FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

Kisses for the Mineta testimony, you good ol’ boys. That’s a great help.

Len, regarding Sibel Edmonds and your comments about the editor of the Baltimore Chronicle, namely Jim Hogue. Again, you do appear to be very free and easy and factually undisciplined in the way you tar people who do not agree with your version of events. It’s a most unpleasant tactic if I may say so.

Can you show where I was “factually undisciplined”? Speaking of which Mr. Hougue it seems is not any way involved in the management or ownership of the of the publication.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/chronsent.shtml

My intent was not to “tar” him so much as to indicate there is no way we can take for granted that his characterization of Edmond’s POV was accurate. Your post as written made it sound like that was the position of a mainstream newspaper. I guess my comment that “he seems rather enamored of neo-Nazi truthers like Bollyn and Hufshmidt” was a bit unfair but those names set off alarm bells for me.

Because of this, and since it is the veracity of Sibel Edmond’s testimony that is in question here (and not your poison pen comments about the website owner), I have emailed Sibel Edmonds to ask her to confirm if this interview is accurate. I will post here when I get a reply (an acknowledgement has already been received). Accurately and factually.

I never questioned the accuracy of the interview, only the spin put on it.

We are also fortunate to be in a position to note that irrespective of your undermining spin about Sibel Edmond’s importance, she was significant enough in what she knew for the FBI to place gagging orders on her twice.

It seems her initial allegations were both on target and quite embarrassing so I could imagine them wanting to shut her up. That said I don’t think there is a country in the world that would not try to prevent someone from talking about classified matters they had knowledge of. I imagine the former is much more of a factor than the later

But ultimately she was a bit player, she worked as an entry level civilian contracted employee for 4 months starting 3 months AFTER the attacks.

Your repeated emphasis on her language skills is, of course, merely an example of the technique of deflection and should be ignored.

You want to ignore it because it undermines your theory. The languages she translated weren’t spoken by, the Taliban, leaders of Al Queda or any of the hijackers. They are spoken in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran. AKAIK none of the aforementioned groups visited or had important dealings with those countries. Her original claims were credible her more recent tweaking of them less so. It is very unlikely she was in a position to know what you want her to.

We should not take the ABLE DANGER subject to another thread because it is this thread where we are slowly showing that the likelihood of prior knowledge of 911 by various agencies of the US. Obviously, I can see why you would want to fragment that developing picture as it accords with your apparent desire of emasculating everything and everyone that undermines the official version of events.

I guess here is as good a place as any since no one seems interested in the original topic but the Edmonds and Mineta issues have little if anything to do with supposed “the likelihood of prior knowledge of 911 by various agencies of the US.”

Ditto the Mineta testimony. Let’s discuss it again here as it also builds upon the overall picture of prior intelligence knowledge of 911.

Explain what one has to do with the other. It makes sense to continue discussion of Mineta’s testimony on the thread where it was debated already for 6 pages. If we do so here it will be “déjà vu all over again”. I dig hash but rehash is not for me.

I now know that the comments you earlier made that Mineta “was "confused about the timeframe of events", is, as I suspected, a personal opinion and not a factual statement

.

He later said he was unsure of the time his recollections conflict at times with what is known to have happened (such as the evacuation of the White House).

I also note that when you had the opportunity to correct this misstatement above you chose not to.

You’ve failed to show that I made any misstatements in need of correction.

Furthermore, in your post (#91) above where you mention Mineta you say this: “If you wish to debate this issue we should do so on the thread linked below” (and provide a link to previous discussion of Mineta’s testimony - for which thanks). However on that thread you state: “As for Mineta’s testimony, I think it would more appropriately should be discussed in another thread.”

What’s all that about I wonder…

Let’s not be ingenuous David I said that as the discussion began since it had nothing to do with the thread’s topic but since no one paid my suggestion any heed I debated it there. Since we’ve already gone over the topic there in depth there it is the only logical place to continue it

Len

[Guest David Guyatt]

Len, I do hold that you have engaged in purposeful tactics that are demeaning and unpleasant in themselves in regard to Hogue’s interview of Sibel Edmonds. Not only have I emailed Edmonds but I have also now contacted Hogue to get assurances from both that the interview is factually correct. I will post replies as and when I receive them.

You are right to say that speaking about classified matters is usually highly unusual and special sanction is normally required to do so. This tends to alter somewhat when the person wishing to testify is witness to criminal acts – as Sibel Edmonds claims she was. Under such a situation, gagging her can only be regarded as compounding a felony by those who she has sought to spotlight.

Edmonds professional standing and language skills are of no concern whatsoever – although I can very clearly see why you keep batting on about them in order to cast doubt on her. By the way, from your list you missed out an additional language that she is fluent in: English.

The simple fact is that you don’t have to be an exalted individual to overhear criminal intent and to testify to such. Even a tea-lady is permitted that courtesy in a civilised, democratic world. Or should be anyway. But as the recently deceased Norman Mailer once made plain in an interview, the first casualty of a totalitarian state is the “language”. He was speaking of the current Administration post 911. While this observation is undoubtedly true, it is also the case that language is a casualty in situations like this, where winning is the goal above accuracy and where the ends justify the means. It does you no credit Len. In my opinion.

I have not yet finished reading Mineta’s testimony and related articles. But I also am going to contact him for his accurate recollection. Maybe he will respond, maybe he won’t, but at least he will be given the opportunity to rebut

any underhand or misrepresented reporting directly.

Your comment that Colonel Shaffer’s ABLE DANGER testimony has no bearing on Mineta, Sibel Edmonds or others is simply too ludicrous to take seriously. All add importantly to the public knowledge of 911 events – prior and ex post facto. That you can’t see this staring you in the face is not my concern. Wilful blindness is a psychological condition that can only be remedied (if there is a will) by recognition of self imposed myopia.

I’d be obliged if you would be kind enough to post a citation I can check for your comment that Mineta… “later said he was unsure of the time his recollections conflict at times with what is known to have happened (such as the evacuation of the White House).” I just want to be sure of the context of what you say he said is what he actually said. Thanks.

David

[Len Colby]

Len, I do hold that you have engaged in purposeful tactics that are demeaning and unpleasant in themselves in regard to Hogue’s interview of Sibel Edmonds. Not only have I emailed Edmonds but I have also now contacted Hogue to get assurances from both that the interview is factually correct. I will post replies as and when I receive them.

What part of, “I never questioned the accuracy of the interview, only the spin put on it” did you fail to comprehend? Please post any parts of the interview that support said spin. Isn’t bad enough that you misrepresent my position here but now you seem to have done so with Edmonds and Hogue as well? What “purposeful tactics” “have engaged in” “that are demeaning and unpleasant in themselves”?

You are right to say that speaking about classified matters is usually highly unusual and special sanction is normally required to do so. This tends to alter somewhat when the person wishing to testify is witness to criminal acts – as Sibel Edmonds claims she was. Under such a situation, gagging her can only be regarded as compounding a felony by those who she has sought to spotlight.

That would depend on the sensitivity of the “classified matters” and the seriousness of the criminal acts. Her original claims were of incompetence and intentionally slowing things down so as to appear over worked in order to justify a bigger budget etc. As I said I think in most cases they are using “state secrets” as an excuse to shut up a critic.

Only later did she started saying or implying that if it weren’t for those problems the attacks could have been prevented. While this might well be true I doubt she would have had direct knowledge of this because such communications would not have been made in languages she spoke let alone translated. More recently she has said that people in the USG are covering up the involvement of people from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Both could well be the case but she is unlikely to have direct knowledge of the latter group. I have yet to see her say unambiguously that she thinks people in the USG had foreknowledge (though she sort of hinted at it).

Edmonds professional standing and language skills are of no concern whatsoever – although I can very clearly see why you keep batting on about them in order to cast doubt on her. By the way, from your list you missed out an additional language that she is fluent in: English.

If you are going to back the notion that her testimony is indicative of foreknowledge you have to reasonably explain how she could know this.

The simple fact is that you don’t have to be an exalted individual to overhear criminal intent and to testify to such. Even a tea-lady is permitted that courtesy in a civilised, democratic world.

Yes anything is possible, but the more senior a person is and the long they work for an organization the more likely they are to know its secrets. Daniel Ellesberg hadn’t worked as a janitor at the Pentagon if Hiss held such a position he would not have been a suspect let alone accused. To have “overheared criminal intent” before 9/11 she would had to have worked their at the time. What does she claim to have overheard?

Your comment that Colonel Shaffer’s ABLE DANGER testimony has no bearing on Mineta, Sibel Edmonds or others is simply too ludicrous to take seriously. All add importantly to the public knowledge of 911 events – prior and ex post facto.

By that logic we should discuss all 9/11 witnesses and their observations in the same thread shall we include the firefighters who said 7 WTC was showing signs of instability for hours before it collapsed, what about the pilots from Otis scrambled to intercept flight 11 and perhaps the stripper who claimed she had an affair with Mohammed Atta?

That you can’t see this staring you in the face is not my concern. Wilful blindness is a psychological condition that can only be remedied (if there is a will) by recognition of self imposed myopia.

You’ve utterly failed to make the case for connecting them beyond the fact they all relate to 9/11. Perhaps what you imagine I "can’t see this staring [me] in the face" is a mirage. If you could show that Edmonds’ testimony is evidence of foreknowledge then it would make sense to group it with Schaffer’s. But even if you could do that Mineta’s testimony is totally unrelated.

I’d be obliged if you would be kind enough to post a citation I can check for your comment that Mineta… “later said he was unsure of the time his recollections conflict at times with what is known to have happened (such as the evacuation of the White House).” I just want to be sure of the context of what you say he said is what he actually said. Thanks.

See the cited thread with citations. Thanks.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Len,

You said:

“If you are going to back the notion that her testimony is indicative of foreknowledge you have to reasonably explain how she could know this.”

Precisely where did I state or imply that Sibel Edmonds had “foreknowledge”? Precisely please Len, precisely.

David

[Len Colby]

Len,

You said:

“If you are going to back the notion that her testimony is indicative of foreknowledge you have to reasonably explain how she could know this.”

Precisely where did I state or imply that Sibel Edmonds had “foreknowledge”? Precisely please Len, precisely.

David

I didn't say that you suggested SHE had foreknowledge only that her testimony was indicative of foreknowledge, i.e. foreknowledge by members of the USG (I thought that was implicit)*. You didn’t say so outright but that certainly was what you were driving at. In post # 86 you wrote:

On the contrary Len, Sibel Edmonds testimony is most relevant to 911:

"She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved."

In post # 93 you wrote (emphasis added):

We should not take the ABLE DANGER subject to another thread because IT IS THIS THREAD WHERE WE ARE SLOWLY SHOWING THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF 911 BY VARIOUS AGENCIES OF THE US. Obviously, I can see why you would want to fragment that developing picture as it accords with your apparent desire of emasculating everything and everyone that undermines the official version of events.

Ditto the Mineta testimony. LET’S DISCUSS IT AGAIN HERE AS IT ALSO BUILDS UPON THE OVERALL PICTURE OF PRIOR INTELLIGENCE KNOWLEDGE OF 911.

You said we should discuss Able Danger and Mineta “because it is this thread where we are slowly showing that the likelihood of prior knowledge of 911 by various agencies of the US” what else that was discussed on this thread were you referring to?

The “this” in “how she could know this” (see above) referred to foreknowledge of others. See also if you can find where she says anything along those lines. I’ve only seen veiled hints which she never ties to her experience at the FBI and only started making years later. Why would she initially only talk about relatively mundane stuff like faking being overworked to justify a budget increase if she had evidence of foreknowledge?

EDIT added n't above

Edited November 14, 2007 by Len Colby

[Guest David Guyatt]

Very slipshod of you, Len.

It was slipshod wasn’t it? Not guile, eh?

The reason that I have never stated or implied that Sibel Edmonds had foreknowledge of 911 – and the reason she has never suggested or implied that she had foreknowledge of 911... is because she didn’t.

We both know that. We both knew that before didn’t we… After all you read her interview didn't you.

For “foreknowledge”, I was discussing ABLE DANGER’S Colonel Shaffer’s testimony. As you well know. However, as you also well know, he was also prohibited from fully testifying what he knew and his unit’s archives were destroyed. Ditto the foreknowledge of Coleen Rowley. I hope we can get round to them in due course. But not just yet, okay.

You now have admitted that Sibel Edmond didn’t have foreknowledge, so we have, at least, now corrected the record and hit that particular spinning curve ball out of play.

Continuing.

That’s right, Len: Edmonds, Shaffer, Mineta, and Coleen Rowley --- “they all relate to 911”. That’s what I was driving at.

Logic, you say -- that would be defined by you, of course, in any fashion that suits the moment, I guess? Twisted this way, then that way, stripped bare one day, fattened up the next. Discarded tomorrow. Picked up the week after. There are more seasons in your posts Len, than this planet of ours could ever hope to contrive.

Progressing the discussion of Sibel Edmonds… this is what she said of herself:

“I started working for the Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance. And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way before 9/11. And certain documents were being sent that needed to be re-translated for various reasons, and of course certain documents had to be translated for the first time due to the backlog.”

This is a statement of ex post facto knowledge, which oddly enough, I mentioned earlier.

You have also raised the subject of her language skills a number of times in what I can only believe is a clear effort to undermine the credibility of what she has been allowed to say publicly.

We all get the shadowy undertone, Len.

What is significant however, is that you alone consider (and speaking as we were of logic, it is quite the most bizarre and illogical argument I have ever come across) that having fluent Arabic and Phustun constitute the vital requirements that an FBI interpreter must have in order to become privy to secret and damning knowledge surrounding the hinterland of 911.

She no speaky Arabicy and Phustun, only speaky Turkish, Persiany and Azeri. And Englishy lingo. She no good. She too low person. She woman. She not there. No important. She no see, no hear. She no brain. No reliable. Ten dollah lady only.

Edmonds has made clear that the gagging orders placed on her by the Attorney General, namely “state secret privilege”, are specifically to avoid damaging diplomatic relations with other nations, including Saudi Arabia – but others also. And the reason:

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."

