The Mainstream Media Attacks Hillary Clinton With A Loaded Sibel Edmonds

Oh man, am I going to get flamed!

Sorry to rain on the parade, but I can not let this go without comment. There is a reason why a mainstream media outlet has decided to hold its nose and wade into the cesspool that is the Sibel Edmonds muzzled whistle blower story, and it has nothing to do with wanting to see greater transparency in our government and everything to do with weaving yet another Big Lie, one which will go something like “Bill Clinton’s Penis is the Reason Pakistan Has Nuclear Weapons.” And we all know what Big Media Lies during presidential election years are for.

They are meant to help Republicans get elected.

I am not accusing Ms. Edmonds of being a co-conspirator. She just wants her story told. After all these years of trying desperately to get someone to listen, she will accept any publicity. And she does not particularly like Hillary, so it is not going to bother her much if there is some collateral damage. Two years ago, as New Yorkers prepared to decide on the fate of Senator Hillary Rodam Clinton, Sibel Edmonds wrote this along with William Weaver



http://www.nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/ClintonOpEd-Aug28-06.htm

Sibel Edmonds has not endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate, but I am going to take a wild guess and assume that Hillary Clinton is her last pick of the three front runners.

We all know whom Rupert Murdoch wants (or rather wanted) for president. Saint Rudi of 9/11 was the anointed one who is supposed to keep NewsCorp growing like the Creeping Blob.



http://mikk2.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/rudy-wants-us-to-forget/

Rudi’s presidential ambitions may have sunk like a lead balloon under the weight of the accusations about his ties to mafia, terrorist and Fox News executive ties, but Rupert Murdoch still knows what kind of FCC his news empire needs for financial success—a Republican one. The GOP members of the Bush FCC have favored unlimited telecommunications expansions and mergers, and that is what makes companies like Murdoch’s lots of money.

So, when his British newspaper The Times chose to feature a story that the United States press had been burying out of deference to the George W. Bush administration about official corruption, bribery, spying and treason, you have to wonder why more people did not ask How does Rupert Murdoch plan to influence the 2008 presidential election with this news?

Here is the politically relevant (from NewsCorps.’ point of view) story with the important bits in bold

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece



Within a few days the story had metamorphosed in the American Conservative to this:



http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html

Grossman is also accused of outing Valerie Plame’s CIA cover company, helping 9/11 suspects escape questioning and planting moles in the US. He is the first suspect named by name, the only person presented with a laundry list of crimes, the only one “charged” in the article. Republicans like Richard Perle and Dennis Hasturt are mentioned as people of interest, their names dangled in front of Democrats like tantalizing morsels to draw us into the story but without any facts or substance to back up the accusations. You can already predict that they will quickly be dropped from the tale “for lack of evidence.” Grossman’s association with Bill Clinton’s administration could not be made any more glaring if they changed the guy’s name to “Former Clinton Ambassador Grossman”

Just for grins, I checked to see what kind of articles the “American Conservative” runs. There is one about the likely political strategy that Republicans will use against Obama if he is the Democrats’ nominee (the magazine sees Obama as a pushover, especially for the “Obama is a Black Muslim” narrative though they do not call it that). There is another about how Huckabee’s conservative populism can be put to good use by the Republican Party.

There is some pretty serious Republican campaign strategizing going here. And the Sibel Edmonds piece is more of the same.

If these two journals were serious about covering Edmonds' story, they would focus on the identities of the Bush administration officials who engaged in the cover up. That is the most serious crime here. Foreign agents wanted U.S. nuclear secrets and not only did U.S. citizens help them acquire them, but when they were caught, people within the Bush administration launched a cover up to protect the traitors and spies. There have been plenty of traitors in the U.S. before. And it is almost a given that foreign nationals--even our friends--will try to acquire our military secrets. But how often does our government try not to do anything about it?

Look at The Times story again. Is it full of outrage at the way that the Bush-Cheney administration protected Turkish, Israeli and Pakistani spies and their U.S. counterparts? No. It is a sensationalized story about a spy ring uncovered in the US.



