Author Topic: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story  (Read 30995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
"American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« on: September 21, 2009, 07:46:45 pm »

Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day

Scott Horton, September 21, 2009

Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum

Sibel Edmonds, former contract-FBI translator/whistleblower and “most gagged person in U.S. history” has finally told all – to’s Philip Giraldi. It’s all in the cover story for November’s issue of The American Conservative magazine, “Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?” which hits the stands on Tuesday.

Last month, Edmonds was deposed in a civil lawsuit for 6 hours (video and transcript here), and told as much of her story as she ever has, and all together in one place. Now, however, she has gone much further and apparently told Giraldi everything, less sources and methods.

For those who’ve been waiting for the day when this story would break back into the mainstream media, this may be the time to get out your trusty old letter-to-the-editor pen, set your speed-dial to the local morning news radio stations, and make sure to Facebook friend your 2nd cousin at CNN so you can send him a message when the article goes online.

How could they possibly continue to ignore such tales of drugs, guns, spies, lies, bribes, sex, blackmail, terrorism and the nuke black market from such an inside source?

Tuesday on Antiwar Radio, I’ll be speaking with Giraldi, David Rose and Joe Lauria – the journalists who’ve done the best and most “credentialed” reporting on her case – about all of Edmonds’ explosive allegations. Listen live 2-4 Eastern at

Update: Brad Friedman has more details here.

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
Re: Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day- AC Magazine Cover Story hits stands tomorrow
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2009, 08:00:26 pm »

By Brad Friedman on 9/17/2009 11:08PM
'Explosive' Sibel Edmonds Cover Story at 'The American Conservative' to Hit Tuesday

4,000 word exclusive interview with 'the gagged FBI whistleblower on espionage, al-Qaeda, and secrets for sale'...

Broke the news on air tonight. 4,000 word cover story on FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in The American Conservative to hit stands and web early next week, by former CIA agent Phil Giraldi.

Here's the teaser from TAC...:
There’s a new issue of The American Conservative going to press today, and it includes a story that will make more than a few congressmen and foreign lobbyists intensely uncomfortable: an in-depth interview between Phil Giraldi and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. She tells us exactly how Turkish intelligence have penetrated national secrets, suborned government officials, and blackmailed Congress. It’s going to be explosive.

Good. Rightwingers are covering it. So hopefully that means the "liberal media" will now pay attention!

UPDATE 9/18/09 1:15pm PT: Sibel posted the cover over at her site, and I've added it above. She also notes that the story is available online to subscribers on Monday when they'll release "a major press release" along with the print version out the same day. The story should then be available to all online on Tuesday.

The cover title: "Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?: The gagged FBI whistleblower on espionage, al-Qaeda, and secrets for sale"

In an email she just sent me just now, she notes: "We've been getting foreign MSM inquiries; tons. Zilch here; so far..."

Not much of a surprise by now. After all, what U.S. media would possibly care about members of the U.S. Congress (both Republican and Democratic) and high-ranking State and Defense Dept. officials taking bribes, being blackmailed, and enabling the theft and sale of U.S. nuclear secrets? Even if the allegations came under sworn and video-taped deposition by a former FBI translator who overheard such things first hand. Non-story, apparently.

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
Re: Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day- AC Magazine Cover Story hits stands tomorrow
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2009, 01:28:22 am »

November 01, 2009 Issue
Copyright © 2009 The American Conservative


Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?       PDF

The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.

By Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI.” Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. “60 Minutes” launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”

But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, “If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it.”

* * *

PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.

Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS: Correct.

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.

EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, “We’ve got this and this, let’s sit down and talk.” And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.

GIRALDI: ISI—Pakistani intelligence—has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman’s assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?

EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn’t start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.

GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?

EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target’s intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.

GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?

EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.

GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?

EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD’s and DVD’s. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.

GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.

EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it’s a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.”

GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?


GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.

EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.

Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You’ve previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.

GIRALDI: This corruption wasn’t confined to the State Department and the Pentagon—it infected Congress as well. You’ve named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn’t have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information—in many cases information related to nuclear technology.

EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.

GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…

EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.

GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago.

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer and The American Conservative’s Deep Background columnist.

The American Conservative welcomes letters to the editor.
Send letters to: [email protected]

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
Re: Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day- AC Magazine Cover Story hits stands tomorrow
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2009, 02:02:21 am »
wow, Chicago. She's a brave lady, indeed.

Offline notreal73

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day- AC Magazine Cover Story hits stands tomorrow
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2009, 02:08:44 am »
Hope everyone facebook's/twitters this article across the 'net.. HUGE story that will open eyes and ears!!

Btw, GREAT series of podcasts hosted by Sibel and a co-host interviewing interesting folks and whistleblowers can be found here:

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
Re: Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day- AC Magazine Cover Story hits stands tomorrow
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2009, 02:10:45 am »
Hope everyone facebook's/twitters this article across the 'net.. HUGE story that will open eyes and ears!!

Btw, GREAT series of podcasts hosted by Sibel and a co-host interviewing interesting folks and whistleblowers can be found here:

Sweet.. Thanks!

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day- AC Magazine Cover Story hits stands tomorrow
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2009, 08:40:53 am »
The American Conservative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editor Scott McConnell
Frequency monthly
Circulation 15,000
Publisher Ron Unz
First issue October 7, 2002
Country United States 

The American Conservative (TAC) is a monthly (formerly biweekly) U.S. opinion magazine founded in 2002 by Scott McConnell, Pat Buchanan, and Taki Theodoracopulos. The magazine is edited by McConnell and published by Ron Unz. TAC represents a traditionalist, anti-war and paleoconservative voice against the dominance of what it sees as a neoconservative media establishment. It also has ties with paleolibertarians and libertarian conservatives although in 2005, the TAC has been critical of libertarianism as it has been described by Robert Locke as 'the Marxism of the Right' where it supports mass immigration, degenerate practises and economic greed.[1] In 2009 Reihan Salam wrote that it had "gained a devoted following as a sharp critic of the conservative mainstream."[2]

The magazine's editorial stance differs from most other "conservative" and "neoconservative" publications in its opposition to George W. Bush's interventionist foreign policy as well as his immigration and trade policies. TAC also holds a decidedly more positive view of Europe than, for example, The Weekly Standard, National Review, or The New Republic. Many of its positions resemble another paleoconservative magazine, Chronicles, which influenced Buchanan; many writers contribute to both magazines.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
Re: Sibel Edmonds’s Big Day- AC Magazine Cover Story hits stands tomorrow
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2009, 01:10:55 pm »
GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
"American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2009, 12:46:03 pm »
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,789
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2009, 12:59:45 pm »

Now there is a true human being, admire her,HECK, I adore her.

She is truth and integrity personified.

Truth gets me high. Does that sound nuts or what, but it does. I'm in love with it.

This gal has stood up to the power toe to toe, she has not resisted, she has displayed courage that sets me on my pins.

Just can't say enough about this fine person.

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2009, 02:38:13 pm »
 Pretty fair article, too.
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2009, 01:59:57 pm »
Listening to Sibel Edmonds

Posted By Philip Giraldi On September 23, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

Sibel Edmonds, the FBI Turkish translator turned whistleblower, is the most gagged person in the history of the United States.  The Justice Department under George W. Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft twice silenced her using the rarely employed state secrets privilege.  The government and the mainstream media have presented a united front against her, calling her a "kook" and a liar, even though the gag order in itself confirmed that she had a tale to tell about massive government corruption that was all too credible and would embarrass Democrat and Republican alike.

Sibel’s day in court came in early August when she was allowed to give a detailed deposition under oath in connection with a lawsuit filed in Ohio.  Her deposition, naming names and providing corroborating details was predictably ignored by the mainstream media but was a sensation on the blogosphere.  It led to my conducting an interview with Sibel for The American Conservative magazine, which appeared this week.

Why is Sibel’s tale important for every American and why is it being ignored by our elected officials and the Fourth Estate?  The story is important because it is about massive and systematic corruption of our elected officials and senior bureaucrats with the active connivance of the media.  Worse, the corruption was carried out by agents of several foreign governments and involved nuclear secrets stolen from American defense laboratories and military bases that were, in some cases, sold to the highest bidder.  Some of the congressmen involved are now retired and working for those very same foreign governments that stole America’s secrets. 

To those who claim that Sibel Edmonds is a fraud and that she is propagating lies for reasons of her own I would observe the following:  Sibel has been interrogated by two US Senators, by the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office, and by suspicious fact checkers working for the television news program 60 Minutes, for the Times of London, and for Vanity Fair.  She has been found to be a credible witness by everyone who has taken the time to talk to her and no one has ever been able to disprove any aspect of her story. 

Could it be that Sibel Edmonds is a clever and possibly even diabolical fraud artist who has manipulated me and others?  Of course it’s possible, though I would point out that she has convinced a number of skeptics that there is substance to her allegations.  I for one spent twenty years in Army intelligence and the CIA listening regularly to scoundrels, liars, and thieves spin their tales.  If Sibel Edmonds is a fabricator, she is a damned good one.  I would also note that there is a fundamental flaw to the criticism of Sibel, which is that she claims that every single statement made by her is backed up by actual documents in FBI investigative files dealing with the activities of foreign agents who were suborning our elected officials and senior bureaucrats.  She has even provided the numbers of the files.  At the end of the day, either the files and the evidence they contain are there or they are not.  If they are not, then the government should make its case publicly that fraud is being committed by Sibel and her supporters and take whatever legal action they consider to be appropriate.  I would suggest that the silence from the government over this matter in itself confirms that the allegations are true in every detail.

Why does no one want to look into Sibel’s accusations?  I would guess that it is partly because her tale involves Washington’s most powerful foreign policy lobby, that of Israel, and also the less powerful but undeniably important lobby of Turkey.   But it is also due to the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are the evildoers in her story as well as senior officials in the Pentagon and State Department who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations.  It is a can of worms that no one wants to touch, which is precisely why it should be opened and examined if the public is every to regain faith in government. 

Some of Sibel’s allegations would be extraordinary at any time and are almost hard to believe.  She reports that the CIA was covertly supporting al-Qaeda linked groups in the Balkans and central Asia right up until 9/11.  She tells how a reporter at the New York Times was fed material by senior state department official Marc Grossman who was at the time taking bribes from Turkish contacts while alerting Turkish and Pakistani intelligence officers to the fact that Valerie Plame’s company Brewster-Jennings was a CIA cover unit engaged in preventing nuclear proliferation.  Sibel names Pentagon insiders who obtained personnel information on government employees and contractors so that they could be targeted by foreign intelligence officers.  She reveals that congressman Tom Lantos was openly passing classified information on to the government of Israel and that Israel would take what it wanted and then pass the remainder on to the Turks.  Sibel describes how highly sensitive information from US defense labs would be collected by foreign graduate students carefully inserted into the labs then sold to the intelligence services of countries like Pakistan that were developing their own nuclear weapons.  She details how one married Democratic congresswoman who was bisexual was targeted by Turkish agents and filmed being seduced by a woman who was provided for her, possibly to enable blackmail to secure the congresswoman’s cooperation.    Sibel’s tale includes descriptions of how other congressmen received bribes and illegal political contributions and were rewarded by being given well-paying jobs ever after, with several of them now working for Turkish companies or as lobbyists for Turkey.  She confirms that the Bush Administration was seeking to attack Iraq long before the twin towers fell, detailing how before 9/11 several Pentagon officials discussed with the Turkish government the invasion and division of Iraq into "spheres of influence" between Washington and London.  The talks broke down when Ankara decided that it wanted its own slice of the pie.

And no one seems to care.  Congressman Henry Waxman, formerly chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, seemed interested in Sibel Edmonds’ story and appeared willing to open hearings, but his enthusiasm vanished at some point and he refused to return her calls.  Was it because Israel was involved that Waxman developed cold feet?  Was it because some of the traitors were Democrats? Quite possibly a combination of the two, though it is only my speculation.  The current chairman of the committee Edolphus Towns has displayed no interest in the Edmonds case in spite of the Obama Administration’s pledge to bring change to government.

It is clear that if the citizens of the United States are every actually to hear what Sibel Edmonds has to say it will be because the people demand it.  It is time to call one’s congressman and ask "What about Sibel Edmonds?"  It is time to write letters to the newspapers and television news media demanding that her story be told.  If there is ever to be even a minimum of accountability and a restoration of some measure of integrity in government it has to start somewhere.  Why not start by listening to Sibel Edmonds?

Read more by Philip Giraldi
•War Without End – September 16th, 2009
•Obama’s Turning Point – September 9th, 2009
•The Best Congress AIPAC Can Buy – September 2nd, 2009
•Just 6 More Months to Victory! – August 26th, 2009
•Vanishing Liberties – August 19th, 2009


Article printed from Original:

URL to article:

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2009, 03:59:00 pm »

Now there is a true human being, admire her,HECK, I adore her.

She is truth and integrity personified.

Truth gets me high. Does that sound nuts or what, but it does. I'm in love with it.

This gal has stood up to the power toe to toe, she has not resisted, she has displayed courage that sets me on my pins.

Just can't say enough about this fine person.

She is something special, that's for sure.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline rawiron1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,032
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2009, 04:07:48 pm »
Edmonds on Iraq invasion:

"The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help."

Edmonds on US drug running:

"There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin."
Jason the Fed

Offline thnkfstpal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2009, 10:44:51 am »
Ok, can we please arrest someone now???

Offline spangler

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,741
CIA Vet: FBI Whistleblower Edmonds 'Very Credible'
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2009, 01:36:15 am »
Longtime counterterrorism agent, Phil Giraldi comments on FBI vet John Cole's recent confirmation of Bush official targeted in 'decade-long' espionage probe

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, the author of American Conservative magazine's explosive cover story interview with FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds finds her to be "very credible", even though "as a former intelligence officer", he says, he's "normally suspicious of these kinds of stories."

Giraldi was a guest on the Thom Hartmann Program today, as guest hosted by Peter B. Collins. In the 13 minute segment, he discussed a number of aspects of Edmonds' disturbing allegations with Collins, including yesterday's confirmation by a long-time FBI veteran of a key element in her claims which include bribery, blackmail, and the theft of nuclear secrets as aided and abetted by high-ranking U.S. officials.

Giraldi, a long time counterterrorism specialist with the CIA commented on the confirmation by 18-year FBI counterintelligence vet John Cole, who, in a published claim yesterday, acknowledged the existence of a "decade-long investigation" targeting the former third-highest ranking official in the Bush State Department, Marc Grossman, as Edmonds has long maintained. Citing Cole's first-hand experience with the espionage investigations in question, Giraldi told Collins during the interview:

This is something that, presumably, if the mainstream media were interested in it, would be a line of inquiry that would lead to a major investigation. ... I'm a former intelligence officer, I find her very credible. And of course, as a former intelligence officer, I'm normally suspicious of these kinds of stories. In this case, John Cole, who obviously had direct access to the investigations going on, is confirming her story.

download the MP3


Mike Philbin

  • Guest
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2009, 05:37:48 am »
Ok, can we please arrest someone now???

MEGA bump.

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2009, 05:50:05 am »
This is something that, presumably, if the mainstream media were interested in it, would be a line of inquiry that would lead to a major investigation. .

Ok, can we please arrest someone now???

Hey quick look over there it's Michael Jackson's ghost!

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2009, 08:25:23 am »
Gigantic Scandal!: The Sibel Edmonds Story

Posted By Scott Horton On October 1, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

Interview conducted September 22, 2009. Listen to the interview:

Scott Horton: All right y’all, welcome back to the show. It’s Antiwar Radio on KAOS 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas. We’re streaming live worldwide on the internet at and at

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA and DIA operative, and is a contributing editor at the American Conservative magazine. He also regularly writes a column called "Smoke and Mirrors" for us at

Joe Lauria is a New York-based independent investigative journalist who has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Montreal Gazette, the Johannesburg Star, the Washington Times, New York magazine, the London Times and many other publications, and has broken a great many stories.

Welcome, both of you, to the show today. How are you doing?

Philip Giraldi: Hello Scott.

Joe Lauria: I’m fine Scott. Thank you for having us on.

Scott Horton: All right, well I really appreciate it.

Okay, now, Phil Giraldi, you have an interview in American Conservative magazine, the November issue I believe it is, it just hit the news stands and the Website today, that’s It is an interview entitled "Who’s afraid of Sibel Edmonds?" and Joe Lauria, you are the co-author of a series that ran in the London Times back in January, 2008, that you co-wrote with Jonathan Calvert and Chris Gourlay about Sibel Edmonds and her story; just so people know who you guys are, and what your background is as far as this story goes.

And I guess we’ll start with me asking you, Phil Giraldi, to please just give us in a nutshell the basic story of Sibel Edmonds, a former contract FBI translator-turned whistle-blower, for those who aren’t familiar.

Giraldi: Well that’s a tough one, Scott. I mean, it’s a heck of a story. There are a lot of ramifications to it. To put it as briefly as I possibly could, she is, as you note, an FBI translator who turned whistle-blower. And she turned whistle-blower for a couple of reasons: she was unfairly dismissed from the FBI, and also the fact that she noted while she was doing transcription work that there were a number of ongoing cases that were extremely serious that no one seemed to be interested in following up on, and that was the essence of her whistle-blowing. Basically the story she’s telling is the story about high-level corruption and what some people might call something akin to treason on the part of government officials at the State Department and the Pentagon in particular, and also our elected officials in congress who were taking money in return for doing favors for the Turkish and Israeli lobbies. It is kind of a circular story and this is the way I tried to presented in the interview that just came out, in that you have these corrupt officials enabling the process whereby foreign intelligence officers are kind of running amok within our government, corrupting other people, generating a lot of money along the way, and then this money kind of returns and goes into the pockets of various people to further enable the corruption. That’s kind of what it’s all about.

Horton: All right, and now Joe, in your series for the London Times – it’s "For Sale: The West’s Deadly Nuclear Secrets," "FBI Denies File Exposing Nuclear Secrets Theft" and "Tip-off Thwarted Nuclear Spy Ring Probe" you really did focus, as these titles indicate, on the angle of the selling of the nuclear secrets and it is funny to me going back and reading this series and seeing just how thorough of a job you did, and how many different stories you break in here, but first of all, can you give us your general sense of how credible Sibel Edmonds’s information has been? Obviously she talked to you and your colleagues at the London Times and you must have done as much as you could to verify – say, talking to FBI agents, current and former, that kind of thing – to find out whether they say that what this lady is saying is right, because it seems like she is, in a sense, sort of a single source for a whole lot of accusations here.

Lauria: Well this is obviously the biggest question in this entire story: is this believable or not? And it wasn’t easy to corroborate that, it is very difficult to corroborate this, and this is probably one of the reasons the large publications – and I applaud the American Conservative for running this piece, and I think Phil did a terrific job in the editing of it is very tight, and I’ll talk a little more about that later – but I think one of the difficulties is corroborating what she is talking about. Either Sibel Edmonds is one of the great actresses of our time, or she has her finger on a story of immense proportions that is perhaps so immense that it is scaring the hell out of a lot of people. Not only the people involved, but people who might be dependent on people who are involved, or are, in all sorts of ways, tied to this activity, and lots of things that we may not even know about, that Sibel doesn’t even know about. This is one corner of perhaps a wide… who knows?… activities, similar activities that go on in our country.

I’ve spent a hell of a lot of time with Sibel as I’m sure Phil has, on the phone, in person, I’ve met with her numerous times, with her husband, and in her house. She convinced Waxman and Grassley that she was a credible person. Every FBI agent, all three of them that worked with her on this case, vouched for her personally, as a person who is not crazy, is not a fantasist, they did not dismiss anything that she said, they didn’t go down the list of what she has told us, and say "Yes, this is true, and that’s not true." That’s something that an FBI agent almost never would do, particularly in this case where there is highly classified information and they can wind up in jail, or losing their job. The key thing to understand here is that this is an investigation that was ongoing, there’s a lot of money and time that was spent, and it was stopped. The lead FBI agent left Washington, he had a pretty good job there investigating government corruption, he went out to another state out West where he was on pretty obscure cases that he was working on, but he wanted to get away from it. There’s one thing I’ll say, he never corroborated anything directly, but at one point, and we spoke to him three times in front of his house, and these conversations went on for more than 15 minutes, and one time I spent over an hour and half inside the home of an agent – another agent – and he said at one point "I’m really surprised that your stories weren’t picked up in the U.S." I find that significant, given how little else of that nature these agents would talk about it. I think she’s credible but we have to probe this more.

I mean, the way to go forward with this is to get the Justice Department, the new Justice Department, I know you won’t hold your breath, the Obama Justice Department to reopen this case, and I put that direct to a DoJ official and I was in possession of this video tape of her deposition exclusively for a week trying to sell it somewhere, based on what we’d done on the Sunday Times. I was given this by Sibel’s lawyers, and I was unable to place the story – that tells you something right there – but I did talk with the Department of Justice, they were interested, but they never answered the key question whether they would consider reopening this case, and the only way that is going to happen, I think, is with media pressure. Dan Ellsberg once told me that when he was peddling the Pentagon Papers, he thought he would go to the congress first and then if they had a hearing it would be in the press, but he told me he learned that going to the press first was the way to get congress to act, because when they read it in the newspapers, they say "Crap, we’d better have a hearing on this." So, this is really a key point, and will anybody at the mainstream papers have the guts, and the resources and the fortitude to look into this case? They don’t want to touch it. They don’t want to touch it.

Horton: Well it does kind of seem, doesn’t it Phil, as though, you know, like Citigroup is too big to fail, this story is too big to break. I mean, you’re talking about bringing down the highest level people in congress, in the State and Defense Departments, the cover-uppers in the Department of Justice etc., etc. This is the kind of thing that can cause massive high levels of resignations and prosecutions if they really went after it, right?

Giraldi: Well, I think as Joe points out, it might be too big to succeed. That’s really the better way to look at it. There are so many people that would be destroyed by this if the allegations are even 50% true that everybody in the government, Democrats or Republicans alike, have a vested interest in circling the wagons. And I would point out another thing, in reference to Daniel Ellsberg – the media was a lot different back then, the media was quite willing to take on stories independently and pursue them to death, particularly a huge story like this, but today’s media is a lot more cooperative in it’s mentality and it is a lot more collectivist in the way that it looks at its hand-in-hand role with the government. So, it’s not quite the same world in terms of the media opening up this story. I really think it’s going to be up to us in the alternative media, Places like the American Conservative and and I notice today that the story has been picked up enormously on the internet – it is going to be these places that might force a break in the media stranglehold on not covering this story, and that the mainstream media will have to pay attention to it. We tried to float this story, just FYI, to the Drudge website, Matt Drudge, he had no interest in it. Steve Clemons at The Washington Note has no interest in it. See there are a lot of people, just like the mainstream media, that have a vested interest in having cozy relationships because these cozy relationships provide them with information, they provide them with access, and we’ve got to break through that.

Horton: Well, it’s interesting when you bring up Steve Clemons [ignoring the story is all I mean to say, and certainly didn't mean to imply anything else with this non-sequitur - S.H.], I haven’t discussed this with him at all so I don’t know, but it brings up one of the themes in this story which is that it’s not just bipartisan in terms of Republican and Democrat, but it is also bipartisan as we find out even more in this recent interview that it is bipartisan in the sense that it is the neoconservatives as well as the "Realists." We have James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Henry Kissinger – their names being thrown around as being involved in this, can you elaborate on that?

Giraldi: Yeah, Sibel revealed to my astonishment that people like Brent Scowcroft and the others that she named were very much involved with politicking with Turkey, prior to 9/11. And what they were politicking about, and what they were trying to arrange, was an attack on Iraq. And the negotiations kind of broke down based on the fact that the Turks decided that they wanted a big slice of Northern Iraq for themselves, and they were kind of discussing where to go with this when 9/11 took place. So here you have Brent Scowcroft who has pretended to be someone who was opposed to the Iraq war, in fact when he was head of the American Turkish Council at the time, he was very much on board dealing with the Turks in terms of getting the war started, at a point when there was no 9/11, no plausible justification for going after Iraq except for the UN sanction situation.

So yeah, sure, everybody was touched by this, and I was particularly astonished by Sibel’s account of people like Douglas Feith and Richard Perle at the Pentagon actually accessing personnel files, and security files of individuals to pass this information through Grossman, and directly, over to the Turks and the Israelis so that these people could be targeted. I mean, this is an astonishing story, and as I say, if only 50% of it is true – and like Joe, I find Sibel to be completely credible. I was an intelligence officer for 20 years and one of my regular jobs was, of course, dealing with fabricators, and people who come in telling you stories, so I’m kind of sensitive to that issue, but I don’t get that feeling from her, and certainly there have been a number of other people who have testified that she is completely credible. And in this case we are talking about nuclear secrets, we’re talking about defense secrets, we’re talking about corruption in government, we’re talking about a lot of amazing things.

Lauria: I’d like to add that she’s credible to the point where this needs to be investigated. I’m not saying that everything she says is completely 100% accurate, I haven’t had a chance to check that out and I need the backing of some publication to do that, but now that she has named names, you know most of what was in your piece, Phil, she told us without naming all the names, and we didn’t use the names because we weren’t about to confirm this, but now that all those names are out there, these are people that could be approached, and a big news organization could put pressure, try to get answers, and chip away, there’s plenty to work with, whether it is all true, whether she has mixed in… You know, Sibel is a very, very bright woman, and she’s done a lot of work and research into politics, so sometimes we wondered whether what she was telling us, what you see in Phil’s interview, is everything she got off tapes, or was it also mixed in with some of her research, her knowledge of Turkish Deep State politics…

Giraldi: Actually Joe, I can answer that a little bit. When I was doing the interview with her, she told me that most of what she was telling me was from stuff she heard on tapes, but there is some of her story that comes from corroboration from other people within the FBI, mostly, that have spoken to her since that time, so in a sense you’re absolutely right, there are lots of things in this story that can not be corroborated necessarily in direct and immediate way, unless somebody really takes this on and goes after it piece by piece.

Horton: Now when it comes to Brent Scowcroft, this ties in I think with Greg Palast’s reporting that James Baker and them had a plan for what he called "a coup disguised as an invasion," but basically: get rid of Hussein and his sons and replace them with the next "Ba’athist Mustache in line" I think is the way that Palast said it, and that then the neocons got more prominence and did their Iraq plan instead after September 11th. But on the issue of Scowcroft being tied with Baker and that kind of thing, that seems very plausible to me, but I reread David Rose’s piece from Vanity Fair in September, 2005, about Sibel last night, and he mentions there in context of Scowcroft, at least as Rose puts it in the article, that Sibel said that she assumed that Scowcroft didn’t have anything to do with this stuff, as far as all this criminality and espionage and so forth – that he was the Chair, or on the board or something like that, but that all this stuff was going on at the American Turkish Council on a much lower level, something like that. I wonder, Phil, do you think that her opinion has changed about that or that these discussions that Scowcroft had about Iraq and Turkey didn’t necessarily have anything to do with the low-level criminality stuff?

Giraldi: Well I think that we are talking about two different things here. I’m reading a little bit into the story but the fact is that what Scowcroft and Baker – being former Secretary of State – and these people were doing, is that they were negotiating at a very high level: nation to nation essentially, they were representing in a sense the U.S., even though they had no legal authority to do so. The other stuff, the basic level criminality, yeah I would be awfully surprised if Scowcroft and people like that would get their hands dirty with that sort of thing, so I think that we are looking at two different levels. There are a lot of people in ATC that were involved in this process who were implementers and who were kind of spear carriers, the Marc Grossmans, the people at the Pentagon, and then there were people like Scowcroft who were kind of above the fray.

Horton: It’s Antiwar Radio. I’m talking with Phil Giraldi from the American Conservative magazine, and Joe Lauria who is an investigative reporter who participated in a three-part series for the London Times in January 08 about the Sibel Edmonds story.

And I want to ask you, Joe, about one of the things that you guys covered in your story: how after September 11, this unnamed State Department employee, who I think everyone knows who you are talking about, but it’s the Sunday Times rules there, had called the Justice Department to have four Turks who had been rounded up after September 11th (I guess in John Ashcroft’s round up of innocents, I don’t know.), and that this State Department employee had these four men released, I think before they "spilled the beans" was the words in the article, but the question that I had was, about what? Am I to understand that these men knew something about the attacks? Or just that they had been rounded up and they could spill the beans about the rest of this espionage and so forth that they’d been involved in?

Lauria: Well Sibel has never said, she doesn’t know, but you could make the assumptions that you’ve just made. I don’t know what it means. Grossman is the man obviously that we’re talking about here, that is all out now, she said it under oath. And he wouldn’t talk, he’s obviously not going to talk, at least on the first couple of phone calls, and we don’t know the names of the four people who were released. So that is the story that we ran, but we don’t know much more than what we said actually, and whether it happened or not: it all comes down to whether you believe Sibel, and whether this is stuff that has to be further investigated, and I think that it does obviously, and it’s not happening. That’s troublesome to me, and I wonder how far this American Conservative piece by Phil is going to go.

You also come up against this idea of American exceptionalism. I think it is really shocking for a lot of Americans in the media to think that any Americans could behave this way, that government officials could behave this way; acting against the interests, ultimately, of their own country. They just can’t believe this. I think that is a big hurdle to get over. I had an interview with the foreign minister of India yesterday, S. M. Krishna. I’m covering the General Assembly here in New York, I’m inside the UN right now, and I told him and his ambassador here about Phil’s piece, and I sent it to them, and they were quite keen to learn more, particularly obviously about the A.Q. Khan network connection that we wrote about pretty extensively in the Sunday Times series, and they are convinced that his network is still up and running, and they want to know as much as they can about how it may have reached inside the U.S. See, that’s just one aspect of this large activity of corruption that may have bought everything from the Armenian Genocide resolutions to nuclear secrets, and everything in between. It’s funny that she didn’t mention the Valerie Plame piece to you Phil, did she get into that?

Giraldi: Yeah actually she did, but there were a couple of issues that we had no room for, we ran out of words.

Horton: This is the story that you covered in your series for the London Times Joe, Brewster Jennings and Associates, the CIA front company that the famous Valerie Plame worked for.

Lauria: Yeah what we think we understand is that Brewster Jennings, Valerie Plame, was doing the same investigation on the CIA side, out of the country, as the FBI was doing inside the country, looking into the same smuggling ring, and if it was in fact this high State Department official who was involved, and he knew what Valerie Plame was up to, he alerted the Turkish company that was a front company for this ring, that wanted to engage Brewster Jennings, not knowing the Brewster Jennings was a CIA front itself. There were two front companies colliding. According to Sibel, and a memo that we received that we were unable to verify who sent it, warning that it was this number 3 guy at the State Department that warned this Turkish group not to deal with Valerie Plame because she was actually CIA. So in that sense, that was really the first outing of Valerie Plame, not publicly, the way it became the media circus later.

Horton: And years before Bob Novak. Now I wanted to ask you about this too, this letter that you mentioned. You say in your article I think that one of the reasons that you find this letter credible is because it sounds so much like what Sibel Edmonds is saying, and yet it is clearly not by her, and it was received by whoever originally received it, before she came public with her story. Is that right?

Lauria: Well, I mean, you say it is clearly not by her. We didn’t rule out any possibilities about where this came from. That was one possibility.

Horton: Did you ask her if it came from her?

Lauria: Yes. I think we did, yes. She said it wasn’t from her, and I don’t believe it was from her, but we don’t know who wrote it. And she would have to do a lot more to make up her story than just one letter that was sent to a small NGO in Washington. I’m trying to remember what one of the FBI agents told me about it, I think we asked him and he said it did not sound like her, so… But we don’t know where it came from.

Horton: Oh and by the way, because again you bring up talking to some of these FBI agents, I wanted to mention here that as far as her credibility goes, Sibel in the past has appeared on this show with Frederic Whitehurst, the former supervisor – I forget his position exactly – at the FBI crime lab who was a whistle-blower, with Daniel Ellsberg, who we’ve previously mentioned, and with James Bamford, the great intelligence reporter. I mean, she’s really compiled a pretty good list of heavy hitters who seem to think that she’s not making this up, at least as far as that goes. Again, what we need – Right? – is the New York Times to, I don’t know, hire a real reporter or something and give them the budget to really solve this thing.

Giraldi: Or Scott, we need the government to come clean on it. I mean, Sibel has said that everything she has said is verifiable from FBI files, and she even provides the numbers of the files. So if the Justice Department is serious about looking at this they can go straight to the files and I understand if some of this involves ongoing investigations they won’t be able to tell us any of that information and that probably some of the older material – some of it goes back to 1996 – some of the older material would have to be purged of possible sources and methods and that kind of thing. I understand all that. But the fact is that the core of her story has to be there – or perhaps it isn’t there, if she is indeed is a clever fabricator. And I think the government at this point, and the Justice Department, owes it to the public to say one way or other whether this is a true story, or this is a fabrication.

Lauria: We haven’t brought up yet that the Obama administration allowed her to go ahead with this deposition. There was a lot of suspense before that that she would be gagged again, and they didn’t do it. And I’d spoken to the Justice Department several days before, and the woman I spoke to there, I don’t think she had any idea who Sibel Edmonds was, but they do now. And it was a decision made, they did try to stop her from doing it, there were letters exchanged, but they didn’t stop her. And I think that might tell you that they realize that nobody is going to pick this story up, and that it is safely embedded in the blogosphere, where, let’s face it, the thing about the blogs is that they take stories that the major papers won’t take for a variety of reasons, but they really don’t have the training or the skill to bring it out in a credible way that a big paper can. That’s why we’re in such a bind here. We’re losing both ways I think. It’s one thing at least to get it out, but it would be another thing if the New York Times brought it out, that’s for sure.

Horton: And it would be another thing too if you could get Chris Matthews and any of these goofballs on TV to talk about it. I mean, here – Ladies and gentlemen, drum roll please – there is sex scandal in here, and now not only has Sibel Edmonds said yes indeed there was a congresswoman who was basically entrapped or set up by the Turkish lobby or these spies, whoever they were, but to you, Phil, she actually named the congresswoman. I mean, I hate to have somebody’s personal life smeared like that over a political case, but I’m really just getting to the point that: isn’t that what Contessa Brewer and all these goofballs on MSNBC are for? Taking a sex scandal and running with that? Can we not at least get coverage of this one aspect here?

Giraldi: Scott I would say that this is not a sex scandal, it’s a corruption scandal, and the sex aspect and the potential blackmail is just one aspect of the corruption, and that’s really what we’re talking about. If this weren’t a corruption story, we wouldn’t be interested in the sexual aspect. And yes indeed, Sibel did name the congresswoman, and we reported it in the story

Horton: And Sibel has also said that she has no information whatsoever that this congresswoman ever did anything due to being compromised at all, and we should say that out loud.

Lauria: That’s why she didn’t want to name her at first in the deposition, she didn’t name her for that reason. She doesn’t know whether she took the bribe or not, or did anything for it. Let’s assume she didn’t, now this is where I would, as a reporter, try to get in touch with her or her husband who was named in Phil’s piece and try to gently talk to them and see whether this is true or not.

Horton: Now Joe what about going back to the Sunday Times?

Lauria: Well, we did. They felt that the story wasn’t advanced enough by the deposition and the transcript that we got of the deposition. I must say reading Phil’s piece here, it was so well put together, because almost all of it, not all because there was some new things there for me as well, we heard from her in very disjointed conversations over the space of months, but all the pieces were very well put together that I think the whole picture emerges. And the Sunday Times felt that they had already done the story, and there may have been legal issues there too, we didn’t really get that far. And they’re over in London, and I’m here in New York and they don’t share that with me anyway, I don’t know what the reason was exactly, but they didn’t want to run the story anymore. I thought it was vindication in a way that she was now on the record under oath, saying the same things and more than we had reported earlier, and they didn’t want to do it. I don’t know exactly why, they just felt that it wasn’t exciting enough, I don’t know, that’s something I’ve heard. I don’t know the reason.

Horton: One of the reasons that this interview is so thorough is, quite unlike myself, because you Phil know exactly which questions to ask. You have the experience to interview this lady just right and make the right connections, and part of that is because as a CIA officer you were stationed in Turkey for a while. You were the station chief of at least one city or another or something, right?

Giraldi: I was in Istanbul.

Horton: And how long were you a CIA agent in Turkey?

Giraldi: I was there for three years.

Horton: And so that means, I guess, you have all this insight into how the state in Turkey really operates and what its real relationship is with the US, and NATO and Israel and everything else, huh?

Giraldi: Well, I certainly have enough of an insight where if Sibel said certain things relating to Turkey I knew whether they were plausible or not, and I knew where I could go with the story based on what she was saying. So that was quite a lot of it, and also of course I know how an intelligence operation is run, and when you get to the bottom of it, this whole influence and corruption business, this is kind of an intelligence operation. It is people who are agents of foreign governments who are penetrating the United States, both the bureaucracy and our legislature, and are doing it for the benefit of those foreign governments. And so to me it was not unfamiliar turf, let’s put it that way.

Horton: So now let’s talk about these neocons. Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, these are two very powerful men, they helped write the "Clean Break " policy for Benjamin Netanyahu back in 1996. Of course Dick Cheney hired them, Perle to the Chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board and Feith became the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the first Bush Jr. administration, and these are two of the men who really helped lead us into war in Iraq. And now Sibel is really elaborating for the first time I think of what exactly she is accusing these guys of. Phil, can you fill us in?

Giraldi: Yeah, this to me was one of the most amazing parts of her story, that these people, Doug Feith and Richard Perle, were because of their history at the Pentagon, there were times in this story when they were actually working there, and times in the story when they were not, when they were behind the scenes. But because they had access to the Pentagon, they were able to obtain personnel files and to obtain security files on people. When I say a security file, I mean that, you know, every few years if you work for the government in a sensitive position, they check your background, they check up on you, and they determine things like you’re going through a nasty divorce, you’ve become an alcoholic, you’re taking drugs, these kinds of things. These people were about to gain access to this kind of information, and they were passing this information through Marc Grossman in many cases apparently, on to the Turks and the Israelis so that these people could then be targeted to bring them on board basically as agents. So to me that is an absolutely incredible concept, that they were doing this and they were cooperating to that extent. And to the extent that they were successful or not successful is difficult to say, but certainly Sibel was able to detect that there was a very definite flow of information out of defense labs and out of military installations and stuff like that, that was going back to Turkey and Israel. To a certain extent obviously they were successful.

Horton: Well, what do you think that has to do with Larry Franklin? We all know that he was convicted for passing classified information to Israel and that he worked for Douglas Feith in the Office of Special Plans.

Giraldi: Well Larry Franklin was giving information to AIPAC, and AIPAC of course is the godfather of the American Turkish Council. They worked hand in hand on a lot of these things, and Sibel claims to have reviewed or made transcripts of telephone calls in which these two groups were talking together to plan strategy and tactics. So there is a very intimate relationship between all of this. Sibel has said a number of times, I think also to you Scott, that this is all one story, that this all comes together, and that is what she is referring to and you know she still has a wealth of information that we haven’t even tapped. You know, my interview with her was a couple of hours long, and there is ten hours there, 12 hours, maybe 100 hours, of things. She has an amazing memory, and there are things that we could pursue, there are story lines within the story that we could pursue, and as Joe is suggesting, a major media outlet would maybe have the resources to follow-up on that. But the U.S. government has the resources to follow up on it too, if they are interested.

Lauria: They have the investigation half done already, don’t they? That’s the point here, this was an ongoing thing that was stopped.

Horton: Well you have copies of the files that the FBI says don’t exist right, Joe?

Lauria: We got a document that proves that this document exists. I didn’t see the document, I just saw the document that proves that the document exists which they said does not exist. Let me rephrase that: the document existed, so it is possible that they destroyed the document, then they’d be telling the truth, but the said that it doesn’t exist now. When there was a FOIA done, the document that Phil referred to had a file number on it, the FBI said this file does not exist, that there is no such file, but I have an official FBI document that has the file number on it, but it is not a document that has a lot of details. It does have the file number on it.

Look, there’s all this circumstantial evidence that proved to us that [Edmonds] was credible enough to run that series, it needs to go further. You know, she’s credible, if you do a preliminary investigation like the police do, or the International Criminal Courts do like they’re doing right now in Afghanistan, you gather evidence in a very preliminary way to see whether it is worth committing the resources to have a formal investigation, and I think we are definitely at the point where we need a formal investigation. That doesn’t convict anybody, or prove anything that she said to be completely true, but it reaches the threshold of saying "Look, we’ve got to look into this," but it is too dangerous to too many people, and it kind of depresses me. I think, "Why go ahead with journalism anyway if this is the story that I’m not allowed to cover somehow? What is the point? What is the point in putting out these stories? This is the real "Deep State" too. This is the deep politics of America and the media unfortunately often just presents factual information that doesn’t get anywhere near that.

Horton: And that’s the real point, isn’t it? You were saying earlier, Joe, that most of these people, even in the media, they just can’t imagine, like you said, they think "Oh, American democracy works great," and what-have-you, but it really is more like Douglas Valentine posted up on my FaceBook page earlier, he said "Oh, this is just business as usual. This is nothing different than it always is."

Lauria: Well that’s somebody who understands American history and knows the American character. We’re as capable of committing these crimes as any other country is. We’re not better than other people. We’re just the same, unfortunately. We can commit war crimes, I mean there’s the sense that Americans can’t commit a war crime, they’re very nervous because the International Criminal Court may investigate American air men over Afghanistan if the Americans don’t investigate some of these bombings of wedding parties, industrial tankers, that a collateral damage could rise… The prosecutor of the court told me the other day that he might start investigations because he thinks that might be war crimes, collateral damage. If the U.S. doesn’t investigate it themselves, the ICC might, because Afghanistan is a party to the treaty.

But this concept that Americans could commit a war crime is impossible to most people, they just cannot conceive. Only the bad guys do that. We don’t do that. We’re the bad guys sometimes. You’ve got to grow up. I think it’s about being an adult, and understand that congress, since the days of Mark Twain and earlier, has been bought since the very beginning – you know, Virginia planters and New England merchants. This is the problem, if we don’t confront it, we’re never going to become a better country. It’s going to stay like this, or get worse, and I think this is a great opportunity to confront that. Most of these guys are out of government now, so there’s no reason why – but we’ve seen that Obama won’t investigate. I mean, this CIA investigation that Holder is doing, I’m not holding my breath because I’m afraid that – Ray McGovern had a great piece the other day on that – I’m afraid that might not continue.

Horton: Well they’ve already narrowed it down to just a couple of instances of actual murder, forget the torture. It’s already out, and they’re only focusing on the lowest level people, as always.

Lauria: You can’t be a democracy without looking into this, it’s just not possible. You cannot keep covering this stuff up. You know, maybe there is nothing there, but why are they afraid?

Horton: Let’s talk about the maybe wildest part of this, or the newest part. There have kind of been implications here and there, but, Phil Giraldi, Sibel Edmonds said on, I believe it was Brad Friedman’s radio show a few weeks back, she mentioned this, and again in her interview with you, she talks about American covert cooperation with, support for, the Mujahideen as they called them then, she says, al Qaeda, all the way up until September 11th. I kind of wish you’d followed up a little more on that in the interview. What exactly is going on there?

Giraldi: Yeah well, I must admit that part of it was kind of blurry, even for me. Basically what Sibel said was that she came across evidence in the course of her work that indicated that there was considerable covert support going on for what were referred to in the transcripts and in the documents that she saw as "the Mujahideen." And the Mujahideen of course were the radical Islamists that we refer to as al-Qaeda among others. And she says that the material that she saw indicated that there was considerable material support being provided to these groups in Bosnia, among other places, and she also mentioned activity in Central Asia, in various places. And this was ongoing and this was also connected with a lot of corruption, in that NATO planes were used to support these endeavors, and the NATO planes involved – and I guess this is how the FBI got their hooks into it – were involved with flying drugs across national lines, and eventually I guess distributing these drugs and that sort of thing. So there was a criminal aspect to it, there was also a policy aspect to it, in terms of supporting Muslims in places like Bosnia, and there was an intelligence aspect to it, in terms of supporting radical Islamist groups that eventually resulted in blowback, in terms of what we experienced on 9/11 and subsequently. And according to Sibel this all continued right up until 9/11.

Horton: Well now, in the conversion there too, you asked, and I’m not exactly sure of the wording, something to the effect that she says Grossman was running this thing, and you ask her whether the government knew about this, and she says "Yes, 100 per cent." What exactly does that mean: That the FBI was overhearing it and that is what the government knew about it, or that this was a covert operation, that Grossman had an official "finding" somewhere or something that said that he was allowed to break the law and do these things?

Giraldi: Specifically her answer to that question when I asked her about whether the government knew about it, it was specifically the FBI, were they aware that this was going on.

Horton: So this was not a covert action, it was basically treachery on the part of Grossman rather than something that Bill Clinton had signed a finding authorizing, or something like that?

Giraldi: Well I think there are a couple of aspects to it. As you note, we didn’t go into this terribly deeply at the time, but the fact is that there clearly was a covert operation going on in support of the Bosnian Muslims, and this involved the Mujahideen, it involved supporting them. So this was a government operation, but the point is this is a case where one part of the government which is law enforcement kind of comes across the trail of another part of the government which is intelligence, and they discover what the intelligence people are kind of up to. Meanwhile there’s a criminal element kind of going on through the middle of this which is where Grossman was involved.

Horton: Now you reminded me of Loretta Napoleoni’s book Terror Inc. where she says that what we call al-Qaeda basically represents hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe trillions of dollars in the world economy every year, that there are massive farms in Sudan, there’s massive heroin running, there’s you know, honey bee collection… It’s a massive part of the world economy, the underground black market terrorist financial network, basically.

Giraldi: Well, I think you have to recognize that the way terrorists operate are the way criminals operate, and that’s why you very often – this is part of Sibel’s story I believe – that essentially criminal and something other than criminal, if you want to call it terrorism or whatever you want to call it, they all come together in this kind of gangster milieu where governments are involved carrying out dark deeds and you have criminal groups that are making money, you have terrorists in the middle, and it all comes together, and again this is coming back to what she was saying, that this is all one story.

Horton: Now forgive me for leaving you on hold for a minute longer here Joe Lauria, but I wanted to follow up on one more angle here with Phil, and that is the last name, Bin Laden. She tells you in this transcript "Bin Ladens"-plural. Is she talking about Osama, that he was actually working with the Americans or whoever these people are, running drugs and whatever right up until 9/11? Because, you understand, I’m skating near the whole conspiracy theory, which is that ultimately al Qaeda works with the CIA on all kind of things, and always did, and you’ve got General Mahmood from the ISI sent $100,000 while his aide’s daughter is working with Sibel translating things in the department and whatever. Are we to the wink-wink stage here yet, or what is going on?

Giraldi: Well she was specifically referring to the fact that it was not just bin Laden, it was bin Laden and his family, that his sons and others who were involved, and sons-in-law and daughters-in-law and so on and so forth, so it was kind of a family cooperative that was involved with a lot of this, and of course it extends even further into more, shall we say, distant relationships and that kind of thing. So she was referring to the fact that there were names of a number of bin Ladens, bin Laden relatives and associates, were showing up in the material she was seeing.

Lauria: I should add that I asked the Foreign Minister of India yesterday about that very thing you mentioned, this story that the head of the ISI had sent money or contacted Mohammed Atta, and he dismissed that as absolute rubbish, so a high level Indian official doesn’t believe that story.

Horton: I always wondered whether anybody had every really nailed that down, because I never found it if they did.

Lauria: There was one paper in India that reported that, but the attribution was fishy, and…

Giraldi: Yeah, Sibel has never said that. I think you’re right, it was a story that was single sourced, and basically came from a source that might have fabricated it.

Horton: Well, so here again, I’m not really of an "inside job" kind of way of looking at 9/11 – it isn’t really my thing, but clearly there was massive cover-up about all the prior knowledge, and how they coulda-woulda stopped it if they’d been doing their jobs. And clearly when you have all this kind of interconnectedness between all these black market players… I think, you know, as Greg Palast pointed out, Prince Bandar and Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia had paid protection money to bin Laden in the order of millions of dollars, not to attack the U.S., but just to "not attack Saudi Arabia for a little while please." And this is the kind of stuff that you have to cover up. I mean Prince Bandar is George Bush Sr.’s best friend. You can’t have a real investigation of 9/11 when what it turns up is, well, the kind of thing that you need to black out 27 pages of if you are congress, right?

Giraldi: Yeah. I think Joe is absolutely right, I think there’s this sense of American exceptionalism which blinds us to the fact that we’re just like everybody else, and basically people in this country are quite as capable of being corrupt. The corruption is very often a kind of soft corruption, like the Bush family and their relationships with the Saudis, and people like that, where people do favors and they do things for you, but it is still corruption, and we lose sight of this. And the problem is that when you get into the mindset of doing these sorts of things, of making cozy deals, and cozy arrangements, which all these people do – the Bakers and the people that were high up in the Bush I administration, and so on and so forth, and the people around Clinton. It’s all the same type of corruption, the same kind of thing, and eventually this kind of stuff will come back and bite you, because corruption is corruption and a lot of people don’t know where to draw the line any more. Look at some of the congressmen that Sibel has named, these people were taking money from the Turks while they were in office, and now they are working for Turkish companies, or they are working as lobbyists for Turkey. And some of these guys couldn’t even spell "Turk" if they tried. They don’t know anything.

Horton: And Phil, two of these guys are former Speakers of the House of Representatives! Hastert and Livingston both, and then Dan Burrton’s name has now come up, he was the Chair of the House Government Reform & Oversight Committee!

Giraldi: Absolutely! So what does that tell you? I mean, if only a fraction of this true, there should be people out in the streets right now screaming and waving around signs, but they’re not, so there’s something fundamentally wrong with our democracy and with our media, and with our government, that we can’t see what’s right in front of us. I don’t know if Joe agrees with me on this, I’m getting a little emotional.

Lauria: I agree with you 100%. You point out how these guys get jobs with the Turkish lobbying companies. They were not paid off, Sibel pointed out to me, while they were in office very much. It’s just too obvious. You get in trouble. You’re promised when you leave office you might be given – and I’m not naming any names because I don’t really know what happened with these people – but in general it seems that’s the way it happens. Why did these guys wind up with these jobs with the Turks? This is a question that has to be asked. I just want to make it clear that I’m not as – you know, another guest that you wanted to have on hadn’t reported on this and so he didn’t want to speak about it, I haven’t reported a lot of what she said either – but I reported enough to know that she’s credible enough to want to look into it. The main point I’m making here is that this can’t be left out there, and not investigated, and the pressure has to be put on the Justice Department to do it. And the only people that I know who can do it is the major media, or a courageous person inside the Congress… She went to a couple of people like that, but they dropped her. And that’s unfortunate, because if we had a senator who would stand up and say "This is outrageous, we’ve got to look into this."

But as David Krikorian, who has not been mentioned yet, he’s part of this because he was sued by Jean Schmidt, a Representative in Ohio, he’s running against her, he ran against her, and he’s running again, against her in the House in the next election, he accused her of taking Turkish blood money. She sued him for slander or libel, and this court case ensued in which he got Sibel to testify on the record, in which she named all these names, and explained all this information that was put together very well by Phil so anybody can really understand it now. But all that stuff, most of it came out in the videotaped deposition. And the fact that this is not being looked into, I don’t understand that.

Horton: It really is incredible because here it is. I mean, she’s been, as we kind of talked about before, she’s been kind of telling a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, and hasn’t really been able this whole time, especially because of the persecution by the Bush administration, to really tell the whole story. Here she is, under oath, on video, for hours, going through the whole thing. And what we have represented in "Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds" – this interview by Phil Giraldi, is getting down to the real details of this, but it’s the same story that she says under oath, risking prosecution, not for telling her story like usual, but if she dares say something that is not true!

Lauria: Either she’s mad, or she’s an extremely courageous woman.

Horton: You know, I want to get back to the heart of this, and this is what you guys focus on in your series for the London Times that was published in January 2008, Joe Lauria, and that is: we’re talking about nuclear secrets here. The accusations again, not proven, but credible allegations of widespread espionage in terms of pilfering nuclear secrets from the national laboratories, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore – Right? – from MIT, and major universities and God-knows-what. I mean we’re talking about these nuclear bomb secrets going to Pakistan for example.

Lauria: Well, things like that have happened before, didn’t it, during the cold war? So it is not far-fetched. I don’t think it is.

Giraldi: And Sibel told the one story which we recounted to a certain extent in the interview about how the Turks had obtained some information from one of the national labs on nuclear developments, which they paid one of these students a couple of thousand dollars for, and then they went to the Pakistanis and said "Do you want it? The price is $350,000." The Pakistanis decided they couldn’t afford it, so the Turkish intelligence agents involved with this offered it to some Saudi Arabian businessmen, who they then met in Detroit, and sold this information to for $350,000. I mean, to me, this is espionage at the highest level. And it is just crying out for somebody to be investigated.

Horton: And as everybody knows, I think, and I think some of the danger of this has been a bit overblown, but still, at least the story goes, this guy, the people refusing to prosecute or investigate all these allegations, are the same ones who say that the Pakistanis gave all their enrichment technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. And we know the North Koreans made their bombs out of plutonium, and that the Libyans gave up their centrifuge equipment, but we know that the Iranians are spinning theirs and that’s the big bogus excuse for the next war. It’s that the Iranians got centrifuge technology from Pakistan, who apparently got it from Marc Grossman and them. Or maybe – I’m being facetious about that part, but you understand what I mean.

Giraldi: Yeah, there doesn’t have to be any logical consistency to what people are alleging about people that they want to vilify, and I wouldn’t take that one too far, but the fact is, sure, it’s the same people that are on the one hand saying "This was OK because you know, Israel is an ally, they were involved, the Turks are friendly, and sure some of this stuff wound up in Pakistan, and helped their nuclear development program, but that’s kind of collateral damage." Sure there’s a lot of tap dancing going on around this, but there is, as I would put it, the central issue here which is that this was massive coordinated espionage directed against the United States by foreign agents in the United States and using senior government officials and senior legislators in our Congress as the mechanism for carrying this out. It’s that simple. And if people at the Justice Department can’t see that this is something that is extremely serious, I don’t know how to wake them up.

Lauria: I should point out that centrifuge technology was taken from the Europeans, a company where A.Q. Khan worked. It didn’t come from Marc Grossman.

Horton: Yeah, I was just basically joking at that part, but you’re right. Thanks for clarifying that.

Lauria: The thing about Grossman is, as this interview points out if it’s true, is that that this started in Turkey. This whole thing started there, and he had to leave according to Sibel because of the Susurluk scandal, and if this is true, this is interesting, he came to the States and carried on with that network into the U.S., or he helped it if it was already here. I found that pretty interesting. Wherever this began, it started there, if this is true, and he was the ambassador there.

Giraldi: The other kind of interesting side story is about the New York Times where Grossman was joking apparently on the phone where he could call up, or fax over to his contact at the New York Times a story that the Turks wanted to appear in just a particular form, and he would fax his account over to the New York Times and the New York Times would print it as Grossman had drafted it. We got a little bit more on that story which was basically this was involved with helicopter sales back in the year 2000 about which there was a scandal and anyone who could Google could figure out who the journalist was, but we didn’t use it because Sibel never actually heard his name.

Horton: Isn’t that interesting? Maybe you guys should talk amongst yourselves while I google that real quick, I want to know. Too bad I don’t have my chatroom window open here, I bet they’re finding it right now. Well, we’re basically at about time to wrap this up here. I guess I want to give you guys an opportunity to address anything that I didn’t ask you about, or make any closing comments, what you would like people to take from this.

Lauria: I would say simply that this is a highly unusual article, in a glossy magazine, that is on newsstands in many parts of the country, that I hope people read, and want to know more about, and start asking their congressmen about that, or write to an editor, or speak out in some way, and I obviously hope that it is picked up by the media in the U.S., even if it is not me, that somebody wants to look into this, and this thing could start snowballing. I mean, there’s been Iran -Contra, there’s been Watergate, it’s not like things haven’t been investigated, it’s not like we haven’t had scandals and conspiracies before, this could be another big investigation, I don’t see why not. I don’t see, except for the reasons that we were talking about, that there could be too many people who could be hurt, but I’m hoping that this article will help break through. But I’m not certain about that obviously, I don’t think anybody can be. I’m prepared for it to die, to be honest with you.

Horton: Yeah well, let’s not leave them with that, I mean now is the time, everybody has got a pen, they can write a letter to the editor, they can call their local right-wing warmongering talk radio station if they can get a word in edgewise, they can send a tweet to their cousin that works at CNN somewhere or something. And everybody can try to do a little bit of something with this.

Giraldi: Yes, and call your congressmen, no question about that, I mean, I would call them up and insist that they look at the Sibel Edmonds story. You know, I’m pessimistic too because this story has been out a while, and it really hasn’t been picked up for obvious reasons, but I think that we now for the first time have the story in a comprehensible form, to know what the whole story is, or what the center core of the story is. And I think that is going to help. So we’ll see where we go with this. I mean, certainly I know that the American Conservative, and I know are making major efforts to get this story out, and I know there are other people out there doing the same thing, so we have to convince some major journalist or media outlet that this is for real and, as I say, I’m pessimistic, but I’d like to see it happen.

Horton: All right. Thank you both very much for your time on the show today.

Giraldi: Thank you, Scott.

Lauria: Thanks.

Read more by Scott Horton
•Finding Ways to Stay in Iraq – March 4th, 2009
•Letting Sibel Edmonds Speak – June 18th, 2008
•Reclaim Your Sense of Outrage – May 31st, 2008
•Does America Need Another 9/11? – August 18th, 2007
•Saving England Wasn’t Worth It – June 29th, 2007


Article printed from Original:

URL to article:

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2009, 08:50:56 am »
there's an MP3 of the interview, too, for those who just wanna listen

Offline africknamerican

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
  • Born "Truther"
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2009, 12:05:38 pm »
WOw. This is pretty big. I had been wondering about Amcon and just how serious they were. This boosts my respect for them a bit.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2009, 08:22:06 am »
By Brad Friedman on 10/21/2009 12:58PM Covers Edmonds Disclosures, Reports 'Denials' From Several Fingered Bush Officials

Feature article offers comment from Perle, Feith, spokesman for Grossman, as well as information and comment in support of the FBI translator/whistleblower's charges of nuclear treason...

The military news outlet is covering the story of FBI linguist-turned-whistelblower Sibel Edmonds as their lead story today.

Reporter Bryant Jordan's 1,500 word feature includes a background summary of Edmonds' story, which The BRAD BLOG has been detailing for years, and a summary of the allegations she offered under oath last August in her sworn deposition following seven years of "forced silence" under a court-ordered gag due to the so-called "State Secrets Privilege" twice-invoked by George W. Bush's Department of Justice. A good round-up of the startling information Edmonds says she gleaned while listening to and translating wiretaps in the counterintelligence division at the FBI after 9/11 is offered throughout his coverage.

Jordan's piece is well reported and includes, for the first time to our knowledge, several forms of denials of Edmonds allegations by some of Bush's key State and Defense Department officials --- such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith --- who, she says, were participants in espionage plots against the United States in order to share military and even nuclear secrets with Turkish and Israeli government operatives.

Edmonds also offers a very spirited and seemingly common-sense response to those denials (one of which is rather ironic in retrospect) and to critics who maintain she has been offering these allegations due to some form of vendetta.

If you're not already familiar with Edmonds' story, we'll recommend Jordan's full article at, just as we have previously recommended the excellent cover-story interview by CIA vet Philip Giraldi at American Conservative magazine also published following her 8/8/09 deposition in which she was finally able to tell her story publicly and on the record for the first time. She did so as the Obama Dept. of Justice chose not to invoke the "State Secrets Privilege" when they had the opportunity this time.

If you are already familiar with her story, then read on, as we'll try to highlight the new information in which Jordan advances the story a few beats --- as every other U.S. mainstream corporate media outlet has simply failed to since Edmonds' remarkable allegations have finally become public...

Jordan ledes with the background on the specific aspects of Edmonds' far-reaching allegations which he will then expand on throughout much of his coverage:

After seven years of forced silence, a government whistleblower is opening up on what she learned while working as a Turkish translator for the FBI in the wake of 9/11.

In sworn testimony to attorneys on Aug. 8, Sibel Edmonds described a Pentagon where key personnel helped pass defense secrets to foreign agents or provided them names of knowledgeable officials who were vulnerable to blackmail or co-option.

And firmly rooted in this espionage program in the 1990s, according to Edmonds' deposition, were two men who, with the election of George W. Bush as president in 2000, found themselves in the Pentagon: Douglas Feith, who would head the Office of Special Plans, and Richard Perle, who would become chairman of the Defense Advisory Board.

"They were 100 percent directly involved," Edmonds told "They were not in the Pentagon [in the late 1990s] but they had their people inside the Pentagon." One of those people, she said, was Larry Franklin, an Air Force officer assigned to the Office of Special Plans who, in 2003, passed classified information to representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Office, or AIPAC. By then Feith was leading the OSP.

With that in place, Jordan offers various forms of "emphatic" denials from both Perle and Feith --- something which, apparently, other U.S. news organizations have been unable or unwilling to do at all up until now. (Note: The BRAD BLOG has requested comment from a number of those accused by Edmonds, including former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Marc Grossman, former Ambassador to Turkey and Under Secretary of State in the Bush Administration who is said to have been the U.S. ring-leader in the operation. Both have refused multiple requests for comment.):

Perle, today a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and board member for or adviser to other think tanks, including the National Institute for Neareast Affairs and the Center for Security Policy, emphatically denied Edmonds' claims in an interview with

"This woman is a nutcase. Certifiable," Perle said. "She makes wild accusations. She was fired from her job, and has been on a vendetta against … imagined demons ever since."

Feith, in an email to, said: "What I've read on the Internet about Ms. Edmonds's claims about me is wildly false and bizarre."

Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh declined comment, saying any investigation into such allegations would be carried out by the FBI. An FBI spokesman said the bureau's policy is not to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

You'll note that Perle engaged in a direct ad hominem attack on Edmonds' character in his direct quote --- a non-denial denial, if you will - but he is not directly quoted as actually denying the charges, even as Jordan reports that Perle "emphatically denied Edmonds' claims in an interview with" So if Perle actually did deny the charges directly, we'll have to take Jordan's word on that for the moment.

It should also be kept in mind that Perle was one of the key Bush Administration players at the State Department advocating war against Iraq both before and after 9/11, claiming Saddam Hussein had WMD and "ties to Osama Bin Laden." He had also been highly critical of the CIA for not acting on information being supplied by Iraqi defectors, such as Aghmed Chalabi and others, whose information was regarded by the agency as dubious long before it was ultimately and fully discredited. All of that is worth keeping in mind as Perle charges that Edmonds is "a nutcase" chasing "imagined demons." also received another general, blanket denial. This one from The Cohen Group, the D.C. lobbying firm where Grossman now serves as Vice Chairman. The Cohen Group has not answered several requests for comment from The BRAD BLOG in the recent past.

As we've previously reported, the firm, which has represented both Turkey and Israel, sells itself with this pitch: "Mastering the complex and often veiled dynamic where government, politics, media, and business intersect requires a rare combination of knowledge, skills and experience. Our Principals bring centuries of experience at the White House, the State Department, the Defense Department, and Congress."

Founded in 2001 by President Clinton's former Republican Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, the company's website goes on to note: "The Cohen Group's reach extends internationally where our Principals have developed great expertise and relationships with key political, economic and business leaders and acquired valuable experience with the individuals and institutions that affect our clients' success abroad."

Instead of receiving a direct denial from Grossman --- who, we presume, declined to respond directly to for some reason --- the article offers a denial from Robert S. Tyrer, co-president of Grossman's lobbying firm:

Edmonds claims that much of the Pentagon information found its way into the hands of both Israeli and Turkish operatives through the State Department, courtesy of Marc Grossman, then assistant secretary of state for political affairs, the third-highest ranking member at State. As she described in her Aug. 8 testimony, "certain people from Pentagon would send a list of individuals with access to sensitive data, whether weapons technology or nuclear technology, and this information would include all their sexual preference, how much they owed on their homes, if they have gambling issues, and [Grossman] would provide it to these foreign operatives, and those foreign operatives would go and hook those Pentagon people."

Robert S. Tyrer, co-president of The Cohen Group, a Washington lobbying firm where Grossman is now a vice chairman, told in an email that Edmonds' allegations against the former ambassador "are completely untrue and ludicrous."

Jordan goes on to offer a direct response from Edmonds to the notion that she has been disclosing all of her information as form of bizarre vendetta, as charged by Perle in his non-denial denial quoted above:

After seven years of silence, Edmonds said she was glad to be able to finally divulge some of what she had been forced to keep in, but she doubted any government agency would seriously pursue her claims. There is no indication the current Justice Department is reopening an investigation, she said, and neither politicians nor mainstream media have shown an interest.

"I did it [testified] under oath," she said. "I have a very successful financial life, I've been married 18 years. I have a family, I have a daughter, I have a lot to lose. I'd have to be either mentally insane or someone who doesn't have anything to lose, [who] just makes allegations and lies under oath," to claim these things if they were not true.

The article also offers information and statements in support of Edmonds from others, such as from 18-year FBI executive John M. Cole. Cole, who, as The BRAD BLOG covered in detail two weeks ago, had corroborated several key elements of Edmonds' allegations, including confirmation that Grossman had been targeted by a "decade-long investigation" by the FBI "which ultimately was buried and covered up." Cole has also called for a "Special Counsel" to be named to "investigate [the] allegations and have people's feet held to the fire. Have them be held accountable for their actions" in this matter.

He also added a chilling note to his comments, which we reported at the time [emphasis taken from his original, recorded statement]: "You know, it really irritates me that people are getting away with murder, in some cases. They should not be allowed to get away with that. There needs to be accountability."

In Jordan's article, Cole comments on an aspect of Edmonds' allegations which have a fresh resonance this week, following the arrest of a top U.S. Dept. of Defense scientist busted by the FBI in a sting operation after he was allegedly attempting to sell nuclear secrets to an undercover agent he had thought was representing Israel:

One of Edmonds' believers is John M. Cole, a former FBI counterintelligence analyst and author of "While America Sleeps: An FBI Whistleblower's Story." Cole, who worked for the bureau 18 years and now works for the Defense Intelligence Agency at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., said the pattern of espionage described by Edmonds is familiar to him.

"In the 1990s I was responsible for Western Europe and Israel [counterintelligence cases]," Cole told "We did have ongoing investigations of officials in the State Department and also the Department of Defense." And he said cases did extend outside the Pentagon, to various Air Force Bases and the RAND Corp. - something Edmonds also stated in her testimony.

As she has previously, Edmonds echoed Cole's statements about "ongoing investigations" of various State and Defense Department officials as well as various contractors. Apparently scientist Stewart David Nozette, who was arrested this week for attempting to sell nuclear secrets to Israel precisely as Edmonds has long charged in her allegations, had been both an official at the Defense Department and a private contractor sharing information he had collected while working at nuclear facilities and the Pentagon.

According to Edmonds, those sought out by Turkish and Israeli agents might actually be working outside the Pentagon. As a result, she testified, the foreign operatives managed to put on their payroll individuals "on almost every major nuclear facility in the United States, RAND Corporation and ... various Air Force labs that develop certain weapons technology."
“There is a black market for everything, including for nuclear-related information, weapons technology,” she told

Finally, in a related note here, we'd like to flag your attention to blogger "Connecticut Man1" who, at ePluribus Media, has been digging and connecting a few interesting dots in the arrest of Nozette, reported by the DoJ to have travelled to an unspecified "Foreign Country A" as part of his alleged Israeli espionage bid. The blogger has collected some information which suggests that "Foreign Country A" could, perhaps, be Turkey, said to have been working very closely with Israel in all of the matters discussed in Edmonds' charges.

"It is starting to look like a conspiracy theorist's dream," Connecticut Man1 concludes, "Or just what Sibel Edmonds was talking about all along."

Uh, yeah. Or, we could just take the discredited Richard Perle's word for it --- as so many in the indispensable U.S. corporate media seem to have done --- that "this woman is a nutcase."

We report, you decide

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2009, 08:27:22 am »
Ex-FBI Translator Claims Spying at DoD

This article is refered to in next post

October 21, 2009|by Bryant Jordan

After seven years of forced silence, a government whistleblower is opening up on what she learned while working as a Turkish translator for the FBI in the wake of 9/11.

In sworn testimony to attorneys on Aug. 8, Sibel Edmonds described a Pentagon where key personnel helped pass defense secrets to foreign agents or provided them names of knowledgeable officials who were vulnerable to blackmail or co-option.

And firmly rooted in this espionage program in the 1990s, according to Edmonds’ deposition, were two men who, with the election of George W. Bush as president in 2000, found themselves in the Pentagon:  Douglas Feith, who would head the Office of Special Plans, and Richard Perle, who would become chairman of the Defense Advisory Board.

"They were 100 percent directly involved," Edmonds told "They were not in the Pentagon [in the late 1990s] but they had their people inside the Pentagon." One of those people, she said, was Larry Franklin, an Air Force officer assigned to the Office of Special Plans who, in 2003, passed classified information to representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Office, or AIPAC. By then Feith was leading the OSP.

Edmonds cautioned that she does not know if these practices are continuing, since she was fired by the FBI in April 2002 after pressing for an investigation into an attempt by a colleague to recruit her for an organization that was itself a target of FBI surveillance.

Perle, today a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and board member for or adviser to other think tanks, including the National Institute for Neareast Affairs and the Center for Security Policy, emphatically denied Edmonds’ claims in an interview with

“This woman is a nutcase. Certifiable,” Perle said. “She makes wild accusations. She was fired from her job, and has been on a vendetta against … imagined demons ever since.”

Feith, in an email to, said: “What I’ve read on the Internet about Ms. Edmonds’s claims about me is wildly false and bizarre.”

Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh declined comment, saying any investigation into such allegations would be carried out by the FBI. An FBI spokesman said the bureau’s policy is not to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

Edmonds, who has degrees from George Washington University and George Mason University, speaks Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani. She got into the world of FBI investigations and counter-intelligence after 9/11, when the FBI contacted her about coming to work as a Turkish translator. In short order she was on the job and translating documents going as far back as the mid-90s, as well as assisting special agents in the field who were monitoring both “foreign entities” and the public officials linked to them.

But not long after she joined the bureau another Turkish translator came on board – Malec Can Dickerson. And in December 2001 Dickerson and her husband, Douglas, then an Air Force major, tried to recruit her to join American Turkish Council -- an organization that was actually being monitored by the FBI. Also, according to Edmonds, Douglas Dickerson had previously worked with Grossman in Turkey and, though assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency, was working for Feith’s OSP and also as a coordinator with the State Department on the Turkey Republics in Central Asia.

Edmonds reported the attempted recruitment, but no action was taken. She said she soon found evidence that Malec Can Dickerson included false information on her FBI job application. Again, no response from officials, she said.

When the FBI finally did act, in March 2002, it was to fire her.  When she appealed her termination and eventually sued, the Justice Department, then under John Ashcroft, invoked a “state’s secret’ privilege to prevent her from talking about what she knew. When Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, looked into her case and found it credible, Ashcroft invoked the same gag order on them.

The Justice Department’s own Inspector General’s report was barred from release by Ashcroft, though when an unclassified version finally became available in 2005 it concluded that “many of Edmonds’s core allegations relating to the co-worker [Malec Can Dickerson] had some basis in fact and were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds.” And though the Justice Department’s IG found the evidence didn’t prove that the co-worker had disclosed classified information, it said the FBI should have investigated the claims more thoroughly.

Since being fired, Edmonds founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, made up of current or former federal employees or contractors who have exposed waste, and abuse in government operations.

Edmonds made her testimony in connection with a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission by U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, against her 2008 opponent, David Krikorian. Krikorian, who ran as an independent, claimed in a political ad that Schmidt took “blood money” from the Turkish government to deny the Armenian Holocaust at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in the first part of the 20th century. Krikorian’s lawyers wanted Edmonds to testify about pressure that Turkish lobbyists have brought to bear in the U.S. to keep politicians from discussing the attempted genocide.

Earlier this month the commission concluded that Krikorian’s “blood money” allegation showed a reckless disregard for the truth, since there was no evidence that money donated to Schmidt by a Turkish-American political action committee came from the Turkish government, according to a report by The Associated Press.

The commission did not make any findings regarding Edmonds’ testimony.

One of Edmonds’ believers is John M. Cole, a former FBI counterintelligence analyst and author of “While America Sleeps: An FBI Whistleblower's Story.” Cole, who worked for the bureau 18 years and now works for the Defense Intelligence Agency at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., said the pattern of espionage described by Edmonds is familiar to him.

“In the 1990s I was responsible for Western Europe and Israel [counterintelligence cases],” Cole told “We did have ongoing investigations of officials in the State Department and also the Department of Defense.” And he said cases did extend outside the Pentagon, to various Air Force Bases and the RAND Corp. – something Edmonds also stated in her testimony.

Cole said he could not identify the people investigated or detail the cases, nor could he say whether anyone named by Edmonds figured into any of his cases.

After seven years of silence, Edmonds said she was glad to be able to finally divulge some of what she had been forced to keep in, but she doubted any government agency would seriously pursue her claims. There is no indication the current Justice Department is reopening an investigation, she said, and neither politicians nor mainstream media have shown an interest.

“I did it [testified] under oath,” she said. “I have a very successful financial life, I’ve been married 18 years. I have a family, I have a daughter, I have lot to lose. I’d have to be either mentally insane or someone who doesn’t have anything to lose, [who] just makes allegations and lies under oath,” to claim these things if they were not true.

Edmonds claims that much of the Pentagon information found its way into the hands of both Israeli and Turkish operatives through the State Department, courtesy of Marc Grossman, then assistant secretary of state for political affairs, the third-highest ranking member at State. As she described in her Aug. 8 testimony, “certain people from Pentagon would send a list of individuals with access to sensitive data, whether weapons technology or nuclear technology, and this information would include all their sexual preference, how much they owed on their homes, if they have gambling issues, and [Grossman] would provide it to these foreign operatives, and those foreign operatives would go and hook those Pentagon people.”

Robert S. Tyrer, co-president of The Cohen Group, a Washington lobbying firm where Grossman is now a vice chairman, told in an email that Edmonds’ allegations against the former ambassador “are completely untrue and ludicrous.”

According to Edmonds, those sought out by Turkish and Israeli agents might actually be working outside the Pentagon. As a result, she testified, the foreign operatives managed to put on their payroll individuals "on almost every major nuclear facility in the United States, RAND Corporation and ... various Air Force labs that develop certain weapons technology."

And the Defense Department wasn’t the only power center targeted by foreign agents and their U.S. helpers, she says. On Capitol Hill, she said, the late congressman Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., disclosed “highest level” intelligence and weapons technology to both Israel and Turkey.

The foreign operatives, themselves, Edmonds told, were motivated by both nationalism and profit. After providing Israeli or Turkish interests with what they wanted from pilfered secrets, she said, they might offer what was left to the highest bidder.

“There is a black market for everything, including for nuclear-related information, weapons technology,” she told “Of course some of these people [operatives] are ‘double-dipping.’”

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2009, 09:22:31 am »
FBI Whistleblower Names Names

Posted By Scott Horton On November 1, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

Interview recorded Oct. 23, 2009. Listen to the interview :

Scott Horton: For and KAOS Radio 95.9 in Austin, Texas, I’m Scott Horton, and this is Antiwar Radio.

I’m happy to welcome to the show Sibel Edmonds and John M. Cole. Of course, I’ve talked with Sibel, the former FBI translator-turned whistleblower, numerous times on this show and various other shows of mine over the years, and this will be the first time we have John Cole joining her.

Her old archives are there at Her own Web sites are and At you can find her sworn deposition in a recent civil case from August of 2009, and at The American Conservative magazine, which is, you can find the interview by former CIA officer and regular, Philip Giraldi, called "Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?" :

And John M. Cole is a former FBI agent and whistleblower. He’s the author of While America Sleeps: An FBI Whistleblower’s Story. And so I’d like to welcome you both to the show.

John M. Cole: Thank you.

Sibel Edmonds: Thank you.

Horton: I’m very happy to have you here. And John, I’m sorry, I actually have your bio here from the National Security Whistleblower’s Coalition, but I actually thought I would ask you to introduce yourself so that you can explain exactly what your job at the FBI was, because I think the last I heard I didn’t quite understand – some sort of executive or something. I didn’t know exactly what that meant.

Cole: No, I was not an executive. Basically what I was doing at the bureau, I had numerous positions. But when I started out in the bureau my first assignment was working with Bob Hansen. He was actually my supervisor in the Soviet unit. And then I was transferred to the front office for the counter-intelligence division and worked with Assistant Director Jim Geer and Tom DuHadaway was the deputy. I did that for a few years and then moved on to working the 203 program which was basically all of the counterintelligence investigations that we had in the bureau on mostly western Europe and Israel. I did that from ‘93 to ‘95. And then from ‘95 to ‘98 I was down at Quantico and I ran the FBI’s counterintelligence Operational Training Center. In ‘98 to 2000 I worked undercover, and then from 2000 I went back to headquarters and I worked the Southeast Asia desk, and I also worked the "PENTTBOM" investigation after 9/11. I was up in the command center of the bureau, the "SIOC," our command center, working the PENTTBOM investigation for several months until I finally resigned in March of 2004.

Horton: I’m sorry, can you repeat that last one? Which one for the last several months there?

Cole: Oh, "PENTTBOM." It was the 9/11 investigation. Right after the attacks on 9/11, the day after, I was up in the FBI’s command center working that case. We called it the "PENTTBOM" investigation.

Horton: Oh, I see. Well, and what a good place to dive into the most controversial part of Sibel Edmonds’s recent revelations to Philip Giraldi in The American Conservative magazine and the testimony in the civil deposition in this court case in August: that the United States, under the CIA? – I’m not exactly sure, Sibel – had covert operations in cooperation with, quote, unquote, "the mujahedin" and including, quote, you say to Philip Giraldi here, "bin Ladens," all the way up until 9/11. Can you repeat that part of the story and tell us as much as you can there?

Edmonds: Correct. You basically summed it up pretty well. And it was not the CIA based on what we gathered, it was always referred to as the State Department.

Horton: Well, I guess Giraldi says in here he thinks that’s a euphemism for the CIA, but you don’t seem to think so?

Edmonds: Well, it was very interesting because some of the actors who were involved in these operations at the higher level, they were in touch with the target diplomatic community that we have counterintelligence investigations on, they were actually outside the government, or appear to be outside the government and they were involved in private businesses.

Horton: Well, and I guess this is kind of a confusing point, right?: between what is an officially sanctioned illegal act, a covert activity with a presidential "finding" behind it, and what is just government employees participating in criminal black markets for their own ends. John, can you explain at all what she’s talking about here?

Cole: Well there’ve been a lot of theories on that. I know when I was in the bureau there’s been a lot of espionage investigations that we had on State Department officials and also DoD employees. The thing is though, we know for a fact also that there were other people involved in helping the bin Laden family get out of the country right after 9/11, and there was some other things going on, illegal activity like Sibel stated to assist the family also. Certainly she’s accurate in stating that. I can’t get into any specifics on who we investigated in the State Department, but I will say that we did have some espionage investigations and criminal investigations on individuals in the State Department at that time.

Horton: Well that’s another thing that’s not clear in the interview Sibel, is that I believe you say Marc Grossman made some phone calls and I think you’ve told me this before, at least in bits and pieces, that Marc Grossman made some phone calls to have some Turks released. And there was a worry that they would "let the cat out of the bag." Although it’s not clear whether you’re talking about something about September 11th or just the Turkish spy/crime ring in general.

Edmonds: I did not mention or use Marc Grossman’s name or his involvement to start with. First of all, that information was made public by several other reporters before, and it was after that that I went on the record and talked about his role and his importance in the counterintelligence investigation that FBI was conducting.

Horton: Well is that part right, that he made a phone call?

Edmonds: That’s number one. And I never talk about the methods of intelligence gathering. I said it was based on his order from the State Department and I did not state…. That’s why it’s good to correct these, because there’s a lot of misinformation out there. There were two people from Uzbekistan and two people from Turkey. And they were arrested right after September 11th in New Jersey. And they were detained. And this was both operations jointly by FBI and also the immigration department. And it was then the target Turkish diplomatic community individuals who were targeted by the FBI’s surveillance, they were arranging with Mr. Grossman – and he was in the State Department at the time – to get these individuals out without being interrogated and sent back, deported to Turkey, without being interrogated. And that’s exactly what took place. And again, these files came not from counterintelligence, from counter-terrorism, it was not Washington’s field office, it was from New Jersey, from the Patterson area. So these are all these little things that sometimes people hear and they go and repeat it and there’s just a lot of false information. It’s good, I’m glad I’m getting a chance here to give you the facts of "here is the story on that."

Horton: Well, me too. And listen, I’ve been covering this story for a long time and it’s come out in a lot of bits and pieces, Sibel. It’s kind of hard to keep straight exactly. I’m afraid I still don’t understand really whether you’re saying that the information you came across here was, people in the American government doing something illegal and underhanded, or something that was official and very chain of command, it’s just scandalous, kind of a thing. It was a State Department order you say, that he do this?

Edmonds: Right. It was a specific State Department order to get these guys released and deported to Turkey because of sensitive diplomatic relations. Now some of these people may have had diplomatic immunity because they were connected to intelligence service of other countries. So without getting into specifics and details, and I don’t think any loyal FBI employee, I’m not talking about loyal to the management, but to what truly is classified, would not talk about the specifics because I don’t know if some other right now even foreign governments are surveilling those people who were deported back to Turkey, those four individuals. But in this particular case it was an official decision. It was an official decision between the diplomatic community here, for Turkey, and the State Department person, Marc Grossman, to get these individuals out of detention and deport them back to Turkey. And there’s a period after that. That is one story. Now what was the justification for it? Did these people possess extremely important information? I don’t know. We don’t know. The agents never got to find out. And these are some of the questions that haven’t been answered in many, many, many cases. Nothing. And John Cole just referred to one, why the bin Laden family were allowed, without being interrogated, to leave the country. That’s an official decision. The story ends there. Period. What did they know? We don’t know. Why did they do it? We don’t know. We can speculate, but we don’t know.

Horton: You can see why though, from here, this is a much more scandalous story, as scandalous as that is – which it’s obviously horrible. It was somebody’s discretion there in the official chain of command. It would be a much different story if we were talking about State Department employees intervening for their friends in this illegal spy ring that they’re part of outside of the chain of command just committing felonies on their own.

Cole: I’d like to interrupt for one second if you don’t mind.

Horton: Please.

Cole: A couple of things, a couple of points, one that Sibel hit on. She’s absolutely right in regards to a lot of the FBI agents that are out there working in the field are given orders to stand back or to do certain things and they have no idea why. That comes from headquarters level, that comes from executive level at headquarters.

Edmonds: Right.

Cole: And the thing is, in order for those individuals to leave, when she’s talking about the State Department intervening and making sure these people were released and sent back to Turkey, that would have had to come from higher up than just one person at the State Department. That would have had to come from the White House in order for them to leave.

Horton: All right. And John, tell me – you say you worked on the 9/11 investigation after this – when you hear Sibel Edmonds saying that these guys were working with "mujahedin" and "bin Ladens"… Sibel, can you say whether you’re talking about Osama as one of those plural bin Ladens that you’re mentioning there?

Edmonds: Okay, let me state it. For certain operations that we had – and this is we, being the United States. That specific operation that involved Turkey as a proxy started around 1995, 1996 – late 1995, early 1996 – and the central Asian countries, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, those regions together with a certain region that is part of China [were included].

[The Chinese region is] called Xinjiang, but in Turkey they refer to it as "East Turkestan." Some people, they refer to that region as "Uyghuristan." These are, in English they say "Uyghurs," but they are the ethnic Turkish people in this section of [China] that are called in Turkey, and in Turkish, "Uyghurs."

So both bin Laden and the mujahedin were supporting a lot of these operations that we had – the United States – implementing most of it via Turkish proxies. And these are Turkish military people, they were Turkish paramilitary people under MIT [Turkish intelligence] in Central Asia. And for these operations, whether it was channeling some of these mujahedin from Pakistan, from Saudi Arabia, from Afghanistan to Chechnya, and send them as armed people with… given passports by foreign governments, like Azerbaijani passports or with Turkish passports, to go and be involved in certain operations against Russia in Chechnya. Then they were also funneling some of these people through Turkey. First into Turkey, then their passports would change and they would send these people to the Balkans region during the conflict in 1998, in 1999. So for these operations the U.S. operations, we worked very closely with bin Ladens, plural. Not only Osama bin Laden. With certain pretty well known Saudi individuals, with [Pakistani] ISI. But mainly with the Turkish, both military and paramilitary actors in that region.

See, most Americans, they don’t know about Central Asia. Central Asia is not being covered – not really being covered by the mainstream media or the alternative media. So they really don’t think of anything when it comes to Central Asia. Central Asia is going to be the Middle East in less than 10-15 years. That’s my prediction, because a lot of things have been going on in Central Asia, like it did in other regions, in the Middle East, that we are not hearing about, and we are going to be surprised when a lot of this stuff ends up blowing up.

For example the assassination attempt on the [Azerbaijani] President Aliyev in [1995]. That particular operation, they were done by individual states. In this particular operation there were two states involved. The United States and there were these two, official Turkish paramilitary and these people have been part of Turkish military since 1982. So these individuals went there, and they didn’t go from Turkey. They went from Chicago. And this is completely documented. So if you were to go and look at this investigation that occurred in Turkey because there were a lot of [unintelligible] and outrage once this scandal was leaked, that these Turkish paramilitary individuals were doing these assassination attempts on behalf of the U.S. in Central Asian countries, they were running these casinos in Azerbaijan, in Kazakhstan, in Turkmenistan, and also the narcotics deals. Formal investigations were launched in 1997, 1998 in Turkey. And this is by Parliament, so this information is on the record. Just Americans don’t know about it because it was widely reported in European media. It was the headlines for months and months in France, in the United Kingdom, in Germany, but not here. It was never mentioned. So these individuals, the culprit in this case, who actually attempted to assassinate Aliyev, even though he was most wanted by Interpol at the time, this is between 1989 and 1995, he lived in Chicago. From Chicago he went to Turkey, he went to Azerbaijan, he went several times into Beijing and from Beijing. And they didn’t stop his entries and exits. This is documented stuff. But nobody in the United States would know about it because the entire scandal and the implication of the U.S. operations within these scandals have been covered up. So it’s very hard to talk about this issue without having a lot of historical background provided to the audience.

Horton: Well there’s a little bit of historical background that I think ought to be right at peoples’ fingertips, which is all the stories about Paul Wolfowitz’s proposal of a coup d’état in the lead up to the Iraq War because the Turkish government wasn’t going along with letting us invade from Turkey. And that’s another part of your story, Sibel.

Edmonds: No. This part of it, I don’t know if it was criminal. This part of it at the time it was not of importance to the agents I worked with. This is when individuals from the Pentagon, they contact, I can’t tell you phone, I can’t tell you e-mail, but when they contact directly, the high level diplomatic people, whether it’s the highest level person in the Turkish military attaché or the highest level person in the embassy. These were official discussions, and this was before 9/11, about plans to attack Iraq, and how that planned state was, and what they wanted, and what Turkey wanted. So this in no way was considered illegal in the FBI because the counterintelligence agents, the FBI counterintelligence agents were not interested, rightfully. Because they were looking for spies in this particular operation. So just the fact that official people from the Pentagon and the State Department were talking with high level diplomatic Turkish people on planning to attack Iraq before September 11th was of no interest to them. Rightfully, because it was the wrong division. This is not something that the FBI finds interesting. But of course after September 11th, after the whole debacle with Iraq, now when you look back it was like, "Oh my God, these guys were planning this." Well later they used September 11th, they used the weapons of mass destruction and all those lies that we found out. But at the time when these communications were being recorded, being from one official to another official, it was, okay, they’re chatting about Iraq. Going and invading Iraq. It was going to be basically the UK and the United States.

Horton: Well I believe you say out loud in the Philip Giraldi interview at The American Conservative magazine, you name not just the neocons at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, but you also say that James Baker and Brent Scowcroft were in on these negotiations as well, is that right?

Edmonds: Correct. They have been working for Turkish lobbyists for a long time. But they were not negotiating on behalf of the United States government. They were negotiating with the United States officials on behalf of Turkey. They were the ones who were preparing the reports, submitting it to the Pentagon and saying why it was important to let Turkey take care of northern Iraq and militaristically, logistically they were trying to justify Turkey’s demand. That these were the reasons for the United States to agree with Turkey to take care of northern Iraq in this plan. But the Pentagon didn’t want to have Turkey play any role. They were already working with the Kurds in northern Iraq and that pissed off Turkey. Later Turkey said the reason they didn’t allow U.S. troops to go through their base there was because the public, people in Turkey, 92%, they didn’t want this to happen. Well it’s true that 92% in Turkey didn’t want this to happen, but the Turkish military, Turkish government, has never listened to the Turkish public. So that was just an excuse which made them more popular in Turkey with the public because that was true: the people in Turkey didn’t want this. But that was not the reason for the decision. The reason for the decision was, Turkey was pissed because already the Pentagon and British government had plans in place, they were working in northern Iraq with the Kurds and they didn’t want to get this thing murky with Turkish interference with northern Iraq.

So that’s as simple as that. Now is there a conspiracy there? I don’t know. Is this illegal? I don’t think so. This is how diplomatic communities talk to each other. So if you’re listening to, I’m just going to give an example, an ambassador of Pakistan, or today let’s say the ambassador of Afghanistan here is talking with Hillary Clinton, this is the kind of garbage you’re going to be listening to that are going to be highly explosive. But are these illegal? No. Are these terrible foreign policy decisions not for the public interest here in the United States?

Horton: Absolutely.

Edmonds: Terrible foreign policy? Surely. And the people have the need to know. They should know.

Horton: Now before we get into all this pilfering nuclear secrets, John, I want you to address the question of Sibel Edmonds’s credibility, because, of course, many of the things that she talks about, although there is corroboration of certain parts of it in the media in bits and pieces, basically she’s sort of a single source saying a lot of these things. It has been, at least so far, pretty easy for people to just dismiss her as not credible for whatever reason. And so being that you’re a former counterintelligence agent from Washington, D.C., and you have come out and vouched for her before, I was hoping maybe you could just explain to people why it is that you find her credible, and as part of that, maybe if you could tell us about her job description, just how much she would know, and also whether or not what she says comports – or to what degree what she says comports – with the facts as you already know them. Here she was a translator and you were the guy way up the ladder.

Cole: I can tell you right now, there was an article that came out, I think it was in the Washington Post in 2002, it named Sibel Edmonds in the headline naming that also. And at that time I was still at FBI headquarters and I went into work that day and one of the executives on the 7th floor came to me and said, "Hey, did you know that your name is in the paper?" I said, no, I didn’t realize that. They said, "Well, it’s on the director’s desk." I thought, "Oh, crap." But I read the article and I didn’t know who Sibel Edmonds was at the time. So I asked somebody. I said, who’s this Sibel Edmonds? And they told me, well, she’s a translator and they explained to me exactly what transpired with Sibel. And I wanted to talk to Sibel. I said, "Boy, I’d like to talk with this person," because I too came out and wrote letters to the director of the FBI and told him my concerns about espionage with some language specialists in the FBI. And what Sibel was saying made a lot of sense to me, because from personal experience I saw it too. But they didn’t want me to talk to Sibel, so I was unable to get in touch with Sibel.

But somebody in the FBI and executive level on the 7th floor told me one morning, they said, "The director better be careful because everything Sibel stated is absolutely true. They’ve investigated it and they looked into it and it’s absolutely true." But you know, and the woman I talked to said, "However, it will be interesting to see how the bureau handles this."

Well anyway, after a few years I finally got in touch with Sibel, and met Sibel and talked to her, and we talked about specifics of what happened to her and what information she knew and I told her a little bit about what I knew from the investigations I worked, and they all matched up. Just right along the line. I said, "Yes, I’m aware of that. I know we had an investigation on that." And I won’t go into specifics about who we investigated because I can’t. But I can tell you that everything that she stated to me at the time was 100% accurate. And I said, "This woman is incredible. She knows an awful lot of information. And what she’s telling me, what she told people in her office up the chain of command is absolutely correct."

There’s no reason why she should have been let go. A matter of fact, she should have gotten a medal for the information she was providing headquarters’ management. They should have acted on it, they should have taken care of it and they should have rewarded her for coming forward and bringing these issues to the attention of management. But they didn’t do that. I know for a fact that some of the things that Sibel discusses, as far as espionage cases that she brought up in regards to State Department officials and regards to Department of Defense officials, is absolutely correct. In fact, one of the people that she named as far as committing espionage in the FBI, I’m very familiar with that case involving her husband – the translator’s husband.

Horton: We’re talking about Melek Can Dickerson and Douglas Dickerson.

Cole: Yes I am. And so I’m very familiar with that. She was 100% on that. I haven’t found anything that she hasn’t been 100% on. As far as a language specialist in the bureau, in her job they gather a ton of information. And this information that they get is very, very sensitive information. The information comes in from whatever document that needs to be translated. They translate that and they send it to the case agent who uses it for his individual case against that subject. So they’re getting the firsthand knowledge, firsthand information…

Horton: Well now critics would say, "Yeah, but another word for that is ‘raw intelligence.’ And after all, she’s just a translator and whatever she says she thinks happened because she overheard something, she’s not really in a position to know and she’s probably taking a lot of this stuff out of context," John.

Cole: Well I disagree with that. Yeah, some of it is raw intelligence as you put it. But a lot of that intelligence that you’re getting is direct conversations, for example it could be direct conversations between two individuals. And that could be over different methods that they use at the FBI. So in that respect she would have firsthand knowledge of, let’s say, someone speaking to somebody else about a specific operation that they were planning or a specific threat that they felt that they were threatened with or whatever. She would have got that information firsthand, she would have passed it to the case agent, the case agent then would have used that in this investigation to try to counter that threat, whatever the threat would be.

Edmonds: And I want to add something here, and that’s another important point that, again, most people who are not familiar with the intelligence world and how this works. They just don’t understand so they just simplify, "Okay, you basically put on a headset and you translate and you just have ‘raw data.’" And again, that’s why I gave the interview to Phil Giraldi, because Phil Giraldi won’t be ignorant enough to make that kind of statement. Because he knows the intelligence world and he has worked with language specialists. One of the other things that John would expand upon is, while the case agent may be looking at – a particular case agent of a particular operation – one, or two, or three targets, the language specialist will be translating and briefing six, seven, eight, nine different agents on different cases. So while agent A may not know anything that is going to agent B from the language specialist and his case, even though they may be related, the language specialist sits in the center, retrieves all this information and then disseminates…

Cole: Mmm hmm [affirmative].

Edmonds: Therefore the language specialist would know about nine different cases, nine different field offices maybe, two different operations while each agent would have their own little window, need to know basis, task of a particular target.

Cole: Well that’s exactly correct. I mean, when I was at headquarters, especially in ‘93 to ‘95 when I was working Western Europe and Israel, I had 300 ongoing investigations at one time. I knew what cases involved, one particular country was involved say in L.A., San Francisco or New York. My job was to assist the field agents into approving whatever they needed to run their operation. The information that would come from the language specialists would come up, and Sibel is exactly right, you might intercept some information and get the information and would talk about several different items that might be used for, let’s say, the agent out in San Francisco that was doing his operation, the case agent in New York that had an operation going on, at headquarters we try to put that together and say, "Okay, this is what’s going on, this is what they’re looking at and this is what they’re planning."

And we put them all together and we give the case agents, the ones that are on the streets, we give them information about what’s going on throughout the U.S., how they’re operating. If there’s an espionage case, how they’re assessing and recruiting, and so on and so forth. A language specialist, they get that information. It would be no different than if there was a criminal case for example, and you intercepted a telephone conversation and said that we’re going to have the bust go down on 0900 on this date, and this is who’s involved, and this is what we want you guys to do, and so on and so forth. She’s getting that information, she’s sending it to the case agent who then sets up the operation. So she’s getting a lot of information, she understands what’s going on. I don’t see how she couldn’t understand what’s going on.

Horton: Well, and I think you say, Sibel… Was it in the grand jury testimony where you explain that you might even have to kind of translate dialects and explain why if somebody’s from a certain town this idiom will kind of have that emphasis instead of that? – very subtle kinds of things that you would have to kind of be from Turkey to know.

Edmonds: Right. I’m glad you brought up this point, because in that case, I mean I really love working with these agents because they didn’t have ego issues. The field agents. I’m not talking about the executive level bureaucrats in the headquarters. But all of those agents I worked with, actually, they were great. And they understood that, you know, like the counterintelligence training they have in Quantico and the preparation…. Let’s say they’re assigned to Turkey. Like for example, one of the agents I was working with, he did not even know that the capital city of Turkey was Ankara and not Istanbul. Just didn’t know. Because the bureau didn’t put emphasis in training the agents about the country, the history, the current political individuals in the country, the various differences between, let’s say which section of Turkey would have more tendency towards Islamic extremism, versus which section, let’s say, it’s the Black Sea area, would be more into the Gray Wolf area of ultra-nationalism with criminal elements. You know, the border region with Iran will have different types of M.O. (modus operandi), and dialect and cultures.

So the agents at least were good enough to come and say, "Okay, Sibel," and I’m sure they did it with the other language specialists, the agents, I don’t know. "Tell us. Give us background." In fact the special agent I worked with, at the end of the day he would give me ten keywords – and this actually shows how pathetic FBI was with the computer system. He would give me ten keywords and he would ask me to Google it from home, this is Turkish related stuff, in Turkish and find the stuff, translate it for him and get it to him the next day, brief him, because let’s say one of the suspects we have here was involved with a particular political whatever investigation in Turkey. Okay, I’m just giving an example. So I would bring these keywords, at home I would Google it in Turkish, and I would read newspaper articles on that person. I would sketch a profile for him. I’d say, okay, this guy is purely narc. He is not involved with this particular thing, but he’s purely heroin. He’s a narc guy. But the agent was good enough to know that he didn’t have the resources, they didn’t give them the training and both in terms of education, historical perspective, cultural perspective, they need [the assistance]. That’s why they liked having foreign born language specialists who live in the country, who understood and also who were up to date with the political stuff, the crimes related news in Turkey, because while something wouldn’t make sense in something you intercept without context, it would make a lot of sense if you know, "Ah, this and this is related to this particular thing I read three days ago that has to do with this corrupt chief of police in Istanbul." I’m giving you an example. "And this guy used to work for this corrupt Chief of Police and now he’s in Chicago dealing heroin, therefore he’s actually part of the police network in Turkey."

Well there’s no way for an agent to find out about it unless they have the language specialist who has the skills that are a combination of analyst and linguistic abilities, because you have to do both. Unfortunately they don’t get that with many linguists. I mean we had language specialists who didn’t even have high school diplomas. So basically they acted as stenographers. Listen to this and just put it in there. But I lived in various countries, I have a master’s degree, I have several bachelor’s degrees and I kept up to date with all the current stuff whether it’s in Central Asia, Turkey or Iran. And these agents were great because they wanted to utilize it instead of turning their nose saying, "My God, this makes me look terrible." They were like, "We need this. Great. Help us." And they kept writing commendation letters. I mean the field agents were great. All the ones that I worked with, they were patriotic, great people.

Cole: Well it’s because they were appreciative. They appreciated the help. The problem with the bureau, maybe it’s changed, but I don’t think it has. When I was in the bureau, that’s one thing I could never understand, why they would take agents that were familiar with a specific background of a country – let’s say somebody knew France, lived there, knew the language, the culture, everything else, became an FBI agent – the thing is the bureau would not use that person for any investigations involving the French. They would have him do something else completely different, for whatever reason. I have no idea. We’ve had the same problem with the Arab speaking agents in the bureau. The bureau didn’t want to use them on terrorism investigations for whatever reason.

But as far as the information the language specialists know, they have access to some of the most sensitive stuff that the bureau receives. For example I had done a risk assessment on an individual that wanted to become a language specialist in the FBI. This was right after the attacks of 9/11. And I read the file and I found there was a lot of problems with this individual so I wrote it all up and gave it to the security personnel and the FBI. And as a matter of fact the security specialist told me the same thing. She goes, "Mr. Cole, I’m so glad you saw this because I knew something was wrong." And I told her to go ahead and send it up to the terrorism division so they could do a risk assessment also on this individual. She called me back a week later and asked me who the person was in terrorism that she wanted me to send a file up to. I told her who it was and then she said, "Not that it matters." I said, "What do you mean?" She goes "Well the FBI hired this language specialist and gave her a top secret SCI clearance." And I thought, "Well this is unbelievable. This person’s father was a known intelligence officer. We should not hire this person."

Well, anyway, a few weeks later we had an "un-sub" investigation, which is an unknown subject investigation. We didn’t know who provided the information, but somebody had provided a foreign government, the same government [of the country] this woman was originally from, provided them the information on what techniques the FBI was using against that establishment in D.C. And I knew there was only a handful of people that would have known that information, one was the language specialist, one was the tech agent, the headquarters approving official and the engineers who would have had to put that technique in place. Those are the only people that would have known about that specific item. We opened an "un-sub" investigation on that particular matter and it just disappeared after 90 days.

Edmonds: And I would like to chip in here. He’s absolutely correct on this because that particular language specialist worked three desks from me.


Horton: You know I thought that story sounded a bit familiar there.

Edmonds: Yeah. I was familiar. In fact I reported it to the 9/11 Commission, I reported it to Congress, it was part of my report. It was not, "Oh my God, I know who did 9/11!" It was, "Here are some incidents that were very, very important that the FBI for various reasons, not only did they not investigate but they also covered up." This woman, her name is Hadia Roberts. And this is not John making it public. Another reporter made it public four or five years ago and nobody picked it up in the mainstream media because they didn’t want to. She was from Pakistan. Her father worked for the ISI-Pakistan in the military attaché here in Washington, D.C. under the Pakistani embassy. And Hadia Roberts spoke two languages, Pashtun and Urdu. And she was translating basically information gathered from her father’s colleague, or bosses who were targets. And her father happens to work and associate very closely with General Mahmud who’s name later on became public after September 11th, the ISI general who was forced to resign because of the certain possible involvements with 9/11 or some of the hijackers. We don’t know the answer, I don’t pretend to know the answers. But what I’m saying, the importance for the 9/11 commission, this is one of the reasons I went forward and reported it was because this woman was his daughter. And she actually was listening to, translating information coming from her father’s current at the time and ex-colleague.

Horton: Sibel, am I right that that story is told in Joe Lauria and the others’ series in the Sunday Times?

Edmonds: I’m not sure. It’s been a while.

Horton: Yeah, I’m trying to remember. Because that story has been written about before too, with you as the source I believe, right?

Edmonds: Well that woman has been promoted since. Right now she’s in the FBI’s headquarters, as she’s one of the entire Pakistani division, while her father still goes in and out of Pakistan and is closely associated with ISI.

Cole: I understand they also hired her son.

Edmonds: Correct. She actually brought in her son, who has just graduated from M.I.T.

Horton: Well, John M. Cole, former FBI counterintelligence guy, how can that possibly be that there’s a bunch of foreign agents inside the FBI? I mean if your counterintelligence division can’t keep the FBI clean, how are you guys supposed to be keeping anybody else out from under the influence of foreign powers in this country?

Cole: Well exactly.

Horton: Oh, that was just a rhetorical question I guess, huh?

Cole: I’m serious. There was another issue too. I had a case that was involving a former FBI translator that came to my attention. I was working at the command center on the 9/11 thing and after I worked 12 hours up there, finished our shift up there, I went back to my desk and somebody dropped this folder off on my desk and said, Mr. Cole, I believe this belongs to you. And it was an espionage case. So I open the case up and I start reviewing it and I think, "Well hell, this guy should be arrested." Because there was sufficient evidence in there to make an arrest. However the FBI management had it as a preliminary inquiry, not a full investigation. And I’m thinking, "What the hell is up with this?" So the first thing I did is I authorize a full investigation on the subject. And I said, "I want you guys to work this thing." Well I started getting a lot of resistance from FBI headquarters from management. I took it to my supervisor and I asked him, I said, "Why is this a P.I.? This should be a full investigation. We have all kinds of information. We have a source that’s telling us that this guy is giving them information, this translator is giving this foreign official sensitive information on cases that we have and so on and so forth. We also have a guy that worked undercover who was giving us the information too and we also got it through other techniques that we were using."

I wanted to take it to the US attorney and see if we had enough to make the arrest. And I was told to stand down. And I said, "What do you mean?" And my boss said, "Let me look at the case and let me see what’s going on." Well I kept going back to him and saying, have you had a chance to review the file. He says, well, I haven’t gotten to it yet. Well two or three weeks went by. About the third week I went in there and I said, "Listen, I sent this out as a full investigation, I’m not getting any assistance here from the SAC [special agent in charge] in the field office. He’s not working this thing. What’s going on with this case?" And all I was told was not to worry about it, they went ahead and sent the case to the espionage section in the counterintelligence division. They said, "You know, you shouldn’t be doing this anyway. We have an espionage section now that’s going to be handling this." And that’s the last I heard of it. So the individual basically committed espionage and got away with it.

The thing I didn’t understand – I think a lot of it has to do with politics. When Bob Hansen was arrested for espionage, February 18th [2001], the FBI director came out and stated that, this is terrible, we’re making changes now to make sure that this never happens again. Well after that the bureau didn’t want to make it look like they weren’t doing their job basically, so anything that came up involving an FBI employee they wanted to just go away, it seemed like. The thing that Sibel brought up on the individual that was committing espionage in the language area, they didn’t do anything with that individual. The individual I brought to their attention they did nothing with. The other individual I had a case on they did nothing with. And I think it had to do with, they wanted to make sure, the bureau was getting a lot of bad press and it has to do with politics. They did not want to come out and say, "Oh, we still have problems within the FBI." I think that’s the whole thing.

Edmonds: That’s a good point. And in some cases it has to do with certain diplomatic sensitivities. For example, anything that dealt with Israel or Turkey was completely hushed up and covered up. And this was extremely frustrating for the field agents who worked with the Turkish counterintelligence or Turkish related criminal cases because they would try to get certain warrants which wouldn’t be issued. In fact, the headquarters would shut down – wouldn’t renew – some of the FISA permits. So they were very frustrated because they knew, and this was common knowledge there, that because of the interference by the White House and the State Department especially, is that there was pressure not to pursue cases that involved Israel and Turkey. It was as simple as that.

Horton: Well and John, you actually were quoted by Jeff Stein in Congressional Quarterly saying that you know of 125 open cases of Israeli espionage. I guess that means cases that were opened but then never went anywhere. 125 different ones, is that right?

Cole: Well that was going back some years ago too. I don’t know what it is now. But I worked that program in ‘93 to ‘95 and 125 is a very conservative estimate. I mean there was more than that. And as far as cases go, when I’m talking about cases it could have been on an Israeli official who was here in the country, it could have been on an Israeli owned business that was here in the country. I mean there’s a lot of different aspects to anything involved in counterintelligence I had a lot of investigations on Israeli cases. Let’s put it that way. When I was working in that program from ‘93 to ‘95.

Horton: I’m sorry, it sounded like you were kind of diminishing the 125, even though you say that’s a conservative estimate, you say "That could mean ‘a businessman came to town.’" It could mean nothing.

Cole: No, no, no. Sorry if it came across that way. No, that’s not true. What I mean is we had more than that. I know of 125, there’s probably more than that. Because I had over 300 ongoing investigations at one time involving several different countries. But when I’m talking about 125, that was full investigations. Not preliminary inquiries or…

Edmonds: Right. So they are not some kind of innocent businessmen. It’s the same thing with the Turkish counterintelligence and espionage cases. And that is you may have seven heroin dealers in Chicago. Each one of them would have, you know, it may be under one operation but seven individuals will be targeted. You may have a group of business people who get weapons technology related information here, they deal with certain companies, and those companies issue false end user certificates and they shipped, let’s say, these equipments to countries that are not supposed to be getting those equipments because they the certificate would show that it’s going to Turkey and we don’t have the ban in Turkey. Although the recipients would be in, let’s say, in Libya or it may be in Pakistan, or…. So there would be hundreds of individuals involved. But again, the operation, the target initially would be the foreign individuals. But the individuals who actually committed the real espionage were not those people. Those would be the Americans. That’s when you’re looking at all the nuclear facilities, you’re looking at RAND Corporation, the Pentagon and State Department.

Horton: Speaking of which Sibel, there’s obviously, as you well know, a news story about you there at this week, and I think this is breaking news, it’s the first time that anybody has gotten Douglas Feith or Richard Perle to respond to your allegations against them. Both of them, of course, denied it. It seems like that would be a headline itself.

Edmonds: They are not actually denying it, they’re just calling me names. They are not saying, "Oh, we did not engage in this." They’re just saying, "Oh, this is absolutely crazy," and everything. That is not exactly denying it.

Horton: That’s true. It is sort of a non-denial denial.

Cole: [Laughter.]

CONTINUES   -----------

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2009, 09:24:42 am »

continues :


Edmonds: Surely. And it’s very typical of these individuals.

Horton: Well, please tell me everything you know about these individuals. Everything you learned while at the FBI, not what you’ve read about them since.

Edmonds: People have to go and read the magazine article and also But Perle since 1970 has come under direct FBI investigation that I know of. I have had it confirmed by FBI agents – since I left the FBI, not while I was working at the FBI – at least four times. Four serious espionage cases. Just since 1970s. And this was not even under Turkish – this was outside the Turkish investigation. Turkish counterintelligence investigations. These were all Israel. If you go you will see the documented cases on Douglas Feith. Do you know how many times they have tried to suspend his top security clearance while he was in the Pentagon? Go find it in records because this is public record information. Again, that was on Israel related counter-espionage cases. So these individuals, you’re looking at Douglas Feith and Richard Perle. They have a pretty long track record of these activities. They’ve been getting away with it. And they’re going to get away with it. They are not the only ones. We have so many others.

Horton: Well, now, what exactly are you saying that they did, Sibel?

Edmonds: They sell, they give, they pass to foreign agents from Turkey and Israel, the most sensitive nuclear and conventional weapons technology and also policy-related information. And those individuals, not only the foreign individuals and the operatives not only use this information for those states, Israel and Turkey, they also sell it in the open market, to whoever is the highest bidder. This has been going on for decades. It’s been going on at least since 1989. Just for the Turkish counterintelligence

Horton: In the American Conservative article, as far as I can tell, you only accuse Perle and Feith of collecting information on people to compromise them, I think. You’re going much further than that now aren’t you?

Edmonds: No. This is when they were outside the Pentagon. This was during the years until 2000, when they were getting the names of these people and their information, marital status, financial and they would pass it to operatives to go and recruit them when they were not providing their own firsthand. But these people, they provided basically anything that were asked of them by these two countries. Anything.

Cole: So they were committing espionage is what you’re saying.

Edmonds: Yes.

Horton: Well John, have you ever investigated Richard Perle?

Cole: I can’t tell you. I really can’t say. I can’t get into any specific investigations that I was involved in. That would get me in trouble.

Horton: Well, can you say whether you learned anything at the FBI, such as you said before people told you that what Sibel Edmonds said was right, that kind of thing. Anybody ever tell you that Richard Perle was a spy?

Cole: No one came out and stated that exactly like that, but I’ll put it this way: that name came up a few times. I’ll state that.

Horton: Okay. In the context of counterintelligence investigations?

Cole: Yes.

Horton: Sibel, you’re saying that these two men were involved in this broader ring of pilfering nuclear secrets from I think you said the Sandia and Lawrence Livermore Labs, both, is that right?

Edmonds: Individuals within those facilities were targeted, so they were the ones who actually stole the information – whether they were scientists, whether they were Air Force officers in a certain Air Force base that was involved with nuclear weapons technology. And they did it for peanuts. There were some people passing extremely important, valuable information for as little as a few thousand dollars when the going rate for this information was hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Horton: And you’re saying it was Perle who was fencing this stuff?

Edmonds: He was one of the individuals. The person who was most active with this was the State Department person who has been named, who was named even before this article came out, Marc Grossman.

Horton: Yeah, he has indeed been named in a few different parts of this. In fact another part of this story is, to some degree or another at least Sibel, and I hope you can help me understand, the outing of "Brewster Jennings." I believe some people have written, although I don’t think this is correct, that this actually involved the outing of Valerie Plame before…

Edmonds: No. It has nothing to do [with it]. I had not heard that name until long after I left the FBI.

Horton: I thought that was the case. I wanted to make sure about that. I believe you say though that Grossman, to some degree or another, outed Brewster Jennings before Robert Novak outed Brewster Jennings. That would be the CIA front company that Valerie Plame worked for.

Edmonds: Long before. Correct.

Horton: And can you tell us – I know you can’t say the name of the phone company that the wire tap was through or anything like that, but can you give us some context of how it is exactly that you know this?

Edmonds: American Turkish Council, and people can go and look it up. I won’t eat up your time explaining the American Turkish Council is the big, just like AIPAC even though they are not listed as lobbyists. It’s a big lobby for business. And a lot of Turkish businessmen, Turkish military-industrial complex related people, they are all part of this. And the Americans, Northrop Grumman, Boeing…. So you can go and check that site. So Brewster Jennings related, titled people, people who introduce themselves as analysts for Brewster Jennings, as a company, Brewster Jennings here in Virginia. They were frequenting the American Turkish Council and certain people from the Turkish business and combination of military interest people, they were planning, they were in touch with Brewster Jennings and the American Turkish Council, and they had government business of course. And they were planning to hire Brewster Jennings to be the intermediary for some of the operations they were involved in. Some of them legal purchases, but some of them – the legal purchases or the legal operations were a front to do their illegal nuclear related operation. And they were trying to basically hire Brewster Jennings. And this had gone to the State Department person who was, somebody else named him. Marc Grossman. And Marc Grossman specifically contacted, and I can’t tell you whether it was fax, e-mail, phone or any of that, a very high level person in the Turkish diplomatic community and told that person "Do not do this, do not hire them, they are the government front. They are a front for the government."

Horton: So you’re saying that for example, if I could try to put words in your mouth here Sibel, you can clarify them. It sounds like you’re being pretty clear that he did not sort of, you know, mention, "Oh yeah, you know Brewster Jennings is a CIA front" to somebody over lunch at the country club and that’s how the secret got out. He went and deliberately gave warning.

Edmonds: Yes. It was a deliberate warning. Because prior to that discussion he must have received that information, that they were about to hire because he specifically said, this company Brewster Jennings is a front for the government and you just stay away from them. And the recipient of that information made follow-up communication arrangements with other nations. Intelligence operatives here within the United States and passed that information to them. "Do not touch Brewster Jennings, they are a front for the government." And this happened in August of 2001. It was towards the end of August 2001 and the agents, they passed this information to the appropriate division. I guess it would be CIA. And it was dismantled. That company was dismantled. So there was no such a thing that she was working for that company she was at. That company didn’t exist. Has not existed for years. Or at least a year or so.

Horton: And you learned that while you were still at the FBI, that they had already taken the thing down before Bob Novak ever said anything about it?

Edmonds: It was third-hand information. Because the agent that I worked with for that particular division, he sent this information to the FBI’s counterespionage division and then the headquarters people, then it was their job to notify the appropriate agency. In this case my guess is it would be the CIA – because I didn’t even know it was CIA. It could have been the Department of Energy. What he told me was that they took the appropriate action and they notified the agency and basically they cover it up. Now they have to do, this is what he referred to as a "damage assessment." Because whoever was the agency, which in this case now it was the CIA, they have to do a damage assessment to see if there were any cover, any people who were compromised as a result of it already.

Horton: And you also heard tell then, third hand information even, that as a result of that damage assessment the CIA closed Brewster Jennings down?

Edmonds: I’m not sure if CIA as an agency was used, just the fact that cover front operation was dismantled and after it was dismantled they were doing damage assessments. It was dismantled, then they were doing damage assessments. It was, according to the agent who told me, it would take almost a year to do damage assessment because they were very bureaucratic with it at the agency.

Horton: All right, John M. Cole, former FBI counterintelligence agent here, is she right that this country is crawling with Turkish and Israeli spies and American citizens who participate in their efforts to pilfer our nuclear weapons secrets, and that this is continuing? I guess you’re implying at least, that nobody ever stopped it, that it apparently continues to this day? What is going on here?

Cole: I’d like to think that wasn’t the case, but it’s a fact. I mean it’s not just the Israelis and the Turks. There’s other foreign governments that are also here gathering and collecting intelligence.

Horton: Well now if the Russians were stealing hydrogen bomb things you guys would stop them, right?

Cole: Oh, yeah. We hope. [Laughter.] We hope. And when I was in the bureau and we had investigations on, like I said, on the Israelis and the Turks also, the thing with that is, and let me just clarify something, a lot of times when we run an investigation on a foreign national, especially if that individual has diplomatic immunity, a lot of times the American public don’t hear what happens, but a lot of times we’ll find that person was doing something, that they weren’t supposed to here. Then they wind up getting T&G out of the country and that’s the end of it. There’s no arrest made for example. The arrests come if the person is a U.S. citizen that is providing information to that foreign government and is committing espionage.

Horton: Like Larry Franklin.

Cole: Right.

Horton: You know, years ago John, Sibel said to me, "You know, a lot of these cases are all one big onion. You need to start peeling the different layers." And I don’t think she was saying that she was privy to all these different investigations but that they all clearly involve a lot of the same players. And it was interesting to me to note that Larry Franklin in his interview with the Forward said – of course he was accusing the FBI of being a bunch of anti-Semites, and I guess I’ll let you speak to that if you want to bother defending yourself from that spurious charge – But as proof, he was saying that they were going after all of his buddies at the Pentagon, meaning Perle, Feith and the guys that ran the Office of Special Plans and so forth. It looks like the FBI agents going after those guys, if what Larry Franklin says is true, were certainly stifled into getting the lowest man on the totem pole on that.

Cole: Well I can say that the case agents, the guys that go out there and do their investigations and make the arrests, the field agent, they want to get out there and they want to do what they can to make sure that no one is committing espionage. And if they are they want to make sure that they’re arrested. And that’s the way it normally goes. The problem being is that a lot of times they get upset because they’re not allowed to do their job. FBI headquarters, somebody at headquarters, normally on the 7th floor in the executive level, they’re the ones that are directing him to say, "Okay, we’ve got to stop this," or "We’ve got to let this one go," or whatever. And a lot of it has to do with political reasons. If we went out and arrested a bunch of people who were spying for Israel, then all of a sudden we’re the bad guys. We’re "anti-Semitic" and this, that and the other thing. Just for doing their job basically. That’s not the case. We go out and do investigations on anybody who commits espionage. It just so happens since Israel is such a good ally, close ally with us, that a lot of times things are overlooked. Just, "Oh well, they made a mistake. No big deal." And unfortunately that’s the case.

Edmonds: And this despite the fact that these people, these operatives, whether Turkish or Israeli, not only that they use it for themselves but they also pass it to their people or for money, for just black market model to any country that pays for it. They deal it. They deal it as dealers. So whether or not they are our allies, the individual operators also have their own leeway of what to do. "Yeah, I did it for my government, but I can also go ahead on the side and make cash with this." And that’s jeopardizing American security. And it’s not really outsiders. The American security is being jeopardized by certain Americans. And these secrets that we have, a lot of these secrets are from the American public, not from those foreign people we’re trying to protect these secrets from, because they have access. It’s just the American people that are in the dark. And as far as the "anti-Semitism" is concerned, I mean a lot of agents were just so disgusted with this card being played over and over. And I’m happy to see that since they have played this card so much, the number of disgusted individuals is increasing. So I feel bad for people who are not engaged, you know, that they are from the Jewish religion and they are not engaged, because they are being victimized by those who use this propaganda of using constantly "anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism." Because it’s backfiring on all of them, and it’s going to.

Cole: Well you’ve got to understand also, there’s a huge lobby in the U.S., Israeli lobby in the U.S. too. And they put a lot of pressure on politicians and other people also.

Edmonds: Right. They would have to arrest half of our United States Congress. So that would present a dilemma.

Horton: Now hold on right there. Because there is a big difference isn’t there, between knowing that you need the lobby’s support to run for Congress and so therefore voting in a pro-Israel way and being, I don’t know, Jane Harman or someone who commits a quote, unquote, "completed crime," and agreeing to obstruct justice and break the law, right?

Edmonds: No, but there’s a middle ground, Scott. You know it better than anyone else, or better than many people, and that is, they pass a lot of legislation that affects our foreign policy and what we do and the decisions we make.

Horton: Sure.

Edmonds: It may not be Jane Harman passing, or Dennis Hastert only passing information. But just by legislating alone or by sanctioning or approving certain operations, by approving funds for certain operations they also can serve the interest of another country by compromising and sacrificing our foreign policy, our troops, our people’s lives.

Horton: Again, this is where we get to that line, and you’re right, it’s certainly a gray thing when you talk about the law and policy. And when policy is to break the law, then how is it supposed to work in any of this? It all kind of falls apart. But there clearly is a difference though – right? – between making an agreement to commit a felony with agents of the Mossad versus being just a run of the mill Congressman who knows he basically has to vote pro-Israel to keep his job.

Edmonds: Well sure. But even if they are not engaged in espionage activities directly. Let’s say with Tom Lantos that was not the case. Tom Lantos never considered himself to be an American. Never did. This was a known fact by all the agents, not only from the Turkish department but from the Israeli counterintelligence desk, again, which was all operated from the same Washington field office. But outside that you had congressman, not only to get these funds but to get them illegally. And also let certain facilitators lobby people to be intermediaries to launder money and get rid of their footprint so that they can get that foreign money even though these Congressional people knew it was coming directly from let’s say foreign governments. So knowingly accepting that it’s either considered not only unethical but criminal because the reason they’re trying to get it off the footprint is because it is criminal.

Horton: Yeah. Well and for example after David Rose’s piece in Vanity Fair back in 2005. In fact I guess in that article, they talked about how he and his team of lawyers and whoever, they went and checked and they could see how Dennis Hastert had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, far higher than the average of any other congress people, in the very smallest payments, $199 and less, that don’t have to have a name attached to them.

Edmonds: Exactly.

Horton: Which, you know, wasn’t solid proof necessarily, but was a pretty strong clue that what you had been saying about how he had been paid off was right. That clearly, you know, when we’re talking about a briefcase full of cash, that’s clearly criminal behavior there I think.

Edmonds: That solid proof came later. In 2007 he resigned and immediately he signed up as a lobbyist for the government of Turkey. He is a registered foreign agent. So he is registered under FARA. This is after he got out of Congress. This was right after he got out of Congress. And now he’s receiving the known number of $35,000 a month, per month, from directly of the government of Turkey. This is the rest of the thank you that has to go from the government of Turkey to Dennis Hastert. And he was bold enough to do it without even a blink. He basically got out of Congress and registered himself as an agent of the government of Turkey.

Horton: We’ve left poor John M. Cole out of the conversation for a little while here. John, let me give you a chance to address anything you think should have been addressed in this interview that I didn’t get to, as far as helping the people in the audience kind of understand how serious this is, what we’re up against. And I guess I’d like to give you a chance to call for prosecution as you were quoted as doing on Peter Collins’s show a few weeks ago.

Cole: Well I guess what I have to say is that, I think Sibel is right in that I think a majority of Americans want to know the truth, what’s going on. I think a lot of Americans are just fed up with all the scandal in the government. There needs to be accountability, there needs to be better oversight. And that’s just not happening. And that’s the whole point I have in my book is that here are some issues that come up, this is what’s happened and no one is being held accountable for their actions. I think that’s a big thing here. I think there needs to be accountability. The media doesn’t want to discuss it or print it in their papers because if it goes into the paper, what I noticed, and John Drake was a [unintelligible] investigator once told me, he goes, "You know it will go in the paper one day, it will be a big uproar that day and then the next day everybody forgets about it." And that seems to be the case. It’s gotten to the point in our country though, it’s become so divided now that I think everybody is fed up and they want to know the truth, what’s going on. I think there needs to be some sort of outlet for the people to find out exactly what is going on. What is the truth and hold these people accountable. If somebody commits a crime in this country they should be arrested and they should be prosecuted. There’re a lot of people getting away with a lot of things in this country. It’s just not right.

Horton: Which reminds me of what you said to Peter Collins, as quoted at the BradBlog. People "getting away with murder" you said. And in fact Brad was over here for an interview in the studio and we went back and we listened to the audio of that part of the interview just to make sure that you really earned those italics where he put them in the quote and so forth. And yeah, it sure did sound to my ear like you were not talking about, "Boy, they get away with blue, bloody murder." It sounded like you were talking about was "Yeah, they get away with murdering people."

Cole: I didn’t mean it in that respect. What I mean by that is it seems like you have officials who are high up in our government that do things that are so farfetched, I mean so illegal and then no one touches them. No one wants to pursue it for whatever reason.

Horton: So what you did mean is they get away with blue, bloody murder, but not in the literal sense.

Cole: Exactly. I hope not literal.

Horton: Not as far as you know.

Cole: As far as I know, no.

Horton: So the book, John M. Cole, While America Sleeps, an FBI Whistleblower’s Story. That’s on the shelves available now, right?

Cole: I believe so, yes.

Edmonds: It’s a great book. It’s sincere and this is what Americans will get. It is sincerely written, none of those entertaining touched up by hundreds of people kind of a book. They will get to hear John Cole.

Cole: Well what I’m hoping is it makes a change. I think people need to know what’s going on and they need to wake up. Our country, we need to wake up and take care of these issues before another 9/11 occurs or before something else happens in our country. If we don’t, something will definitely happen again, because there’s so many things that need to be changed. And there’s people that need to be held accountable. If that doesn’t happen then we’re in a world of trouble.

Horton: Well my understanding is that the publisher sent one on its way to me. So I hope to read it and have you back on the show to discuss the book in detail soon John.

Cole: I appreciate that.

Horton: I think there’s a point that can be made here, which is a news story in itself really, which is that you’re starting a new news site with your own in-house reporters, including two that I hold in very high esteem, Peter Lance and Joe Lauria, to start. Tell us all about that Sibel.

Edmonds: Right. I have contract arrangements with several seasoned veterans, with proven track record investigative journalists. These people as you know, Joe Lauria, Peter Lance, or in this case also Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald. These people have been doing the real investigative work stories for many, many years. Because I’ve found out that there are these reporters who are disenfranchised because they are disgusted with the mainstream media, some of them are even being booted out with the cutbacks. But they don’t like the pseudo alternative media. You can go and list some of the popular ones, they get nauseated even by their names, and I understand. So they don’t feel like they have a home. They want to do work, but they don’t want to be driven with that partisanship, you know. I’m suddenly an editor or reporter. I have an e-mail account and I have a cell phone. I can call and say, give me a comment. I’m a reporter. I report. So I have been talking to these individuals. I have been talking with some really good authors and their names will come out after we have the contract from the editorial people who want to have this option and say, "Okay, let’s try together, and Sibel, we are willing to produce this." Now let’s find out if the American people, especially those who have been as disgusted as I have been with the current state of this media, what we have available, will support it. Because you don’t need a really huge gigantic budget. You’re not going to try everything for everyone. You can’t be everything for everyone. That’s when you get Michael Jackson mixed up with the Jane Harman story.


Horton: Yeah.

Edmonds: Right.

Horton: All right, say the name of the Web site. When is this thing’s grand opening here, this new press project of yours?

Edmonds: I think the web site will be completed by the early part of next week. And the site address is


It’s because that’s what we are. And it’s the home of the irate minority, because I am one, and I have been hearing from a lot of people who consider themselves the irate minority. So over there we will be the majority. So we’ll end up ruling. It will be a great place to be and gather.

Horton: That sounds like a lot of fun. Hopefully there’ll be barbecue and everything too.

Cole: That sounds great.

Horton: All right. Well I thank you both very much for your time. I hope we can do it again.

Cole: Thank you so much.

Edmonds: Thank you, Scott.

Horton: All right, everybody, that is Sibel Edmonds, former FBI contract-translator-turned whistleblower. She’s the head of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition., I think she said, will be up soon, and check out and

Transcript thanks to A.J.

Read more by Scott Horton
Is Medea Benjamin Naive or Just Confused? – October 7th, 2009
Gigantic Scandal!: The Sibel Edmonds Story – October 1st, 2009
Finding Ways to Stay in Iraq – March 4th, 2009
Letting Sibel Edmonds Speak – June 18th, 2008
Reclaim Your Sense of Outrage – May 31st, 2008


Article printed from Original:

URL to article:


  • Guest
Re: "American Conservative" Cover Story: Sibel Edmonds story
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2013, 08:39:25 am »
lots of Sibel info here