May 5, 2009
In Congress We Trust…Not
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
The people do indeed look at
The recent stunning but not
unexpected revelations
regarding Jane Harman by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a
little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in congress’s
integrity. 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 isle 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 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, 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
In a recent
article for the American Conservative
Magazine, Philip Giraldi, Former CIA Officer stationed in
The 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, just as with the Harman
case, and similarly, the mainstream media happily let it disappear. At the time
I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story, 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
officials targeted by the 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 Representative 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 accountability, the consequences? Are we talking about the possible use
of blackmail by the Executive Branch against congressional representatives, as
if
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 Representative Henry Waxman’s investigative and legal staff. Two
of these meetings took place inside a 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. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier
was removed, or so I thought. In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Representative
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 the role of ensuring oversight
and accountability with their congress. 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.’
Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by
the mainstream media, and/or, logic-less 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
for the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation
and decided to ‘really’ talk. After all, the AIPAC court 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 head of the Justice Department, having a ‘discreet’
meeting with a representative 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 to blackmail does not make the practitioner of the wrong
deed a victim, nor does it make the wrong or 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 way too long. Those who have
been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot
do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmails 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 be given a pass.
As for far-reaching ties such as Harman’s
stand on torture, or specific beef with Porter Goss, or wild shooting from the
hip by 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 with Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil
Liberties’ No No-list, is known by everyone. But, apparently not by the authors
of these recent spins! And, let’s not forget to add her long-term cozy
relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she’s received from various
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 a mouthpiece for.
Despite a certain degree of exposure cases
such as Harman and Hastert, involving corruption of public officials, seem to
meet the same dead-end, literally dead. Powerful foreign entities’ criminal
conduct against our national interest is given a pass as was recently proven by
the AIPAC case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of
blackout by our mainstream media are known universally and seem to have been
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. Then, 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, and 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 those other 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 the founder and director of National Security
Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the
FBI. During her work with the bureau,
she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and
intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications.
After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by
the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings
on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the
Congress of the