0:00 [START] [MUSIC]
0:13 James Corbett: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome. This is James Corbett of CorbettReport.com. It is currently the 8th of February, 2013 here in the Land of the Rising Sun, and tonight we are joined once again on the line from the western United States by our old friend Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com.
0:29 And for those of you who missed our recent conversation with Sibel on Operation Gladio and how that relates to the current war on terror, I would wholeheartedly suggest that you go and re-acquaint yourself, or acquaint yourself, with that interview. A ton of fascinating information in that first interview, and this is the second interview in what promises to be a series of interviews on this subject as we continue exploring deeper into Operation Gladio Plan B and how that ties in to the current War on Terror. So Sibel, thank you once again for your time tonight.
1:02 Sibel Edmonds: Sure
1:04 James: Well, let’s pick up where we left off last time. We really did cover quite a bit about the ultranationalists and how that was used in Operation Gladio in Turkey in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and how that leads into the current time-frame. And we talked a bit about the current era, the War on Terror. But let’s start getting more into that specifically.
1:24 And there’s a couple of news stories that have just occurred in the last couple of weeks that might provide a good starting point or an entrée to this conversation. And I want to start with the recent bombing in Ankara of the US Embassy. And people might have followed this story, but some of the details that have come out are — or at least the way they’re being framed in the mainstream media — are quite interesting.
1:45 For example, we have this from the Times of Israel from last week: “Turkey: Embassy bombers cling to Cold War ideology.” And it says, “Some speculate that the DHKPC targeted the old imperialist nemesis of leftist radicals everywhere in efforts to oust Assad.” And this article starts by saying, “Long before al-Qaida, when the Cold War gripped the world, leftist terrorists staged spectacular attacks in a doomed campaign to overthrow governments and impose their vision of a socialist utopia. The bulk of these extremist groups eventually drifted into oblivion, gutted by police pressure, internal rifts and an ideology undercut by communism’s fall. In Turkey, one cult-like group didn’t get the memo.”
2:25 And it goes on to talk about how this group — the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party Front, or the DHKPC — is responsible for this bombing. Sibel, what do you make of this bombing and how it’s being framed right now in terms of this Cold War ideology leftover of the socialist radicals?
2:45 Sibel: It’s very interesting, because you can’t really get to the bottom of what’s going on there. As you said, with all of this conflicting reports that is coming out on this attack. And as far as Turkey and Turkish media and the Turkish government goes, whenever they say “left” and “the communists” and “these groups” and “these cults,” they’re always talking about Russia.
3:05 And another way they framed this latest incident was tie it, again, to Syria and to Assad. Because these people are very pissed off, they are very angry, the Turkish’s government’s support of the United States and the foreign influence there to Assad. And while — let’s see, they are Communists, they are leftists, they are pro-Assad. And so… and then we have had one superpower, or former superpower, who has been stepping in and saying, “No, you can’t attack Syria,” and has been an obstacle to some of our plans for Syria. And that is who? Russia.
3:48 So… so it starts coming all together, and in a way maybe it’s an indirect message — because I’m sure they get the direct message through different channels — to Russia, saying: “OK, well, we’re gonna have some of these incidents, and you’re gonna start looking really bad internationally.” And so that’s what it looks like.
4:07 The most important thing in terms of timing on this is the recent report — the mainstream media is not really playing it big yet, not in the United States. It’s huge in Turkey, and it’s very big in the rest of the Middle East. All these Arabic publications: from Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, to even Pakistan. And that is the recent arrest and immediate release of Bin Laden’s son-in-law.
4:44 Well, this guy, Bin Laden’s son-in-law, since 2000 actually has been most wanted internationally. And if you recall, Bin Laden really never directly claimed responsibility for 9/11. It has never been this clear claim of responsibility for 9/11. On the other hand, this guy, Bin Laden’s son-in-law — who’s supposed to be among top five al-Qaeda leaders and number two spokesperson for so-called al-Qaeda: and this is Bin Laden’s son-in-law — he is the one who did the highest number of these so-called videos that kept popping up between 2001, 9/11, and 2008. At least six or seven videos came out that this guy was saying, “OK, we did great,” and in some ways claiming responsibility for 9/11, and then coming and threatening over Iraq and everything.
5:44 So this guy has been wanted, and the rumor has been — or had been until recently — that he was in Iran, of all places. Now you have to remember, Iran has never, ever had good relations — or any relationship — with al-Qaeda. There were certain geographic locations in Iran that have high level of activities, but that area is considered the no-man’s zone: and that is Sistan and Baluchistan, OK? And that is shared by Pakistan as well. And we know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been active there, including Bin Laden, Bin Laden’s son-in-law.
6:25 On and off, this region been very important. And this region also has been very important for the United States. We have been doing a lot of things in Baluchistan. Baluchistan, just like Xinjiang that I mentioned, is another area that you don’t hear much report. All we know as Americans, in general, is that there are all these terror incidents; there are people that want independence; Pakistan, they’re abusing them, they’re oppressing them. And so,`anyhow: Baluchistan, Sistan, but not Iran. You’re looking at Sunni factions — and these are the Wahhabis, this is Bin Laden. You’re looking… Iran’s Shias.
7:03 Iran and Bin Laden and — or so-called al-Qaeda — they’ve never had anything jointly. Nothing. In fact, during the time when I was in the FBI after 9/11, we — the United States — we tried very hard to find something to link Iran to 9/11. And they couldn’t. I mean, they couldn’t even make it up: I mean, it was that far-fetched. However, the rumor has been — and I have no idea how it started: usually we don’t have any idea how these things start; it just gets placed out there, then it circulates — was that Bin Laden’s son-in-law went to Iran, he was arrested in Iran, and Iran is holding several key al-Qaeda members, in either prisons or some sort of house arrest in Iran. Never confirmed, never a shred of evidence.
7:54 Anyhow, in October — uh, in February, that would be February 2nd or 3rd, here is the headline saying, “Bin Laden’s son-in-law was arrested in Turkey by Turkish authorities.” And he was — and this is Bin Laden’s son-in-law — he was staying at this five-star hotel only two blocks from the Presidential Palace. In a way, hiding there in a five-star — it’s a penthouse room, according to the Turkish media. And how did this happen?
8:26 So, you have Bin Laden’s son-in-law — one of the top five al-Qaeda leaders most-wanted, or wanted, by the international community — and he is in this penthouse in this hotel in capital city of Turkey, two blocks from the Presidential Palace. And the story that Turkish government fed to the media was, “This is how it happened:” They… — this is “they” being the Turkish government — they got a call from the CIA. And CIA said, “We want to give you a very important information. [clucks] Bin Laden’s son-in-law, our most wanted guy, he — maybe with a backpack or something, the guy who was staying in a five-star hotel — he crossed the border… [laughs] from Iran, recently entered Turkey. In fact, we know where he’s staying. Here is the name of his hotel and his room number.”
9:18 And Turkish authorities, they said, “Whoo!” So they stormed the hotel room, the penthouse unit two blocks from the Presidential Palace. They took this guy and questioned him, interrogated him. Temporarily, they held him. And again, it’s very interesting: it’s not a regular criminal or terrorism-related police station; it’s in a totally different political, intelligence-related station that they held him. Then they said they don’t have any evidence indicating that this guy — Bin Laden’s son-in-law, the internationally most wanted guy, al-Qaeda’s number four or number five — has done anything against Turkey or has threatened Turkish security in any way. And because of that, they were going to release him.
10:07 Then the articles — these newspapers in Turkey — they are saying, “Well, the US said, ‘But, we want him! We want him in Guantánamo! I mean, this guy: imagine how much information he has on 9/11! As you know, we’ve never been able to have anyone in court. They’re either dead or they have disappeared. Not a single person! So we want him. Give this guy to us.'” And Turkey said, “Uh, sorry, we don’t have this extradition treaty with you. And as we said, this guy hasn’t done anything to us. So we are not going to give him, hand him to you.”
10:40 And the CIA and the State Department, the US Government, said “Oh, OK.” Hmm. “We are not happy, but fine.” Now, as I said…
10:49 James: Definite… and keep in mind, this is the same CIA that has abducted citizens from other countries that they have nothing to do with — including, famously, Italy and other place — and flown them halfway across the world to torture them. But they won’t do that with this person, apparently.
11:04 Sibel: First of all, it’s Turkey. And Turkey has been one of our top allies in detaining — most of them innocent — people. Putting them in these black sites and torturing them. Taking them into Guantánamo. Since when we are paying attention to some sorts of international rules like extradition treaties? After all, as you said, we had our Gulfstream with our CIA psychopaths with ski masks landing in Sweden and saying, “We want that guy, that guy, that guy.” And Sweden says, “Yes.” And they just, you know, put chains around their ankles and they hand them over. No evidence at all. OK? This is what we’ve been doing.
11:47 And then we — basically, it’s out that 99% of people in Guantánamo, we have no evidence against these people. They had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Now yet, based on our own claim, this is one of the top al-Qaeda people. Basically it was, what? Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar from the Taliban side. This guy is number four or number five that is wanted. Turkey says, “We’re not gonna give him to you.” And none of our rendition stuff applies to this. We don’t want this guy.
12:17 Why don’t we want this guy? And that is the question that people should be asking. But then again: where is it, the news and analysis of this incident here in the United States for people to even look at and then ask the question? What… again, again very important, because you are looking at, again, Turkey. You’re looking at high level, now, so-called “al-Qaeda” leader. And as we get into the topics from where we left last time, you keep seeing this same pattern.
12:50 You’re gonna keep seeing the same pattern again. Another top guy that we declared later as top al-Qaeda financier and terrorist, and that was Yasin al-Qadi. And the name, people might recognize it via P-Tech and the P-Tech incident. Well, Yasin al-Qadi after 9/11 — without being touched — he left the United States, went for a while — for about six to eight months — and lived in Albania. He has Albanian passport. From Albania, he went to Turkey, OK? And while he was in Turkey, he still operated. He was totally, completely operational.
13:28 And the United States did the same thing. They asked Turkey, they said, “We want this guy. We want al-Qadi. Look, he is wanted, his financial network is wanted.” And same thing: Turkey said, “Oh, sorry. There is nothing here that indicates he has done anything criminal or terrorist-related here in Turkey. We’re not gonna give him to you.” And so he very nicely settled there with all his operations and networks, and he’s been operational. And now, currently, he is in the United Kingdom. Because he basically brought these lawsuits against the United Nations, and finally — a few months a go, or a year ago — United Nations said, “OK, well, fine: he’s not really a terrorist. Nobody has anything evidence or anything, either, for the arguments of terrorist or not.”
14:18 But again, you’re looking at Turkey. And when you start looking, you’re gonna see a lot of these characters. We’re gonna see a lot of these people ending up in Turkey and being protected in Turkey with our OK. Because, as we said: take a look at the recent reports and see how Turkey has been very, very readily complying with all these illegal practices of black sites, rendition. And you will that on the one hand they’ve been doing it — but why? — with the so-called “important” characters. Turkey has been a great haven for these people, to go and continue their network and their operations.
15:00 James: Well, let’s focus in on that al-Qadi case for a little bit because it is such a fascinating story. And of course, immediately in the wake of 9/11, the US was putting together its list of specially-designated terrorists and specifically looking at financiers of terrorism. And al-Qadi made that list in October of 2001. So immediately after 9/11, he’s put on that list. And as you indicate, in the last four to five years he’s managed to clear himself from blacklists in Switzerland, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and has managed to fend off lawsuits from 9/11 victims’ family members for any culpability so far.
15:35 But he has not yet been removed from the US specially-designated terrorists list. And part of the investigation that put him on that list goes back to an FBI investigation from the late 1990s called Operation Vulgar Betrayal, which was led by a couple of agents that were in that FBI Chicago office. I don’t know what you’re able to say about those investigations, but perhaps you can tell us a little bit about that story.
16:00 Sibel: Sure. The agents — Robert Wright and also John Vincent — they became members of our organization, National Security Whistleblowers’ coalition. And because Robert Wright was still working — he was still working with the FBI — and during this time, this would be 2003, 2004, he was under a lot of retaliation and punishment for what he did by coming and exposing this terrorist network, including their investigation; and the fact that United States government — this wasn’t the FBI itself, but entities such as the White House and the State Department and the CIA — they were forced to shut down this very, very important investigation that, again, would have led us to all the actors and the evidence that were involved in — later — in 9/11.
16:56 So this guy was under retaliation, so he couldn’t become officially a member of my organization, our organization, National Security Whistleblowers’ Coalition. But his partner… because these two guys, they did all this, they chased these bad guys together in Chicago Field Office — and that would be John Vincent — he, by then, was retired. And he joined our organization, and he and I had a lot of discussions on this, and we worked together on all this: whistleblowers on 9/11-related issues.
17:25 And again, John Vincent was one of many, many high-level agents who went to the 9/11 Commission. And they said, “Let us present you with the evidence of all the things that hasn’t been out yet that is related to 9/11.” And like many others, he had been excluded. Same thing with Agent Wright: the FBI said the 9/11 Commission is not allowed to question him. So he was never interviewed by 9/11, OK? And he’s a very key guy with a key operation that… and a key investigation of that operation. And same thing with John Vincent.
18:05 So this is happening and, as I said, I keep saying, “Chicago,” and “Chicago.” Because the Plan B with Gladio, a lot of the operational and logistic aspects of Gladio Plan B was being conducted from Chicago. Chicago is the top, the best, the easiest city for money laundering, OK? Because of huge level of corruption within the local… the state government, Illinois, but also Chicago political figures. And again, it came out that Dennis Hastert — very little of it has come out — but it is the easiest place to… for these operations. it’s a very good base in the US.
18:53 And I want to emphasize: one thing that I realized from some of the questions I got on Gladio Plan B was that, you know, how does this even… how can we even claim that US is involved with this, Gladio operations, because it was Italian? We, the United States, has an office in the Pentagon, OK? This office has a number, has a specific name. It’s not called the “Gladio Plan B Office,” but it is a designated section in the Pentagon that only deals with these Plan B operations for Gladio, which is the… via Turkish actors, and all the stuff we are doing in Caucasus. And before that, that same office — physical office, section of Pentagon — dealt with the previous operations of Gladio. Not only from 1989, all the way up to 1995, 1996. So there is actually a physical division, an office. So it’s not some assumption or some conclusion: there is an office. There is a division. OK?
20:03 Now, with Chicago: this is when I was working with the FBI, and you said October for Qadi leaving the United States. And again: he left; a lot of Bin Laden family members, business associates, they left without being questioned. Qadi was not questioned either. Starting from the two, three days after 9/11, we had this quota that we had to meet, the FBI had to meet. And that was to round up as many people as possible — immigration violation, even the tiniest one — to show in the newspaper all the arrests we were making and interrogations that we were conducting.
20:43 And these were nobody. This was some guy who violated a traffic rule and they realized his Green Card was expired. [claps] “He’s — he may be involved in 9/11. We’re gonna interrogate him.” And taking all the resources away from the FBI, while you had all these top people with Bin Laden last names, Bin Laden’s known associates, Qadi: nobody ever questioned them, nobody ever detained them. They just had their first-class tickets or they had their private jets, and they just were out of here when they wanted. Nobody touched them. OK? That’s another very important side of, aspect of all this 9/11 enigma.
21:23 So, this is when they are chasing — in mid- to late-1990s, John Vincent and Agent Robert Wright — they are chasing Qadi under Counterterrorism Division, OK? They were with Counterterrorism Division. But a lot of the work also involved — because it spilled over to the White-Collar Crime Division for FBI Chicago Field Office, because a lot of Qadi and these terrorists — so-called terrorists — they were also involved in a massive amount of money laundering, and there were a lot of financial aspects of it. So you have Chicago Counterterrorism involved with this, you have Chicago White-Collar Crime Division involved with this.
22:09 Meanwhile, I’m in Washington, DC. The main operation I’m translating for has to do with the Washington, DC Field Office’s Turkish counterintelligence agent Dennis Saccher. Again, if you read… if you have read my book or if you read my book, you will see all the detailed description of this. However, because I was the only one translating for Turkish and Turkic languages, I also worked with field agents from other cities and towns — and that included Chicago in Illinois.
22:46 And that became my second-biggest case that I was working with; and that was with Agent Joel Roberts. And this guy, he was not with the Counterterrorism Division in Chicago. He had his case that he’s been chasing since 1996 in Chicago, but that was under Turkish Counterintelligence with targets that were [laughs] — included — the person we discussed here: Abdullah Çatlı, who was living in Chicago, and Çatlı’s associates. These are all NATO Plan B, Gladio Plan B operatives that were doing a lot of things in Chicago, and they had their base in Chicago. And we discussed that: they went to Xinjiang from there, they went to Azerbaijan for assassination attempt.
23:33 So while these agents in Chicago for Turkish Counterintelligence — they are chasing these Turkish terrorist, narcotics, criminal, espionage entities — a lot of that overlaps with what Agent Wright and John Vincent were chasing with al-Qadi, and these were the mostly Arabic-speaking and Saudi Arabia-rooted individuals who have… again, there were a bunch of things. There were financial crime, terrorism-related, et cetera. In Washington, DC, again, it was certain diplomatic targets with Turkey. Those overlap.
24:14 So the most important thing for people to get in this is: we are not even looking at one big investigation, all these agents working together. They were chopped up and divided. But because I worked in the central place, and even other field offices — whether it’s someone in Illinois, Chicago, or someone from New Jersey — they were sending their material to me — or the Turkic portion of it, or Turkey-related portion of it — I was in this position to see all the dots being connected. I’m going to my agent and saying — to Dennis Saccher in Washington DC — and saying, “You may want to talk with this guy, Robert Wright or Joel Roberts in Chicago, because they have the other pieces of what you’re working on.”
25:05 And that’s exactly what took place with some of these investigations, these agents while I was there. Because I was the central person, they started connecting the dots. So I’ll leave it here before I make things more complicated.
25:18 James: All right. Well, let’s focus on the national aspect of this. Of course, you were looking specifically at Turkic, Turkish diplomatic targets of the FBI, and that was related to some of this. But you mentioned that al-Qadi had an Albanian passport. Is that particularly relevant?
25:37 Sibel: Uh, yes, it is. Because — absolutely. Because… same whether it’s
Abdullah Çatlı, whether it’s al-Qadi, whether it’s with of these other Turkey… Turkish NATO operatives that we were monitoring within the FBI. In… between early 1990s till about 1996, ’97, the biggest focus of these operatives was on the Balkans. And we know what was happening during this time: we had Bosnia, we had Kosovo. I mean, this was when these mujahideens that were being mysteriously — nobody ever gets into the details — they cross the borders and they end up in the Balkans. How do they end up in the Balkans? Coming from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, via Turkey into this region and fighting.
26:29 So… and this was… when I say they are all connected, Abdullah Çatlı and al-Qadi, well, a lot of the focus during that early portion of mid-1990s was on the Balkans. And this was when these individuals were going to that region and coming back, and the networks were bringing these mujahideens — not al-Qaeda, they were not called al-Qaeda — from those regions into…
26:59 And if you look at… later, to Fethullah Gülen, and madrasas and mosques by him, again, you will see Fethullah Gülen all over this region. Same thing. And another interesting aspect is, this is the period of time when a lot of Albanians poured into the United States. OK? And this was when they started really establishing themselves as the most ferocious and strongest mafias in the United State. And again, a lot of their activities were centered in — where? — Chicago. OK?
27:39 Because the network that brought the heroin to Europe, it was Turkish-Albanian networks. So this is… once it comes out of Turkey, it goes into the Balkans, it goes through Brussels, it goes to Egypt; but then it comes to the United States. United States is a huge market for heroin. And if you look at this particular period, you would see the top mafia operators in the United States were Albanians. And this was when the Italians said, “Well, even we don’t — or won’t — mess with these Albanians.”
28:10 Well, who are these Albanians, exactly? And how were they able to bring… and how come every time we — the FBI, together and sometimes jointly with DEA — there would be an operation, they would go completely untouched. Untouched. Whether… when the actors involved were Turkish or they were Albanian. Now, with Turkish actors, we had several incidents while I was in the FBI. There would be a joint sting operation, OK? They’re gonna have a bust. And this is FBI and DEA, joint operations. They know the location, they know the actors, and 9:30 AM, they’re gonna be there, they’re gonna bust these guys, right?
28:50 They get into their SUVs and the vans — and this includes my agents, some of the agents I work with — they’re gonna meet their DEA counterparts and make the bust, right? 15 minutes before the bust, while they are on the way, they get a call from the top tier — top layer in the FBI — saying, [claps] “Operation finished. Over. Come back to the office and get the DEA’s guys off this.” And the agents would be absolutely livid, saying, “What!” and “Why?” “Well, it’s because the State Department told us they have diplomatic immunities, and it will be diplomatic incidents.”
29:31 Now, the first question people should ask is: how in the world did the CIA and the State Department in each case, how did they find out about the fact that we were monitoring them and there would be a sting operation, right? And this is, again, another topic that is not really talked about, and that is Colleen Rowley — and one of the things, maybe, we will do for this video: I will find that interview on… or the article — but Colleen Rowley came and said, “I’m not joking: I believe in FBI there were so many moles. And some of these moles were al-Qaeda-related moles, because that’s the only explanation I have been able to come up with.” And this is Colleen Rowley, OK? — senior FBI, currently retired — her quote.
30:20 Well, that was the thing: we had the moles and people immediately assumed they would be Russian moles… I mean, even with this Jan Dickerson case, Turkish moles? These were the moles who for foreign governments. That’s not… that was not the case. Or in these cases, that was not the case. Because in these cases, we had moles — whether within the management, within the… whether within the headquarters, or within the translation divisions — that were placed there strategically by the State Department and the CIA. CIA wanted to know at any given moment what FBI was doing, how much they had, and what they were planning to do. OK?
31:01 On the other hand, if you look the other way and say, “How many people from the FBI had penetrated the CIA, you would get this: [gestures “zero”] Zilch. Zero. So, right: there’s a sting operation — maybe maximum of six, seven, ten people know about this — and the top-layer guy in the FBI says, “You’re coming back to the headquarters, you’re calling off the operations. They have — the target that you’re about to bust — they have diplomatic immunities. Who said that? State Department. How does State Department know?” There is nothing there. No explanation on that.
31:36 How many DEA agents know about this? I would say at least a dozen of DEA agents today would tell you about several incidents where the State Department, CIA would come and prevent their operations when they would get close in the sting operations. They would tell me about cases where the CIA, State Department, would actually go tip off the targets that DEA was after, or the FBI. There are dozens of cases: not only within the Turkish department, but in… — and I do have many DEA, former DEA agents — it’s a norm. It would… if you were to ask senior DEA agents, the biggest enemies you have in doing your job — you know, preventing you from going after the big guys or doing real busts; I’m not talking about street level drug dealers — they would tell you, “Yeah, State Department; a.k.a. CIA.” I can guarantee you that. And same thing was the case with the FBI.
32:34 So basically, that was what was happening with… whether it was narcotics… when I all along kept saying… Look, as a whistleblower, they try to portray you as someone who has… who’s disgruntled. And you’re going after your bosses who fired you or didn’t promote you. If you look at my case — I mean, in the book, you will see some stupid little bureaucrat like Mike Feghali — and my answer is saying he was a nobody, he was a little guy with some bureaucratic psychosis, OK? And I kept saying that the people who came with the state secrets privilege — the people who prevented our investigations — were State Department, CIA.
33:16 State Department, CIA: well, they didn’t fire me. If you look at some of the individuals’ names that kept coming out during my case, Marc Grossman — well, what did Marc Grossman do to me? I’ve never met… I have never met this guy face-to-face. And you would think, why would somebody — he didn’t fire me; he didn’t demote me; he didn’t have anything to do with all the torture I was put through in the FBI before I was fired — why in the would I would name people like Dennis Hastert or Marc Grossman? Yet if I want to go and get revenge — or if I’m after revenge or I’m disgruntled — I’ll be going after the guys like Muellers and… or even beneath them, Feghali.
34:00 But all along I’ve been saying, with 9/11 — before, after, during — we were the FBI. And a lot of… FBI does a lot of bad things now with civil liberties-related issues. But when it comes to terrorism and criminal stuff, it was always the State Department and the CIA.
34:18 James: You were putting a lot on the line by even bringing up these people and doing this. So for people who are on the outside of this looking in, what are the ways that they can start to put some of these people together from the sources that are already out there? Because a lot of these pieces are on the table and all they need to do is to be put together. So how do we start linking names like this from the outside with the publicly-available information that we have?
34:44 Sibel: As you said, with research. For example, one of the things I tried to do… that’s how we actually ended up organizing ourselves as National Security Whistleblowers’ Coalition. What brought us together was, I took that [9/11] commissioners’ report, OK? And I said, “This is bull.” OK? And so many facts had been intentionally omitted, the ones that were given to them. Or people were prevented by the Commission themselves: “Don’t give us this fact. We are not gonna interview you.”
35:17 Time Magazine’s Woman of the Year, Colleen Rowley, right? With Moussaoui, Zacarias Moussaoui case. 2002, right? She became well-known. Well, this was even before 9/11 Commission had started. 9/11 Commission didn’t interview Colleen Rowley. They said they were not going to interview her. As you said, Robert Wright, John Vincent.
35:40 So what I did was: during my own case, I started meeting and coming across these high-level — not like me, I was just a language specialist in the FBI for six, seven months — these were people with the FBI for 25 years, 20 years: high-level agents, senior agents, whether it’s DEA or the FBI. All — initially it was 10, 11, 12, 15 of us, and before long there were like 70, 65-70 of us. I said, “I’m going to go, I’m gonna say there is a press conference, I’m gonna throw this in the trash can. And I’m gonna tell the media that I went to them; I took them documents; I took them specific file information; I took the name of witnesses including informants, because they have clearance — and these are the 9/11 Commission investigators, they all have Top Secret clearance — meaning that was when, inside a SCIF, I could give them detailed information.
36:37 I would never, right now, talk about some informant’s name. That would be nefarious, OK? Even if that person is a scumbag, I’m gonna cause his death, or her death. I’m not gonna do that. I did it with 9/11 Commissioners because I went inside the SCIF, and the protocol says, “Look, they have clearance.” I can even give them the phone number, the address of the informants and everything. So I did. It’s not here; it says, “referred to the IG.” IG investigation was already completely classified.
37:06 Well, all these agents joined me. They said, “We want to do the same thing.” So during that press conference they all came and they stood right next to me and they did the same thing. These are the senior agents: FBI, DEA, Pentagon. So that’s… and I released the report — people can go and research — and it lists their names. Whether… there’s Tony Shaffer with Able Danger that nobody has an answer to this day; whether it’s John Vincent and Agent Wright; whether it’s Colleen Rowley: they’re all on that list. People came and said, “It’s a huge cover-up. All this information has been omitted.” And this information includes moles in the FBI from the CIA and the State Department. It includes the terabytes of data being destroyed. It… and these people would testify under oath.
38:00 As I said, these are not disgrunt–… Agent Vincent, he retired from the FBI. Nobody fired him. So nobody can come and accuse this guy of, “He’s disgruntled because he’s flamed out, or he’s a whack-job.” Well, he’s highly-decorated. If he’s a whack-job and you decorated him highly, there’s something really wrong [laughter] with you.
38:22 So, it’s out there. They can go, they can see. And a lot of these cases include — what?! — “The lack of imagination.” [laughs] That’s what they said. Or, “they couldn’t connect the dots.” Or, “there were these walls and the information was not being sh–“; “It was all bureaucratic incompetence, bungling.” Did we have tons of bureaucratic bungling? Oh yeah. Did any of these have anything to do with bureaucratic bungling? Oh no. Absolutely no.
38:54 And they will tell you, “Yes, there were State Department, the CIA. And even with the White House, it gets very interesting; because I know, the evil Bush we talk about a lot. A lot of these — that includes Agent Wright’s case, John Vincent’s case — took place in late 1990s, mid-1990s. So you’re looking at the Clinton administration and Bush administration. You’re looking at a Democrat and you’re looking at a Republican. And so, it’s not partisan. It doesn’t go only through two evils, Cheney and Bush. You know, it…
39:31 And this is very important to talk about briefly here. When I’m talking about this — Gladio Plan B, these cases, Clinton, Bush administration — one of the biggest reasons I believe a lot of people don’t get it and don’t want to get it — and this is in the United States; with most of our foreign viewers, that doesn’t seem to be the case as much; but especially with the United States — is, we are conditioned to look at things as very classic “black hat guys and the guys in white hats,” OK? Now, you get these guys in black hats versus other guys in black hats? It just doesn’t go through. It just… this automatic wall comes up, and they’re like, “Uh, well, because… what the Russians are doing is really bad. And here’s what Israel is doing, and this is really bad. And here’s US. Here are these… the State Department? Democrats? Republicans? Clinton? Bush? No.”
40:35 That doesn’t fit our paradigm. Because we have to say, “PNAC, Bush and Cheney versus the good Democrats, and they were the ones that did…” “Now, that’s simple. That’s easy. I can go for that. I can really put my support behind that.” OK? Including, like what you were talking about, that… and this is Common Cause, the NGO that was set up here, the website during the Bush administration. It was Soros-funded.
41:03 It becomes very easy. And it’s like, “Give me the black hat guys and tell me these are the white, and I can follow you.” If you come — whether you’re Sibel Edmonds or if you’re Colleen Rowley — and you say, “Yeah, but it involved this administration, this administration, this administration; Democrats and Republicans, OK? Allies and non-allies,” then I’m gonna say it’s crazy. Then I’m gonna say it doesn’t make sense to me. And it’s always been this way.
41:32 And you have covered in your program these episodes on education: it is framed that way from the beginning for us. I mean, even with the test-taking. One quick example would be, OK, Watergate incident and what happened with Nixon. OK, there is this classic narrative. And we have some good guys, we have guys that we believe they have white hats: Bob Woodward was there. Washington Post, you know? They were fantastic. They carried a lot of these. It makes it very sexy; it makes it very Hollywood-ish. Imagine a Hollywood movie when you don’t have guys with white hats. They’re all black hat guys?
42:11 So, you want to give a test, this is the classic you give them. And there’s one answer. Because with those tests, and multiple-options tests, they can’t say, “This, however…” You can’t put a “however” or what– OK? You can’t start bringing in some critical thinking elements and say…
42:30 All right, now, it’s interesting: look at Washington Post before Watergate and long after Watergate, why there was such an aberration there. You know, what has — really — Bob Woodward done? He’s been the mouthpiece of White Houses from Bush to Obama and he has millions of dollars. I went to his house in Georgetown; he was one of the first reporters I got introduced to during my case, before even my case came out, OK? His kids are going to private schools, he is the system. He is the CIA’s darling, OK? And Washington Post: Iran-Contra, what did they do? They had their [unintelligible 43:12]… if it was was the Washington Post and reporters, it happened during this time with Watergate. It didn’t happen before, it didn’t happen after.
43:19 You see… because the classic way is, you get people like Gary Webb and Iran-Contra. If you’re a good reporter, you do your job, that’s what happens to you. Not become a multimillionaire scumbag Bob Woodward, OK? And then, looking at it this way — from this angle — that makes you think and say, “Really, let’s look at Watergate.” And based on some of the documents that have been already public, based on some people who have already talked: is it what they tell us it was about? Was it true that there were some elements that… they wanted to see Nixon gone? OK, they really…
43:56 James: Well, they wanted to get caught at any rate. I think that much is apparent from… or someone in that operation wanted to get caught, at some point. And absolutely, they were handed that story on a golden platter. Unfortunately, we’re running out of time; and we’ve lost your video feed, unfortunately, for those of you watching the video of this. So I hope you people will put up with the frozen image.
44:17 But Sibel, let’s… in the final few minutes we have here with you today, why don’t we get to some of the questions and comments that came in from our last conversation? Because we’ve had a lot of feedback from people about it, and I want to address some of these people’s questions and concerns.
44:30 For example, we had… from someone called Errol E.: he wrote in to take issue with some of the things that we brought up in the last conversation, including his contention that the idea to implement the Islamist cults as actors of Gladio did not come up after the Susurluk scandal but was long prepared beforehand. And I was wondering if you could address that idea: is there something to the fact that this was something that had already been in existence before Susurluk? And if so, what was really the changing incident there? What really took place?
45:10 Sibel: Of course! I mean, first you can start with 1980s in Afghanistan, OK? With mujahideens and our partnership with al-Qaeda — not al-Qaeda, actually, because there’s no such thing, al-Qaeda — with mujahideen and Bin Laden back then. Then you’re looking at all the religious cults — even in Iran, OK?
45:25 That’s another thing, and that is for another program. People, they say, “OK, Iran, Islamic Revolution,” but it’s so much more into… I was there, my father was right in the thick of it, OK? It’s not the story presented here. First of all, there was no Islamic Revolution. The initial revolution in Iran was actually carried out, organized, mainly by Social Democrats and the leftists — the Hezb-e Tudeh. But I’m not gonna get into that.
45:50 We have been doing that… before us, the United Kingdom, the Brits have been doing this. This has been a classic approach, using — and especially by the British Empire — using religion. OK? So that part of it is not new. And even some of these elements early on in 1990s, sure. But they were not prioritized, and they did not become NATO’s, Gladio’s adopted new plan.
46:19 That is: were they being used by the CIA? Yes. Were they used… being used by the British intelligence agencies? Absolutely. But it was not prioritized. And again, we have Gladio — and this is specifically Gladio — going through the military and ultranationalist factions. It was after Susurluk when NATO, Gladio adopted… because before that it was… I mean, they were being implemented, but not by NATO. And it was not part of Gladio’s operation. It wasn’t, absolutely it wasn’t. That became after Susurluk incident.
47:00 James: Then we have a question in from John S. And he writes: “When Dickerson and Grossman were yanked home out of Turkey following Susurluk, it may seem very obviously linked to that scandal, and I’m sure it totally is. But how do we know? Or do we know? Again, how much is reasonable conjecture and logical conclusion, and how much is something more than that: information statements, documents, links to Gladio, et cetera?”
47:20 Sibel: Sure. And again, part of this question is caused by… partly by the fact of all the secrecy and classification. That’s one. But then, for people not knowing the whole picture because they haven’t looked at this case, they haven’t looked at this book… because you start with Grossman and with Dickerson. However, later, they — at least Grossman — was part of the FBI’s investigations. And even though he was first number three guy in the State Department and ended up being number two guys, his job actually was with NATO and these operations in Central Asia and Caucasus. And they don’t know that.
48:00 The other thing that this question — the person who asked the question — is disregarding is with Dickerson’s, though, he was sent to NATO,then to the United States. When my case case came out, then he was under investigations. When the court case was still proceeding — my court case — and the Congress was at the beginning, initial stage of its investigations: even though the judge had banned him, Dickerson got on the plane and he said he has a new job, he’s going to NATO.
48:30 So he was sent to NATO Brussels: he escaped, OK? While under investigation. And this was completely supported by the Pentagon’s Gladio division. And then he went — and this would be end of August, early September 2002 — where did he end up? Brussels. Where did he end up? NATO Brussels.
48:49 Not only that. One of the things — again, if you have read, if they had read my books they wouldn’t even have this question — one of the things that happened is… first thing that happened, before the FBI was stopped and I became the target of retaliation, there was a damage assessment on the espionage to see how much information — intelligence — we have lost due to the spies in the FBI. OK? How much documents, and informants’ safety, et cetera.
49:18 Well, the top one, two, three, four… the top four targets of the FBI within this period — even though they still had more official time left from their official position overseas — they were removed. And they were sent — not to Turkey; they were sent to NATO.
49:39 I would ask them to look at this very important guy, for example, in Turkish consulate in Chicago and Chicago consul. Where did he end up? Again, he had more left — more time left — in his term. However, he was given a very high-level position in NATO in Brussels.
49:58 So you’re looking at criminal top targets who ended up in NATO — including Dickersons. So, that is not to take one or two or three incidents and say, “These people are there.” That’s one. And the second thing is FBI’s operations — counterintelligence — has already established that.
50:18 I didn’t call it Plan B, OK? The file that has to do with Grey Wolves turned into Gladio Plan B operations. And this is why… this was the reason these investigations, operations, had to be stopped by the State Department and Pentagon. And this was why they didn’t want any of these to proceed in courts. Because they didn’t want anyone to know that this was the operation… they were carrying it out. Including their operations together with Bin Laden and the mujahideen: part of the NATO operation.
50:56 James: OK, time for one more quick question. We have a question from Emery: “How does Sibel consider the Ergenekon trials in light of Gladio? What does she make of the claim that it is part of a US-backed operation to replace the secular nationalist establishment with a more pliant Islamic capitalist establishment, using the Gülen movement?
51:15 Sibel: Uh, 100 percent, I believe. And anyone who knows and who understands and who is analyzing this objectively would tell you: Ergenekon is completely, 100 percent, a US plan — a US-backed plan.
51:29 Look, I will give a very quick example. In 1997, OK? This same administration, Turkish regime, the Turkish government, AKP government — which, these are all Gülen’s guys, OK? Erdoğan and Gul: the Islamic, current Islamic people — they won the election. OK? And… in 1997, their party won the majority, both popular and… everything.
51:52 “What?” However, this was not exactly during the time the United States had switched from the military secularists. So the military in Turkey said, “Too bad, they have the majority of votes, but we’re not gonna let them get into power.” So you know what they did, right? The Turkish military shut down AKP. They took Erdoğan; they put him in jail. They said, “Vote doesn’t matter. If you vote and it’s not our guy who gets the majority, we’ll put them in court.”
52:18 The military in Turkey can never, ever, ever do anything — they can’t even pee — without the permission from the United States. OK? Same thing… I mean, this is no different from the military under… in Egypt under Mubarak. The military regimes we install, they are not answerable to the Presidents or the kings that we have installed. They are answerable to the United States: as simple as that.
52:41 Same thing with the Iran revolution — and I’m not gonna call it Islamic Revolution. Shah’s military, they all put their guns down — and I hate the Shah. He tortured my father, OK?.Who told them to put down their guns? Suddenly [snaps] boom! They [punted?] and they told Shah he was on his own. He escaped, and before he died, Shah said, “It was the United States’ wish.” They said to the military, “Don’t support or protect him.” So, then the United States believe you’re fair game, and it’s over. It’s over, babe.
53:10 Now in this case, the military in 1997, they said, “You’re not allowed with the green lights from the United States.” What changed? Five years later, the same party — the same man — gets the same number of votes. And, lo and behold! Nobody puts them in jail. They get into power. And starting within the first two, three years, they start picking the top — not top military guys. Military got divided: those who were willing to go along with the US NATO Operation Plan B, including this administration; and the segment that was still ultranationalist and secularist. And the United States gave the green light saying, “Go after them.”
53:51 Without the United States giving the green light saying, “Yes, you can do it,” no way you would see that! And again, what kind of aberration are we talking about? Between 1997 and 2002, the military got enlightened, and… [laughs] and we had a real democracy. This time, the ones who got the majority in fact came into power. But the difference five years make, you know? Makes such a… [unintelligible 54:17] [laughs]
54:19 James: Well, Sibel, I’m afraid time flies when you’re having fun and kicking butt — and we have had a lot of fun today. So unfortunately, time is just about up. And once again, this is a conversation that is not going to end anytime soon, I think. We have a lot more to discuss. But is there any final things that you’d like to leave people with from what we’ve talked about today?
54:40 Sibel: Uh, one quick final note. And that’s… it’s so disheartening, it’s very disappointing. Because, as I said: in the United States, people are so conditioned to frame their minds around this white hat, black hat. And things are set up this way; and when things are outside that paradigm, they just cannot absorb it. And one of the unfortunate things and disheartening things that I have observed with some of the comments is…
55:06 It’s… and this destroyed the 9/11 Truth Movement. There are people who are eating each other within the movement. It’s like, “It’s LIHOP!” “It’s MIHOP!” “If it’s LIHOP, it can’t be MIHOP,” or “If it’s MIHOP…” Hop, hop! It’s… and they get into some semantics, and they get into some… and they are self-destroying. I don’t know how much of it is caused by planted elements to have this division. I don’t know how much of it is the natural course of… you know, I think it’s devolving in some ways.
55:42 But I am attributing a lot of this with this… I guess, decades of systemic conditioning for people to say, “This is how you view the world, this is how you view the things, this is how you answer.” “Buts” and “howevers;” or “this and also;” we don’t… we want to get rid of these. The answer is either A, B, C, D. You know: LIHOP; MIHOP; No/Nothing; Israel…
56:08 And they need to, first, put that away. Open it up, take in the entire picture, critically think about it. And if they want to refuse a certain theory or certain explanation, that fine. But it’s very disheartening, and I’m hoping that we will get more and more people with open minds watching this thing and thinking. And first, get rid of all the old conditionings.
56:36 And I know it’s hard to do, but it’s very disheartening — especially for some of the journalists and people who have been trying very hard. I know many whistleblowers have given up because they got disgusted of being attacked, and their main… major revelations being completely obscured by some stupid — excuse my language — really idiotic semantics and details.
56:59 And so, again, I encourage people to put everything aside, absorb, and do your own research. Because there’s plenty out there to see with this regard, with what we are discussing today. And that would be it for me for this evening. [laughs]
57:15 James: Well, I think that’s very well-put, and it’s an apt description of this conversation we’re having. Because I hope that this starts to give people a view of the broader, broader, broader picture; because this is such a large thing that it can’t be put into one of those little boxes that I think makes it a neat little story to tie everything together. I think there’s a lot of different elements involved here. It’s a lot more complicated than many people are giving credit for.
57:38 So I think we’re going to have to continue delving into this, piece by piece. So that’s going to do it for this particular version of the conversation. Once again, I do appreciate all the comments and feedback I’m getting in via the website; and as we continue this conversation with Sibel, we will again attempt to get to some of your questions and comments. So keep them coming in and keep spreading the word about this information; but we’ll leave it there for now. Sibel Edmonds, BoilingFrogsPost.com: thank you, as always, for your time.
58:04 Sibel: And thank you, James.
58:06 James [voice-over]: This video is brought to you by the subscribers of BoilingFrogsPost.com. For more information on this and other topics, please go to BoilingFrogsPost.com. For more information and commentary from James Corbett, please go to CorbettReport.com.
Filed in: Articles