The American Conservative has more outrage.

That's because that is where Hillary holds court.

Ok. Flame away. However, it is possible to create a political attack out of half truths just as easily as it is out of lies. Just wait. It should not take more than a few weeks before some right winger puts two and two together and comes up with “if Bill Clinton had not been mired down in Monica-gate, he would have noticed that someone was stealing our nukes, and then we wouldn’t have to worry about Al Qaeda getting nuclear weapons from Pakistan.”

If it is found that Dennis Hastert did in fact pull the bill due to Turkish bribes (there seems to be a lot of small donations he received that LOOKED like bribes) and he gave as an excuse that Bill Clinton told him that he shouldn't put the bill to the floor as it might "damage relations" with other countries, don't you think that Clinton would have known then that it wasn't Clinton's influence that stopped that bill but the Turks?

If Clinton DID know that it was the Turks that bribed Hastert into taking the genocide bill of the table, why didn't he take issue with Hastert's excuse that was using Clinton as a "prop" for his lies. The fact that he doesn't has the Clintons potential involvement in that mess a bit more suspicious.

Perhaps that is what Sibel is also reflecting with her dimissal of Hillary. Perhaps she knows something that she's gagged into not saying that the Clintons wouldn't want made public. Now we can't know this to be the case, and it is only a nagging suspicion I have, but it is something that needs explaining, and getting Sibel on the stand might help clear up this part of the story.

I'm off to bed. It is past my bedtime.

do anything suggested by his party's personal anti-Christ, Bill Clinton. Hastert was part of the cabal dedicated to destroying the Clinton presidency.
Just because Hastert was acting as the criminal Tom DeLay's front man does not absolve him of guilt. The wheel man in a bank robbery is guilty of bank robbery. Hastert was no unwitting dupe, he was Speaker of the House.

If Bill Clinton felt that Hastert was lying about his motivation to pull that bill... Check that, if he KNEW Hastert was lying about the reason for him pulling the bill, didn't he feel like it was something to look into as to why Hastert would be "using" him? That's a question I'd like to ask Bill (and perhaps Hillary as well).

I have no doubt that Hastert was lying then myself. That is NOT the ultimate question here. The question is why would Bill Clinton allow Hastert to *use* himself as an excuse without questioning why Hastert was doing so.

They are pushing the whole "The Clinton's", "Billary", Mrs. Clinton, co-president crap that dominates now, and the Obama campaign is capitalizing on it (saying he didn't know who he was running against in the debate, a very low blow.)

Let's face it, this is till a male dominated world. Men own the media, and they keep trying their hardest to take her down, and are getting more and more disgusting about it. I'm sure it will only get worse.

I have been shocked she's gotten this far. A majority of men, and certainly even more very powerful men, do not want a woman as president, and will do everything they can to stop her.

Every time she wins they can't believe it and sputter and blabber about until they come up with their next sexist strategy to sink her.

Now it's to say it's really BillClinton who's running, and highlight her as HIS WIFE.

But I've been uplifted and proud to see the large numbers of women and a good number of enlightened men not buy into it and come to vote for her.

I can't believe how people on this site buy into it too. The sexism spewed here is simply astounding.

Where is your profile? Lost it?

The sexism spewed on here is appalling Maybe the time will come and people will stop thinking with their penis. I hope it is soon. One more guy in the presidency will send me off the top of the mountain. Some of the women on this page are afraid they might have to think for themselves. She has set the bar high.

it must be Clenis-envy or something.

You will never hear the media talk about any sort collusion between the Bush and Clinton dynasties, or how the "foreign influence" baton has been passed back and forth from Reagan/Bush to Clinton and back to the Bush II administrations, growing ever more powerful in the process. Washington DC has become the world capitol of shadowy foreign influence, and the Congressional Elite have come to the conclusion that the American people deserve little respect. What would become of their Swiss bank accounts if they even mentioned the possiblity of impeachment proceedings against those who have sworn their allegiance to the 'have-mores'?

