonds phenomenon is weapons grade disturbance in the force and I'm talking weapons of mass destruction. The phenomenon touches so much energy that the metaphor I have is of truth as a light bulb and the Edmonds thing as a Van de Graaf generator.
==================

Like elemental sodium in the tadpole pond.

Ever see what an andiron can do to one of those things?
================

weight lifting benches

The government really can't solve humane problem. The main reason? Humans are not created to govern his like humans. They have the quality but they don't have the capability to do so. Since then! Government fails in many areas. They have all the plans but they don't have the enough power to execute. Again its because humans are not perfect.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame