Neo-Cons

Sibel Edmonds narrative released in 'Classified Woman'

After many years of struggling to get her story across to the American public, 9/11 & FBI/national security whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has released "
Classified Woman"".

For many years we have tried to track aspects of Sibel's case on this site (older hub page & category) including the role of foreign agents of influence and friends of corrupt foreign powers (frequently neocons) using their government jobs to sell America down the river.

The federal government did everything possible to conceal many aspects of 9/11 including prior intelligence reports, certain corporate fronts (like Giza Technologies which had been used to proliferate nuclear technology) and long-running intel programs like those which built up Islamic fundamentalist militias around Asia and Europe, NATO operations in many cases, an aspect finally revealed in more detail in Sibel's book (which unfortunately I haven't been able to snag yet!).

Part of the problem with privatizing intelligence operations was formalized by Executive Order 12333 from Dec 1981:

2.7 Contracting. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. Contracts or arrangements with academic institutions may be undertaken only with the consent of appropriate officials of the institution.

.... so thus, as pointed out in the documentary about the Edmonds case, Kill the Messenger (full video), Giza's work to proliferate nuclear technology, if carried out under rules like 2.7 of EO 12333, would have to be covered up by the DOJ even after they went after the Israeli interlocutor for the nuclear goodies (roughly, a limited hangout).



There is a lot more to be added on the case, in particular now how whistleblowers get ever more ruthless treatment under the Obama Administration.
As with former CIA asset Susan Lindauer, who also had 'loose ends' of 9/11 the establishment didn't want to hear about, (special posts one and two), the nastiest tools in the national security toolkit are directed not at nefarious terrorists and evildoers, nor networks of foreign agents-of-influence in the halls of government, but whistleblowers and anyone else 'ruffling feathers' out there.
Bonus factoid - with the NATO Summit from Hell around the corner in Chicago, the powers that be hid Meleck Can Dickerson and Douglas Dickerson in the NATO bureaucracy-octopus in Brussels.
The neocons hid in various places and have re-coalesced in the Romney campaign. Oh, we will have the likes of Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Eric Edelman and Marc Grossman to kick around again, should we be visited with the misfortune of a Romney presidency.
See also 2009: The new Boiling Frogs Post/Sibel Edmonds site; John Cole on the whole 9/11, Marc Grossman espionage complex etc.

From the Internet Archives: My 2003 Interview with Rashid Khalidi on Middle East politics, Iraq, Palestine, Neo-Cons & beyond

Here's a nice find. In October 2003 I interviewed Rashid Khalidi for the Mac Weekly. It wound up on the website and eventually got deleted around 2006, but it was still in the Internet Archives Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20060612202355/http://www.macalester.edu/week...

Overall I think this interview aged well, was it really more than seven years ago? In the last few days it's been great to see Khalidi appearing a couple times on MSNBC right before remarks from President Obama about Egypt. So here's the whole interview, with subjects like Israeli settlers, neo-con arcana, Muqtada al-Sadr before he became so well-known, etc. The linkage between neo-cons and the Israeli rightwing fringe Khalidi explained in this interview was cited & footnoted by James Bamford in 2004's "A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies," which was the first time (only time?) my scribblins have been footnoted in a serious book. (and it was awesome to randomly discover that one day, too!)

I'm leaving the weird HTML code from the Internet Archive / abandoned Mac Weekly site fragments for the archival awesomeness of it all. Enjoy!


themacweekly.com exclusive
Interview with Roundtable participant Rashid Khalidi

Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University and director of Columbia’s Middle East Institute.
Inteview by Dan Feidt




Interview conducted October 10, 2003
 

DF: You said in your talk regarding Iraq that “there are much worse days to come.” What leads you to this?

RK: Several things. The first is that the Administration purposely had too few soldiers for the post-war, leading directly to a chaotic situation which resulted in the destruction of the organs of state. The occupation thereafter took a number of decisions which alienated the entirety of the armed forces, and the Baathist technocrats, without whom it would be almost impossible to run a modern state in Iraq.

Both of those decisions I think were essentially ideological. It’s understandable that they would have wanted to eliminate the party leadership, people involved in war crimes, people involved in crimes against humanity, people who carried out notorious human rights abuses.

But why a medical doctor, why a lab technician or a schoolteacher, a low-ranking member of the party should be removed just because she or he was a Baathist? Why the officer corps of the army or the conscript regular soldiers were all fired is inexplicable. All of these things led to a situation where instead of coming in with the potential goodwill the United States might have had with the removal of an unpopular regime, the United States has pretty much alienated a large proportion of the population.

In the case of the Sunnis, this has been exacerbated by the civil war that [Ahmed] Chalabi is trying to foment between the Shia, to whom he’s posing as the champion of, and the Sunnis. The United States is on the point actually, I’m afraid, of incurring hostilities of more than just a lot of disgruntled Sunnis, and former Baathists, former soldiers, and so on, a few jihadis and others who are coming in, but maybe also the largest single group in Iraq, which is the Shiites.
 

DF: What do you think is Ahmed Chalabi’s plan?

RK: Chalabi wants to make himself ruler of Iraq. He and his group have been trying since before the war to impose themselves as the natural rulers of Iraq. They tried to get the Pentagon to fly them in there, so they could take a picture-postcard role in the liberation of the country, so that they would be posed to be the sole group that would be the intermediary between the occupation authorities and the Iraqis. They are still trying to do this even though Bremer and more and more people in Washington are realizing how dangerous to the United States and to Iraq Chalabi probably is. But there is a factional battle going on in Washington over this issue and there is a battle going on in Iraq, with the Chalabi and his people trying to win over the Shia, and engage in what some people have called already a pogrom or purge of Sunnis. Not just Baathists, Sunnis. Bremer and some of the civilian occupation authorities, and also some of the uniformed military, are beginning to tell Washington in no uncertain terms that that this man has to be stopped.
 

DF: There have been a lot of violent incidents of in Sadr City recently, because the Americans have detained some clerics that follow Sadr. Is that a sign that the peace between the Shia religious groups and the United States is fraying?

RK: It is not clear whether in fact what the United States is doing with Muqtada al-Sadr—in this place called Sadr City which is named for a relative of his who was killed by the Baathists—is going to lead to alienation of the Shia from the United States. Sadr doesn’t represent all the Shia. He is one factional leader. He is charismatic, he is popular but there are a lot of other people there.

The big question is A: how alienated are people in Iraq going to be, Shia, by American actions and policies, and B: to what extent will the United States try to repair its relations with the Shia by making up to Iran. There is an important faction in our government which is trying to do that, just as there’s an important faction in the government trying to sabotage any such possibility. So stay tuned for where the arm wrestling in Washington will end up. That in turn will determine a lot of these things. If The United States totally alienates Iran then one of the few possible means of positively affecting the attitudes of Shia in Iraq will disappear.
 

DF: What do you believe are the central principles of neo-conservativism? Do you believe it carries an outer moral ideology for mass consumption, and an elite truth for the few?

RK: Yeah, Seymour Hersh in his articles in the New Yorker about these people has argued that these are people who studied under Leo Strauss or under disciples of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago, people like Wolfowitz himself, [Pentagon policymaker] Abram Shulsky and others, and that they came away with a sort of neo-Platonic view of a higher truth which they themselves had access, as distinguished from whatever it is you tell the masses to get them to go along.

There is a certain element of contempt in their attitude towards people, in the way in which they shamelessly manipulated falsehoods about Iraq, through Chalabi. Chalabi, of course, being part of this group, having studied at the University of Chicago as well, although he was doing his mathematics Ph. D. when they were doing politics degrees.

But I wouldn’t entirely blame this on Strauss or poor Plato for God’s sake. The other thing I would say is that there is another element in some of them, of a belief in force, which doesn’t come just from Strauss and Wohlstetter, who was actually Wolfowitz’s dissertation supervisor. It comes from Strauss via Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the head of the Revisionist strand of Zionism, which was an extreme nationalism which very much believed in force. I think that that view is very widely spread among the neo-cons.

Now, what is their philosophy? ‘Peace through strength,’ whatever that means. Not making concessions to the enemy, treating the enemy as a symbol of absolute moral blackness, not seeing gray in any picture. If you want to describe them in broad brush strokes, that’s how I’d do it. They are people for whom reality is probably less important than their ideology, and their moral certitudes.
 

DF: Noam Chomsky used the phrase ‘re-Ottomanization’ to describe the neoconservative strategy towards the Middle East, which would involve breaking down the strong states into pieces, giving them regional warlords, with Israel as the hegemonic power. Do you believe there’s merit in that viewpoint?

RK: I think that’s what some of them want to do. I’m not sure that has anything to do with US policy. That’s their fantasy. That’s really what the Clean Break strategy, if you read it very carefully, amounts to. And they’ve argued this in other places. It’s not just one document you have to go on. But to what extent that is more than the wet dreams of a bunch of neoconservatives who love Israel—love a certain muscled, hegemonic Israel—is very arguable.