The motive for gagging her becomes apparent in the below transcript of the radio interview:

Quote:

JH: Are you allowed to say that it's the Saudis?

SE: I cannot name any country. And I would emphasize that it's plural. I understand the Saudis have been named because fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. However, the names of people from other countries, and semi-legit organizations from other countries, to this day, have not been made public.

JH: And the information that you have been gagged on has to do with that specifically.

SE: Correct. And specifically with that and their ties to people here in this country today.

Unquote

Ties to people here in this country today… "High level" people.

She also clarified the class of the information that is at the heart of her knowledge and on which she wished to (but is prohibited from) testify:

"The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations."

Money-laundering operations… Uh-huh. A real door opener that.

For the benefit of other forum members, below is the full Sibel Edmonds interview linked earlier in this thread.

David

**

THE INTERVIEW

JH: The people who have so far been interviewed on this program have all been authors and researchers, and here we have someone who, for the most part, has first-hand information. Ladies and Gentlemen, your guest is Sibel Edmonds, formerly of the FBI, a translator who joined the FBI shortly after 9/11.

Ms. Edmonds, what I'll do is invite you to tell us whatever you would like--your stint with the FBI--and what the brouhaha with Ashcroft and company is all about.

SE: I started working for the Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance. And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way before 9/11. And certain documents were being sent that needed to be re-translated for various reasons, and of course certain documents had to be translated for the first time due to the backlog.

During my work there I came across some very significant issues that I started reporting in December of 2001 to the mid-level management within the FBI. They said to basically leave it alone, because if they were to get into those issues it would end up being a can of worms. And after I didn't see any response from this mid-level bureaucratic management I took it to higher levels all the way up to [assistant director] Dale Watson and Director Mueller. And, again, I was asked not to take this any further and just let it be. And if I didn't do that they would retaliate against me.

At that point, which would be around February 2002, they came and they confiscated my computer, because, they said, they were suspecting that I was communicating with certain Senate members and taking this issue outside the Bureau. And, at that point, I was not. They did not find anything in my computer after they confiscated it. And they asked me to take a polygraph as to the allegations and reports I'd made. I volunteered and I took the polygraph and passed it without a glitch. They have already confirmed this publicly.

In March 2002 I took this issue to the Senate Judiciary Committee and also I filed it with the Department of Justice Inspector General's office. And as per the Senate Judiciary Committee's request the IG started an expedited investigation on these serious issues; and they promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that their report for these investigations would be out by fall 2002 latest. And here we are in April 2004 and this report is not being made public, and they are citing "state privilege" and "national security" for not making this report public.

Three weeks after I went to the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bureau terminated my contract, and they cited "government's convenience." I started working with the Senate Judiciary Committee that was investigating this case, and I appeared before the Inspector General's office for their investigation several times, and I also requested documents regarding these reports under the Freedom of Information Act; and they blocked this by citing again the "state secret privilege" and "national security" refusing to make these documents public.

On October 18th 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft came out personally, in public, asserted this rare "state secret privilege" on everything that had to do with my case. And they cited "diplomatic relations" and certain "foreign relations" that would be "at stake" if I were to take this issue and make it public. And, since then, this has been acting as a gag on my case.

I testified before the [9/11] commission on February 11th 2004, and as I said, I have been waiting for this report that they [the Attorney General's office] have been blocking for a year and a half from becoming public. The information I requested under the Freedom of Information Act has been blocked for two years. And I have been campaigning for the past three months trying to get the Senate Judiciary Committee that has the oversight authority and responsibility to start its own public hearings. However, this request is again being blocked. Now they [AG] are citing this upcoming election as reason. And here I am.

JH: And it is the Attorney General who is blocking your testimony.

SE: Senator Leahy, on April 8, 2004, sent a very strong letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, citing my case stating that he, Senator Leahy, has been asking questions, and has a lot of issues that have not been addressed, and asking AG Ashcroft to come and provide answers. And AG Ashcroft for the past two years has refused. So he [Leahy] is calling for a public hearing. However, Senator Hatch, who is the Republican Chairman of the Senate, has been a road block. And Senator Grassley [a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee] went on the record with New York Observer's Gail Sheehy and said that Senator Hatch is blocking this investigation from taking place and for this public hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

JH: So Hatch has the power to keep Leahy and Grassley....

SE: Correct. And now it is becoming a partisan issue. However, I keep reminding them that this issue is not a new issue that has come out for this election. This issue has been in the courts for two years and two months now.

JH: I've watched Hatch perform since the Contra Hearings in the mid 1980s, and I can assure you that for Hatch, everything is a partisan issue. You have a tough one.

SE: We have to remind the people: Congress has the constitutional obligation and public responsibility to oversee these issues and the Department of Justice's operations. That's why they are elected. That's why they are there. That's what they are getting paid for.

JH: Do you think that Leahy and Grassley are going to try to plow ahead with this, or do you think that there is a back door deal with Hatch?

SE: Well....as far as I see, Senator Leahy has been trying, and it's a strong letter that he issued a few weeks ago. [Ms. Edmonds refers here to the GPO's PDF (Senate--April 8, 2004; pages s4012-4014) regarding Ashcroft's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003. Senator Leahy describes the inaction of Attorney General Ashcroft since their first meeting on September 19th 2001 as a "flagrant avoidance of accountability."]

However, I'm very disappointed with Senator Grassley's office and his staff members. They initially were very supportive. But what I am getting from their office every time I call is, "Well this issue is under the Inspector General," and that their hands are tied. And then I press further and ask, "Well, what do you mean, 'our hands are tied'? Who's tying your hands? Untie it. Let's get it untied." They don't have any response. They say, "Well, this issue is very complex, and as you know, it is being investigated." And I'm not seeing any issue being investigated. What I'm seeing is that this issue is being covered up, and relentlessly being covered up, in consideration of "state privilege," which people are calling "the neutron bomb of all privilege."

JH: I can assure you that there are probably thirty issues just like yours that are being covered up. And they are allowing reporters, writers, internet contributors, and journalists from around the world to do these investigations, because they know that most Americans will never hear any of that. But as soon as someone like yourself gets too close to actually finding out who did anything, "state privilege" or something....

SE: "National security" as a classification.

JH: Why that makes us more secure, to let the people guilty of 9/11 run around free is, of course, the question that no one is willing to deal with.

I have a question having to do with "mid-level" management at the FBI. Why do you think that mid-level FBI management would care enough to stop you from doing your job?

SE: This was mainly for the reason of accountability. As you know, and as the chairman for the 9/11 Commission [Thomas Kean] answered during Tim Russert's show: to this day, not a single person has been held accountable. And certain issues, yes, they were due to a certain level of incompetence. But there were certain other issues--you know they keep talking about this "wall," and not having communication. I beg to differ on that, because there are certain instances where the Bureau is being asked by the State Department not to pursue certain investigations or certain people or certain targets of an investigation--simply citing "diplomatic relations." And what happens is, instead of targeting those people who are directly related to these illegal terrorist activities, they just let them walk free.

JH: And they interrogate people who are trying to make voting safe.

SE: And that is hypocritical. I see people detained for simple INS violations. On the other hand I have seen several, several top targets for these investigations of these terrorist activities that were allowed to leave the country--I'm not talking about weeks, I'm talking about months after 9/11.

JH: And there were four major FBI investigations, not counting yours, that were squelched in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York.

SE: Correct.

JH: And yours was even outside of that.

SE: Correct.

JH: So, obviously, we have mid-level FBI people who have been told something. It was the mid-level FBI people who knew enough to squelch many of these investigations before they went further. So how did they know to do that? Can all of them have been incompetent?

SE: No. Absolutely not.

JH: So they got the word down from Mueller, probably.

SE: I cannot confirm that for sure, but I can tell you that there is so much involvement, that if they did let this information out, and if they were to hold real investigations--I'm not talking about this semi-investigation they're holding under this "Joint Inquiry"--the pure show of the 9/11 Commission that has been getting the mass media's attention. If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up. And I am appalled. I am really surprised. I'm taken back by seeing the mass media's reaction to this. They are the window to our government's operation and what are they doing?

JH: We've been screaming about it for a long time. And it goes on.

SE: And you see many people just turning away from these channels of mass media, and they're just turning in to alternative providers, because they just see what's happening.

JH: I have another question: when the gag order was written, it had to do with "diplomatic relations." Right?

SE: That is what Attorney General Ashcroft cited.

JH: Are you allowed to say that it's the Saudis?

SE: I cannot name any country. And I would emphasize that it's plural. I understand the Saudis have been named because fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. However, the names of people from other countries, and semi-legit organizations from other countries, to this day, have not been made public.

JH: And the information that you have been gagged on has to do with that specifically.

SE: Correct. And specifically with that and their ties to people here in this country today.

JH: I understand why you can't say anything about this, but there are several books out about the Bush ties to the Saudis and the bin Ladens in particular. And in David Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, there is a very good synopsis of the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service. He shows the direct connections between the CIA, the ISI, and Mohamed Atta. He makes a very convincing case that the Pakistani ISI had been helping to plan 9/11 for a long time.

I don't imagine that you are allowed to say much about that.

SE: You are correct. But I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the portion that, even with this book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because then it starts touching some people in high places.

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

"The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations."--Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."

SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

JH: [Laughter] I guess not. This leads me to think of a beef I have with Seymour Hersh that I'd like to bring up with you? Do you know who he is?

SE: Yes.

JH: He seems to presume that the U.S. Intelligence Services want to collect the kind of intelligence that you have been gagged from repeating. I have suggested to him in a letter that there is an alternative to incompetence as to why intelligence doesn't get through to where it is supposed to go. But he's not interested. He doesn't seem to want to take that step.

SE: Not many people are willing to do that.

JH: But there are a lot of people who have laid out the road map.

SE: But people and your listeners have to go further than that. I understand this administration and their anti-transparency, anti-accountability and their corrupt attitudes. But that aside, we are not made of only one branch of government. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. And I am saying, how about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system. They should be counter-acting this corruption, but they are sitting there silent. And they are just an audience, just watching it happen. Senators Leahy and Grassley and Hatch have the obligation to do that. It's not that they can choose not to do it. They don't have that luxury. This needs to be demanded of them. People need to pick up their phones. They need to write to these people and say, "You'd better fulfill your responsibilities."

JH: And you know what Senator Leahy is going to do? He's going to forward his letter, his Senate testimony, on to us to prove how hard he is working.

SE: I saw a reporter the other day who had just spoken to Senator Leahy. And Senator Leahy said that, well...he doesn't know what the next step will be. And it came to the issue of the hearing, and investigating this case, and he basically ended the conversation. And I think that with a little more pressure from us, from you and from your listeners, we can change that.

JH: Some folks up here think of him as Saint Patrick, I'm afraid. Be that as it may, are you aware of the on-line news service, TRUTHOUT?

SE: I've heard of it.

JH: There is an article in the April sixth TRUTHOUT by Paul Sperry from WorldNet Daily about you and one of your colleagues...

SE: Mr. Sarshar?

JH: Behrooz Sarshar.

SE: He is another translator who worked in the same department as I did. Mr. Sarshar wanted to make this information public, however he just wanted to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee and receive their support and protection under the whistleblower protection act. And I facilitated this meeting, and several 9/11 family members and I took Mr. Sarshar to the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in Senator Grassley's office. Mr. Sarshar provided them with detailed information, however, to this day Senator Grassley has not acted upon that, and he passed the buck to the 9/11 Commission. Next we arranged for a briefing between the 9/11 Commission and Mr. Sarshar, and he went there on February 12th, 2004 and he provided the investigators for the 9/11 Commission, for almost three hours with all the details of the investigation that had to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack. He gave them the names of certain assets used by the Bureau for at least twelve years. He gave them contact information for certain agents who were aware of these issues. And they, themselves, wanted to come and talk about it, but they needed certain protection. Mr. Sarshar provided them with all this information and where to look for these documents etc. and, to this day, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 9/11 Commission have been passing this buck back and forth.

So, all this information has been sitting in front of them. They have not called any of those witnesses introduced by Mr. Sarshar to them. And during the 9/11 Commission hearing with [FBI] Director Mueller, none of these questions were asked. In fact they did not have any questions for Director Mueller, and they left it at that [except for the remark by Mr. Ben-Veniste that they should be addressing the translation issues behind closed doors.] And "behind closed doors" has become a black hole for me because I have been in these closed door sessions so many times within the Senate, within the Inspector General's office, within the 9/11 Commission. And whatever information you are providing them behind these closed doors, you know for sure that that information will stay there and will never get out.

That is why we are demanding to have public hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Senate floor and open to the public.

JH: Do you think the Ellen Mariani case will help any of this? [Ellen Mariani is a 9/11 widow whose attorney, Philip Berg, is suing the United States under the RICO statute for the death of Mr. Mariani at the WTC.]

SE: I have read about her case. But there is another lawsuit: the Motley Rice legal firm that is representing over a thousand family members. They sent me a subpoena to provide them with a deposition. And one day before that deposition took place, the government attorneys intervened and asked the court for a hearing and they quashed this subpoena request. They sent eight heavyweight attorneys from the Department of Justice, and Mr. Ashcroft's right hand. And basically put on this show in front of the judge, saying, "Sibel Edmonds, if you were to provide this information, our national security and our state secret privilege and our foreign relations will be destroyed. Therefore, Your Honor, we want you to quash this subpoena." Motley Rice told the judge that they wanted to ask for information that has already been made public. The government maintained that even though the information was public, it was still classified. And Judge Walton granted their request.

JH: There is some hope coming from statements made by former FBI counterintelligence agent I.C.Smith who thinks that 9/11 would have been stopped, had the FBI been allowed to do its job. He is strongly critical of FBI assistant director Dale Watson.

Do you believe that 9/11 could have been stopped if information like yours had been properly handled?

SE: At the very least, as early as May/June 2001, we could have issued a red code alert to the public, and we would have issued this very urgent warning system, which would, in return, have increased our Airport and INS security. Could we have prevented in 100% certainty? I don't think anything is that certain. However, we would have had a very, very good chance for preventing it. And agent Smith and I, we crossed the same person, because my case has to do with Dale Watson too.

JH: The trouble is: once you make this information public, you mess up the plan. And if one of the investigations from Phoenix, Chicago, New York, or Minneapolis had been followed through, let alone all four, it would have burst the bubble.

SE: Look, Jim, they had those four pieces you mentioned, and far more than that, believe me, far more than that. And that has not been made public. And for them to say that we did not have any specific information is just outrageous. Because what were they waiting for? An affidavit signed by bin Laden?

JH: "Hey Dumb Ass! Coming 9/11!" So their statement that they didn't have the information is outrageous.

SE: And they have been backing off from that. About two weeks before Condoleezza Rice appeared before the 9/11 Commission she made the statement, "We had no specific information." And I told the press that that was an outrageous lie. That was printed on the front page of The Independent [uK] and several other papers here. And what she did during the hearing was very interesting. She corrected herself saying, "Well, I made a mistake. I should not have said 'we.' I should say that I personally did not have specific information." And that is exactly what I stated. "We" includes the FBI, and therefore I can tell you with 100% certainty that that is an outrageous lie.

Yet the Commission didn't ask, "Well, who is the rest of this 'we'?"

JH: They don't want to know.

SE: No, they don't want to know. This is the heart of it. The attitude of the Senate members has been "See no evil. Hear no evil. Just let it go." And you can't let that happen. The only people I have seen who have been truly pushing for the truth are the family members. All they have asked for are three things. They want the truth, the facts, the real facts, the straightforward truth. They want accountability. And they want us to improve our security. That's it. They have no other agenda. And now they're smearing their names.

JH: They'll never run out of people to smear. Everybody who talks gets smeared.

SE: I have been given a warning that my turn is coming. I have been waiting for this for two years and two months, Jim. And they have not done it to this day, and they have not even denied anything. But I have been told to expect something to occur soon.

JH: Well, they have to figure out the angle.

[At this point we opened the lines for callers, as the scheduled time for the interview was drawing to a close.]

CALLER: But, of course, you are trying to spoil our American Dream. We want to dream in peace! What are you doing? [Laughter] Let us sleep!

JH: That's it. That's what they're up to.

CALLER: The depth of that psychology is incredible. It goes from A to Z through our life cycle. It's so disempowering. It's so depressing. Well, thank you for being lunatics out there who are trying to get yourselves shot. [Laughter]

JH: That's okay. Anytime. Just for you. Bye bye.

SE: Even from people from whom I've been receiving support, so many times you run across people who say, "Yeah, it's terrible. I understand. And it's very courageous what you are doing." But you know how this thing is. It's a boat you can't rock. And that is what is allowing these people to take everything this far. We need to stop saying we can't rock this boat when it needs to be rocked. Listen, we pay for this boat. We elect this boat. It's our money that maintains this boat. And we are the ultimate boss here. If this boat or some section of it needs rocking, you bet we have the right and we have the power to do it. And we have the power to demand it. Otherwise we are making ourselves powerless.

JH: And if we don't do it, we don't deserve it.

SE: Correct.

2nd CALLER: [Question re 9/11 stand down of the air defense system]

SE: I don't have direct knowledge of it. And I have been trying to stay within what exactly I know--the exact truth--not the conspiracy theories--no exaggerations--everything that I know, that I came across that is well documented where I can say, "Pull out this document; pull out this evidence. Make this document public; make that document public."

However, I have been working with other people who have been trying to address other aspects of this issue.

2nd CALLER: The issue of whether or not they new it was going to happen becomes somewhat moot when you look at the air force stand down. They new it was going to happen. Well, who did it then? There was a show on TUC [Time of Useful Consciousness] radio with....

JH: Michael Ruppert.

2nd CALLER: Yes. He went step-by-step of what actually happened with the Air Force stand-down. It's so obvious that we're in some sort of farcical dream, and what [the previous caller] said was quite relevant, that most people don't want to wake up from this. So I was just curious. I appreciate your work very much. And those are the two things that stand out to me--the Pentagon and the air force stand down. But what else can you really do at this point than just make a little noise? Anyway, thank you for doing what you are doing.

SE: He has a point there. There are so many questions that they don't want answered. And they remain unanswered. And I'm afraid they will not be answered unless we have a real investigation. And to this day there has been no real investigation. Without this, people cannot just let them wrap it up and say, "OK this is the report from the 9/11 Commission," where anything that has any value is redacted because it is top secret classified information.

JH: And pretty much all the shoes have dropped. The evidence at this point is overwhelming, and still nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

2nd CALLER: Right, but if you look at the Warren Commission--you look at the magic bullet theory--you know that's official! But who buys it? What can we do? This is going to happen. They're going to pull it off because the press won't report the truth.

SE: That goes to the heart of the matter: The media, as I said is the window to the government, and that window has turned into a wall.

JH: We can have a little more faith in the average person despite what [the two callers] say. I just did an informal survey in southern Virginia in a factory of over a hundred people, and I asked, "Would you be surprised to learn that the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?" 100% responded, "No." So it's not like people are afraid to find out information. They go through life struggling, working eight hours a day at least. They don't believe anything the media or the government tells them any more. They are able to except the fact that Bush & Co was responsible for 9/11; and they don't care. They almost expect it.

2nd CALLER: I would have suspected the opposite. These are emotional issues where people don't want their bubble burst. They say, "Well, the government would never kill their own people." Psychopaths go oversees and kill people with war machines. They're over the notion of patriotism. And I think that for most people it's hard to make that step.

JH: I'm not saying they made or didn't make a step. I'm just saying that, for these workers, the machinations of government are beyond their concern. But Ms. Edmonds has to leave shortly....

2nd CALLER: OK I'll let you go. I appreciate very much what both of you have done, and thank you very much.

JH: Ms. Edmonds, thanks for being our guest.

SE: Thank you very much. I'm honored to be on your show and I hope I'll be on again. And I hope you will able to get Senator Leahy. I'd like to be able to have a chat with him. [Laughter]

JH: Fat chance. He withers at the thought.

SE: We're going to still be pounding. I'm preparing this petition, and it's going to be signed by many, many people and I'm going to be wheeling it in personally to both Senators Leahy and Grassley. And it will have some level of coverage. And once they see the cameras and the people, suddenly their personalities change. It's like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They become very sweet.

JH: If you see either one of those two [Leahy or Grassley], I'd be more than happy to have either one them on - with you. Let's see what we can do.

SE: Okay, let's hope. Thank you, Jim. Bye.

Edited November 14, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Len Colby]

2X

Edited November 15, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Very slipshod of you, Len.

It was slipshod wasn’t it? Not guile, eh?

The reason that I have never stated or implied that Sibel Edmonds had foreknowledge of 911 – and the reason she has never suggested or implied that she had foreknowledge of 911... is because she didn’t.

We both know that. We both knew that before didn’t we… After all you read her interview didn't you.

For “foreknowledge”, I was discussing ABLE DANGER’S Colonel Shaffer’s testimony. As you well know. However, as you also well know, he was also prohibited from fully testifying what he knew and his unit’s archives were destroyed. Ditto Coleen Rowley and the foreknowledge she had. I hope we can get round to them in due course. But not just yet, okay.

