Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sibel Edmonds 9/11 testimony on prior specific intel contrary to Rice
democracy now ^ | 3/31/04 | sibel edmonds

Posted on 03/31/2004 10:07:58 AM PST by FreeFireBorderZone

We speak with former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who was hired shortly after Sept. 11 to translate intelligence gathered over the previous year related to the 9/11 attacks. She says the FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before Sept. 11 and calls Condoleezza Rice's claim the White House had no specific information on a domestic threat or one involving planes "an outrageous lie."

(Excerpt) Read more at democracynow.org ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; condoleezzarice; evidence; intelligence; sibeledmonds
this woman has a gag order against her and has been denied a Freedom of information request for 1500 documents some of which she retranslated after Sept 11 that she claims proves prior specific intel. Also says FBI dept deliberately delayed tramslations after 9/11 in order to justify big budget increases. Has given several testimonies to various investigations none of which have been made public. Judge yourself.
1 posted on 03/31/2004 10:07:58 AM PST by FreeFireBorderZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
Democracy now is highly suspect as a source.
2 posted on 03/31/2004 10:10:21 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim (Just once I'd like to get by on my looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
Here we go, they want to press a purjury charge against Rice. Hillary wants her gone.
3 posted on 03/31/2004 10:12:46 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
Its a Public Radio and Television group. They even have Robert Fisk on the front page.

Suspect no more. Guilty as charged.
4 posted on 03/31/2004 10:14:29 AM PST by xusafflyer (Keep paying those taxes California. Mexico thanks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
SO that she doesn't have to run against a BRF (black Republican Female) in '08!!!
5 posted on 03/31/2004 10:15:06 AM PST by dixierat (Just a white boy lookin' for a place to do my thing....(Merle Haggard))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
I suggest everyone read this article.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12758
6 posted on 03/31/2004 10:15:51 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
So that would mean that the FBI, run by a clinton holdover, deliberately allowed 911 to happen.
7 posted on 03/31/2004 10:19:09 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
Ok do you have any CREDIBLE source to back this story up? Citing a hard left Anti-war propaganda website as your source raises serious question about the intellectual honesty and the credibility of this story. If this is true, why does only the Hysteric Left with their hyper partisan anti-war agenda have the story? Where is the corroboration? OH that's right, the evil Government is preventing her from getting it. Sorry, as far as we know this is just another wacko like Clarke feeding off her 15 minutes of fame.
8 posted on 03/31/2004 10:20:24 AM PST by MNJohnnie (If you have to pretend to be something you are not, you have all ready lost the debate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
So how much is the DNC paying her for "speaking out"?

Is it 6 figures, 7 figures, or what?

9 posted on 03/31/2004 10:24:55 AM PST by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Ok do you have any CREDIBLE source to back this story up?

Read the carefully reasoned article linked in #6.

This woman was hired after 911, most likely to help with a backlog of translations. If she saw the warnings she claims, they would not have been available befor 911.

Another disgruntled former employee. This one more toxic than Clarke.

10 posted on 03/31/2004 10:26:25 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA; MNJohnnie
From the article:

"Third, Edmonds went to work for the FBI after September 11. They put her to work translating documents, and as far as the public record shows, that is all she ever did. Documents indicating a plot to use airplanes as weapons would be relevant only if they were translated before September 11; there was, we know, a large backlog of documents, wiretap intercepts and so on that were translated after that time even though they may have been collected prior to the attacks. While it is possible that Edmonds could have seen previously-translated materials, reviewing such materials was not part of her job, and she has given no explanation of how and why she allegedly came across them."

================

I notice that Paul "The Forehead" Begala is pumping up this woman's stuff. Anything that Begala says is a lie, until proven otherwise.

11 posted on 03/31/2004 10:29:47 AM PST by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
If Paul Begala read my name off a name tag on my shirt, and greeted me, I'd check my driver's license just to be sure he hadn't spun my name somehow.
12 posted on 03/31/2004 10:31:52 AM PST by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
she was retranslating wiretaps and documents to check accuracy of original translations which she says were mostly very good. this is not a case of wise after the fact. She has not just spoken out now she has been very vocal for 2 years. she was terminated after whistleblowing about existence of docs. That led to FBI inspector general investigation which was supposed to be published in 2002 but has now been sealed. Also she gave closed testimony to 9/11 commission and previously to the Joint congressional intelligence inquiry. Don't knee jerk to the broadcaster listen to her story in her own words. she has been described by Sen Grassy as a very credible source after verifying her story with current FBI employees. She had top secret clearance and seems to be trying to fix continuing problems.
13 posted on 03/31/2004 10:34:23 AM PST by FreeFireBorderZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: js1138
she was retranslating wiretaps and documents to check accuracy of original translations which she says were mostly very good. this is not a case of wise after the fact. She has not just spoken out now she has been very vocal for 2 years. she was terminated after whistleblowing about existence of docs. That led to FBI inspector general investigation which was supposed to be published in 2002 but has now been sealed. Also she gave closed testimony to 9/11 commission and previously to the Joint congressional intelligence inquiry. Don't knee jerk to the broadcaster listen to her story in her own words. she has been described by Sen Grassy as a very credible source after verifying her story with current FBI employees. She had top secret clearance and seems to be trying to fix continuing problems.
14 posted on 03/31/2004 10:34:32 AM PST by FreeFireBorderZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
yes. but what this shows is that the Condi testimony is not going to be some cakewalk, the Dems have new lines of questioning planned for this.
15 posted on 03/31/2004 10:46:33 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"...Now all they have to do is move the immovables. But they've done it before. And there is one motto shared by the Four Moms from New Jersey and the translator from Turkey: We're not going away." - Gail Sheehy
16 posted on 03/31/2004 10:51:34 AM PST by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
I'm sure that Bush's team is aware that they'll have to run a Democrat/Media Jardinains gauntlet.
17 posted on 03/31/2004 10:53:04 AM PST by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
How does this translator know what documents were sent over from the FBI to the White House?
18 posted on 03/31/2004 11:02:49 AM PST by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
It seems to me that just because there were some FBI documents or recordings that were translated that had some facts relating to using planes as weapons doesn't mean that the White House was aware of it.

I listened the Sibel's interview on Democracy Now, and she was brining up info like the Phoenix memo and other documents that have been widely published in the past. Lot's of stuff got stuck at middle levels, because Richard Clarke was not doing his job in helping the FBI know what to look for. If Richard Clarke had just let the FBI and CIA know that he had super powers, they might have handed over all control to him.

Condi's statement about nobody knowing planes would be used as weapons was somewhat stupid, in that it was the very plot of a Tom Clancy novel. She needed to say that there was no specific information that planes would be used as weapons on or about 9-11.

19 posted on 03/31/2004 11:06:42 AM PST by rocklobster11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
OK, now all you have to do is believe that the FBI knew specifically about the plan -- not just that they had 15,000 pages of miscellaneous chatter that had to be prioritized -- and deliberately let it happen. That's easy to swallow.

If all this is true it looks like a classic case of FBI CYA. Iven if the FBI could have stopped the attacks and blew it, I'd prefer that the government continued to lie about it.

The alternative is to say to the world, "Look, here's our weak spot. Hit us again, right here." this is a war of national survival, and political parties should not be Monday morning quarterbacking in public, for partisan gain. Lord knows the dems deserve to be reamed out for clinton's watch, but it isn't a good idea.

In ten or twenty years we can read all about it.
20 posted on 03/31/2004 11:07:01 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
don't be too optimistic, who knew this Clarke thing was coming. Luckily, Clarke's story was so incredulous and biased against Bush, while leaving Clinton smelling like roses during his 8 years, that it has been effectively neutralized. Condi's appearance will be more like a trial.
21 posted on 03/31/2004 11:08:50 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
So, this lady goes back and reviews all of the traffic prior to 9-11 and says there was evidence, so what? I could probably go back and find evidence of 20 other incidents--incidents that never happened.
22 posted on 03/31/2004 11:11:28 AM PST by TankerKC (Clogged Arteries and Still Smilin'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11
She needed to say that there was no specific information that planes would be used as weapons on or about 9-11.

I read somewhere that there were plans in place to deal with overseas airliners hijacked and targeting American sites. The problem was trusting airport security, inside the U.S.

23 posted on 03/31/2004 11:11:47 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11
well, Clarke said the plane terror threat was made against the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. It didn't materialize. So does that mean from 1996 forward, that every anti-terror action taken had to factor in using planes as weapons? In fact, Clinton did nothing about airline safety after this supposed Clarke "alert" about planes and the Atlanta Olympics, but somehow spun that into being Rice's fault because they were finally used on 9/11. That was one example where Clarke's argument fell apart. If he knew about "planes as weapons" in 1996, why didn't they do a better job checking into who was taking flight training in 97, 98, 99, 00?
24 posted on 03/31/2004 11:14:14 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
...who knew this Clarke thing was coming.

Ummm, the White House, who vetted the book, and who the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) accused of holding the book back.

25 posted on 03/31/2004 11:18:01 AM PST by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: oceanview; rocklobster11
If he knew about "planes as weapons" in 1996, why didn't they do a better job checking into who was taking flight training in 97, 98, 99, 00?

A good point, and I'll follow-up with this point, and it's the haymaker:

If it was common knowledge that planes would be used as weapons, why hadn't the feds (and specifically Dickie Clarke) persuaded the airlines to change their official policy of "accommodate, negotiate and do not escalate" with hijackers? This policy, of course, is completely dead as a result of 9/11.

26 posted on 03/31/2004 11:36:24 AM PST by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
i agree. The whole thing is coming down to an attempt by the dems to release a charge this summer that 9-11 could have been stopped if the white house had been having daily meetings and shaking the trees in the intelligence community.

They'll say that Clinton had success in 1999 by preventing the attack on New Years by catching the guy with explosives at the canadian border, and they'll claim that that was a direct reult of Clinton's sense of urgency. In reality, I think everyone expected 12/31/2000 to be a perfect time for terrorist attacks, so everyone was paying attention. I know that I expected something on 12/31/2000 without being briefed by the FBI or WH.

They'll point to Clarke's statement about how he would have been able to put it all together if only he had know 2 Al Qaeda terrorist were in the country. It will be a media circus, but nobody but the partisan dems will believe it.

27 posted on 03/31/2004 1:02:20 PM PST by rocklobster11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
Sorry, but I don't see how the claims of a translator hired AFTER 9/11/2001 are relevant.
28 posted on 03/31/2004 3:25:45 PM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
I have read the subject interview and the FrontPage article referenced elsewhere in this thread. Here is the way I see it:

This woman was a translator not an intelligence agent and not a member of executive, decision making management of any government organization she worked for. She was a rank-and-file employee. Having been an executive manager I can tell all that it is VERY VERY common for rank-and-file employees to misunderstand or blow out of proportion bits of information they may come across about things they are neither directly involved with nor fully informed about.

She was dealing with highly sensitive information and her efforts to FoIA and then "discover" it for court purposes forced the administrations hand to seal it lest she reveal it all to the public. SHE compelled the sealing of information by attempting to make it public. Her interview is full of references to how important it is for "the American people to know". No its not. Not any more important that it is for us to know the exact location and plans for our troops during hostilities. Sources get revealed - people get killed. The administration is voted and hired in to handle that for us - NO GOOD would / will come from attempting to have congress and the NYTimes to micro manage those processes.

The fumblings she describes within the FBI exist inside of EVERY LARGE ORGANIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES. Individual acts of idiocy occur all over the place. None of that reflects on the President or his staff.

She may, in fact, have stumbled across some information that SHE considers obviously important with her perfect 20/20 hindsight but SHE was not responsible for counter terrorism so her opinion is irrelevant. Remember the whole "connect the dots thing"? There has never been any dispute that scattered bits of relevant information existed and were in the hands of government agents before 911. There are millions of scattered bits in our hands every day and some of them may someday turn out to be relevant to a terrorist attack.

She is a disgruntled ex-employee who is only having a chance to grind her ax because the administration would have to compromise national security in order to public ally shut her down. That allows her and whatever media picks up here story to propagate yet another anti-administration conspiracy theory. It looks to me like she was fired for stepping way out of line and shooting her mouth off in public about things that were none of her business.