I wonder about the extent to which that has any influence on US policy. I think that the idea that you crush all the strong states in the Arab world and create a situation of total instability is not something that most American policymakers accept. So, you know, maybe some of them are trying to edge crabwise towards that end, but I don’t think in the larger scheme of things it has a whole lot of influence on US policy.
 

DF: A Frontline interview with Richard Perle was published with the documentary “Truth, War and Consequences.” He talked about the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, which reviewed intelligence on Iraq prior to the war. Perle said the office was staffed by David Wurmser, another author of the Clean Break document. Perle says that the office “began to find links that nobody else had previously understood or recorded in a useful way.” Were the neo-cons turning their ideology into intelligence data, and putting that into the government?

RK: I can give you a short answer to that which is yes. Insofar as at least two of the key arguments that they adduced, the one having to do the connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, and the one having to do with unconventional weapons programs in Iraq, it is clear that the links or the things they had claimed to have found were non-existent. The wish was fathered to the reality. What they wanted was what they found.

It was not just the Office of Special Plans, or whatever. There are a lot of institutions in Washington that were devoted to putting this view forward. Among them, other parts of the bureaucracy, and the vice president’s national security staff.

The vice president’s chief of staff Lewis Libby is a very important member of the neo-con group. He and the vice president have created the most powerful national security staff that anybody has ever had in the office of the vice president. I’ve read published assessments, which say that this is actually more influential than Condi Rice’s staff, the real NSC. This is another center of these views.

And then there are the think-tanks—I would use the word ‘think’ in quotes—like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution and so on, all of which are devoted to spreading similar ideas. Basically any fantasy that Chalabi's people brought in, “we have a defector who says,” was turned into gold by these folks.

We now know this stuff, with a few exceptions, to be completely and utterly false, just manufactured disinformation designed to direct the United States in a certain direction. Whether the neo-cons knew this or not is another question, but I believe Chalabi’s people knew it. I would be surprised if some of them didn’t know it.
 

DF: Defense Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith‘s former law partner Marc Zell is a leading Israeli settler, and also runs a law firm which is supposed to work with the Pentagon and Chalabi’s nephew to help international businesses set up in Iraq. Is there a connection to be drawn between Feith and the Israeli settler movement?

RK: Feith is a partner of Zell, and Zell is a leading settler. He lives in a settlement; he is an advocate of expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. He and Feith are ardent committed extremist Likud supporters, that is to say they support a policy of Israel’s expansion, they support a policy of crushing the Palestinians, they support the expansion of settlements.

I don’t know what Feith’s position is specifically, whether he’s a settler or in favor of settlements, but he’s published opinions before he went into government which are quite extreme, as far as that’s concerned.

I think the important thing is not that Zell is an Israeli or not an Israeli, or a settler or not a settler, as the fact that such views are now acceptable in the highest reaches of the US government. It used to be that settlements were considered illegal; it used to be that they were considered an obstacle to peace. Different presidents took different positions, but they were uniformly negative until this administration.

In this administration we have the Undersecretary of Defense, Feith, the number 3 guy, who’s in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq, publicly identifying with such views. And with this law firm, Feith and Zell, which is based in Israel, and its affiliate, which is busy doing this other stuff in Iraq.

The other thing that’s a little unseemly is something that Seymour Hersh has said about Richard Perle. It’s the inability of these people to see the moral problems of being in government and helping out your friends in the private sector. The vice president and Halliburton, Perle and Global Crossing, and all these dubious shady firms he was involved in, he was profiting from and which he was helping to profit because of his connections in the Pentagon. And Feith, he’s the viceroy of Iraq, you can call him whatever you want but he’s the man in charge in Washington—Bremer reports to him—his law firm is engaged in helping businesses do well in Iraq?

There’s a clear conflict of interest. If we had proper ethics codes, this would not be allowed. Nor would the vice president be able to help his Halliburton friends to get no-bid contracts in Iraq. Nor would Perle be able to do as he’s doing with a variety of business interests. Nor would Feith, but that’s another issue, that’s an ethics issue.
 

DF: Is there a sense with this administration that the so-called military-industrial complex is at the helm?

RK: Well, there’s three or four elements in this administration. The one that gets the votes is not the military-industrial complex or the neo-cons. The one that gets the votes is the southern, western, male Christian evangelicals. That’s the biggest electoral block. Those are people who may believe in the United States being a muscular power in the world, they may not really have time for black and white in international affairs, they may believe that international morality is simple, but they have an agenda which is largely domestic, and they are the people to whom the president looks for a certain core of his support.

There is then the good old rouged representatives of the military-industrial complex, where I would place people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. These are guys that have worked for big business all their lives, they are themselves big businessmen, Rumsfeld’s been on the board of a very large number of very large corporations, and Halliburton was headed by Cheney for many years. So we’re talking about people who really do fit into that category. And they are amply represented in the government.

The third group, and the least important, I would argue, is the neo-cons. They give a little intellectual ginger to this, they push things in the direction of Israel a little bit, they’ve played a particularly important role in the Pentagon and in the office of the Vice President, and to some extent in the National Security Council, where Elliott Abrams is the senior person on the Middle East. They even have people at the state department. But in political terms in the United States they are the least important.

They are important in terms of public opinion, however, because with outlets like Fox, the New York Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, and so on, they have very important access to those kinds of outlets. Murdoch’s papers, and Murdoch’s television networks, are the most important of them.
 

DF: Is Bush trapped in a kind of box which prevents him from understanding simultaneously the occupation, Arab nationalism, and the threat of the settlements, or is he just a pragmatic politician who recognizes that no one in America is going to hold him accountable?

RK: I would say the latter. I think the president is not a reflective intellectual man. He is not a well-read, learned man. He is not a worldly person. He is very smart though. I think he is a smart politician. In fact, I think one of his greatest assets is that people systematically ‘misunderestimate’ him, to use his expression. People underestimate George W. Bush.

I think that he has so far calculated that you could do a number of these things in foreign policy, either because they were popular, or because there would be no opposition. Until recently he was right, and I think the fact that it’s now clear, not so much on Arab-Israeli issues, but on Iraq, that public opinion has if not turned, at least ceased to be enchanted by those policies.

This may in turn impose a rethink on the Bush team. I think that people like Karl Rove, who is a very ideological person, are also only interested in getting re-elected, and they would sell their mothers, as would most politicians, to make sure that their president got re-elected.

And he may ditch people. He may fire Rumsfeld, he may fire Wolfowitz, and he may shake up some aspects of his administration if he realizes that this is going to be a hindrance to his re-election. I think that the reason you haven’t seen a change in this is that you haven’t seen a countervailing bloc.
 

DF: The first action the United States took after September 11 was the invasion of Afghanistan, deposing the Taliban with a coalition that they described as the Northern Alliance. Today, the situation has somewhat deteriorated. There isn’t a lot of control in the tribal areas, the Pushtun areas, and it seems the Taliban is ramping up for another offensive. Why did this invasion of Afghanistan fail?

RK: I’m not sure that it failed, in that its objective was to bring down that regime. It succeeded in doing that. It failed in the sense of securing a stable, secure Afghanistan, which wouldn’t be a threat to its neighbors, or a breeding ground (I don’t like the term breeding ground) or a base area for operations against the United States and other countries. In that sense it has failed. You still have groups operating there. I’m not sure they’re able to attack the United States from Afghanistan but then I’m not sure they attacked the United States from Afghanistan before either. There were certainly training camps there, but I don’t think those training camps were the real problem.

The real problem is this diversified underground network that’s established in which Afghanistan was just one link. The problem is that, as in Iraq, the only objective was military victory over the enemy in the field, and a subsidiary objective was winning a doctrinal war between Rumsfeld and the uniformed military. Rumsfeld wanted to change the nature of the American military. In one sense he’s right.

The United States military is configured to fight World War II, or World War III, which is the Cold War war that never came, thank God, on the plains of northern Europe or against the hordes of the Red Army somewhere in east Asia. It’s not configured for anything else, and Rumsfeld has tried mightily to change the configuration of the United States ground forces, in particular. And he has come up against enormous resistance.

So to him, the Afghan war was an object lesson in what can and should be done. Those were the two objectives: to defeat the enemy in the field, and you show the hidebound generals that the army should be flexible, light, fast, movable, and basically get rid of several divisions and several structures it has. By divisions I mean army divisions and by structures I mean all kinds of breakdowns between armor and Special Forces and so on.

Unfortunately, war is not just defeating the enemy in the field. War is achieving a political objective. Both in Afghanistan and Iraq the United States resoundingly and rapidly won the military campaign and Rumsfeld in both cases, I think, made his point brilliantly, that a lighter army could do things that the old-style army didn’t want to do and couldn’t do.

They are losing the war—I don’t want to say they’ve lost—because of their hidebound, stubborn persistent refusal to understand that you win by achieving a political objective.

The objective in Afghanistan would have been not just to defeat the Taliban regime, but to stabilize and normalize Afghanistan so that it never becomes again a base area for people like al-Qaeda. Similarly in the case of Iraq, to achieve a rapid, sustainable transition from a dictatorship to a regime that doesn’t threaten its neighbors and is representative.