Edit to say 'world capitol' instead of 'world capital'. World capital makes too much sense.

the right wing wants Hillary to run and the reason is they know they have a massive smear campaign ready to go. This may or may not be part of the plan but make no mistake...when she becomes the nominee (and she will because thats what the right wing wants) you will see a smear attack that will make the attacks on Kerry look like grade school shit. Its coming folks and the result will be another republican taking office in January 2009. I hope Im wrong...but if 2000 and 2004 taught us anything its that it does not matter what the people want. The sacking of America will continue.

trying to promote the "Clinton's Penis Gave Pakistan the Nuke" Big Lie.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article.html


There is more. Much more. DUers who follow my journals about corporate media lies will recognize this as a Republican strategy guide, a "how to" for the MSM Big Lie "Obama is a Black Muslim" which I predicted over the holidays and which we have seen spring to life in the pages of right wing publications recently.

I just found out last night, after I wrote this journal, that American Conservative is a Pat Buchanan rag. Pat Buchanan, as in "The Southern Strategy". This is the guy who had the nerve to tell KO on Countdown that the Republicans could keep control of Congress in 2006 if they just kept reminding Americans that a Democratic majority would mean Rangel and Conyers in charge of committees. The only thing that Pat Buchanan does is dream about ways to keep conservative Republicans in power. Pat Buchanan is what Karl Rove wishes that he could be. He is smart, dirty and an extremely good writer.

Do not ever trust anything that Pat Buchanan says and if you read something in a publication that belongs to him, you have to ask yourself How does this further Buchanan's right wing cause?

keep in mind also that he is a paleo-conservative who often speaks out against the neo-conservatives. Also, there are neo-conservative elements in the Democratic Party, spearheaded by the Clinton's DLC (they used to be called neo-liberals). Remember that Bill Clinton used to push the idea of 'nation building' and was just recently speaking out about Americanism being a greater global idea than America itself. This is a dangerous tip off to the neocons.

First, I hope Ms. Edmonds' truths come to light, even if the underlying intention of the media for doing so is suspect.

But this is another example of how complicit MSM/Corporate America is in shaping not only the election, but anything of significance to the American people.

I'm gonna be like a broken record from now on, but I remain completely baffled by intelligent posters here at DU who claim media doesn't play a big role in the election.

They do, for ALL candidates. I normally put "IMHO" - not with this. The trail of proof speaks too clearly on its own.

Thanks, McCamy.

You said: "I am going to take a wild guess and assume that Hillary Clinton is her last pick of the three front runners."

A minor squabble to be sure, but why would you want to assume that Ms. Edmonds would have to favor one of the three front runners?

I heard (or read) a quote recently from someone who works in the media who stated that the media, due to their inability (or lack of desire) to cover more than three horses in any race, will purposely not cover anyone in the primaries that they don't perceive to be in the list of top three serious candidates. It was an open admission that the media attempts to winnow out qualified candidates just because they don't want to have to work any harder than necessary.

Please don't fall into this trap. It's entirely possible that Ms. Edmonds is a big fan of someone not in the top three.

Carry on.

And for all I know, Sibel Edmonds just loves Hillary now. The point I am making, is Ms. Edmonds should have thought a little before she 1. allowed Rupert Murdoch to get involved in her story when she knew that 2. she had interjected herself into Democratic politics just two years before with a biting anti-Hillary political piece.

Appearances count. Most of the smears against the Clintons' have been based upon appearances. And gut feeling. And opinion. And innuendo. And the fact that Bill and Hillary ran as a couple and to many Americans the thought of a woman entering the White House on an equal footing with her husband was just plain scary .

The American Conservative is not exactly a pillar of the Mainstream Media.
We need coverage by people like KO, Moyers and Democracy NOW not to mention
NPR. The Mainstream Media coverage of this has been shameful, and I expect it
will continue to be so unless there is a grass roots effort to expose it a la
the Downing Street Memo.

and Bill's, there's enough to sink the Titanic -- and WE HAVE TO WIN BIG THIS TIME to take up the repuke's vote stealing and suppression. Personally I believe that our strongest candidate is John Edwards.

about. I don't think he is a skillful trench fighter.

The Titanic sank already. What baggage? I think that the great special prosecutor of republican fame Kenny baby starr laid all that to rest.

alert.

Wouldn't that just blow it for all of them?

Do they think they can control the scope of what gets out with their surgical brainwashing?

And anyway, a real investigation would show that lots of $$$ from middle eastern nations flowed into the hands of Republicans in Congress and into the Bush family (Carlyle Group) at the time that this was going on during the Clinton Administration but none of it was going to Big Dog and very little was going to Congressional Dems who were the minority. Plus, investigation would show that Louis Freeh's FBI was in an active state of war with Bill Clinton, doing everything he could to undermine his administration so there was no way the Clinton FBI was doing any cover ups for him. And the Clinton CIA was only half faithful to Clinton and the other half still belonged to Daddy Bush.

So, no one who is using this story to attack Hillary wants a real investigation of the Clintons. They want a media lynching by rumor and innuendo. They can claim that this is the best that they can do since Cheney will not let them do a real investigation, and Cheney is God, and the Congressional Dems will not overrule Cheney, because they are weak. And then they will fling mud all over Bill Clinton. But somehow, Cheney and Bush will be forgotten. If anyone questions them, the media whores will say "It is because Cheney and Bush are not running for election, Hillary is."

Is this what Sibel Edmonds wants her story to become? The equivalent of the Savings and Loan scandal from the Reagan and Bush era turned into Whitewater to attack the Clintons for having the temerity to unseat King George the First?

Congress could put a stop to this media charade by launching a for real investigation. However, they are up to their necks in for real investigations, and the Pentagon will not like this one, since Turkey is already angry over the Kurds, and Israel really will not like this one and the pro-Israel lobby is one that no party wants to anger, especially when the U.S. is trying to negotiate Middle East peace. So there is all kinds of international politics involved.

This makes the Edmonds case a very safe one for partisan political exploitation right now.

and there might be a relationship to the Pollard case, in light of Pollard's spreading of technology. Unfortunately, Buchanan is pretty much openly an anti-Semite and this is where a danger lies.

The press claims Hillary interjected race into the race, but it was Chris Matthews

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/chris_matthews_racist_paleface_voters_in_new_hampshire_are_what_did_obama_i/

“Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue.”

And then Lawrence O'Donnell with his absolutely surreal "Edwards is a loser" in which he accuses Edwards of being a racist white guy who is trying to torpedo Obama's campaign by splitting the anti-Hillary vote. Did O'Donnell really think that up for himself? Or did Pat Buchanan whisper that into his ear? It sounds just like something Mr. "Southern Strategy" would come up with. As if winning an election based upon woman hating was any kind of ethical way to win an election, even if you are a Black man. Jeez! That's what makes me think it wasn't O'Donnell's idea first. Only a twisted mind would come up with something like that.

Both Tweety and O'Donnell work with Buchanan. And then the article about how to use Obama's race against him in the American Conservative ---another race link one degree removed from Buchanan.

Then there is this which Buchanan wrote himself---his own attempt to arrange Dems into a circular firing squad, accusing the Clintons of forcing the corporate media to make it all about race (presumably with Hillary's superwitch powers).

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan.html?columnsName=pbu



This is the same kind of language that Tweety has used when he has described "dirty tricks" by the Clintons which consist of waiting malevolently for their opponents to make mistakes.

What 'baited trap'? The only baiting I see is a whole bunch of "race baiting". And I think that Pat Buchanan is at the center of all of it like a great big bloated spider spinning a web, getting a lot of people who "ain't too bright" to put it nicely ensnared in his nasty machinations. People like O'Donnell. Tweety knows what he is doing.

Hint to people who work at NBC and MSNBC, do not do or say anything that Pat Buchanan suggests that you do or say, because you could end up like Lawrence O'Donnell (if my suspicions are correct). Remember, Buchanan was on Countdown on 2006 and he told KO that the GOP could retain control of Congress if they would remind the American people that Democratic control meant Rangel and Conyers in charge of committees.

Buchanan is a very nasty piece of work.



Now that New Hampshire is over and the damage has been done, the MSM does not talk about it anymore, but here is an interesting article that seems to confirm what I think---Hillary's slight win was predictable if you take into account the high number of Irish and Scots-Irish immigrants in New England, since women in these groups are likely to be more inclined towards matriarchy and more politically active. This article suggests lots of women were always going to vote for Hillary, they just felt like they should keep an open mind. If the press knew this and pretended not to know it to inflate Obama's chances, then they prove my assessment of them, which is that the MSM is a big fat liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802705.html

I think that there are a lot of men who are very, very afraid of women who will do anything to keep them in their place, and Pat Buchanan is one of them.

Isn't Edmonds' just looking for a platform to spill the beans? Wouldn't ANY opening of the door, just mention of her existence in the MSM start the unraveling which, if I understand correctly, pretty much ends at LIHOP or MIHOP?

Paula Jones' got her 15 min. Although one realizes that she was helpful to the scumbag media's agenda, so a paparazzi environment was assured her during the Clinton presidency, is there really anyway they could stop the Edmonds' story once the ball started rolling?

why a Murdock publication would touch the Edmonds story. This gives a clue, but as far as I'm concerned it still doesn't give a complete satisfactory answer.

Both H Clinton or Obama would be the worse candidates we could have. I can't see any reason elites would not want either of these bought and sold for candidates in office. They are also the easiest to defeat. Clinton most likely will get the nod so it makes sense that Murdock would cherry-pick information coming from Ms. Edmonds disclosures to punish her. But that seems like a dangerous flame for the powers that be to want to get close to. The allegations coming from Ms. Edmonds crosses over to both parties and beyond, so it's still puzzling why Murdock is playing with this fire.

Republicans are likely to be ready to throw Bush under the bus: he is not helping any Republican's campaign (nearly killed McCain's at one point), he is not establishing any sort of positive legacy, and if you hadn't noticed the economy is on life-support. Also, Fox News' ratings have dropped way down, probably largely due to their reputation for being the media arm of the Bush Administration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4170656

Since this is the Primaries section of DU and there is no accusation too crazy or rancid to be tossed around.

Just to make this clear, the same mainstream media that devoted almost all of its news coverage to examining Bill Clinton's penis nonstop for a year and which tried to force him out of office and which came up with Clinton fatigue and which has created the Big Lie "Hillary is a Bitch" and which has tried to tell Big Dog that it is not fair for him to campaign for his wife----

That mainstream media would not report on Sibel Edmonds story out of fear of upsetting the Clintons. It had nothing to do with keeping on the good side of the Bush FCC which controls their economic wellbeing.

Everyone who buys this, I have some FEMA trailers for sale.

Once again, Hillary is not my candidate, but I am not going to sit by and watch any Democrat get slimed. And I object to Divide and Conquer.

They're all involved. Those fucking aspens are all connected by their roots, and some dems are turning colors right along with the rest of them. We have been majorly taken for the last umteen years. I refuse to 'get used to it because they all do it'. That is ths shit I've been getting from 'realistic' adults since coming of age in the early 80's. I'm sick of that and I think others are too. I care not who an investigation would implicate. The rot needs to be cut out or the tree of liberty is gonna die.

What, you're maybe asking?

The scandal that never was. Chimpy's decision to go AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, forget about taking a flight physical, and ever fly a plane, again. The Dan Rather/Mary Mapes story. It was all true, to the best of any responsible journalists ability to piece together, but it never was allowed to make the news, or pentrate the public consciousness.

You're right to be skeptical about the likely disproportionate fall-out on the Big Dog, but that's just the way politics (and media) are handled nowadays. Doesn't make it fair, it's just the way it is. That was the story that should have assured a John Kerry victory, and the lid was sealed tightly over it, for all time.

I stopped at a Green Tree dollar store yesterday and found Mary Mapes book available for a buck, in hard cover. It's a real page-turner.