How would your employer treat you if you were asked to grammar check a couple internal memos, concluded based on your own unqualified and misinformed judgment that the company was engaged in illegal pricing practices, and then proceeded to go to the local newspaper with the story?
29 posted on 03/31/2004 3:37:56 PM PST by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
Here is a link to another source:

Link to another source Independent.co.uk

30 posted on 04/01/2004 5:59:16 PM PST by KriegerGeist ("Only one life to live and soon tis past, and only what was done for Jesus Christ will last")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
Have any congresscritters in leadership mentioned this? Has it been in the mainstream press? Besides, the whole deal was that the lower-level FBI agents never got their info filtered up to Condi. How is she responsible for that?
31 posted on 04/01/2004 6:04:42 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
What about those stories of arabic translators in the FBI cheering and/or being happy re: 9/11 - anyone remember that?
32 posted on 04/01/2004 6:06:16 PM PST by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
I suggest everyone read this article.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12758

Very helpful link - thanks! Exposes a lot of the chicanery going on to smear Dr Rice.

33 posted on 04/01/2004 6:14:19 PM PST by Puddleglum ("The Dems seem to have no problem in outsourcing America's oil production." - Trust but Verfiy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
Credible??? Are you kidding?

Re read her press release from 2002, AFTER she was fired.

NO mention of the claims she is raising now.....Not one.

"I am appalled that to this date the government has not taken any action against the persons responsible for security violations. It is horrific that my family members in a foreign country were threatened and targeted, and that I can never return to the country of my birth.

"Although the Attorney General and FBI Director were urgently notified in May about the foreign arrest warrant targeting a member of my family, to this date, no response has been received and no action has been taken by the U.S. government to correct this problem or protect my family.

"It appears that the responsible officials are intentionally refraining from facing the facts and their serious implications, both nationally and internationally."

34 posted on 04/02/2004 7:42:02 AM PST by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cdrw
She was dealing with highly sensitive information and her efforts to FoIA and then "discover" it for court purposes forced the administrations hand to seal it lest she reveal it all to the public

You missed one VERY IMPORTANT THING. She has a Lawsuit against the Government. That is what the discovery is aobut, Her Scumbag lawyers are trying to put the Government in the position of having to pay her off to avaid a Nat'l Security COnflict, or hopelssly taint the case with an appearence of impropriety.

Personally, I think that kind of Lawyering should result in immediate and permanent disbarrment.

35 posted on 04/02/2004 7:45:46 AM PST by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC
Texas sharpshooter theory. Get drunk, shoot 50 holes in the side of a barn, go and circle the biggest grouping of holes, then claim that is the area you were aiming at.
36 posted on 04/02/2004 8:26:59 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cdrw
The problem with your "executive level" rationale for why Sibel is wrong and misguided is that it is identical with the sort of cover story folks at the "executive level" always put out when they've been caught misbehaving!

You'd think that after nearly 12,000 years of practice, "executive level" talent would have come up with a better story.

Makes me want to ask what benefit there is for you in peddling such a cover story on FR?

37 posted on 04/02/2004 3:08:54 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Well bashing executives is fashionable indeed but its nothing more than superstition. Executive or not, anyone who has ever held a leadership position knows what I'm talking about. Everybody in the organization cant be informed about everything all the time. The only benefit to me "peddling such a cover story" is to illuminate a very clear and likely possibility other than the grand conspiracy asserted or implied by Sibel. Did it ever occur to her that she may have been fed intentionally false documents just to see if she was being honest in her translations? I have no idea what actually happened. I am not at all against a congressional inquiry into the matter. The only thing I know is that it should not be played out in public for national security reasons. There are certain things that the public has no right to know and are not in the publics best interest to reveal. Sibel's attempts to get the information public undermine the very national security she claims to be so concerned about.

There is only one circumstance under which I would advocate making this kind of investigation public and that would be if some portions of our government were actually complicit in the 911 attacks. I don't think Sibel suggested that or has ever stated that there is any evidence of that.

Your rationale about my "cover story" being identical to what a liar would say gives absolutely no credence to the fact that it is very likely true. Citing a plausible explanation as a likely cover-up without giving it any consideration is characteristic of conspiracy theories.
38 posted on 04/02/2004 4:58:37 PM PST by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
When I used the term "discover" I was referring to the legal discovery process in her lawsuit. I agree completely with your assessment of what her lawyers are doing and that was on e of the points I was making but I don't blame them - I blame her. It is outrageous to think that the govt would allow 1500 pages of investigative and intelligence translations to become a matter of public record through the courts. Lawyers work for the client. If she didn't want to drag the govt through the mud all she would have to do is tell her lawyers to stop.