Well, they say that’s what they’re trying to do, but the means that they’ve employed in Iraq and to some extent in Afghanistan, by being so light in terms of numbers, and by being so unilateral, have succeeded in alienating the very people you need to bring in.

By relying on the warlords they have succeeded in perpetuating the conditions that caused the problem in Afghanistan, or through the chaos that was created, have created new conditions that may be insuperable.

They may in fact not be insuperable, they may be insuperable, such that you will end up having a political defeat. But we’ll see. That’s what it looks like on the tenth of October. Things could get normalized by Christmas; things could get normalized by January. Things might look very different in both of those countries. I doubt it, but it’s certainly possible.
 

DF: In the totality of the Middle Eastern political situation, what aspects or factors give you the most hope? What factors to you are the most puzzling?

RK: I get the most hope from the resilience of civil society. Even in the most devastated parts of the Arab world—Palestinian society—NGOs, unions, universities, are still managing to survive and thrive against both the conditions of occupation, war, closure and deprivation, and the autocratic tendencies of the Palestinian Authority. You find that all over the Arab world and all over the Middle East; In Iran, in Turkey, all over the Middle East. Those to me are the most encouraging things.

I find the most puzzling the fact that no alternative to authoritarian governments, besides the Islamists, has emerged. Now, I understand where the previous alternatives to the status quo in the Arab world went. In the ‘30s, the ‘40s and ‘50s the alternatives to the status quo were radical nationalist, socialist, leftist and other groups, which then became the champions of what became a new orthodoxy when they took power.

So the Baath Party, the Arab nationalists, others of that ilk, took power in places like Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Iraq, or they formed the traditional opposition to monarchies. And then they in turn became sclerotic, conservative, autocratic, and a drag on their societies, which is what they are now.

The Baath regime in Syria is only marginally less bad than the former Baath regime in Iraq was. They’re terrible regimes. Those were radical alternatives to the status quo once, literally 50 or 60 years ago.

Now, what I find a little puzzling, is that outside of some human rights-based, and other groups within civil society, there's very little political alternative to the immobilism and the kleptocracy which dominates most governments in the Arab world, except the Islamists, and the Islamists don’t have an answer. Their answer is “Islam is the answer,” but Islam is not an answer.

That is a very narrow appeal; it appeals to a very limited number of people in most Muslim societies, in fact. You look at the numbers that HAMAS and other Islamist groups get in Palestine in polling, and on a good day they can reach the 20s, and on a really fabulous day they may hit 30%. But if you ask people about the core values they represent, and the kind of vision they have for a Palestinian state, most Palestinians can’t accept that.

There’s an inherent limitation because it is not an answer. The problem is that they are the only organized opposition to some of these regimes. The anger and the dissatisfaction and alienation that some people feel at unemployment, at poverty, at a lack of development, at theft, at corruption, and so on and so forth, has to find some outlet. The Islamists, for some people, are the outlet. So that’s the thing that puzzles me: where is the alternative?

It’s certainly not going to be American military intervention. That’s not going to solve the problems in the Middle East. That’s causes new problems.

But that leaves a legitimate question: what do you do about these miserable regimes? Because you’ve had democratic transitions in places people thought were totally immobile like Eastern Europe and Latin America.

Why is that not happening in the Middle East? It could be because of the continuing conflicts there, which reinforce the state. That’s the argument I made in my talk, that if we address that it wouldn’t solve the problem but it would make it easier to solve the problem. But that’s not a sufficient answer.

Foreign Policy Wisdom of the Late Great Chalmers Johnson - Sorrows of Empire, Nemesis, Blowback

One of my favorite analyst/writer type people has been Chalmers Johnson. He passed away on Nov 20th. His books Sorrows of Empire and Nemesis were just fantastic, and it's pretty much due to him that the idea of Blowback got out there - the idea that imperial schemes cause messes that come right back at ya.

Also he was the only person to ever quit the Council on Foreign Relations, which is so damn awesome I can hardly express it.

A really nice retrospective from his friend Steve Clemons - The Impact Today and Tomorrow of Chalmers Johnson.

The Lessons of Blowback

Even carefully planned actions can have unintended consequences. Let's not do something that ultimately benefits terrorists.

by Chalmers Johnson

From our archives... Common Dreams originally published this Chalmers Johnson article on September 30, 2001, just 3 weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Chalmers died last night at age 79. His voice will be missed.

One of the objectives of terrorism is to provoke the ruling elites of a target regime into disastrous overreaction. When it works, as it has in Israel over the past year, the results can be devastating for all sides. Who does this ultimately benefit? The terrorists.

Carlos Marighella, the Brazilian guerrilla leader whose writings influenced political terrorists in the 1960s and 1970s, explained why. If the government can be provoked into a military response to terrorism, he wrote, this will alienate the masses, causing them to "revolt against the army and the police and blame them for this state of things."

The overreaction doesn't necessarily have to alienate only domestic "masses." If we inflict great misery on innocent people in the Middle East, there will almost certainly be what the CIA refers to as "blowback"--unintended negative consequences of our actions. Vacillating supporters of the terrorists might be drawn into committing terrorist acts. Moderate governments throughout the Islamic world, especially in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, would almost certainly face growing internal dissent and could even be overthrown. Perhaps the prime example of terrorism succeeding is the Philippeville massacre of Aug. 20, 1955, in which Algerian revolutionaries killed 123 French colonials. A conscious act of terrorism carried out by revolutionaries who until then had enjoyed only slight popular backing, the Philippeville massacre led to a massive and bloody retaliation by the French. It also converted a leading French reformer (Jacques Soustelle, then governor-general of Algeria) into an advocate of suppression. The French crackdown eliminated most of the moderates on the Muslim side and caused influential French citizens back home to turn against their country's policies. This chain of events ultimately provoked a French army mutiny, brought Gen. Charles de Gaulle back to power as the savior of the nation and caused a French withdrawal from Algeria. Franco-Algerian relations are still strained today.

No political cause can justify the killing on Sept. 11 of thousands of innocent people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But neither would our killing innocent people in retaliation be justifiable. Terrorists attack the vulnerable because their intended targets (the military might of a rich country) are inaccessible. By attacking the innocent, terrorists intend to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. Like the anarchism of the 19th century, terrorism is propaganda by deed.

The perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks are all dead. Now we must identify, apprehend and convict their accomplices. If it is discovered that a state harbored or backed them, then a declaration of war against that state would be appropriate. So far, the available evidence pointing to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization is circumstantial: Bin Laden has issued edicts calling on Muslims to kill Americans; one of the hijackers had ties to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, whose leader is a known associate of Bin Laden's; and U.S. and German intelligence officers have intercepted telephone conversations in which Al Qaeda groups were told of the attacks. But there has been no evidence linking the attackers to Afghanistan. Of the 19 hijackers, 11 have been identified by the FBI as probably Saudi Arabians, three others as, respectively, an Egyptian, a Lebanese and a citizen of the United Arab Emirates. The countries of origin of the others are unknown.

So far, the United States has reacted to the terrorist attacks with an almost classic repetition of the French blunders following Philippeville. From his first remarks to the nation on the evening of Sept. 11, President Bush has been pointlessly, even comically, belligerent (the U.S. wants Bin Laden "dead or alive," we must "smoke them out of their caves and get them running"). By initially calling his retaliation plan "Operation Infinite Justice," he gave it a needlessly religious and messianic coloration. He seems to lack insight or candor about what we actually face and the seriousness of the problem (we were attacked because we are a "beacon of freedom" and our attackers are without motives, merely "evil doers, those barbaric people"). The president has rebuffed calls from countries such as China and Iran that the U.S. obtain United Nations sanction for its retaliatory actions. Instead, his hyperbole has led thoughtful listeners to question what sort of actions he intends to pursue. "Our war on terror," Bush said to Congress and the nation on Sept. 20, "begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." Presumably, the words "global reach" were inserted to reassure listeners that he did not intend to bomb supporters of Irish terrorists in Boston or anti-Castro terrorists in Miami.

The gaffes of the United States and its leaders are not just verbal. On Sept. 15, Congress passed a joint resolution that gave President Bush more sweeping authority than has ever been given to a president. "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001." The appropriate comparisons here are with Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which led to violent protests and court challenges, and to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of Aug. 7, 1964, which escalated the Vietnam War.

The resolution of Sept. 15 passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0 and the House by 420-1. Whereas two senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, this time only one member of Congress, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), voted no. Now, nearly three weeks after the attacks, consequences of the congressional action have begun to emerge. President Bush has formed the largest air armada since World War II and brought it into position to bomb Afghanistan. He has assembled at least 630 U.S. military aircraft, three times as many as were deployed in the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein. An additional 280 aircraft are on board four U.S. aircraft carriers moving into position, as well as about 120 special forces.

If this armada is used against the hopeless and impoverished people of Afghanistan, there is no doubt that it will produce a general crisis throughout the Islamic world, probably affecting even moderate nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia. The end result will not be "victory" in a "war on terrorism" but a further cycle of terrorist attacks, American casualties and escalation.

