Larisa Alexandrovna fleshes out the Times' Edmonds story

Sibel Edmonds Speaks...

January 6, 2008

Sibel Edmonds, the FBI whistle-blower who has been gagged for years by the Bush administration over intercepts she translated while at the bureau, was willing to go to prison to get her story told. She spent years trying to get her day in court, but the State Secrets gag against her prohibited her from telling her story even to a FISA judge. After years of trying to fight her way to through the maze of the US court system, Sibel Edmonds finally decided to tell her story no matter the consequences and offered to do so to any interested US media outlets.

Today, part of that story runs, but not in the United States, where not a single corporate outlet was willing to displease the White House and give Edmonds a platform. The Sunday Times Online, however, proved up to the task - somewhat...

...Let me help the Times here. The person against whom these allegations are being made is Marc Grossman. The Times could have published the name and also provided the denial from Grossman's camp. I find it incredibly disturbing that they would not name the official...

...Those senior DOD officials who are not mentioned in the Times article, all but one are no longer in government. They are alleged to be Doug Feith, Richard Perle, among others. There is also one person who is part of these allegations, still serving in a high level position at the DOD. His last name begins with an E.

I have tried getting someone in broadcast and print media to run this story. My sources did not include Edmonds, but because of the sensitive nature of the information, I was concerned that she would go to jail anyway, unless I proved she was not a source - which would require me to reveal my sources.

I thought if I approached a big enough news outlet, the pressure generated by the public response would spare Edmonds jail time and I would not be pressured to reveal sources - something I would not have done anyway. Even a former high ranking CIA officer offered to byline the article with me if that would help sell a broadcaster/publication on running the story. No one was interested.

That the Times ran these allegations (she is under a state secrets gag folks, so it is not like she is gagged for lying) is encouraging. But that they omitted all names from the allegations is unethical. The point of a free press is not to protect the powerful against the weak, but to protect the public from the powerful. The Times was willing to stick a toe in, but was not willing to risk upsetting a foreign government (This is, after all, a British paper)...


Good job...

Who is the Turkish official:

"The person in question is a Turkish military official who at that time also happened to sit on the board of a particular defense contracting firm."

Which one?

Note: History Channel appears

to be re-airing the 2 hour long 9/11 conspiracies show. Check your local listing.


I happened to come across the History Channel while looking for a sports show and saw they were explaining how building 7 came down. What a joke. Trouble is most of the sheep believe it.

The only history they offer is the one of their own cheating


In Britain...

If you are publicly defamed, you do not have the same bar of proof to rise to that you do in the U.S.

In the U.S., you must prove that public defamation or libel has caused you monetary harm.

In the UK, you only have to prove that someone has defamed you, and then the onus is on the accuser to provide hard documentation, (or other sufficient provenance), to the libel court judge, to prove the accuser's claims. If the judge decides that the accuser is just making shit up, he has the power to impose a variety of penalties, including retraction and monetary reparation.

Jean-Charles Brisard had his ass handed to him for writing about Khalid bin Mahfouz... he and his writing partner Dasquie were forced to apologize due to libel court action;

I suspect this is why the Times did not print Grossman's name. Too much hassle.

From today's bradblog...

UPDATE 12:06pm: Several notable reactions, furtherances of today's Sunday Times front page stunner...

● As usual, Luke Ryland offers tons of info, analysis, links and background in his dKos coverage (cross-posted at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak). Just a couple of the notable passages offering additional context on the story, from his coverage today:
The Times article then notes something that I reported 18 months ago. Immediately after 911, the FBI arrested a bunch of people suspected of being involved with the attacks - including four associates of key targets of FBI's counterintelligence operations. Sibel heard the targets tell Marc Grossman: "We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans." Grossman duly facilitated their release from jail and the suspects immediately left the country without further investigation or interrogation.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: The #3 guy at the State Dept facilitated the immediate release of 911 suspects at the request of targets of the FBI's investigation.


Hmmmm I wonder who those suspects could have been? Could it have been the guys who were in NYC with links to the Mossad who said their purpose being there was to "document the event", the same guys who were arrested on the day of the attack with thousands of dollars found in their van, explosives, and Arab disguises, but were later released and sent back to Israel?

The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9-11

FOX News' coverage of the Israeli Spy Ring...

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

I just had to post this very

I just had to post this very informed comment from Brad's Blog. The last part is his speculation on why this is happening. The implications are frightening.

To Michael of Brad Blog sorry I stole your post.


COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
... Michael said on 1/6/2008 @ 7:44 am PT...

Let me pass this along:

My problem with this article is, that it is published in The Sunday Times, which is one of the worst war advocate and profiteer Murdoch's propaganda papers. 'The Sunday Times' and propaganda-media owner Rupert Murdoch, have for as long as is known cooperated with the CIA/Mossad, the UK's MI5 and MI6 and the rest of the spooks.

Murdoch's papers write about the 9/11 massacre, but still - contrary to the truth - stick to the official US/UK version and brainwashing: Osama's bin Laden's ragheads did it.

Nothing in those pro-war papers gets published - and certainly not this kind of 'information' in those outlets - that isn't aimed at certain groups. If you check the source, you'll see that Murdoch is a disinformation pest for mankind.

