Zatch
09-02-2011, 07:47 PM
Edmonds is Wrong.
Submitted by Biographer165 http://www.dailypaul.com/user/38080 on Thu, 09/01/2011 - 14:15.
I once respected Sibel Edmonds. I credited her purported "whistleblowing." No longer. Her unsupported rants against Fein have irreparably damaged her credibility.
I know Mr. Fein. I have read many of his articles and his most recent book. I have conversed with him for hours after speeches. I have heard him speak on numerous occasions. He is no “neoconservative plant,” and he will bolster, not destroy, Ron Paul’s admirable campaign.
Listen to his congressional testimony. Read his articles. He loves the Constitution and Ron Paul’s cause. He lives for both. Every article he has written (and he’s published hundreds or thousands over the years) conveys righteous indignation at the shredding of constitutional protections by our government over the course of the last century. His passion for due process is almost unique in our time.
Edmonds notes that Fein assisted in revising constitutions in countries with tarnished human rights records. But Constitutional revision is all the more necessary for dysfunctional governments. Fein’s work on each of the three-dozen constitutions he helped to revise was aimed at improving our world. Edmonds’ own experience pales in comparison.
Edmonds relies on the fanatical publication called “The Asian Tribune” to support the gutter-born proposition (or childish insult) that Fein is a “crusty beltway prostitute.” But The Asian Tribune is a known propaganda organ for the Government of Sri Lanka, which made an enemy of Fein by marginalizing and slaughtering Sri Lankan Tamils, an ethnic minority. It’s editor, KT Rajasingham, revealed his propagandist role during a deposition in connection with a defamation suit in Sweeden. See http://www.uktamilnews.com/index.php/archives/17974. To learn more about what sparked Fein’s activism, review the documentary at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/sri-lankas-killing-fields....
Fein has not worked for AEI since 1981. Back then, Wolfowitz and the Neocons were absent. And Fein’s work included Supreme Court analysis only. Regardless, Fein has nothing to do with AEI or the neoconservatives now. His belief in non-interventionism is both lasting and heartfelt.
Edmonds’ only evidence to the contrary originates from speeches by Fein’s wife, Mattie. But it is absurd and arguably sexist to assume that a husband and wife agree on all things. Are James Carville’s views identical to those of Mary Matalin? Mrs. Fein’s views are circumstantial evidence at best, and they are expressly contradicted by Mr. Fein’s consistent, vehement, and vocal adherence to a non-interventionist government limited by the constitution. Why would a neoconservative advocate impeachment for Bush and Cheney?
Edmonds may be fired up against Fein because he quite reasonably ensured her exclusion from a case before the Ohio Elections Commission a few years back. Edmonds’ testimony was deemed irrelevant because she admitted she knew nothing specifically about the congresswoman plaintiff. Had I sat on the Ohio Elections Commission, I would have excluded her, too.
Edmonds’ fanaticism deserves rebuke by lovers of liberty. Fein is a champion of our cause. He is one of the few who advocated impeaching Cheney, Bush, and Obama alike for their lawlessness. He deserves respect. I suggest Edmonds read the wealth of reliable information on Fein before continuing to spread the false accusations and reckless speculation contained in the post above.
By Edmonds' lunatic standards, she could be labeled be a neo-conservative plant herself for damaging the credibility of detractors from the movement.
More Unsupported Statements from Edmonds
Submitted by Biographer165 http://www.dailypaul.com/user/38080 on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 17:40.
In her post on Wednesday, Aug. 31, Edmonds writes:
"This where John Bolton supported Fein(s) stand on Israel and war propaganda against Iran:
In 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing THE COUPLE'S views on Israel and Israel’s interests openly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:
7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?
The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran."
(Emphasis Added).
The "sources" that purportedly support Edmonds' claim exclusively contain quotes by Bruce Fein's WIFE. There is no evidence whatsoever that they represent "THE COUPLE'S VIEW."
Once again, Edmonds relies on MRS. Fein to justify her presumptions about MR. Fein's views. She is unable to produce anything aside from quotes by MRS. Fein to support her claims. As I said in my last post, a man's views are often distinct from the views of his wife. To me, that's just obvious. Common sense dictates it, and experience verifies it. Mattie Fein's absurd statements do not justify the presumption that Bruce Fein is pro-war and fanatically pro-israel. In fact, all of Bruce Fein's articles and his recent book, American Empire: Before the Fall, indicate otherwise. Those should be relied on more heavily than statements by his wife.
Edmonds may be distorting the facts because she's angry with Fein for (quite reasonably) ensuring that her testimony was excluded from proceedings before the Ohio Elections Commission a few years ago. See my last post for further information.