What should we do instead? The answers seem obvious. We must recognize that the terrorism of Sept. 11 was not directed against America but against American foreign policy. We should listen to the grievances of the Islamic peoples, stop propping up repressive regimes in the area, protect Israel's security but denounce its apartheid practices in Palestinian areas and reform our "globalization" policies so that they no longer mean that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. If the United States' only response to terrorism is more terrorism, it will have discredited itself and can expect to be treated as the rogue state it will have become.

© 2001 Chalmers Johnson

Chalmers Johnson is the author of Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006), among other works. His newest book is Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope (Metropolitan Books). Chalmers Johnson died on November 20, 2010 at age 79.

Turkish Neocon Conspiracy 1981 - Eagleburger Perle Wolfowitz

This is a pretty classic one. Turkey has suddenly passed big reforms as the nasty NATO-friendly military post-coup power structure gets knocked back a step. Ergenekon and the neocon network, etc etc. Perle and Wolfowitz, the creation of the American-Turkish Council came after this memo. Possibly best line is concern about an Armenian "niche" at the Holocaust Museum.

[More random docs getting posted @ scribd.com/hongpong including related Sibel Edmonds testimony, key deposition in the Ohio case Schmidt v Krikorian]

This doc was posted along with a story Wayne Madsen Report . September 15, 2010 -- United States laid ground for Ergenekon "Deep State" in Turkey - Wayne Madsen Report - excerpt:

 

WMR has discovered a formerly Secret document from the U.S. Department of State that confirms the United States not only supported the Turkish military coup that ousted the nation's democratically-elected government in 1980 but actively supported the military-imposed Turkish Constitution as "reformist." The citizens of Turkey recently voted in a referendum and approved 26 constitutional amendments that will transform Turkey into a democratic state without the threat of the military and national security state-affiliated judiciary trumping the power of the Parliament and the people. Neocons have condemned the referendum as a threat to secularism in Turkey and a move to an Islamic state. However, the neocons and their allies in Israel are concerned that a Mossad -and CIA-imposed Turkish "Deep State" has finally seen its power largely destroyed with the impending adoption of a new Turkish Constitution. The referendum, which passed with 58 percent of the vote, is a victory for the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Many of the roots of the creation of the most recent variant of the Turkish Deep State, known as Ergenekon, can be seen in the State Department policy paper dated September 5, 1981, and titled "USG Policy toward Turkey." When the State Department document was drafted, Turkey's military junta leader, General Kenan Evren, was drafting the present Turkish Constitution. The 1981 Turkish military draft Constitution's "reforms" were referred to in the State Department policy document's author Lawrence Eagleburger, the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: "It is too early to judge whether the fundamental GOT reforms, now in place or in prospect, will succeed." The document also talks about the "relief" provided to the United States by the 1980 military coup: "The military takeover of September 1980 brought temporary relief and for the moment broke the back of radical movements -- including pro-Islamic ones -- which had come to the fore in the 1970s."

Turkish Neocon Conspiracy 1981

Controlling 9/11 "crippled epistemology" via fake 'CIA' Internet Conspiracy Theories, COINTELPRO & "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups": Huge jackass/Obama Info Czar Cass Sunstein favors infiltrating conspiracy groups, planting disinfo, diversions

140110top2.jpg"....we will suggest below that if the hard core arises for certain identifiable reasons, it can be broken up or at least muted by government action." .... "We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity.  Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

SSRN-Conspiracy Theories by Cass Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule

This is one hell of a chestnut. It seems obvious, in retrospect, the best way to conceal the truth of establishment shady business and institutionalized crime is to mix in a ton of bullshit in order to turn all the skeptics and inquirers against each other. Only now it's Obama's dang 'information czar' pitching the strategy!

Interestingly, the more I broaden my sources, the more I appreciate the broad spectrum of people that have cancelled their subscriptions to Establishment Bollox and the Lies of the Mighty Wurlitzer. It's amazing how so many features of Establishment Reality are so widely loathed from within so many different worldviews.

This important fact is what people like Cass Sunstein don't understand. Like faux Establishment 'Centrists', they believe that ontological truth, or even the 'optimal' policy outcome, is like @ the 50% mark between where the dialectical left & right goalposts are placed.

It's like Howard Fineman - accurately dubbed the Weathervane because you only have to look which way he's pointing to determine what reassuring centrist reality is today's hot item. Howard Fineman is the precise opposite of a 'conspiracy theorist' in Sunstein's world.

The Establishment's Hegelian social control techniques are obvious: just set the left and right goalposts, stir and repeat. Problem-reaction-solution. If one can influence both the left and right goalposts in the great false dichotomy, it makes the product of "centrists" far more acceptable. Everything floating around outside this parlor game is the prima materia of 'conspiracy' that the State should attack professionally, Sunstein says!

Sunstein's tidy worldview brushes over the complex role of deceptive bullshit operatives around there, laying the groundwork for stupid establishment narratives. For example, what are we to make of the ever-shady Gerald Posner, spoonfed the FBI goodies on China? Or Adam Ciralski, helping Blackwater's Erik Prince perpetrate some classic exposure-threatening graymail about U.S. covert ops. Are these merely products of rotten epistomology? [PD Scott with a solid takedown of Posner - Scott's the real deal with The War Conspiracy and more here.]

*****

Anyhow Cass Sunstein was appointed by President Obama as some kind of info czar. Interestingly he wrote a paper about how to manipulate conspiracy theorists by attempting to throw their groups off the Hegelian deep end, thus opening an opportunity for defamatory information warfare. Fascinating stuff, and it's got Alex Jones incensed!!

More links, then some snippets: Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech, Sunstein’s Paper Provides More Evidence COLINTELPRO Still Operational, etc.

This whole thing reminds me of how the JFK conspiracy scene is managed as "A Story/B Story" wherein there are two alternate, mutually irreconcilable narratives. Dribs and drabs of facts supporting A and B (roughly, CIA/Mafia and Lone Gunman, usually) can be offered and safely paddle around on the History Channel.

Let us share a few choice links about how the CIA type control system AKA the Intelligence Power controls the World of Conspiracy. This is good stuff -- this is exactly how Mama Cass wants the world of conspiracies organized.

For The Win: Fintan Dunne called the Sunstein approach years ago!

My favorite all-in-one shotgun approach comes from Fintan Dunne of BreakForNews.com: BreakForNews.com : The CIA's Internet Fakes


The CIA Fakes is a catchphrase term to describe a group which includes:

-- Covert Operatives of the CIA, NSA and DIA; of the U.S. Corporate/Military Industrial Complex; of the intelligence services of U.K. Spain, France Holland, Germany, and Russia.
-- Political Agents working within the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Democratic Black Caucus, Green Party, and Patriot Movement.
--
Politicians in the U.S., U.K. Spain, France, Germany and Russia --who pose as 9/11 skeptics.
-- Media, including
Mainstream, Alternative Media and Internet broadcasting media who either front for, cooperate with, or are directly employed by intelligence services mentioned above.

The primary objectives of the CIA FAKES are:

-- To leverage the Fakes into position as the leadership/spokespersons
    for the 9/11 skeptics movement.
-- To splinter and divide that movement.
-- To promote lame, tame and/or booby-trapped questions about 9/11.
-- To be sufficiently over-the-top as to prevent the 9/11 issue getting
    any traction in the media or left-wing.
-- To ensure that the movement would not have a politically-active
    leadership capable of turning it into an effective political lobby campaign.

The questions about 9/11 were bound to be asked, the important
aspect for the perpetrators was and is ...by whom?

Bravo, Mr. Dunne, Bravo. You scored big on this one... A general roundup to be found @ The Next Level :: View topic - Uncovered: The Rat's Nest of 9/11 of effective gatekeepers -- and its true that his set of people, in aggregate, has the 9/11 conspiracy topic cornered and setup a certain way.
More along these lines: 9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - The Planned Demolition of Alex Jones, The COUP had foreknowledge of 9-11 (YES!), the criticism about Sibel Edmonds, Scheuer, Ray McGovern, etc: WagNews: Our Good Friends in the CIA - NOT !, (i.e "The alternative media is ridden with ex-FBI, ex-CIA, ex-NSA, ex-MI5 people who are on "our side". It's all total BS.") WagNews: Alex Jones, Hopsicker & the 9/11 CIA Fakes -Audio.

This one is suddenly salient: WagNews: Ellsberg, Sibel Edmonds & The Secret Team:

WHAT FLAVOR CONSPIRACY YOU WANT?

One big corner of that overall 9/11 picture is formed by four disparate-seeming individuals: a veteran whistleblower, an attractive novice whistleblower, a campaigning journalist and a reputed lingerie model; jigsaw peices called Ellsberg, Edmonds, Hopsicker and Keller. Ellsberg supports Edmonds, confirmed by Hopsicker --backed by eyewitness accounts from Keller. But they're all telling different flavors of the same story.

