Friday, November 23, 2007

Sibel, Waxman and AIPAC

Earlier today, I heard blogger extraordinaire Brad Friedman speak to Bree Walker about the Sibel Edmonds case. As you know, Sibel is ready to spill the beans regarding the corruption she learned about while working as a translator for the FBI. She's willing to risk jail in order to get her story into the major media.

Why, asks Brad, has Congressman Henry Waxman gone back on his promise to investigate Sibel's claims? Throughout "progressive" blogostan, the usual answer would, of course, be some variant on the SIBPATS speech. But lukery -- the go-to guy on all matters Sibel-esque -- offers a more compelling argument here.
Those of you who have been following Sibel's case will be familiar with the American Turkish Council (ATC) - the 'mini-AIPAC' that (ostensibly) exists to promote Turkey's military interests in the US.

As it happens, the ATC is a creation of AIPAC (and other Israeli lobbying interests) - and there is significant overlap in the membership, goals and activities of both AIPAC and the ATC. This is perhaps not surprising given the long-standing tri-lateral military (and military 'defense' spending) relationship between the three countries. In fact, Sibel refers to AIPAC and the ATC as 'sister organizations.'

Not only were the ATC and AIPAC 'sister organizations,' they also had something else in common: there have been 'sister investigations' into both organizations. And of course, both investigations uncovered serious criminality at the highest levels of the US administration - Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department.
The AIPAC scandal remains the Great Unspeakable Thing in our society. I must confess: Despite my many criticisms of the Israeli government, I have not felt comfortable discussing the AIPAC scandal. I don't want to be lumped in with anti-Semites who believe (as I do not believe) that Jews control the United States government.

Although I haven't talked to Brad about this business, he may feel a similar unease. Even so, I'm sure he would never let any such considerations stop him from telling the truth as he sees it.

And Waxman...? Well, the American citizenry remains strongly supportive of Israel, and thus the Democrats would not want to be labeled the anti-Israel party.

Especially not as we slide into an election year.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reading this may help You ->
http://1158munich.blogspot.com/2007/04/this-is-probably-best-article-i-ever.html

AitchD said...

So what you're suggesting is that Waxman won't hold hearings where Sibel Edmonds can spill the beans because he doesn't want to have to figure out how to manage the damage control. You're also suggesting that her testimony would finally, at last, and once and for all, be picked up by the mainstream media, and that would be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and then when Special Cable Mainstream Prosecutor Keith says "Resign, Sir", it will be morning in America for real this time.

If Able Danger couldn't shake out anything more than DOD and DOJ gag orders, why should Sibel be sacrificed? Why should Waxman be hounded into wasting his time and ours? He knows, and Arlen Specter also knew, when he chaired Senate Judiciary and investigated Able Danger, that the Executive branch has been beyond the pale, and that includes the Department of Justice, who will prosecute Sibel Edmonds and maybe convene a grand jury that maybe indicts some chief of staff again for lying to federal investigators. Yeah, won't that look great in November when the law will have been applied to its fullest extent but justice comes up short. May I change the subject? Only a little. Joe Wilson and Valerie were card-carrying Republicans when Republicans were deep into doing vile shit, they didn't switch or turn after Gingrich, after Ken Starr. And we still have no idea what she was doing other than being employed by Spooks, Inc. So how do they get all this sympathy from Democrats without a fair debate? Will someone ask Val what she thinks of James Jesus Angleton or William Casey? Then ask her what she used to think of them?