Transcript of: "Sibel Edmonds on the Three Musketeers of State Dept Terrorism"

0:00 [START]

0:01 James Corbett: Welcome ladies and gentlemen, welcome. This is James Corbett of CorbettReport.com. It is the 6th of September 2013 here in the sunny climes of western Japan. And today we're joined from the rainy climes of the western United States by our good friend and the host and proprietor of BoilingFrogsPost.com, none other than Sibel Edmonds. Sibel, always great to have you on the program. Thank you so much for your time today.

0:20 Sibel Edmonds: And thank you for having me, James.

0:24 James: Well, this is a very important time geopolitically: just with so many things happening in the world right now, and of course the G20 that's ongoing, that may or may not come to some sort of conclusions about where the world is heading geopolitically. And on that note, we have a very interesting breaking report from BoilingFrogsPost.com that I will direct people's attention to: "Obama May Have Come Up with the Needed Bone for Russia on Syria." And this is something that, obviously, we've talked about before, in the past -- including with our coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing and the geopolitical implications of that. But very briefly, would you like to tell people about this article and what you're covering?

1:01 Sibel: Sure. As we just mentioned, we have been covering it. We started this coverage after the Boston terror attack, and... the whole issue of Chechnya suddenly becoming a hot topic here in the United States. And all along we were expecting that we were going to have this escalated with the United States. Because the plans to attack Syria -- the regime change in Syria -- have basically been in play, have been in operation, since Spring, 2011. I mean, we were the first at Boiling Frogs Post to report the Turkish base there, the US base in Turkey, İncirlik base, being used to train and orchestrate all these coordination with the rebels: the terrorists in Syria, and all the activities cross-border.

1:54 And one of the issues that we had discussed had to do with Russia and Russia's position in this whole scenario, and what's happening between the US and, basically, NATO/US and Syria. And Russia has been playing tough: they have actually been talking tough, and to a certain degree they have been acting tough. Not as much as the media has been reflecting -- for example, there has been all these big announcements on the deliveries of, et cetera, missiles to Syria by Russia; but if you go really look at the facts, they haven't delivered anything yet. It hasn't actually been delivered; just the fact that that order has been placed by Assad's government, and Russia has not delivered it yet. So how much of it is talk-talk, how much of it is in action?

2:47 And of course that is the case always with the international... the chess game with these leaders, whether it's Russia or the United States. You look into... you're looking at the situation where people want to flex muscle and say, "Well, OK, what's in there for me?" And with everything that has been cooking up between the United States and Russia in terms of tension -- you know, we are looking at issues like Georgia's candidacy and basically imminent membership of NATO: that has been a very, very hot topic for Russia -- and for US being so determined to attack Syria and have this regime change -- as we did, you know, with Libya -- but to put it in, really, full-force mode: Russia has been the only single obstacle.

3:41 Because people talk about the public opinion in the United States. But when it comes down to it, it's not that: because since when we have really cared about the pubic opinion, as far as the government or the administration is concerned? Now, with this case it would come down to: what would it take for Russia to look the other way and say, "Fine, go ahead and do it?" Well, there has to be some attractive bones for Russia. And usually people say, "Well, Russia doesn't need US money or US aid, and that's just ridiculous." But that's not the case. I mean, when you are looking at the international relations and all this strategic positioning, there are things that people give each other -- meaning: when I say people, it's Russia and the United States.

4:22 And one hot topic currently, -- or has been, not currently -- since 2008, has been Georgia's full membership of NATO. And this is a very, very sensitive, hot topic for the Russian side. And we have always been, the United States, supporting Georgia in everything. So we have been using, as we have been using other actors in the region against Russia, by bringing them into our camp -- meaning: the NATO camp, the Western camp.