To specify which story that is, let's take a look at the popular tales of 9/11. The notorious main division is between LIHOP and MIHOP. But it's much more detailed than that. Explanations come in a full range of flavors --starting with the official story:

A. Official story:
CIA/FBI were incompetent; Bush and/or Clinton were complacent.
B. Official Lame Conspiracy:
CIA/FBI were incompetent; Bush/Cheney maybe let it happen; Israelis Knew.
C. Official LIHOP Conspiracy:
CIA/FBI were compromised; Bush/Cheney did let it happen; Israelis Helped.
D. Official LIHOP Wild Conspiracy:
CIA/FBI compromised; Bush/Cheney/Neocons let it happen; Israelis Did It.
E. Official LIHOP Tinfoil Conspiracy:
Israelis/Neocons/Bush/Cheney Did It; CIA/FBI looked the other way.
F. Official MIHOP 'Serious' Conspiracy:
Israelis/Neocons/CIA/FBI/Bush/Cheney/Military-Industrial-Complex Did It.
G. Official Loony Conspiracies:
Rothschilds and/or Rockefellers and/or CFR and/or Bildebergers did it.
Globalists who want to run everything in a World Government did it.
Jews and Jewish bankers -who already run everything- did it.
Satanists, Opus Dei or Reptilians did it.
It's a terrific variety of theories.
It plays out something like this:
  • The mainstream media push version A; hint at B; sneer at G.
  • The controlled right/intellectual media pushes version B.
  • The controlled left/intellectual media pushes version C.
  • The 'moderate' Fake internet sites push versions C and D.
  • The 'softcore' Fake internet sites push versions D and E.
  • The 'independent' Fake internet sites push version F.
  • The 'loony' Fake interent sites push variations of version G.
But every single one, from A to G are OFFICIAL versions, sanctioned and promoted by the 9/11 intelligence coverup operation and their CIA Fakes network. They have a flavor for every market.

The creation of this multiplicity of explanations is a core element of the coverup. Left to their own devices, people on the Internet might have figured out the truth themselves. But with this circus in action, there is always plenty of distraction and lots of division in opinion.

The intelligence coverup is not trying to stop 9/11 conspiracy theories on the internet. It's creating them. Then playing off supporters of the different theories against each other. That's a classic Cointelpro-style tactic.

***********More from good Ol L Fletcher Prouty on CIA / Ellsberg limited hangout type conspiracy control!
Let's get to the brand-new material from the White House info czar, it's wild!!...... Conspiracy Theories by Cass Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule:

Our main though far from exclusive focus – our running example – involves

conspiracy theories relating to terrorism, especially theories that arise from and post-date

the 9/11 attacks. These theories exist within the United States and, even more virulently,

in foreign countries, especially Muslim countries. The existence of both domestic and

foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the

government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be. Terrorism-related

theories are thus a crucial testing ground for the significance, causes, and policy

implications of widespread conspiracy theorizing. As we shall see, an understanding of

conspiracy theories has broad implications for the spread of information and beliefs;

many erroneous judgments are a product of the same forces that produce conspiracy

theories, and if we are able to see how to counteract such theories, we will have some

clues about how to correct widespread errors more generally.

Part I explores some definitional issues and lays out some of the mechanisms that

produce conspiracy theories and theorists. We begin by discussing different

understandings of the nature of conspiracy theories and different accounts of the kinds of

errors made by those who hold them. Our primary claim is that conspiracy theories

typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a “crippled

epistemology,” in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational

sources. Those who hold conspiracy theories do so because of what they read and hear. In

that sense, acceptance of such theories is not irrational from the standpoint of those who

adhere to them. There is a close connection, we suggest, between our claim on this count

and the empirical association between terrorist behavior and an absence of civil rights

and civil liberties.10 When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple

information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.

Part II discusses government responses and legal issues, in light of the discussion

in Part I. We address several dilemmas of governmental response to conspiracy theories,

such as the question whether it is better to rebut such theories, at the risk of legitimating

them, or to ignore them, at the risk of leaving them unrebutted. Conspiracy theories turn

out to be especially hard to undermine or dislodge; they have a self-sealing quality,

rendering them particularly immune to challenge. We suggest several policy responses

that can dampen the supply of conspiracy theorizing, in part by introducing diverse

viewpoints and new factual assumptions into the hard-core groups that produce such

theories. Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of

extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to

expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.

Tell me this, Sunstein: how does all that drug money get through the Federal Reserve System? Everyone has been so eager to confront that 'conspiracy theory,' haven't they?

Blah blah blah... let's get to the good stuff: [Below the fold - favorite chunks of much of the crazy essay]

The new Boiling Frogs Post/Sibel Edmonds site; John Cole on the whole 9/11, Marc Grossman espionage complex etc.

Sibel Edmonds & co have set up a new website called Boiling Frogs Post and they're going to be looking at a lot of shady stuff. The podcasts that have been going for a while have been really good & detailed material from whistleblowers and journalists about what's going on.

[BTW here is a good recent roundup on the Sibel Edmonds case via SkepticalEye.com]

*****

The newest podcast, Boiling Frogs #8, in particular is really worth hearing -- it puts a lot of things in better context. John Cole worked in FBI Counter-Intelligence for quite a while, and in this podcast talks about the corruption and espionage riddling the FBI and other government departments. Cole had called for a special counsel investigation in the case.

Melek Can Dickerson, Douglas Dickerson & Marc Grossman are all getting exposed as agents of foreign powers, part of the big nasty foreign espionage complex -- I guess a shorthand way to a variety of actors that are basically protected from the FBI.

From the recent interview in American Conservative:

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: 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.

Central FBI management has turned up time and again to block local FBI actions against foreign intelligence agents.

It seems like the coverup basically encompasses a lot of visible neoconservatives, some scientists, some blackmailed civl servants, a few noxious former congresscritters, and shady military-industrial executives. These people have a lot of power, and it seems clear that it's not 'one agenda' so much as a ton of nasty rats in a sack, all of them pretty devious and many essentially above the law.

From Episode 3, Phil Giraldi (paraphrasing) -- "The fundamental problem: you have groups that are representing foreign governments, they are not required to register as agents of foreign powers ... which means you don't know where there money comes from, and you don't know where the money is going."

Giraldi adds a ton about AIPAC, the incident with Jane Harman and that AIPAC intelligence committee / wiretap situation -- which I called pretty early and accurately as the Scandalplex.

*****

This bit is fascinating, it's one of those crazy secrets of how DC works. Grossman's duty at the State Department, during the time he was almost certainly trafficking in all his secret goodies, he also got notified whenever the FBI was busting down on foreign agents!! In essence, Grossman was getting told when the FBI started scrutinizing possible foreign agents/ agents of influence, in case the investigation triggered an international incident, Grossman would be prepared to mitigate the 'diplomatic consequences' for the State Department. But if he's a douche spy-hack type, 'National Security' is dead before it starts!!

In reality Marc Grossman was evidently a key officer in a criminal parallel power/espionage network, involving the marquee neo-cons and a lot of fixers for foreign governments and weapons corporations. Scooter Libby & Marc Rich aren't too many nodes away...

The terrible thing is that, Cole says Douglas Feith and Richard Perle were under a lot of heat for what they'd done over the years.

Now Sibel Edmonds contends that Feith and Perle were working on extracting the 'control files' that the government compiles on people -- i.e. the flagged points of weakness over which they could be blackmailed or otherwise controlled. The blackmail intelligence on these good civil servants gets trafficked & sold, a form of privatizing the passing of sensitive information, in a 'shadow' way. (We see this happening, such as in California, with breakaway rings of devious law enforcmement fusion center workers, caught trying to sell the data.)

So according to Edmonds, the blackmail documents were offered first to the Israelis, then the Turks, then on down the line to the cheap seats of international influence peddling. Foreign agents or units could take the blackmail material, use it to get control of these loyal American workers at nuclear research sites & wherever else, ("hook" them) Whenever the FBI flagged these criminals' operations, they would have to notify Grossman!!! (This of course let Grossman tip off the criminal foreign operatives and ruin the FBI's work against them.)

*****

Interestingly, this was pretty much the same pattern with the Minneapolis FBI on 9/11, which whistleblower Coleen Rowley reiterated on a nifty segment with TheRealNews.com (which isn't too bad a new source it appears, with a lot of thoughtful videos).

In August 2001, the Minneapolis FBI was ready to roll in everything on this, they were even getting intel back from France on Zacharias Moussaoui, then the FBI headquarters management blocked the hell out of it. September 11, 2001 hits -- with the Minneapolis FBI narrowly held back from setting off against the 9-11 attack operation network (and almost certainly its handlers from the foreign intelligence agencies).

*******

In case people haven't noticed yet, a lot of foreign intelligence connections came up all over 9-11, in particular Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but also Turkey and Israel.

Looking for links in that quadrilateral of shadiness nets a lot of data points, but it also dramatically underscores what happens every day except 9-11: These foreign governments hire operatives, lobbyists and agents to further the interests of the hawkish controlling cliques of these countries. The FBI is supposed to be the antibody to this nasty foreign flu bug, but it gets blocked time and again.

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.

And on it goes....