You now have admitted that Sibel Edmond didn’t have foreknowledge, so we have, at least, now corrected the record and hit that particular spinning curve ball out of play.

I don’t know why you’re talking about Edmonds having foreknowledge, no one suggested she did nor did I suggested you said she did. The issues is whether or not what she says is evidence of USG foreknowledge. Whether you meant to say that Edmonds testimony was indicative of this it sure sounded like you did but unlike you who accuses me of being deceptive I’ll take your word for it that’s not what you meant. But answer me this when you said Able Danger was relevant on this thread because such foreknowledge was being discussed here, what were you referring to?

That’s right, Len: Edmonds, Shaffer, Mineta, and Coleen Rowley --- “they all relate to 911”. That’s what I was driving at.

And 9/11 is a very broad subject, it can only be intelligently discussed or debated very broadly or concentrating on specific issues debating unrelated aspects in detail isn’t very productive, shall we discuss William Rodriguez as well? What about the firemen who said they knew all afternoon 7 WTC was going to collapse “they all relate to 911” as well.

Progressing the discussion of Sibel Edmonds… this is what she said of herself:

“I started working for the Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance. And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way before 9/11. And certain documents were being sent that needed to be re-translated for various reasons, and of course certain documents had to be translated for the first time due to the backlog.”

This is a statement of ex post facto knowledge, which oddly enough, I mentioned earlier.

No one disputes that she had access to intelligence information after 9/11, what isn’t clear is the relevance any of it had to the attacks.

You have also raised the subject of her language skills a number of times in what I can only believe is a clear effort to undermine the credibility of what she has been allowed to say publicly.

We all get the shadowy undertone, Len.

What is significant however, is that you alone consider (and speaking as we were of logic, it is quite the most bizarre and illogical argument I have ever come across) that having fluent Arabic and Phustun constitute the vital requirements that an FBI interpreter must have in order to become privy to secret and damning knowledge surrounding the hinterland of 911.

Still seems eminently logical to me. If for example an FBI translator were to claim wrongdoing related to the bureau’s investigation of the Italian Mafia for example I’d take him or her more seriously if he or she spoke Italian and Sicilian rather than French and Spanish. I really doubt many Azeris, Iranians or Turks were involved in the attacks. Can you come up with a better explanation for how she would be privy to the content of intercepted Arabic communications than like “a tea-lady” she might have overheard talk at the office?

Do you have any evidence for your belief that I'm "alone" in my view?

She no speaky Arabicy and Phustun, only speaky Turkish, Persiany and Azeri. And Englishy lingo. She no good. She too low person. She woman. She not there. No important. She no see, no hear. She no brain. No reliable. Ten dollah lady only.

Your tendency to misrepresent my position is probably a reflection of the weakness of yours

Edmonds has made clear that the gagging orders placed on her by the Attorney General, namely “state secret privilege”, are specifically to avoid damaging diplomatic relations with other nations, including Saudi Arabia – but others also.

Actually that wouldn’t surprise me Palast turned up evidence which pointed in this direction as well. But one must wonder how would she have come to know this as result of her brief employment translating material in languages not spoken in that country. More credibly she has said similar things about some Turkish bigwigs, but even here I think her claims shifted a bit 1st saying that a single translator was responsible as in this interview but IIRC later saying higher ups were involved.

And the reason:

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."

What she seems to be saying is that due to political reasons people in the government covered up the involvement of foreign VIPs possibly because they have tied to influential people in the US. She’s not saying that that people in the USG orchestrated 9/11 or “let it happen on purpose. She even acknowledges that Al Queda is a real organization and seems to accept the premise it was behind the attacks.

A few weeks before the Jim Houge interview she told James Ridgeway of the Village Voice

"President Bush said they had no specific information about September 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we were facing."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0415,mondo10,52696,6.html

One wonders how she would know even that because:

1) Such information is unlikely to have come up in the languages she translated.

2) She says she mostly was translating material that hadn’t been translated yet. How then we she know what they knew months before she started working their? She did say they gave her some stuff to retranslate but I doubt if they would have given her translations that contained “specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001”.

She seems not to have said anything along those lines when she was interviewed by CBS about a year after the attacks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/...ain526954.shtml

http://sibeledmonds.blogspot.com/2006/11/6...ed-bradley.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0311/attachment1.htm

My impression is that she has been adding stuff picked up from media reports and elsewhere to the mix that or she has reinterpreted her experince in light of those reports. Often she doesn’t even say that the claims she’s added since she 1st came forward were based on her experience.

[William Kelly]

Having the Defense Historians write a book about what happpened to the Pentagon on 9/11 is like having Davy Crockett's relative write the history of what happened at the Alamo - or the US Cavalry Historians write the difinitive history of the 'Indian' Wars.....too biased for my taste.....their jobs are on the line and everyone knows that most will not bite the hand that pays them...nor even politely say no, I don't agree. More likely a 'yes, boss'! (snappy Yesss Sirrr!)

"Five authors, led by Office of the Secretary of Defense Historian Alfred Goldberg, worked from more than 1,300 oral history interviews to produce a sweeping narrative in words and pictures, including many previously unpublished photographs, that provides graphic testimony to the scale and force of the attack and the strength and courage of survivors, rescuers, and responders who fought the fires, ensured security, and cared for the dying and injured."

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/releas...releaseid=11313

http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-9-11-Alfred...g/dp/0160783283

John Kelin quotes Edward J. Epstein, author of Inquest -

Edward Jay Epstein: Time pressure affected the writing of the Report, as it had affected the investigation. It was written mainly by two men: Norman Redlich and Alfred Goldberg.

Warren Commission

Staff Members

PHILLIP BARSON

EDWARD A. CONROY

JOHN HART ELY

ALFRED GOLDBERG

MURRAY J. LAULICHT

ARTHUR MARMOR

RICHARD M. MOSK

JOHN J. O'BRIEN

STUART POLLAK

ALFREDDA SCOBEY

CHARLES N. SHAFFER, Jr.

LLOYD L. WEINREB

Alfred Goldberg was born in Baltimore, Md., on December 23, 1918. He received his A.B. degree from Western Maryland College in 1938, and his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University in 1950. After 4 years' service with the U.S. Army, Dr. Goldberg became historian with the U.S. Air Force Historical Division and later Chief. - Warren Report biography

Alfred Goldberg is listed as author of four government produced books:

History of the Air Force

The Pentagon - The First Fifty Years

Department of Defense - 1944-1997 Organization and Leaders

Design Guide for the Uniform Building Code -

Goldberg a Member of the DoD Historical Records Declassificaiton Advisory Panel -

http://www.stormingmedia.us/52/5250/A525033.html

Max Holland testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board:

....Finally, I would strongly urge the Review Board, while fashioning its definition of an assassination record, to consult two men who for slightly different reasons are very familiar with the government documents. The first would be David Belin, who was an assistant counsel on the Warren Commission, and later the Executive Director of the Rockefeller Commission and, as such, someone who has had unparalleled access to CIA records. The second man is Dr. Alfred Goldberg who is a historian in the Air Force who was brought on the Warren Commission by the Chief Justice to serve as a historical advisor. He is now the Chief Historian in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon.

http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/bas/newsletter_1988.asp

PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE VOLUNTARY PROGRAM FOR PRESERVATION OF SELECTED CONTRACTOR RECORDS

by Alfred Goldberg, Historian, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC

Many firms which do contract work for the Department of Defense create classified and unclassified records of enduring historical value and utility. These records constitute an important part of the institutional memory and of the documentation for Defense programs. Many of these documents are often lost to future use by either industry or government because of failure to treat them as a valuable commodity.

