[CitizensTruth] ARTICLE-In Congress We Trust...Not

[Walterb306 at cs.com]

All,

Have recently returned from a long-awaited repeat trip to Washington, D.C.  
But this time to the street behind the Capitol Building, and behind the 
Mall with its impressive monuments, meant perhaps to distract citizens and 
visitors from the reality of the workings of our government, inclding the gangs 
of lobbyists seen up and down.

So, reading Sibel Edmonds's article is refreshing ... and sad.  How many of 
us have suspected as much.  Now someone with credibility and visibility 
puts it into words.

Who is to hold them accountable, if not us?

Beverley

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7117

BRADBLOG.COM

Blogged by Sibel Edmonds
5-4-2009

IN CONGRESS WE TRUST…NOT

The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at 
the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to 
its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage 
and national security
Exclusive to The BRAD BLOG...
Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds

I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether 
eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully 
expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job 
starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding 
sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an 
appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day 
when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go 
undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this 
city is broken."

The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' 
broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been 
declining drastically. Recent poll results highlight how the American people's 
trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs 
easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its 
role of oversight and accountability. 

Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without 
explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any 
justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they 
helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had 
for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues 
as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of 
them.

The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations regarding Jane Harman 
(D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into 
one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of 
Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our 
mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep 
into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this 
particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere 
propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, 
and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress 
and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.

Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare 
unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan aisle 
utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, 
or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. 
Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie 
jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted 
colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the
 like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on 
the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for 
shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin 
roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch 
eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support 
vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the 
mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no 
longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, 
and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...
Hastert Redux

I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair 
published an article , which, in addition to my case and the plight of 
National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of 
the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his 
illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests. 

Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on 
sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five 
credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were 
vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true 
denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 
2009, The Hill reported that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted 
to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates 
that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract 
providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current 
arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in 
Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure 
their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'

In a recent article for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, 
former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's 
claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons 
in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag 
order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the 
new regime in Washington has not lifted."

And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly 
should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who 
may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on 
its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships 
with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden 
parachutes for their retirement?"

Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, 
the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in 
not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued 
the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all 
disappear.
I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity 
Fair , Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. 
Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman 
was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in 
addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI 
counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be 
directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate 
involvement in the Abramoff scandal, to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal; from 
his 'Land Deal' scandal - where he cashed in millions off his position while 
"serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal.

All for One, One for All?
How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of 
accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive 
Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar 
Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, 
when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none 
took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it 
more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress 
watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we 
see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it 
comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.

Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman 
case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation 
of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even 
further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the 
incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of 
cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you 
an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:

In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) 
investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a 
high-security SCIF, where details and classified information pertaining to my case 
and those involved could be discussed.

I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the 
Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing 
on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that 
barrier was removed, or so I thought.

In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who 
felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there 
would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any 
Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 
Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised 
hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called 
Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that 
twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' 
And so they became 'uninvolved.' 

What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's 
pursuit of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in 
any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi 
were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving 
counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay 
off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous 
case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in 
the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know 
the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current 
state of our mainstream media.

And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted 
their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.
This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a 
skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does 
Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts 
and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like 
him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party 
members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.' 

Rotten at its Core
Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the 
mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts 
alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' 
media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous 
administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, 
and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The 
conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; 
accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with 
ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if 
those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the 
foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so 
serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy 
satire.
Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported , 
albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious 
journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the 
Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources 
who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of 
a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC 
espionage case was dropped by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two 
weeks of the Harman revelations.

Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the 
story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three 
years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; 
Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not 
willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity 
Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.
Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 
'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture 
one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing 
Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop 
pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain 
activities you've been engaged in.'
We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official 
having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a 
certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and 
saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain 
scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct 
investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'
But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the 
purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into 
a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of 
spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and 
making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a 
very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those 
who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our 
government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very 
same people they are overseeing…Period.

Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests 
cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or 
unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to 
represent, and then be given a pass.
As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific 
beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in 
bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us 
laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! 
Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 
2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the 
Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, 
apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin. 

And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with 
AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related 
pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from 
pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out 
there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among 
those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas they are 
serving as a mouthpiece for. 

Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, 
involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. 
Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national 
interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC 
spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of 
blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally 
accepted as a fact of life.
Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has 
been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.

Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? 
Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to 
the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases 
we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.

I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 
2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of 
accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought 
in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.
These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. 
I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's 
the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require 
not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to 
understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through 
a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty 
charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the 
interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so 
I write.

Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will 
let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have 
Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil 
temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change 
our representatives." - Will Rogers
==
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has 
been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many 
details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time 
at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by 
the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the 
last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story 
on CBS' 60 Minutes, a detailed feature in Vanity Fair and, over the years, in 
a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG. She is the Founder 
and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/citizenstruth/attachments/20090505/493209e2/attachment-0001.html>