__
Submitted by Biographer165 http://www.dailypaul.com/user/38080 on Thu, 09/01/2011 - 14:15.
I once respected Sibel Edmonds. I credited her purported "whistleblowing." No longer. Her unsupported rants against Fein have irreparably damaged her credibility.
I know Mr. Fein. I have read many of his articles and his most recent book. I have conversed with him for hours after speeches. I have heard him speak on numerous occasions. He is no “neoconservative plant,” and he will bolster, not destroy, Ron Paul’s admirable campaign.
Listen to his congressional testimony. Read his articles. He loves the Constitution and Ron Paul’s cause. He lives for both. Every article he has written (and he’s published hundreds or thousands over the years) conveys righteous indignation at the shredding of constitutional protections by our government over the course of the last century. His passion for due process is almost unique in our time.
Edmonds notes that Fein assisted in revising constitutions in countries with tarnished human rights records. But Constitutional revision is all the more necessary for dysfunctional governments. Fein’s work on each of the three-dozen constitutions he helped to revise was aimed at improving our world. Edmonds’ own experience pales in comparison.
Edmonds relies on the fanatical publication called “The Asian Tribune” to support the gutter-born proposition (or childish insult) that Fein is a “crusty beltway prostitute.” But The Asian Tribune is a known propaganda organ for the Government of Sri Lanka, which made an enemy of Fein by marginalizing and slaughtering Sri Lankan Tamils, an ethnic minority. It’s editor, KT Rajasingham, revealed his propagandist role during a deposition in connection with a defamation suit in Sweeden. See http://www.uktamilnews.com/index.php/archives/17974. To learn more about what sparked Fein’s activism, review the documentary at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/sri-lankas-killing-fields....
Fein has not worked for AEI since 1981. Back then, Wolfowitz and the Neocons were absent. And Fein’s work included Supreme Court analysis only. Regardless, Fein has nothing to do with AEI or the neoconservatives now. His belief in non-interventionism is both lasting and heartfelt.
Edmonds’ only evidence to the contrary originates from speeches by Fein’s wife, Mattie. But it is absurd and arguably sexist to assume that a husband and wife agree on all things. Are James Carville’s views identical to those of Mary Matalin? Mrs. Fein’s views are circumstantial evidence at best, and they are expressly contradicted by Mr. Fein’s consistent, vehement, and vocal adherence to a non-interventionist government limited by the constitution. Why would a neoconservative advocate impeachment for Bush and Cheney?
Edmonds may be fired up against Fein because he quite reasonably ensured her exclusion from a case before the Ohio Elections Commission a few years back. Edmonds’ testimony was deemed irrelevant because she admitted she knew nothing specifically about the congresswoman plaintiff. Had I sat on the Ohio Elections Commission, I would have excluded her, too.
Edmonds’ fanaticism deserves rebuke by lovers of liberty. Fein is a champion of our cause. He is one of the few who advocated impeaching Cheney, Bush, and Obama alike for their lawlessness. He deserves respect. I suggest Edmonds read the wealth of reliable information on Fein before continuing to spread the false accusations and reckless speculation contained in the post above.
By Edmonds' lunatic standards, she could be labeled be a neo-conservative plant herself for damaging the credibility of detractors from the movement.
More Unsupported Statements from Edmonds
Submitted by Biographer165 http://www.dailypaul.com/user/38080 on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 17:40.
In her post on Wednesday, Aug. 31, Edmonds writes:
"This where John Bolton supported Fein(s) stand on Israel and war propaganda against Iran:
In 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing THE COUPLE'S views on Israel and Israel’s interests openly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:
7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?
The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran."
(Emphasis Added).
The "sources" that purportedly support Edmonds' claim exclusively contain quotes by Bruce Fein's WIFE. There is no evidence whatsoever that they represent "THE COUPLE'S VIEW."
Once again, Edmonds relies on MRS. Fein to justify her presumptions about MR. Fein's views. She is unable to produce anything aside from quotes by MRS. Fein to support her claims. As I said in my last post, a man's views are often distinct from the views of his wife. To me, that's just obvious. Common sense dictates it, and experience verifies it. Mattie Fein's absurd statements do not justify the presumption that Bruce Fein is pro-war and fanatically pro-israel. In fact, all of Bruce Fein's articles and his recent book, American Empire: Before the Fall, indicate otherwise. Those should be relied on more heavily than statements by his wife.
Edmonds may be distorting the facts because she's angry with Fein for (quite reasonably) ensuring that her testimony was excluded from proceedings before the Ohio Elections Commission a few years ago. See my last post for further information.
__