The dims have repeatedly attempted to give the administration a black eye by calling them on things they can not talk about for security purposes and then posturing the whole thing as some evil conspiracy and cover up. This whole Sibel thing is just another example although in this case Ms Sibel may be dim enough to believe her own story. I cant tell.
39 posted on 04/02/2004 5:09:32 PM PST by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cdrw
It's obvious to anyone who has looked into it that the whole point of Sibel's story is to "blame the Jews".

Here we have her friends on the professional left arguing that Mossad has infiltrated the FBI for the purpose of suppressing information, and only Sibel was "johnny on the spot" to find this out.

Or, examining it from the point of view of the Iranian religious police, poor old Sibel is being prevented from speaking out by the International Jewish Conspiracy headed by John Ashcraft and financed by Dick Cheney.

"Bashing Executives" may or may not be popular, but it's been my observation that as you move up the chain of command in the government, less and less is known about more and more. Presumably, if you could get to the top, nothing will be known about everything.

Sure puts the President in a bind!

I encourage some serious modifications of the way we select executives in the career levels of the agencies of the federal government. I am tired of these ignoramuses who float along 6 inches above the water, and are too busy to think about where we should go next.

40 posted on 04/02/2004 5:28:22 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I have no experience or exposure to govt personnel but, based on my other experiences, I'm sure I would agree with your issues on executive selection. At least half of the ones I've known are simply experts at out-politicing their personal competition. Their presence has very little to do with their capabilities beyond a certain minimum competence. Information that reaches the top is definitely filtered and subject to manipulations and the political / career ambitions of those below them. The government should probably go through the same thing most companies went through in the 80's - they should flatten their org charts, eliminate management positions in favor of individual contributors ... Some government agencies should probably be eliminated altogether. Our government has become so huge that I can't imagine anyone actually has control over it or knows what it is doing or what its agendas are.

Less government is a good thing :-)

Not surprised to hear that "blame the Jews" is the real agenda. The whole thing smelled like a conspiracy theory to me. Maybe she thinks she is going to prove that Mossad and the CIA conspired to take out the towers to create a pretext for war. That seems so ridiculous to us but, on the other hand, it might seem much more likely if you come from a part of the world where governments routinely sacrifice their own civilian populations to further their political goals.
41 posted on 04/03/2004 5:36:19 AM PST by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cdrw
There is only one circumstance under which I would advocate making this kind of investigation public and that would be if some portions of our government were actually complicit in the 911 attacks. I don't think Sibel suggested that or has ever stated that there is any evidence of that.

How about if they were just afraid of publicity because of Bush's business ties to the Bin Ladens and the aid that his father is now famous for giving directly to OBL himself?

Personally, I think that is what happened. Someone just felt ANY publicity concerning Bin Laden was bad for Bush. It's like a public corporation disclosing it is experiencing increased competition from a part of its business it spun off years ago.

42 posted on 04/06/2004 7:06:05 PM PDT by st_xavier_bomber (conservative & unionist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: st_xavier_bomber
George W. Bush had no business ties to bin Laden. Nor did his father.

George H.W. Bush knows bin Laden's FATHER.

43 posted on 04/06/2004 7:08:22 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FreeFireBorderZone
this woman has a gag order against her and has been denied a Freedom of information request for 1500 documents some of which she retranslated after Sept 11 that she claims proves prior specific intel. Also says FBI dept deliberately delayed tramslations after 9/11 in order to justify big budget increases. Has given several testimonies to various investigations none of which have been made public. Judge yourself.

I see you have at last been banned ....

44 posted on 04/15/2004 1:52:58 PM PDT by woofie ( 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Ha! Proud to say I did it!!!
45 posted on 04/15/2004 2:31:06 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
way to go ..this guy sure sailed under the radar screen
46 posted on 04/15/2004 2:45:42 PM PDT by woofie ( 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: woofie
All I did was look at his posting history, and then call it to the attention of the Moderator.

He consistently posted anti-Bush, anti-war stuff, always by using the cover that he was looking at "alternative opinions."

Proud to do my part. HA!

47 posted on 04/15/2004 2:47:44 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson