Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, the author of American Conservative magazine’s explosive cover story interview with FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds finds her to be “very credible,” even though “as a former intelligence officer,” he says, he’s “normally suspicious of these kinds of stories.”
Giraldi was a guest on the Thom Hartmann Program today, as guest hosted by Peter B. Collins. In the 13 minute segment, he discussed a number of aspects of Edmonds’ disturbing allegations with Collins, including yesterday’s confirmation by a long-time FBI veteran of a key element in her claims, which include bribery, blackmail, and the theft of nuclear secrets as aided and abetted by high-ranking U.S. officials.
Giraldi, a long-time counterterrorism specialist with the CIA, commented on the confirmation by 18-year FBI counterintelligence vet John Cole, who, in a published claim yesterday, acknowledged the existence of a “decade-long investigation” targeting the former third-highest ranking official in the Bush State Department, Marc Grossman, as Edmonds has long maintained. Citing Cole’s first-hand experience with the espionage investigations in question, Giraldi told Collins during the interview:
Listen online below, or download the MP3…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/ThomHartmann_PBC_PhilGiraldi_092909.mp3]
NOTE: I’ll be sitting in to guest host the nationally syndicated Mike Malloy Show again tomorrow night (Wednesday), and have also scheduled Giraldi as a guest. We’ll have him on for a full hour at the beginning of the show (live at 6p PT, 9p ET) and will invite your calls and questions for him at 877-520-1150.
UPDATE 10/1/09: Here’s my interview with Giraldi on the Malloy Show last Wednesday (9/30/09). With commercials removed, the “hour” is appx. 38 minutes.
Download MP3 or listen online below…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/MikeMalloy_BradFriedman_GuestHost_093009_Hour1.mp3]
I’m troubled by Tom Hartman’s final question — Why is The American Conservative the only member of the media willing to cover this story?
While alternative, is not The Brad Blog a part of the American media? Have the words written by Brad Friedman on this topic, and the extended coverage by this blog, somehow been lost in cyberspace?
Brad has done a great job covering this and many other stories no one dares to touch, and has done so with limited resources which makes it even more ‘credit’ worthy.
As always, thank you BRADBLOG.
Ernie –
1) That was Peter B. Collins sitting in for Thom. 2) PBC follows BRAD BLOG closely, so I’ll give him a pass this time. I know what it’s like when you’re up against the clock at the end of a segment. 3) I’ll give him some hell next time I talk to him. Though I have a feeling you just did! 😉
Sibel –
Thanks. Much.
I was wondering about the following from Sibel’s AmCon interview:
Has Sibel even elaborated on how they obtained this information? Gossip? Or is that what warrantless wiretaps were all about, as many of us unpatriotic paranoiacs feared?
Seems Feith and Perle would be a good source of info as to who exactly in the current congress might be compromised. Since they both have such hardons for torturing terrorists, and since they have probably done more harm to America than any terrorist has, surely they would not object to a little sleep deprivation, stress positioning, and waterboarding so that we may find out. In fact, we would have a good opportunity to test out the efficacy of these methods. Flip a coin; winner gets subjected to good old army field manual techniques, loser gets waterboarded (preferably with leftover bong-water). See who divulges more. Grossman, Hastert, et al get subjected to the more effective methods.
Sibel story is to vague not enough source and what she is saying is disinformation she was train by the FBI after all and if she did whistle blow everything she would be dead for revealing everything, because the U.S. kill people who talk against them they have a long history of doing that Sibel is just saying stuff that we know and anyone can prove
Prove It: if anyone can prove what she’s saying, why has no one proven it before her?
What’s vague about her story? Did she say “D.H.” instead of “Dennis Hastert”?
You mean the OLD msm(print/cyborgTV) is losing out to the NEW msm(cyberspace). TV doesn’t report it wants viewers programmed.
Cyberspace is righting the wrongs now.
When Rick Santorum’s name is googled the first result is a sexual neologism that spread in response to his homophobic views.
I would like to suggest the neologism “grossman” that is indicative of gratuitous corruption.
The real news IS on the net. You have to be willing to work to get the whole story. You have to cross check references and get background on the writers to see who pays them and what their connections are so you can see where they are coming from.
The number of people who have the time or desire to do this is very very limited.
Sadly the MSM is corporate compromised. Not that many people are watching that either.
Too many people are getting their “news” from viral emails in 36 point purple type. Everyone of those I have researched due to the ridiculous claims they have made have turned out to be false. When I try to show the recipients of these emails the evidence they don’t want to see it.
Since Brad really does his research and is supported by donations from individuals and not major corporations or political parties I have more trust in this blog than any other I have come across.
Correct me if I am wrong about this.
Just so MSKITTY, just so! An how bout that schumer bill for corporape journos, seems he don’t like upstarts that stray too far from the massage. 🙂
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/28/chuck-schumer-to-bloggers-fuck-you/
since i am kinda freaked about knowing the info from this article (one outta 16 to think its worthy of a digg) i posted it on propellor, http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/09/30/the-brad-blog-cia-vet-fbi-whistleblower-edmonds-39very-credible39/comments/?comment=5510766#comment_5510766
any help pushing the story there would
apprciated
3 credible witnesses now///ask the fbi why they are not investigating this
My advice, don’t tie your tail to Sibel’s kite. There’s something phony about her. Think of the mud on Pepper’s fans’ faces after the planned destruction of his MLK stance took place.
Seems McClatchy has dipped their toe in, albeit in a somewhat oblique way.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/michael_doyle/story/76261.html
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
… jack said on 9/30/2009 @ 2:58 pm PT…
My advice, don’t tie your tail to Sibel’s kite. There’s something phony about her. Think of the mud on Pepper’s fans’ faces after the planned destruction of his MLK stance took place.
What’s phony about her? What’s with these “drive-by” commenters leaving cryptic negative comments about Sibel Edmonds and saying nothing specific?
Look: this guy said there’s something “vague” about her story:
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
… Prove it said on 9/29/2009 @ 8:27 pm PT…
Sibel story is to vague not enough source and what she is saying is disinformation she was train by the FBI after all and if she did whistle blow everything she would be dead for revealing everything, because the U.S. kill people who talk against them they have a long history of doing that Sibel is just saying stuff that we know and anyone can prove
How ’bout you guys getting into specifics, please!!!
Wait! It’s a game! I get it!
Let me try:
“There’s something fishy here!!!”
Sibel Edmonds’ deposition is about more than just the actions of the Turks in 1915, it’s about the infiltration of foreign agents and selling nuclear secrets on the black market today. Now why would anyone be afraid of Sibel Edmonds? Perhaps, if the details were widely reported by the MSM, there would be an outcry for investigations.
Remember what Mark Twain said many years ago: “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Investigations into Sibel’s deposition would only confirm that this is true and that serious changes are required inside our government.
Hee-hee-hee. That’s so funny I had to laugh. You’re named Prove It. You say her story is too vague. But you end by saying she’s just “saying stuff that we know and anyone can prove”. Well I’m guessing that maybe you do know (and maybe you don’t, but its not all stuff I know). But I don’t have to prove it to you because anyone can prove what she’s saying, according to you. So prove it for yourself.
And that’s a comment from Jack. Is that the same Jack of beanstalk fame? Anyway, I don’t know if anyone here is tying their tail to Sibel’s kite. I don’t even have a tail to tie. Maybe you could go fly a kite. Alright that was rude but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. It was just so obvious. So obvious.