Bush orders Harriet Miers to testify... in Sibel Edmonds' case

In a surprise move Thursday, President Bush has "directed" former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify at upcoming Congressional hearings into former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' case.

The much anticipated hearings will be led by congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

Ms Miers refused to testify yesterday in separate hearings investigating the firing of US Attorneys, citing a letter she received from current White House counsel Fred Fielding directing her to defy a subpoena.

Hearings into Sibel Edmonds' case, which have been blocked for five years by both Republican and Democratic majorities, are expected expose serious criminal activity, including treason, by high level opfficials in the Pentagon, State Department and Congress.

The President's decision has confounded both critics and supporters alike, although most observers believe that the decision is an attempt to deflect the negative attention surrounding Miers' refusal to testify yesterday.

In a written statement, President Bush said "Sibel Edmonds is a true patriot. Sibel has been trying to blow the whistle on treasonous activity since 2002. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Some of Sibel Edmonds' supporters are ecstatic. English journalist David Rose, who wrote an article about Edmonds' case in Vanity Fair in 2005 disclosing that former Speaker Dennis Hastert took bribes from foreign interests, said that Edmonds "is a national hero. She deserves a ticker tape parade through New York."

Other Edmonds supports were more circumspect. Online journalist Mike Mejia noted that President Bush's directive that Miers testify is welcome news, although he has two concerns: "Firstly, it's not clear that Miers knows anything about the case, and secondly, Henry Waxman has not actually announced any hearings." Mejia adds "(Waxman) appears unwilling to take on messy scandals like the Edmonds case, which reflects well on neither Party. Edmonds and a coalition of civil liberties and good government groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Citizens for Reform and Ethics in Washington (CREW), presented Waxman with a petition containing over 15,000 signatures in March asking Waxman to hold hearings. But Waxman has to date refused to give any response."

In fact, Waxman has long been familiar with Edmonds case and has read the classified version of the FBI's report confirming Edmonds' allegations. He was "stunned" and "outraged" and promised to hold public hearings into her case once the Democrats regained control of Congress.

Bloggers on the Right have yet to coalesce around a coherent position, and many appear conflicted. "We don't like Harriet Miers very much. We single-handedly derailed her SCOTUS nomination, you know!" said Michelle Malkin, "but if she can help the President defeat the Islamofascists in the Global Perma-War on Terror, then maybe we should support her. On the other hand, the Edmonds hearings are likely to prove that Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have been colluding with Islamofascists, helping them get weapons and so on, and we kind of like Perle and Feith so I'm not sure we want hearings where that sort of thing will become public. On the other hand, Clinton did it too! Marc Grossman is a Clintonite, as is Stephen Solarz. We're also conflicted about Turkey - yes, they're great friends with Israel, but they are still ragheads, at least on the inside."

Pundits are somewhat baffled by President Bush's directive that Miers appears at the hearings, particularly given that Democrats in Congress haven't given any indication that any hearings are scheduled. David Brooks at the New York Times notes that this is a "bold" move by the Commander-in-Chief. Brooks makes the case that if the President can "direct" Miers to ignore a subpoena to appear in front of Congress for some hearings, then "precedent" demands that he can certainly "direct" her to appear in other unspecified hearings. Brooks adds "If Democrats in Congress defy the President and refuse to hold hearings so that Miers can testify as "directed" then Teh American People will correctly punish the Dems for their obstructionism." David Broder at the Washington Post takes a different position, arguing that "Reasonable people can quibble about the legal minutiae of the President's decision to prohibit Miers from testifying in the Attorney 'scandal' hearings yesterday, but his directive that Miers appear in a separate case is a game-changer. How can anyone argue that he is obstructing justice now? The Democrats must either rise to the occasion and hold hearings into Edmonds' case, or forfeit the right to complain about Miers' absence yesterday."

Constitutional lawyers are flabbergasted. Glenn Greenwald, author of New York Times bestsellers, writes "Suffice to say, it is self-evidently outrageous." Greenwald apparently doesn't think it appropriate that the President 'balance' his refusal to allow ex-WhiteHouse employees to fulfill their subpoena obligations in one situation by demanding that Congress hold hearings in other cases. He adds "At least under the Bush presidency, nobody is less interested in uncovering government criminality and corruption -- nobody is more bored by it or eager to keep it concealed -- than our establishment political press."