The Department of Defense is exploring with a small number of interested contractors the usefulness, desirability, and feasibility of a mutually acceptable trial program for identifying and preserving contractor records of historical significance. Whether a company participates, and to what extent, would be entirely its own decision. The proposed program concerns records that are not deliverable under contract but are related to Defense contracts; proprietary and technical data may, of course, be excluded by contractors.

If instituted, the program would be voluntary, concentrating on a relatively small number of items of high historical significance and immediate and future reference value that contractors would be willing to retire to U.S. government records centers. Such records would be helpful in many ways: documenting administration, concepts, policies, doctrines, operations, research and development, procurement, and production; reflecting significant decisions or events in development, regulation, and management; describing origins, organization procedures, and functions of major programs; and providing background on significant policy and operational studies. Records might include concept papers, critiques, correspondence, internal studies and reports, diaries and logs, minutes of meetings, interview transcripts, photographs, statistical data, and personal papers. It is estimated that only a small percentage of contractorsÖperhaps one percentÖand an even smaller percentage of contracts would be involved.

The Department of Defense would accept contractor records for storage, under its auspices, in the Federal Records Centers of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). On request, representatives of Defense and NARA would help review the records selected by the contractor for retirement and NARA would accept delivery for storage. The retired materials would become the property of the Department of Defense and eventually of NARA, but contractors would have guaranteed access to them.

The proposed trial program will be undertaken only if a significant number (as yet undetermined) of contractors signify a willingness to participate. It is likely that the results of such a program would not become evident for some timeÖperhaps several years. If the outcome of the trial program warrants, the program could be expanded to include additional interested contractors.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA330985

Department of Defense 1947 - 1997, Organization and Leaders,

Corporate Author : OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON DC HISTORICAL OFFICE

Personal Author(s) : Trask, Roger R. ; Goldberg, Alfred

Report Date : 1997

Abstract : The National Security Act of 1947 established the Department of Defense (named the National Military Establishment between 1947 and 1949) as part of a new national security structure for the United States. Exactly a half century after James V Forrestal took the oath of office as the first secretary of defense, the Department of Defense marked its 50th anniversary on 17 September 1997. This book presents a 50-year history of the evolution of DoD organization and the top leadership of the department. The higher organization of the department has evolved from the small office of the secretary of defense and three special assistants established in 1947 to a formal Office of the Secretary of Defense, now including more than 2,000 persons. As this study shows, developing an effective department-wide organization concerned Forrestal and most of his successors. Major reorganizations took place in 1949, 1953, 1958, and 1986, with important Incremental changes occurring over the years This hook discusses specific organizational issues, such as civil-military relations, the roles and missions of the armed forces, the positions of the service secretaries, and the organization and duties of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, especially its chairman.

Descriptors : *DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *HISTORY, MILITARY FORCES(UNITED STATES), MILITARY PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES, NATIONAL SECURITY, ORGANIZATIONS, LEADERSHIP.

Subject Categories : HUMANITIES AND HISTORY

MILITARY FORCES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA331009

Defense Technical Information Center -

Historical Records Declassification Advisory Panel, (Sixth Session)

Corporate Author : ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMMANDCONTROL COMMUNICATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE) WASHINGTON DC

Personal Author(s) : Goldberg, Alfred ; Kloss, Cynthia ; Cahn, Anne ; Clarke, Jeffrey ; Armstrong, David

Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331009 Check NTIS Availability...

Report Date : 18 SEP 1997

Abstract : Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information, requires automatic declassification of historical files over 25 years old. The Department of Defense (DoD) Historical Records Declassification Advisory Panel (HRDAP) was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a subcommittee to the Historical Advisory Panel. The HRDAP charter is to recommend information and topic areas for early declassification priority, that would be most valuable to historians. The HRDAP is chaired by Dr. Alfred Goldberg, OSD Historian. Six civilian historians and the historians from the military services and JCS comprise the panel. The transcripts for the open sessions are prepared by a contract transcription service.

Descriptors : *FILES(RECORDS), *DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *HISTORY, *CLASSIFICATION, MILITARY FORCES(UNITED STATES), NATIONAL SECURITY, LEGISLATION, ADVISORY ACTIVITIES, PANEL(COMMITTEE), GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, HISTORIANS.

Subject Categories : INFORMATION SCIENCE

HUMANITIES AND HISTORY

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE]

http://www.army.mil/CMH/acquisition/index.html

There are also references to Goldberg's interview with Earl Warren, apparently the last one before his death, usually quoted in regards to questions regarding Commission access to X-rays.

BK

Edited November 16, 2007 by William Kelly

[Guest David Guyatt]

Grief Len, what a little twister of words you are.

What you actually said about Sibel Edmonds – and I invite all readers to fact check this for themselves so that they can see for themselves, was:

“If you are going to back the notion that her testimony is indicative of foreknowledge you have to reasonably explain how she could know this.”

By which you were clearly implying that I was suggesting she had foreknowledge (your word) and that I would have to explain “how she could know this”. Obviously I had made no such statement.

I’m quite familiar by now with your continuing technique of corrupting the English language, and the pall of confusion you repeatedly try to spread over simple statements you make when they are shown to be opposite the truth.

Having said that I want to now turn to another such lapse of clarity of yours in regard to what you said about Mineta’s memory failure.

Earlier in this thread I asked (post #78):

“And by the way, when you say that Mineta was "confused about the timeframe of events", is that your spin? Or is it Mineta's admission that he may have been fuzzy about it all? In other words did he come over all ancient and bumbling after giving testimony to the Commission, or are you and others simply putting an appropriate slant on what he said?”

I had not, at that point, read the Mineta testimony (or the Education Forum thread discussing this) and merely wanted to know the position – was it an opinion or was it a fact. Simplicity itself. You would have thought.

But apparently not. Len responded on post #81:

“The question is a bit complex do a forum search for post I've made with the keyword 'mineta'”

Complexity for Len is admitting a simple little thing like attributing an opinion as a fact and then when challenged, surrounding it with smoke and mirrors.

So I posted on it again (post # 86):

“PS, and Len, since you are unable to demonstrate any substance to your earlier allegation of Mineta's failing memory (and I know you would've done if you could've done...), I think it only fair and reasonable to assume this is unsubstantiated opinion of the third kind (the unpleasant tarring and feathering variety) and not, as you intended to imply, in any sense factual.”

To which our Len responded (post #91):

“Wrong again, as I said the subject is complex and has already been discussed here. I even gave you simple instructions to find the thread…”

Oh, okay. I’m wrong. Len is right. And he did provide a link that shows he is right. And I read the linked thread. Truly I did. After which I posted the following (post # 93):

“I now know that the comments you earlier made that Mineta “was "confused about the timeframe of events", is, as I suspected, a personal opinion and not a factual statement. I also note that when you had the opportunity to correct this misstatement above you chose not to.”