Sibel Edmonds case: spelled out with the names & details; Chicago-centered corruption ring, Grossman & synthetic Al-Qaeda; 100+ DOJ coverups!

sibel_edmonds_9_11_the_turkish_spy_scandal.jpg

For those of you just tuning in... Sibel Edmonds worked at the FBI after 9/11, bumped into a big criminal conspiracy, tried to blow the whistle in 2002, got the "States Secret Privilege" gag, which she defied a couple months ago for a deposition in an Ohio case.

In a new interview with Phil Giraldi, Edmonds takes us into the deeper details officially gagged until now. It's a good read...

The coverage on the Sibel Edmonds case here has turned out to be pretty solid. Check out, for example, the 2006 writeup here on Hongpong.com which covers the Grossman angle in detail... The Shadows around Sibel Edmonds: Plame spied on neocons? Turkish agents, Special Plans teams, Afghan heroin, 9/11 intel ... Sounds about right!

*****

Backing this up, a former FBI counterintelligence manager confirmed the FBI's many years of work versus Marc Grossman. Right around here is the part where the FBI can't get anywhere vs the Israelis...

"I read the recent cover story by The American Conservative magazine. I applaud their courage in publishing this significant interview. I am fully aware of the FBI's decade-long investigation of the High-level State Department Official named in this article [Marc Grossman], which ultimately was buried and covered up. It is long past time to investigate this case and bring about accountability..."

[ Back in 2006 ] “John M. Cole, an FBI spy catcher who retired in 2004, says that from 1993 to 1995 alone, he had “125 open cases” of Israeli espionage, representing nearly half of all the investigations carried on in his Global Unit, part of the now-defunct National Security division.” Inside the FBI itself, Cole said, tracking suspected Israeli spies was hush-hush.In a sharp break with FBI procedures, he was prohibited from notifying field offices when an investigation crept into their jurisdictions. “No one was supposed to know we were investigating the Israelis,” Cole said.”
Via Sibel Edmonds blog 123 Real Change "Grossman confirmed as FBI Target in Espionage Investigations"

*****

It has been rolling around for a long time -- the criminal network in Washington, the transnational, sleazy culture of stolen secrets and long-running shady hustles and two-bit shadow player conspiracies.

Finally another turn spills out: The think tanks and the lobbyists working for foreign powers have dirty hands, indeed!

The FBI has been tapping Marc Grossman, in particular, nibbling around Douglas Feith and Richard Perle throughout the Clinton years. The idea that Sibel Edmonds spells out here is that AIPAC funneled intelligence out to Israel, kicked the leftover stolen stuff to Turkey, who would then sell it to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia etc.

Edmonds makes the case that Grossman, as a guy playing ball with this kind of thing, was key to a number of things. In particular he was the guy that busted up the CIA Brewster-Jennings front, (Valerie Plame's project) which was getting close to their Pakistani/Saudi/Turkish buddies.

The really nasty idea is that Feith and Perle were selling out the personnel "control files" i.e. the blackmailable points of vulnerability, in government employees out to foreign actors. The number of good Americans harmed under this despicable scheme is truly amazing... Funny how 9/11 lies so close to the Turkish/Saudi/Pakistani scene.

I have followed this case for years -- only now are certain things spelled out. It seems pretty obvious when you look at it. The depressing thing is that Chicago seems to be central to the Turkish spy complex and under the Obama Administration, Chicago has a really strong hand.

*****

NOVEMBER 01, 2009 ISSUE © 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?

EDMONDS: No.

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.

Sibel Edmonds testimony in Ohio congressional case exposes Turkish blackmail & espionage complex, Valerie Plame, Jan Shakowsky..

Sibel Edmonds testimony in Ohio congressional case exposes Turkish blackmail & espionage complex, Valerie Plame, Jan Shakowsky and the whole ball o' wax

Allegations of espionage, sexual blackmail control of sitting members of Congress, the bribery of members of Congress, Dennis Hastert, Roy Blunt, and Tom Lantos, are all in the mix.

The American Turkish Council, AIPAC and the foreign lobbyist layer all stand to catch a lot of heat from the Sibel Edmonds case.

Interesting stuff finally released on the Sibel Edmonds case. Edmonds ended up testifying about the Turkish espionage complex and a ton of shady business. Edmonds defied the State Secrets privilege that was imposed after Edmonds became the first 9/11 whistleblower.

She testified about a contentious Ohio election -- one candidate accused the other of shady Turkish ties. Edmonds, being the expert on Turkish schemes, got to slip out of her gag via the lawsuit of Krikorian vs. Rep. Jean Schmidt.

Chair of US House Intelligence oversight controlled by Turkish sexual blackmail!?

At this point, why not? The name-dropping has only been done by Wayne Madsen, and rather pointedly, the proprietor of BradBlog doesn't want to go there.

One interesting tangent: Apparently Democratic U.S. Rep. Jan Shakowsky was entrapped by a classic Turkish intelligence 'honeypot' operation, and was seduced by a female Turkish operative in a bugged/taped house, thus enabling the Turks to blackmail her over an apparent lesbian indiscretion.

If true, this would be quite an epic example of how foreign intelligence operatives can create 'control files' over members of Congress. In the tactics of what you might call the 'Intelligence Power,' creating control files over members of Congress is a critical activity.

Today, Shakowsky is the Chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight - one might suspect this would make grilling the CIA over torture more difficult. And you won't see Shakowsky messing with the Turks or AIPAC anytime soon. Which is too bad, because she seems pretty cool.

Linxor: BRAD BLOG : SIBEL EDMONDS' DEPOSITION: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT RELEASED - watch the video or download the PDF!

Here's the PDF of the transcript Krikorian v. Schmidt!

Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Ohio deposition (Schmidt v. Krikorian)

This is the root stuff about one of the most salient layers of the Bush Administration's shady underbrush, the hustles and the foreign intelligence games that connect with 9/11, the Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings affair.

Also getting exposed, a bunch of shady plays involving, as she noted in an oblique way, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eric Edelman, Marc Grossman, Brent Scowcroft, Larry Franklin, Dennis Hastert, Roy Blunt, Dan Burton, Tom Lantos, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz, Graham Fuller, neoconservative wonks David Makovsky, Alan Makovsky, and Turkic operative types Yusuf Turani, Sabri Sayari, Mehmet Eymur, are all involved.

Sibel Edmonds was tasked to listen to certain phone lines that carried foreign language conversations, by translating material from wiretaps in the FBI translation office. It transpired that Edmonds noticed that Melek Can Dickerson, who was of superior rank in FBI translation, was covering up the contents of wiretaps. Then Dickerson tried to get Edmonds to join the American Turkish Council.

The American Turkish Council (ATC) is the leading establishment Turkish foreign lobby, closely linked with AIPAC -- Turkey's and Israel's political establishments share a lot of strategic interests, and this has been reflected in what they've been up to in Washington over the years.

Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Marc Rich and the nexus of nuclear smuggling and who knows what

Sibel Edmonds attempted to inform Congress about the FBI getting penetrated by the foreign espionage conspiracy, after she tried to address her concerns within the FBI, via Inspectors General etc.

But it got nowhere fast, in early 2002. Edmonds got the States Secrets privilege-style gag from Attorney General Ashcroft, but the FBI Inspector General has released an unclassified version of their report that substantiates Edmonds' claims about Dickerson's espionage activities on behalf of the ATC and Turkey.

However, things get deeper from here.

It appears that the CIA's anti-proliferation people, in particular Valerie Plame and the Non-Official Cover people at the fake 'proprietary' or front, Brewster-Jennings, were tracking a ring of agents of foreign powers, neo-conservatives and various Washington operatives, who were involved somehow in terrorism financing, drug trafficking and nuclear smuggling.

On the surface, Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby were the two big figures in the flap -- but what's often forgotten is that Libby was the attorney for noted international criminal financier Marc Rich. Rich has cooperated often with Viktor Bout, the world's most notorious arms trafficker. Rich and Bout are both part of a far-flung global criminal mafia, known roughly (including to the Justice Department) as the Russian-Israeli Mafia.

So the idea is that Plame and Brewster-Jennings were a threat to the continued operations of the mafia, as well as its friends in the Turkish establishment. Rich and Dick Cheney took out Brewster-Jennings to defend the criminal network, not just for the petty reasons of making Plame's husband look bad.

"Covert activities" of the Turkish lobby "many of which may not be legal"

ATAA and the ATC, as well as TACA, are specified by Edmonds as part of the alphabet soup of Turkish overt organizations that the FBI was interested. Edmonds says that she knew the ATC was a target of the FBI counterintelligence operations.

A ton of stuff got spelled out about the bribes and everything in the deposition, things long covered up via the States Secret privilege.

By the way it turns out that former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert was really into some gay stuff, and very blackmailable about it as well. (Thus he shot down Armenian Genocide resolutions &etc.)

Here are the deposition videos:

Part 1, 51 minutes, direct (friendly) questions with a lot of interruptions from the nasty other attorney.

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 1 of 5 from Velvet Revolution on Vimeo.

Part 2, 35 minutes - more direct questions:

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 2 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Part 3 - 17 minutes, more direct questions:

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 3 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Part 4 - 43 minutes cross examination - hostile:

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 4 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Part 5 - 54 minutes redirect & recross

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 5 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Here are a few grafs from BradBlog rounding out the subject.

The BRAD BLOG covered details of some of Edmonds' startling disclosures made during the deposition, as it happened, in our live blog coverage from August 8th. The deposition included criminal allegations against specifically named members of Congress. Among those named by Edmonds as part of a broad criminal conspiracy: Reps. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA), as well as an unnamed, still-serving Congresswoman (D) said to have been secretly videotaped, for blackmail purposes, during a lesbian affair.

High-ranking officials from the Bush Administration named in her testimony, as part of the criminal conspiracy on behalf of agents of the Government of Turkey, include Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, and others.

During the deposition --- which we are still going through ourselves --- Edmonds discusses covert "activities" by Turkish entities "that would involve trying to obtain very sensitive, classified, highly classified U.S. intelligence information, weapons technology information, classified Congressional records...recruiting key U.S. individuals with access to highly sensitive information, blackmailing, bribery."

Speaking about current members of Congress during a break in the testimony,Krikorian told The BRAD BLOG that "for people in power situations in the United States, who know about this information, if they don't take action against it, in my opinion, it's negligence." (More video statements from Krikorian, Edmonds and attorneys from all parties, taped before, during, and after the 8/8/09 testimony, areavailable here.)

Edmonds' on-the-record disclosures also include bombshell details concerning outed covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's front company, Brewster Jennings. Edmonds alleges the front company had actually been shut down in August of 2001 --- three years prior to Bob Novak's public disclosure of the covert operative's identity --- following a tip-off to a wire-tap target about the true nature of the CIA front company. The cover was blown, Edmonds alleges, by Marc Grossman, who was, at the time, the third highest-ranking official in the U.S. State Department. Prior to that, Grossman served as ambassador to Turkey. He now works "for a Turkish company called Ihals Holding," according to Edmonds' testimony.

An unclassified FBI Inspector General's report, released on her case in 2005, declared Edmonds' classified allegations to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI." In 2002, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-NE) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), then the senior members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, co-wrote letters on Edmonds' behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to her allegations. And in a 2002 60 Minutesreport on Edmonds' case, Grassley noted: "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

The 8/8/09 deposition was brought by Krikorian as part of his defense in a case filed against him before the Ohio Election Commission (OEC) by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH). The 2nd district Congresswoman has accused Krikorian, an Armenian-American who ran against her as an independent in 2008, of "false statements" during the campaign last year alleging that she had accepted "blood money" from Turkish interests. Krikorian says that Schmidt, co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Committee, accepted more money from Turkish interests during last year's campaign than any other member of Congress, despite few, if any, ethnic Turks among her local constituency. He has suggested she may have been instrumental in helping to hold off a Congressional vote on a long-proposed, much-disputed resolution declaring the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians during WWI as a "genocide" by the Turks.

Edmonds herself happens to be a Turkish-American, though she was recently attacked by the Turkish Lobby, following her long-sought, long-blocked testimony.

All right, not too bad! I am trying to work some angles on this case, so please standby on it. Digg this post if you like :)

Leon Panetta and Bill Richardson dance the dance: Are there any Democratic governors *not* getting spied upon by DOJ??

I previously went out on a bit of a limb to point out that the Blagojevich case was rather dubious - mainly since the all-encompassing nationwide atmosphere of corruption makes his crude pay-for-play look rather small and isolated in comparison. Too isolated.

These guys think too small: if you want to get away with it, Bush style, connect it to everything. Play an Abramoff - get a piece of every bit of conspiracy, foreign and domestic, you can possibly touch. [Nice chart!] Blagojevich should have gone way bigger to really 'win.'

As it turns out, Democratic governors appear to basically live in the crosshairs of ongoing wiretaps and private intelligence/prostitution schemes. To Spitzer, Blagojevich and the utterly blacked-out-of-the-media Alabama ex-gov Don Siegelman, we can now add Bill Richardson to the honor roll of targets.

Richardson gets double bonus National Security Agency panopticon bonus points: some time ago, the NSA used a "training exercise" to snoop on him, and passed the materials out to other agencies and in particular Supreme Neocon Tool John Bolton, who was playing a dirty Info Ops game to spy upon his far more diplomatically skilled (and much hated) rival.

In my book, when John Bolton is abusing the NSA's spy apparatus to fuck with you, that means you're doing SOMETHING right. Hence, I casually supported Richardson for president.

Back in 2005: NSA Intercepts: Bill Richardson's Name Emerges - The Washington Note

What I do have from a confidential and highly placed source is at least one name who appears in the NSA documents, and it is someone I had not previously considered.

Quite astoundingly, reports are that Governor Bill Richardson -- who previously served as a Member of the U.S. Congress, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and as Secretary of Energy -- was named in the transcripts dealing with diplomatic efforts he was making with North Korea.

I suspect that Ambassador Charles "Jack" Pritchard, our previous envoy for negotiations with North Korea, is also part of the NSA intercepts package -- but the Richardson revelation is new.

The mainstream press is going to have to do its own digging on this one, but there are sources out there who have some knowledge of the intercepts.

Evidently, now Democratic governors get to be wiretapped all the live-long day - mainly because they're not Wall Street's buddies, it appears. I have yet to see any of the more square corporate cats get smushed by these intelligence and wiretapping-powered stings. I wonder why.

More: Steve Clemons: John Bolton & NSA Intercepts: The Connection That Mattered Was International

Bill Richardson thinks he was monitored. I am not sure, but Bolton would have had an interest in what Richardson was doing with the North Koreans. It is not clear to me why it would be inappropriate to monitor North Korean interactions with anyone, including Richardson -- whose name would have been redacted from the intercepts. What does bother me was Bolton's interest in a policy area as well as the names of specific people in an arena he had been fenced off from. Bolton was working overtime to undermine Colin Powell and staff on its Korea Peninsula diplomacy...

This story is no longer online: The Albuquerque Tribune: Did NSA tap Dem Gov Richardson’s phone?

WASHINGTON - Gov. Bill Richardson is concerned that some of his phone calls were monitored by a U.S. spy agency and transcripts of them were given to the president’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.

Richardson called Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, to express his concerns after Dodd revealed that Bolton had on 10 occasions asked the National Security Agency for the intercepts of phone conversations involving Americans.

[snip] Sparks said Richardson’s call to Dodd was triggered when he read an online story by Washington journalist Wayne Madsen. The story said intelligence community “insiders” claim the NSA circumvented a ban on domestic surveillance by asserting that the intercepted calls were part of “training missions.”

Ohhh nooes Wayne Madsen exp0sed Neocon espionage skeme! [It might not be a coincidence that Richardson is not seen as a great buddy of AIPAC, getting this kind of heat on him...]

And now Richardson gets the boot from Washington -- no longer able to play the check against Hillary and the Great Washington Dumb Hawk contingent likely to congeal into her orbit.

[Hilary Mann Leverett, an old intel hand, just agreed with exactly my point about Hillary's dumb buddies on MSNBC Countdown. Neenar neenar...]

Meanwhile the Senate's top intel Dems Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller were forced to bitch about Leon Panetta getting appointed to run the CIA. Didn't see that coming. Anyway it's probably good - Feinstein and Rockefeller have let everything go to hell and have a LOT of explaining to do.

Feinstein not told about CIA pick - First Read - msnbc.com

I have not heard much of Panetta referred to negatively out in the antiwar land and even the shadowland of mirrors, AKA Internet conspiracy country. So that's probably good. It will definitely not be the normal Porter Goss style empire of corruption.

I have a conflicted angle on the Caroline Kennedy thing. Maybe she ticks off Hillary, who would have preferred a subordinate pawn in that seat. That would not be so bad, as we'd hope Kennedy has indeed a Clinton-independent power base. On the other hand, DNA dynasties suck, and have infested the body politic in this country.

There are a lot more layers going on - however we will see an interesting intersection or perhaps Limited Hang-Out as these staff levels roll over, and likely federal wiretaps continue to roam around, unable to persuade Grand Juries of their awesomeness.

It's like a really awesome episode of The Wire... Dammit McNulty!

Peter Dale Scott on Deep Events and the Usual Suspects! Texas Cowboys vs. The Wall Street bluebloods = the great American conspiracy interface!

I have always believed, and argued, that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to `a few bad people,’ but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed.

--Peter Dale Scott

Currently I am reading "October Surprise" by Gary Sick... Here's a review I posted long ago...

We have to get a chunk of this! Peter Dale Scott, a Berkeley professor, is one of the classic scholars of suspicious American political conspiracies, the JFK assassination, the ongoing fake war on drugs, and other things that good kids keep their fuckin' mouths shut about.

I was impressed by the latest from ol' Scott, and it also led me around to look at L. Fletcher Prouty's "The Secret Team, The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World" which you can read for free there. Following here is an excerpt of how the Global Dominance Mindset works - and how ugly and weird events like 9/11 and the JFK assassination mark episodes of turmoil among this stratum of the American establishment.

