I share this poster’s views entirely:
“Reading through that investigation report used to support Edmonds’s veracity, I’d note she was a part-time (~20 hrs/wk) employee of the FBI investigative services for about five months.
Based on that extensive experience, she’s managed to found a prominent leak organization, achieve steering group leadership in another, and pen assorted Op-Ed primers on proper government processes.
Seems to me she can’t possibly be much of an expert or have had any significant scope, just based on the limited time available. Moreover, this smacks of the general tactic of putting a know-nothing front man with limited experience forward as a stalking horse–Scary Larry[Johnson] as a CIA insider (on the basis of four years of low-level CIA work), J Wilson IV as a WMD expert (on the basis of one 10-day “mission” to Niger)–while actual experts provide inconclusive classified information that’s impossible to defend without [more] major security exposure. ”
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/01/republicans-san.html#comment-99828696
Approaching it from the cui bono perspective, she’d appear to be either a rabid Dem partisan who doesn’t care about national security, or someone who actively supports the jihadists, with a history of false accusations. In any event, a statement from her that serves to discomfit the Administration, or the US government in general ought, in my opinion, to be presumed false until corroborated by a disinterested source.