4:52 Well, lo and behold: just a few weeks ago all these US and Western-world-related NGOs and investigative media sites such as Eurasia.net, they started putting out these reports going back one year saying that, in fact, the previous administration in Georgia -- and that is Saakashvili -- Saakashvili's government, they recruited and trained the Chechens for terrorism against Russia, trying to basically attack Russia through supporting and training and recruiting these Chechen terrorist groups.

5:38 Now, this is incredible. We have known about all this -- that's you, that's me, that's alternative media, and even to a certain degree some UK publications -- this on-and-off, you know, Georgia's involvement with the Chechens and with Azerbaijan, in terms of training and recruiting terrorists to be used against Russia. But we never got to see that coming from the Western media, Western NGOs, Western think tanks. So to see that happening right now, just recently, it's -- and this coinciding with our, basically, last stage, to have a direct attack on Syria. We have been attacking Syria for the past two, two-and-a-half years. And again: the G20 summit, and with all the tough talks between Russia and the US, strongly points to this possibility that this may be one of those cases.

6:37 Because, not only that -- with the reports on the previous administration in Georgia a year ago recruiting and training Chechnya -- but also, when you're looking at some of the right-leaning, neocon, hawkish imperialistic websites: in the past month or so, you keep coming across these articles, these editorials, talking about, "Hmm, maybe it's not a good idea to have Georgia as a NATO member and as a partner. Maybe Georgia will be more of a liability instead of beneficial -- you know, Georgia's membership -- for the United States and for NATO."

7:18 And this, again, is new, because these same exact people, up until about a year ago, they were busy writing about the importance of bringing Georgia and having Georgia being our tool against Russia and in countering Russia. And yet they have made this incredibly sudden turn in now considering... pooh-poohing all those qualifications that were good for the United States to be the bad ones, and Georgia as a liability.

7:48 So I would put all these together, and with what we know with the US sponsorship of terrorism against Russia -- especially the Chechen forces, the Chechen terrorist groups -- and what's happening now with these reports with Georgia, of course they wouldn't touch the current administration. He's our boy, he's a current boy. Now, our previous boy there, Saakashvili...

8:10 Well, you put all this together with G20 summit and what's happening with Russia, that makes a likelihood -- for me at least, and maybe for some of those other people who have been looking at that side of the world, which the US media hasn't been doing -- very interesting, and a big possibility as a bargaining chip, as a token. And that would be having, say, "OK, Russia, fine: we'll delay Georgia's full membership, maybe for another eight or ten years. Plus, with what happened with the Boston terror attack, we have had this common enemy that we set up as a scenario, and we the international community -- even though this is going to be right along the borders of... the sensitive borders -- we will look the other way. You conduct more severe operations against some of our terror groups," you know?

8:58 We are very good at that. We train and we put in place, we support and we orchestrate these terrorist groups; but sometimes we give them up. Whether it's Mujahideen e-Khalq, the MKO, or -- other words -- MEK against Iran. They are sometimes on our terrorist list, when it's convenient; and sometimes we just go and say we need to remove that terrorist label, and we need to overtly support them. This is no different -- and by "this," I mean with the Chechens, right now with what's happening in Georgia -- they say "Fine, you know what? We won't have Georgia as a member, and we will withdraw our support of the Chechen groups and we'll look the other way -- green light -- when you go and do all the stuff, and say you're justified. Because, look: they conducted these terror operations here in the United States, in the Western world." That, again, makes it highly likely.

9:51 I know, after we aired our segments, a few months later people started talking and saying, "See? Russia still is tough, James and Sibel. Those predictions did not come true." Again, this is a very particular American trait: and that is, short-term looking at things; being very impatient; the instant gratification. Those things are just... have become such a classic trait for many, many Americans here. You have to look at the big picture and see what has been happening.

10:20 For example, we had this NSA scandal breaking. Sometimes. other scandals come and delay other things. Right in the midst of all the Snowden scandals, it would not have been, really, that good for Obama to tackle Syria. It would be just too classic of the Wag the Dog situation. So that put on this pause mode for a couple of months: because we were predicting this exact same thing to happen two months ago, but it's happening right now.

10:50 Eventually, these things happen because, again, this establishes this modus operandi. But again, it comes down to Russia. And if we were to see... and I expected -- I still do expect it, OK? I'm not looking into this crystal ball, I may be proved wrong -- but if we see Russia finally sidestep and, even though while they are talking really tough, don't do anything about our very-soon-to-come aggression, war, aggression-war against Syria, then you're gonna start saying, "What did we give the Russians to do that?" Because it's always a matter of give and take between superpowers. So, what did we give? I would say the whole issue of Chechen, Dagestan/Chechnya region, and also Georgia's NATO membership, would be a good bet to look at and count on.

11:44 James: Well, it is a fascinating and detailed analysis, and it does square with what I've been seeing of the way that Georgia has really been fed to the wolves, or laid by the wayside, by the US that had been so heavily promoting it as a future NATO member. So I think this is an absolutely spot-on analysis and very important. I hope people will take a look at it: it's at the top of BoilingFrogsPost.com right now, again, under the headline, "Obama May Have Come Up with the Needed Bone for Russia on Syria."

12:11 But in fact, Sibel, it was not about the current, ongoing geopolitical situation that I wanted to have you on today. it's actually in regards to the upcoming 12th anniversary of the 9/11 events that I wanted to talk to you specifically about something that I'm covering right now extensively through the podcast -- in a recent conversation that I had with researcher Jeremy Reese, for example, and an upcoming conversation that I'm going to be having with Kevin Ryan, who has written the indispensable book, Another 19: Looking at Other Legitimate 9/11 Suspects Other Than the 19 Alleged Hijackers."

12:43 And it's in that regard that I wanted to talk to you today about the information that you came across, of course -- at your time at the FBI, and what you've uncovered since then in your research -- about people inside the US government who may have had a hand in facilitating, or allowing, or understanding, or setting up the framework for those 9/11 attacks. And it's obviously... I mean, there's so incredibly much to go through that it's difficult to limit this down. But today I wanted to concentrate on some people associated with the State Department who I think are people of interest in this regard -- some of whom you had direct knowledge of with regards to your work, and others not so, but who are still interesting in and of themselves.

13:27 And the three that I'm interested, perhaps, most in talking about today are Richard Armitage -- who, at the time of 9/11 was working as the Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell. Also, Marc Grossman, who figures prominently in your testimony regarding your case, who at the time of 9/11 was the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. And also Richard Holbrooke, who basically -- Marc Grossman took over his old position at the State Department as the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs back in the mid-1990s. He was succeeded by Marc Grossman in that position.

14:04 So these are three people who are interesting. There's another that I want to throw into the mix to ask you about, to see if you have any knowledge of. But let's start with these three characters and their positions in the State Department. Not only at the time of 9/11, but of course in the years preceding 9/11, they also served important public positions that really did put them in the midst of things -- and perhaps the most important part of all of this is their positions in various lobbying organizations. And of course that's been reflected in the years since, with Richard Armitage becoming the Chairman of the Board of the American-Turkish Council, another entity that figures very heavily in your story.

14:44 So I'm not sure where you'd like to pick up the thread of this story. But perhaps we can start by talking a little bit about Richard Armitage, who I know you have covered at BoilingFrogsPost.com. Not only yourself, but contributors to the blog have talked about Armitage and his checkered past, including time in Vietnam that includes allegations of drug smuggling and money laundering. Let's talk about Armitage and his position at the State Department at the time of 9/11.

15:12 Sibel: Sure, absolutely. And I'm glad you mentioned, because Mizgin Yilmaz had a three-part series -- excellent, excellent series -- on Armitage, Richard Armitage. And again it started from 1970s and his various positions and scandals, And i would start by saying this: nobody should ever say what scandals, major scandals, Richard Armitage was part of. They should actually ask it the other way -- another way, which would be a much better way -- and saying, has there been any major scandal that Richard Armitage hasn't been a part of? [laughter] Because that would be a far more appropriate question for Richard Armitage.

16:00 Because when you start following Richard Armitage's career with the government and his involvements in various operations and scandals, that's when you realize the importance, the significance, of Richard Armitage. And you start with 1970s, you know, when he was with the Naval Academy: and that was when he started his work with the CIA. His name and his scandals involving the Phoenix Program -- you know, the Golden Crescent: which, again, involved the same kind of thing -- and including heroin.

16:37 And Jeff Anderson, actually, was a reporter who exposed and covered all these scandals in 1970s that were related to these CIA operations in Vietnam, and all the drug dealing and the dealing in heroin -- and, of course, Richard Armitage's role in this. In fact, these were so evidence-based, factual-based, and powerful, that a few of his confirmations -- and this is Richard Armitage in Congress... and we know how spineless the US Congress is -- imagine how much it was, these scandals of his in the 1970s, that Congress actually put some of his confirmations on hold! Because these were pretty known facts about Richard Armitage and his involvement in heroin under Phoenix Program.

17:29 Then you fast-forward and you come again to Richard Armitage's position with the Reagan Administration. And, lo and behold: he shows up again right in the middle of -- right in the thick of -- this whole Iran-Contra affair. Again, you are looking at the arms dealing. You are looking at the same elements as the scandals in the 1970s -- the scandals that involved arms, and heroin, and false-flag terror operations -- and there he is again. Richard Armitage: right in the thick of it, in the middle of this.

18:02 Then you look at 1990s, and the same thing: not only with Iran-Contra. Again, you look at Richard Armitage's career, you see him linked -- exactly during the most sensitive period -- you see him linked to Pakistan. OK? 1979 till 1983, 1984: his position, again, put him right in the thick of, in the midst of, operations that we had with the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and all the dealings that we had with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Training, and arming, and dealing, again, in heroin, with mujahideen -- this time, against Russia there. And there you see him again, his positions and the stuff he was involved with. And as I said, he shows up in the middle of Iran-Contra.

18:53 Then if you fast-forward and come to the 1990s, his relationship and all these operations still continuing with Pakistan; but, he starts getting involved with all the things that happened in the Balkans -- you know, with Kosovo and Bosnia. And again, the other two guys that you just named, Grossman and Holbrooke: you see that that's why I always look at them as a trio. You see the three individuals involved in all these things. Now, Grossman would have been too young: Grossman was not involved in the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. But if you start going back in Grossman's career, you find him, he starts with Pakistan and Afghanistan in 1980s, and then from there to Turkey. And of course, this was when his biggest position became the Operation B for Gladio.

19:43 Back to Richard Armitage. In late 1990s -- this is after he and his... Holbrooke's involvement; and Grossman was directly, also, involved with the Balkan operation -- and we are looking at this shady, nasty side. Not that it wasn't all nasty, but this was when -- I just referred to it before -- how we label people terrorists, and then we support them and they become our terrorists, we take the label off and they're no longer terrorists, they're allies? Well, this repeated itself -- the same theme, the same MO -- with the KLA in the Balkans. This was when... again, Armitage, Grossman, Holbrooke: these were the same guys who cut the deal and trained and supported KLA with all the drug operation and all the stuff that went on with the Albanians in the Balkans during the Balkan conflict. This was when, for a period of time, we removed -- this is our State Department -- the terrorist label from the KLA.

20:45 Then we come towards the end of 1990s: and this is the biggest, the most important point as far as 9/11 is concerned, is PNAC, OK? The Project for a New American Century. And you look at the signatories: and some of the most active people in writing, in drafting -- and, of course, putting in force, in play -- the Project for a New American Century, PNAC documents -- which is, for me, the most damning documents out there, -- you're looking at: There he is again! Richard Armitage.

21:21 So, he was one of the PNAC signatories; but he was one of the top-tier PNAC. Because PNAC had three different tiers, levels, of signatures. You're looking at the major, top-tiers -- which Richard Armitage was part of -- then the mid-level: and, of course, you're getting some of the academics such as Francis Fukuyama, et cetera. So you see Richard Armitage there.

21:44 Then you start moving forward post-9/11, and we have all the scandals with Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson. That whole leak... or, the so-called leak: that whole shenanigans. And, lo and behold: in the end of it, he comes forward, and he says, "I was the one who leaked the name..." -- "I," being the top person in the State Department -- "Who did this." OK? By his own admission! So that latest scandal we have in the late 1990s involving Wilson-Plame brings the same name again: Armitage.

22:18 And as I said, it's always good to see the trio together. Because you look at... as I said, with Marc Grossman, you see the same areas of concentration. You see starting with Afghanistan and Pakistan in '80s; moving to Turkey, Operation B Gladio; you're seeing him with the European Affairs, with the Balkans; and then of course you see Marc Grossman even involved with the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby scandal or shenanigan that took place.

22:51 And not only that: when you're looking at some of the documented, important facts on 9/11: pre-9/11, immediately after 9/11, you start seeing the same names. When you're looking, for example, at General Mahmud, you will see the links between General Mahmud and Richard Armitage. You will see that right on that day of the September 11 attacks -- or the same day, or the next day -- you are seeing this very secretive, mysterious meeting between Marc Grossman and General Mahmud.

23:24 And then fast forward that with Marc Grossman with the Sunday Times articles and my testimony during this Krikorian Case: Marc Grossman's role in nuclear black market dealings. And then you look at them after they give up their formal, official positions -- willingly; they are never kicked out, really: they willingly give up -- you go and see what industries they enter. And then you start seeing the same lobbies: lobbies that are totally linked to -- or, directly linked to -- Turkey and/or Israel. And in these cases, you will be seeing both Israel and Turkish lobby. And, of course, all the other different lobbies connected to the military-industrial complex.

24:09 Military-industrial complex: as we know, their entire existence depends on perpetual war. So we need to have terrorists, we need to have all this war, mujahideens and al-Qaedas and Bin Ladens. Because without that, we won't have all these wars; and without all these wars, we won't have all these guys with trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars.

24:29 So, this was me trying to summarize it; I know it doesn't sound much of a summary. But I always see them as trio. Because, again, if you follow -- as we just did -- with Marc Grossman -- if you do the same thing, or apply it to Holbrooke -- you start seeing exactly the same picture emerge here. You still start seeing the same heroin, and terrorism, and mujahideen, and KLA repeating -- as a repeated theme -- for all three actors. And, again: all three from the State Department, with a very, very long and successfully-held careers.

25:07 Because, another thing that ties these three people has to do with their importance and their role surpassing any administration. You can't look at them and say, "Oh, these are Republican, right-wing;" or, "These are liberal Democrats." All three have been Clinton's guys; all three have been Reagan's guys; all three have been Carter's guys; and all three were actually, I believe, heavily used and utilized by Bush guys. Because you know, those are the puppets: Bush, Obama, Carter, Reagan. So it actually tells you who happens to be higher in the chain.

25:47 And this is another fallacy that we have been trying to make people understand with their voting and what they think their voting is about -- they think they are going and electing some decision-makers -- and this whole notion of the shadow government. Who is the real government? Who are the real players? What do we mean when we say, "the establishment?" We never mean Obama, or Bush, or Carter, or Reagan. You've got... look beyond them, and see who are the ones who always are there: whenever you look, they are there. That's when you start seeing Brzezinski, and you see Henry Kissinger, and you see... under them, you start coming across people like Richard Perle, and Wolfowitz, and Armitage. You're gonna keep coming across the same players no matter whose administration you're looking at.

26:34 James: Exactly right. Well, again: this is a huge amount of information to synthesize. So why don't we concentrate and hone it down on 9/11 as specifically as we can. And you mentioned the meeting between Marc Grossman and General Mahmud Ahmed in the immediate wake of 9/11: there was also a meeting between Richard Armitage and General Mahmud at the same time. And I've seen conflicting sources: I've seen some say that this happened before 9/11, the meeting; and others that said it happened after. I would be...

27:06 Sibel: Well, the Marc Grossman actually took place exactly on the day of 9/11. They were at that meeting...

27:09 James: So that must have been after the breakfast meeting...

27:10 Sibel: They had a breakfast meeting...

27:15 James: Right, OK.

27:15 Sibel: And in fact there was even a hotel's name. And this was something that... even that embedded journalists end up confirming. What's her name? Judith Miller. So that breakfast meeting has been like a slam-dunk case: it's something that has been established. Now, the meetings with Armitage, I'm not sure about the dates on those meetings. But we know about that particular private meeting between... and it was not even inside the government's agencies. They held the meeting in this hotel. I forgot if it was the Willis Hotel or one of the similar hotels near the White House, but that was when the meeting took place between Mahmud and Marc Grossman.

27:51 And you know, you brought up something very important. And I want to talk about something that may not sound as relevant until I finish, maybe: and that has to do for some people who do not really look at PNAC, OK? And the investigation that never took place with 9/11.

28:11 And one of the things that I do... you know, my bachelor's degrees were in criminal psychology and criminal justice, OK? And when you look at the criminal law: let's say you have a case, you have a murder case that you are looking at. And here is this -- let's say a 68, 70-years-old guy -- who's murdered. And let's say there was a big, ginormous life insurance on this guy. One of the first things you do is: you look at people with motives. You bring all those people, initially, as suspects -- until, one by one, you take them out of the suspect list.

28:48 This was a criminal terror attack here, OK? That process never took place. Because if that process had taken place, just by itself with PNAC and with these guys, we would have seen the initial... at least the initial bucket of suspect lists, until they were excluded -- if they were excluded -- to include these people. Because, what happens if there is a letter? From this example that I just gave, the 68-year-old guy who's been murdered; and the wife -- or someone related to him, who can benefit greatly from this life insurance -- before this murder took place, has put in letter about why this guy needs to die, OK?

29:34 I mean, this is a very good parallel example: to say, "In order for me..." -- or "for us:" let's say there is a group of individuals who are corresponding through letters -- "for us to do this and have this money, this man, this bastard, must be killed or must die." OK? Imagine if the police find a document like this, and then imagine the police not interviewed the people who wrote these letters, OK?

30:03 And this should not be looked at -- 9/11 -- any different than a criminal... a simple, classic criminal investigation. When you go and read, and when you look at the emphasis placed... and you would think, "Are they stupid enough to put it in a letter?" That, "We need a major terror attack here at home. For our point, for our principles to be exercised, and for the US to become an empire, this event needs to take place." Well, yeah: there are people who are stupid enough, who put it in a letter and then commit murders. [laughs] That's why they go to jail.

30:38 But in this case, with PNAC, you have this letter; you have these signatories; and they didn't only write it: they have been spending years working towards it, OK? And "they" not being some people on the sidelines: you're looking at people within the United States Government. They put together this letter, and they worked towards it... and 9/11 happened. And you have the police, or FBI, or all the other investigative forces not look at these people -- even though just initially, as suspects -- and get to the bottom of it, and interview them, and interrogate them, and look at their background...

31:18 I mean, let's say they did. They would have seen that meeting, because it's a recorded meeting between Marc Grossman and General Mahmud. General Mahmud has already been established as one of the highly-likely financiers of 9/11. Here is number three guy from the State Department, on that day, having that breakfast meeting -- secretive, mysterious meeting -- with him. And they are looking at this guy and his boss: they were signatories, and they were the players with PNAC. Why didn't we have these types of investigations? Because even the stupidest police force would have conducted such investigations -- and that did not take place.

32:01 So, that's why... you know, people say, "Oh, again, people are bringing up this whole thing of PNAC and these neocons." But I don't think they are looking at it the right way; or, maybe some people are presenting some of these hard evidence facts... maybe, too complicated. So maybe it is important to kind of... because it's pretty simple: You have this letter that is highly suspicious. You have this document, PNAC. You have these players with the means and motives -- because they are indicating their motives. And the murder -- the terrorism, the criminal event -- has taken place, the same one that had been sought by these people and had been worked towards.

32:46 It is pretty simple: because with all these criminal cases -- and terrorism is a crime, OK? Murdering those people is a crime -- and you have to look at it the same way as any criminal investigation. And that is, the means -- has there been any premeditation? -- the means, the motives, and the beneficiaries. And none of these were ever asked with any of the investigations. Because, even the investigators who have thrown out all the stuff with Bin Laden and these Islamists: they have never put, in any tangible way -- they have put in an abstract way -- they have never put, in any tangible way, any kind of benefits. What is the tangible benefit they receive, or the tangibly explained motive?

33:38 But I mean, you compare that to PNAC and these players within PNAC -- especially the top tiers. Then, you start looking at it in terms of tangible... OK, something that it can really, actually count: motive, and means, and benefits. And I always tell people, "Look at the benefits in terms of trillions, trillions, and trillions of dollars for the military-industrial complex. And then you look at all of these individual signatories, especially the top tier, and see: who do they work for?" Whether it's Perle, or it's Feith, or it's [unintelligible 34:15], they all end up with Lockheed-Martin. You keep coming across the same names -- whether it's the Northrup Grumman, or if it's Lockheed.

34:23 So, there you're looking at the dollars: those are tangible numbers. Without 9/11, how much would they have made? Let me put it that way. With 9/11 happening, how much money they have been making? That's one, OK? They are saying these are their indicated goals, very clearly on the paper. Without 9/11, how many of those goals would they have been able to accomplish? With 9/11, how many of those goals did they accomplish? [unintelligible 34:54]

34:52 Well, again, that is in black and white in the Rebuilding America's Defenses document that was released by PNAC one year before 9/11. But specifically, also: Armitage was specifically a signatory to the 1998 letter that was urging Clinton to invade Iraq and to get Saddam Hussein. And then we found that in the months preceding 9/11, -- according to the Philip Giraldi article in The American Conservative, "Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?" -- it was... Scowcroft, Armitage, and Grossman were negotiating for a possible Turkish protectorate as sweetener for using Turkey as a staging ground for an invasion of Iraq...

35:30 Sibel: Correct

35:32 James: ...in the lead-up to 9/11. And then, after 9/11 took place, that deal was basically off the table; and Scowcroft turned against invading Iraq. But basically, only because his connections in Turkey obviously were not for it, in that eventuality. Unfortunately, I can't believe that we're already kind of running out of time; but there's something else that I definitely wanted to touch on in relation to this, and it's the State Department's role in helping to secure the visas for the terrorists or the alleged hijackers of 9/11 -- which created, of course, the entire situation or at least the possibility for it.

36:04 Sibel: I can easily answer that question, because this is something that I can provide under oath if... I always hope to be asked under oath. Because under oath, when you do that, you know that the government will be after you as someone who has committed perjury if you lie, or if you even misrepresent something. But we have several cases -- and some of these totally under my direct experience, because I was the person who was processing those files -- with detainees in New Jersey that involved individuals from Uzbekistan and from Turkey who were, legitimately, high-level 9/11-related suspects. And they were rounded up by the local field office -- this is the FBI's local field office -- for those reasons. And they were held and they were being interrogated.

36:56 The diplomatic community for Turkey actually directly -- again, this is from 100 percent direct experience -- they directly contacted Grossman within the State Department, gave him the names of people that they knew were held by the FBI -- because they were notified, some of these people: they get a right to go and ask for attorneys or to notify family members -- and as soon as that took place, Mr. Grossman pressured the FBI -- not that field office, the FBI's Headquarters and Washington Field Office -- saying, "This would cause some diplomatic incidents. There are some diplomatic sensitivities involved in this; and what we are instructing you to do: no further questioning. We want you to deport them back -- both of them: not one to Uzbekistan, one to Turkey -- both of them: we want you to put them in the plane -- immediately: to be executed immediately -- and send them to Turkey: as deportation; as something under INS." -- back then, the immigration department.

38:01 So... and this caused an uproar within the New Jersey Field Office for the FBI, for the FBI counterterrorism agents who were in charge of this. But these individuals, who were... actually were of some value -- because, on the other hand, the same FBI: they needed to meet this quota, both for the media, but also for Congressional budget requests. They needed to meet this quota saying how many people they rounded up and detained. So they are detaining pizza delivery guy who was, let's say, from Afghanistan or Turkey. I mean, they wanted agents to round these people up, bring them into these different field offices, hold them there... and FBI field offices, they were exasperated. They were angry, because they knew that they were chasing a goose, and that was taking away from the resources -- the time and energy -- to go after the bad guys. Yet, FBI wanted to show that, "Today we rounded up," you know, "800 people in New Jersey." -- I'm just throwing a number.

38:56 So, this is while this is happening. Yet, they were able to detain two people of high value in terms of information -- because I was assigned to translate their interrogation: these people did not speak fully... you know, fully speak English. And these people, per direct instruction from the State Department -- this was official, this was not on the side -- by Marc Grossman --who was picked up by the Turkish diplomatic community -- to... "No further questions for them. You are going to deport them based on these evaluations. Send both of them to Turkey." I'm sure they were sent to some other jihadi missions against Russia or somewhere -- through Chechnya and Azerbaijan -- after that. as part of the same operation we discussed: Operation Gladio, Operation B.

39:41 But, this? This took place within the first two weeks after 9/11; and this directly involved Mr. Grossman. Am I willing to testify on this under oath? Yes. Will I be willing to even take something that I totally despise: this machine called polygraph machine? Yes, Because, am I able to give the file, the exact names of the detainees, the file number -- the FBI Field Office file number -- to whoever is invest--... well, let's say, if someone is investigating this? Yes. Did I provide it to the 9/11 Commissioners? Absolutely. I was inside the SCIF with them for three hours. And because it was a SCIF -- this is a secure, compartmentalized information, intelligence facility -- I was able to give them the detainees' names, the location, the officers' names -- these are the FBI agents.

40:27 Did I give this stuff to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Yes. Did I provide this to the Senate, House Judiciary Committees? Yes. I gave all the stuff in 2002 to all these people, and later in 2004 to the 9/11 Commission. Not only they have this -- let's say, this is the allegation -- but they have the corresponding file number, name, date, agent's name, field office, and the detainees' names, and their exact nationality, and their documentation -- or what they didn't have in terms of documentation. Because that's how they were deported back to Turkey, per instruction from Mr. Grossman from the State Department. He was the number three guy in the State Department at the time.

41:07 Sibel, this is mind-blowing information, but I'm afraid I absolutely have to go at this point. So I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there for now. But I hope that we can follow up on this information and talk more about some of these characters because, again, there's so much that needs to be uncovered here. But again, unfortunately, we're gonna have to leave it there.

41:24 Any time. Just let me know, and we'll do it, James.

41:27 Excellent. And I will direct people, once again, to Boiling Frogs Post, where you have information on all three of these characters in various capacities. So we will leave that there for now. Sibel Edmonds, once again, thank you so much for your time today.

41:40 Thank you.

41:43 [END]

Creative Commons License
This transcript by "Adjuvant" is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

changed November 2, 2014