Earlier: Feb 24 2008: What now? Homeland Security Detention Camps & Trains of course; 9/11 poisons our dreams; Zarqawi PSYOPS fake news revisited

And earlier, July 7 2007: Weekend roundup: sweeping bitesized paranoia! with some clips of Scott talking about those ol' Left Gatekeepers and 9/11... Also recommended: PD Scott on JFK and 9/11 Insights Gained from Studying Both....

**********

9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics:

9/11, Deep Events, and the Global Dominance Mindset in American Society

The continuity of past deep events is part of the problem facing those who wish to understand and correct what underlies them. For the mainstream U.S. media (as we now clearly see them) have become so implicated in past protective lies about Korea, Tonkin Gulf, and the JFK assassination that they, as well as the government, have now a demonstrated interest in preventing the truth about any of these events from coming out.

This means that the current threat to constitutional rights does not derive from the deep state alone. As I have written elsewhere, the problem is a global dominance mindset that prevails not only inside the Washington Beltway but also in the mainstream media and even in the universities, one which has come to accept recent inroads on constitutional liberties, and stigmatizes, or at least responds with silence to, those who are alarmed by them. Just as acceptance of bureaucratic groupthink is a necessary condition for advancement within the state, so acceptance of this mindset’s notions of decorum has increasingly become a condition for participation in mainstream public life.

In saying this, I mean something more narrow than the pervasive "business-defined consensus" which Gabriel Kolko once asserted was "a central reality," underlying how "a ruling class makes its policies operate." I would agree that, at least since the Reagan era, the mindset I am describing has become more and more clearly identified with the mentality of an overworld determined to protect its privileges and even enlarge them at the expense of the rest of society.

But the mindset I mean is narrower in focus – originally concerned with defending and now increasingly concerned with enlarging America’s dominance in the world, in an era of finite and increasingly scarcer resources. And it is also, increasingly, less a consensus than an arena of serious division and debate.

It is clear that the mindset is not monolithic. There have been recurring notable dissents within it, such as when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed in the New York Times that the Bush administration, in defiance of the FISA Act, was engaged in warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls inside the United States.47 But on other issues, notably the Iraq War, the Timeshas conspicuously failed to play the judicious critical role that it did with respect to the U.S. war in Vietnam. In general, as Kristina Borjesson reports in her devastating book, "Investigative reporting is dwindling…because it is expensive, attracts lawsuits, and can be hostile to the corporate interests and/or government connections of a news division’s parent company." And as to critical thinking about 9/11, as before about the Kennedy assassination, the Post has predictably gone out of its way to depict the 9/11 truth movement as a "cacophonous and free-range…bunch of conspiracists."

According to a survey of Lexis Nexis, the New York Times did not report Attorney General Gonzalez’ newsworthy claim that "There is no expressed grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution." (The Washington Post reported it, without comment, in a story of 197 words.) And on the question of torture even a liberal Harvard University professor, Michael Ignatieff, has argued in a University Press book from an even-handed starting point – "A democracy is committed to both the security of the majority and the rights of the individual" -- to an alarming defense of "coercive questioning."

In this state of affairs, I shall argue, the Internet provides an opportunity for opposition, of potentially immense political importance.

Deep Events as Intrigues within the Global Dominance Consensus

Many critics of American foreign policy on the left tend to stress its substantial coherence over time, from the War-Peace Studies for post-war planning of the Council on Foreign Relations in the 1940s, to Defense Secretary Charles Wilson’s plans in the 1950s for a "permanent war economy," to Clinton’s declaration to the United Nations in 1993 that the U.S. will act "multilaterally when possible, but unilaterally when necessary."

This view of America’s policies has persuaded some, notably Alexander Cockburn, to lament the displacement of coherent Marxist analysis by the "fundamental idiocy" and "foolishness" of "9/11 conspiracism." But it is quite possible to acknowledge both that there are ongoing continuities in American policy and also important, hidden, and recurring internal divisions, which have given rise to America’s structural deep events. These events have always involved friction between Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations, on the one hand, and the increasingly powerful oil- and military-dominated economic centers of the Midwest and the Texas Sunbelt on the other.

At the time that General MacArthur, drawing on his Midwest and Texas support, threatened to challenge Truman and the State Department, the opposition was seen as one between the traditional Europe-Firsters of the Northeast and new-wealth Asia-Firsters. In the 1952 election, the foreign policy debate was between Democratic "containment" and Republican "rollback." Bruce Cumings, following Franz Schurmann, wrote later of the split, even within the CIA, between "Wall Street internationalism" on the one hand and "cowboy-style expansionism" on the other.

Many have followed Michael Klare in defining the conflict as one, even within the Council on Foreign Relations, between "traders" and warrior "Prussians." Since the rise to eminence of the so-called "Vulcans" – notably Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, backed by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) – the struggle has frequently been described as a struggle between the multilateralists of the status quo and the unilateralists seeking indisputable American hegemony.

Underlying every one of the deep events I have mentioned, and others such as the U-2 incident, can be seen this contest between traderly (multilateralist) and warriorly (unilateralist) approaches to the maintenance of U.S. global dominance. For decades the warriorly faction was clearly a minority; but it was also an activist and well-funded minority, in marked contrast to the relatively passive and disorganized traderly majority. Hence the warriorly preference for war, thanks to ample funding from the military-industrial complex and also to a series of deep events, was able time after time to prevail.

The 1970s can be seen as a turning-point, when a minority CFR faction, led by Paul Nitze, united with corporate executives from the military-industrial complex like David Packard and pro-Zionist future neocons like Richard Perle to forge a succession of militant political coalitions, such as the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD). Cheney and Rumsfeld, then in the Ford White House, participated in this onslaught on the multilateral foreign policy of Henry Kissinger. In the late 1990s Cheney and Rumsfeld, even while secretly refining the COG provisions put into force on 9/11, also participated openly in the successor organization to the CPD, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

From his office interfacing between CIA and the U.S. Air Force, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty deduced that there was a single Secret Team, within the CIA but not confined to it, responsible for not only the Tonkin Gulf incidents (timed to enable already planned military action against North Vietnam) but other deep events, such as the U-2 incident of 1960 (which in Prouty’s opinion was planned and timed to frustrate the projected summit conference between Eisenhower and Khrushchev) and even the assassination of President Kennedy (after which the Secret Team "moved to take over the whole direction of the war and to dominate the activity of the United States of America").

In language applicable to both Korea in 1950 and Tonkin Gulf in 1964, Prouty argued that CIA actions followed a pattern of actions which "went completely out of control in Southeast Asia:"

The clandestine operator… prepares the stage by launching a very minor and very secret, provocative attack of a kind that is bound to bring open reprisal. These secret attacks, which may have been made by third parties or by stateless mercenaries whose materials were supplied secretly by the CIA, will undoubtedly create reaction which in turn is observed in the United States…. It is not a new game. [but] it was raised to a high state of art under Walt Rostow and McGeorge Bundy against North Vietnam, to set the pattern for the Gulf of Tonkin attacks.

I mention Prouty’s thesis here in order to record my partial dissent from it. In my view his notion of a "team" localizes what I call the global dominance mindset too narrowly in a restricted group who are not only like-minded but in conspiratorial communication over a long term. He exhibits the kind of conspiratorialist mentality once criticized by G. William Domhoff:

We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there's some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world …. [Conspiracy theories] encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world.

My own position is still that which I articulated years ago in response to Domhoff:

I have always believed, and argued, that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to `a few bad people,’ but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed.

Quoting what I had written, Michael Parenti added, "In sum, national security state conspiracies [or what I would call deep events] are components of our political structure, not deviations from it."

The outcome of the deep events I have mentioned so far has been chiefly a series of victories for the warriors. But there have been other structural deep events, notably Watergate in 1972-74 and Iran-Contra in 1986-87, which can be interpreted, if not as victories for the traders, at least as temporary setbacks for the warriors. In The Road to 9/11 I have tried to show that Cheney and Rumsfeld, while in the Ford White House, bitterly resented the setback represented by the post-Watergate reforms, and immediately set in motion a series of moves to reverse them. I argue there that the climax of these moves was the imposition after 9/11 of their long-planned provisions for COG, formulated under their supervision since the early 1980s.

Thus since World War Two the warriorly position, initially that of a marginal but conspiratorial minority, has moved since the Reagan and Bush presidencies into a more and more central position. This is well symbolized by the rise in influence since 1981 of the Council for National Policy, originally funded by Texas oil billionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt and explicitly designed to offset the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations. Comparing the 1950s with the present decade, it is striking how much the status of the State Department has declined vis-à-vis the Pentagon. With the accelerated militarization of the U.S. economy, the question arises whether a more traderly foreign policy can ever again prevail.

And since 9/11, especially with the institution of unknown COG procedures, some have talked of the overall subversion of democracy, by a new Imperial Presidency in the Bush White House.

***********

Well that's all for now, kids. Have fun in the endless rabbit holes of Deep Politics and Cryptocracies!

Syndicate content