So, I'm inclined to say that @S. Balu is quite correct, in seeing the item as 'CIA/Mossad propaganda'.

In reality it was as Tony S. writes: "The CIA pressed Dutch govt. not to interfear, (this must be a Freudian slip... -HR) claiming they were after more suspects surrounding Khan.

That's how he got away with the stolen nuclear secrets. This was publicly stated by Ruud Lubbers, former Dutch Prime Minister a couple of years ago."

And Lubbers - who also was the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) - stated clearly that the CIA and its managers are guilty of nuclear proliferation. - Url.: xxxx

Now: we know that Sibel Edmunds has a unique 'gag order' as 'The Sunday Times' in this article describes. And that this 'gag order' is global and until further notice by the US/UK junta's henchmen: "The US attorney-general has imposed a state secrets privilege order on her, which prevents her revealing more details of the FBI’s methods and current investigations."

So it's logical to ask why Sibel Edmunds now is published worldwide, and - the gag order doesn't count here - is allowed to be quoted by Murdoch's paper and read by everybody?

Why, who and on what level was 'permission' given for this in the US and decided to publish this about the nuke proliferation?

Concerning Sibel Edmunds, the use which is made of her and to what she now is said to have heard and seen: ''Her story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology.

The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.'' [end excerpt]

According to this not to be trusted article: "Khan was close to Ahmad and the ISI. While running Pakistan’s nuclear programme, he became a millionaire by selling atomic secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea."

Meaning: whom can we blame for the next - probably nuclear - 'false flag' operation? Those "infiltrated foreign states seeking nuclear secrets"?

We all know that the Pakistani 'spooky thugs' from ISI, are the 'little brothers' of the CIA/Mossad, trained and many times paid by them, and get most of their orders from them. There are small rogue groups too, and those are not only dangerous but can be used to set up 'black ops'.

So the one to blame - like the stop of the Dakar rally - xxxx - is again the fictitious 'al Qaeda' and the dead Osama bin Laden, just referring to the timeline here:

"2001 - Weeks before 9/11, Khan’s aides meet Osama Bin Laden to discuss an Al-Qaeda nuclear device."

The drumbeat in the major media now will be: and the rogue states got 'm!

Original article in Murdoch's propaganda paper 'The Sunday Times' - xxxx

This is a world of smoke and mirrors, but, as the old Sahrahoui said:

"Never drink from a well you don't know."


Sibel's story only half

Where's the rest of Sibel's actual story? Because she only released some of the details about state secrets sold and some details about 9/11 warnings, she left herself open to having the story used by Murdoch incorrectly. Did she see any interoffice memos or hear anything about the real perpetrators of 9/11?

No accidents....

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

The guy at the end of the first video

(dancing Israeli's) makes an interesting statment about judeo-supremacism (the "opposite" of antisemitism): Judaism teaches that other beliefs are phony and attacks these beliefs.
How can anyone using a bit of logic and morality not conclude that a real God wouldn't have "chosen" people, dagrading the rest of people to the level of cattle? But it seems like it is just this belief that makes it possible to conduct 9/11's and don't have a "bad conscience" about it. Since it helps the chosen people, the jewish ruling elite has no difficulties sacrificing gentiles and low level jews who are at the wrong place at the wrong time. World war 2 was the same; elite zionist jews financed Hitler to pressure ordinary jews to resettle in Palestine to fight the Arab's and build up Israel.

Hey, easy there. Every

Hey, easy there. Every religion has it's ups and downs. I do not think it is fair to blame any one religion for the violent actions of 9-11. My country (Philippines) has been invaded and ravaged by Catholic Spain, Protestant US and Shinto Japan. If anything, I think it is opportunistic politicians and power brokers who take advantage of religion and it's usefulness to control people.

WTC 9-11-2001 was a Neocon-Zionist conspiracy-
The WTC was destroyed by controlled demo-

They were different suspects

Apparently, three associates of these targets were arrested in New Jersey immediately after 911 - two Turkish guys and an Uzbeki.


The men were held in detention for more than 2 months, during which time they were subjected to interrogation and lie detector tests, before being deported back to Israel; one of the men (Paul Kurzberg) refused to take the test for 10 weeks, and then failed it.[208] There has been speculation as to whether the men had advance knowledge of the attacks.


Google News - Sibel Edmonds

Antiwar's Raimondo Piece Is Significant

He now seems ready to throw editorial weight behind a new look at 9/11. This is an incredably influential site that reaches people of all political affiliations accross the US.

Alibi in the making?

At the end of the Raimondo article, he suggests:

"...If a nuke ever goes off in an American city, it will probably have been stolen from our own arsenal – once the American people wake up to that scary fact, the rest will follow automatically."

Is this advanced preparation of an alibi, a preparation to point the finger at AlQuaeda again? Times Online (Murdoch) + Raimondo =/= 911Truth

WTC 9-11-2001 was a Neocon-Zionist conspiracy-
The WTC was destroyed by controlled demo-

Paul Craig Roberts

When they remove the 9/11 Truth gag order from their own writer/contributers then we know has changed.

I hope they do.
Radical Pragmatist


"The point of a free press is not to protect the powerful against the weak, but to protect the public from the powerful"

Actually, the opposite is true; the weak have to be protected from the public, that's why they want te remain unknown.