Unsurprisingly, the Democratic leadership was caught flat-footed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "I'm pleased that the President is aware that Congress is a co-equal branch and we hope to work with him in the future, but at the moment all hearings are off the table." Pressed for a specific comment about the Edmonds case and the fact that Hastert, her predecessor, took "suitcases of cash... knowing that a lot of that is drug money," Pelosi said "Listen, those bribes were under the table. Off the table, if you will. I refer you to Chairman Waxman's <s>statement</s> silence on this issue." Pressed further, Pelosi added "Yes, the American Turkish Council is a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC, and, yes, when it comes to Iran, all options are on the table."

Henry Waxman could not be reached for comment, but his staff were happy to provide the following statements:

and


Sibel Edmonds didn't comment directly on President Bush's directive but reiterated that:


She continued:

(youtube link)

The 911 "Truth" movement is also excited about the possibility of hearings into the Edmonds case. They are likely to be disappointed if they expect new revelations, but perhaps they'll be happy that the 'old' revelations actually get covered in the US media. For example, Edmonds' story will reveal that relevant information was hidden from Teh American People, including the fact that there was specific information in April 2001 that:



Self-proclaimed 'Sibelologist' blogger Lukery could not be reached for comment about Bush's directive, but he presumably urges Patience (youtube)

/satire

*****************

Call Waxman.
Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

In a written statement, President Bush said "Sibel Edmonds is a true patriot. Sibel has been trying to blow the whistle on treasonous activity since 2002. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." Sure does sound familiar, doesn't it? He's so unoriginal!


It's surely a distraction but hopefully will open up a whole 'nother can of worms. Now Waxman needs to get on board; I know he's busy, but this is important and has been ignored for too long.

Thank you!

he didnt really. the whole peice is satirical.

altho you were correct to recognize "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." - that was a direct quote from a different investigation :-)

ya got me!:silly:

of course, the DimSon did actually use that talking point before...

shoulda known such self awareness is way beyond the Malki One.

When you said that you weren't available for comment, it did seem a bit odd.

On the other hand, if an "end game" is played out if and when this administration feels like it is surrounded and going down and perhaps off to prison, this might not be that far off base (short of Bush's personal endorsement of Sibel). Perhaps they might want to drag down some Dems with them, and provide what they might perceive as that "ounce of Nixon's honor" that Keith Olberman was complaining that this adminstration didn't have in not resigning like Nixon did. Perhaps they might rationalize that "all should pay the penalty that are guilty" and bring down the Dems involved in the process. Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing, if it ever comes to pass and those taken down are truly guilty of treasonous acts, regardless of party affiliation. Interesting way to put forth to Waxman that perhaps if they deal with it now, less Dems will be viewed as complicit with these conspiracies, if THEY rather than the Republicans instigate hearings for Sibel.

we could try to use that leverage against Waxman... all we have to do is convince waxman that the repugs are going to investigate, eventually.

no one should believe Dim Son's assertion because he said that several years ago, and we saw how THAT worked out.

again - to be clear - most of this post was fiction/satire.

here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/13/75747/4609

ok - bed beckons. i hate this time zone thing.

please keep the thread alive.

what would happen if Sibel just spilled everything, damn the torpedoes, etc etc?

Couldn't she argue that the gag order is illegal/unconstitutional in her legal defense?
Wouldn't the impact of what she has to say outweigh criticism of her (at least in the court of public opinion)?

I would never presume to ask her to do such a thing, but I can't help wondering about the hypothetical ramifications.
A thought experiment, if you will.

1. Sibel has told most of what she knows already and we still havent seen any accountability
2. Her main concern, as far as i know, is that she holds a press conference and tells all and goes to jail and it becomes another one-day story and nothing happens.

read the whole thing...getting really pissed at Brooks and Broder.

However, any Sibel post is worthy and we haven't had one in a while. Serious question though: what the hell are the dems getting in exchange for officially ignoring Sibel?

To answer your serious question, Phil Giraldi suggests that AIPAC is the answer
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-phil-giraldi-article-about-sibel.html

Woof!

so that maybe the insanity that passes for normal these days will seem...well, more normal. This I did not need. Bad, lukery. Bad. I didn't know for sure it was a spoof until you got to dimson's statement.
:dunce:

I agree with reason #2. It would be a one-day story, followed by a lot of jail time. We've gone from bad to worse, and I am more afraid for my country than ever.

Sorry about that ;-) - perhaps you shuold just go get the psychedelic drugs anyway...

ya know, sometimes even getting some attention for one day "seems like a dream"...

actually, i thought even the headline might have given the whole shebang away...