But in Len’s world nothing is simple and nothing, especially, is straightforward, as witnessed by response to the above in his post # 97:

“He later said he was unsure of the time his recollections conflict at times with what is known to have happened (such as the evacuation of the White House).”

And:

“You’ve failed to show that I made any misstatements in need of correction.”

Oh, okay. That’s straightforward enough. All we need to do it locate where Mineta said what Len attributed to him and scrutinise it for accuracy. By now though, we have learned to fact check anything and everything Len says because we think he has a naughty, slippery way with words and facts. I’m absolutely sure his intention is to say it exactly like it is, but somewhere along the neural pathways, his fingertips takeover and things begin to go haywire. And what comes out is well, not how it is.

So, again, I asked Len to provide a citation for his statement of fact (post # 99):

“I’d be obliged if you would be kind enough to post a citation I can check for your comment that Mineta… “later said he was unsure of the time his recollections conflict at times with what is known to have happened (such as the evacuation of the White House).” I just want to be sure of the context of what you say he said is what he actually said. Thanks.”

Simple enough I hear you say, but I have to shock you by providing Len’s answer to this question (post # 100):

“See the cited thread with citations. Thanks.”

That clears that up then.

Having read the cited thread once already (supposing it is the cited thread Len has in mind?), I took Len’s advice and read it again – with citations. The problem is that there is no factual statement wherein Mineta states what Len has attributed to him. It’s looks to me to be a bit like the case we witnessed earlier in this thread when Len set out to mangle Charles Drago’s words so they would misrepresent what Charles actually said.

I can say that on the cited thread opinions flow more fully than the Ganges in flood, but nowhere can I read a factual statement that resolved the question I posed at the beginning of this exchange, namely:

“And by the way, when you say that Mineta was "confused about the timeframe of events", is that your spin? Or is it Mineta's admission that he may have been fuzzy about it all?

So Len, please now finally provide a precise quote and a precise location/citation that clearly and demonstrably supports your above statement -- which everyone here can toodle off and fact check for themselves. That’s all I’m simply asking for.

If you wouldn’t mind that is.

David

PS: Len, I very much like the quote you provide at the foot of your posts by Ted Bundy:

“More than ever, I am convinced of my innocence”

To which I would now observe:

“More than ever I am unconvinced of yours.”

[Guest David Guyatt]

Thanks for that insight about Mineta, Peter.

I am sure we are now in a period where word twisting and meaning twisting has become just one of the tools used in psyops. Only today I was PM'd by someone who tells me he has been suffering the same sort of word-twisting and meaning-twisting attack for the last two years or so. The people who engage in this tactic have no ethics, no scruples and no love of the language. For them everything is a means to an end. And that end is simply unthinkable for the vast majority of people.

David

[Evan Burton]

Some posts set to invisible for review.

See Moderator Actions thread.

[Charles Drago]

That would be me.

I dared to make oblique references to the forbidden synonyms for fib and fibber in describing the purposeful misrepresentation by Len Colby of one of my posts.

Let's see if "fib" and "fibber" go into the black hole.

So!

Here's a question or two for the moderators:

Has any member of this Forum ever been convicted of perjury in a court of law?

If so, would it be permissable to post a message referring to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the "lies" that led to the conviction?

Has any member of this Forum ever been caught in a posted lie?

If so, would it be permissable to refer to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the posted "lies"?

Based upon his perjury conviction, is it permissable to refer to Scooter Libby as a xxxx?

If so, and if Libby joined this Forum, would the permission be rescinded?

Finally, If I were to write in a post, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage consistent with the impact of a 757," and, oh I don't know, a "Rio D. Janiero" were to quote me as having written, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage" within the broader context of attempting to cast aspersions on my rationality and judgment, would "Janiero's" action properly be described as a "lie" and "Janiero" a "xxxx"?

If so, would the moderators deny me the right to do so in my defense?

Charles Drago

Edited November 17, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Evan Burton]

Has any member of this Forum ever been convicted of perjury in a court of law?

Not my concern.

If so, would it be permissable to post a message referring to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the "lies" that led to the conviction?

That would be for John and Andy to decide.

Has any member of this Forum ever been caught in a posted lie?

I don't know.

If so, would it be permissable to refer to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the posted "lies"?

That would be for John and Andy to decide.

Based upon his perjury conviction, is it permissable to refer to Scooter Libby as a xxxx?

Yes, because he is not a member here.

If so, and if Libby joined this Forum, would the permission be rescinded?

That would be for John and Andy to decide.

Finally, If I were to write in a post, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage consistent with the impact of a 757," and, oh I don't know, a "Rio D. Janiero" were to quote me as having written, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage" within the broader context of attempting to cast aspersions on my rationality and judgment, would "Janiero's" action properly be described as a "lie" and "Janiero" a "xxxx"?

No. They would be not quoting you in full, and if brought to the moderator's attention, they'd be asked to correct the matter (if it was significant enough that the truncated quote could be given incorrect meaning or taken out of context, or any other reason the moderator decided was sufficient to warrant correction).

If so, would the moderators deny me the right to do so in my defense?

See above.

[William Kelly]

Having the Defense Historians write a book about what happpened to the Pentagon on 9/11 is like having Davy Crockett's relative write the history of what happened at the Alamo - or the US Cavalry Historians write the difinitive history of the 'Indian' Wars.....too biased for my taste.....their jobs are on the line and everyone knows that most will not bite the hand that pays them...nor even politely say no, I don't agree. More likely a 'yes, boss'! (snappy Yesss Sirrr!)

"Five authors, led by Office of the Secretary of Defense Historian Alfred Goldberg, worked from more than 1,300 oral history interviews to produce a sweeping narrative in words and pictures, including many previously unpublished photographs, that provides graphic testimony to the scale and force of the attack and the strength and courage of survivors, rescuers, and responders who fought the fires, ensured security, and cared for the dying and injured."

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/releas...releaseid=11313

http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-9-11-Alfred...g/dp/0160783283

John Kelin quotes Edward J. Epstein, author of Inquest -

Edward Jay Epstein: Time pressure affected the writing of the Report, as it had affected the investigation. It was written mainly by two men: Norman Redlich and Alfred Goldberg.

Warren Commission

Staff Members

PHILLIP BARSON

EDWARD A. CONROY

JOHN HART ELY

ALFRED GOLDBERG

MURRAY J. LAULICHT

ARTHUR MARMOR

RICHARD M. MOSK

JOHN J. O'BRIEN

STUART POLLAK

ALFREDDA SCOBEY

CHARLES N. SHAFFER, Jr.

LLOYD L. WEINREB

Alfred Goldberg was born in Baltimore, Md., on December 23, 1918. He received his A.B. degree from Western Maryland College in 1938, and his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University in 1950. After 4 years' service with the U.S. Army, Dr. Goldberg became historian with the U.S. Air Force Historical Division and later Chief. - Warren Report biography

Alfred Goldberg is listed as author of four government produced books:

History of the Air Force

The Pentagon - The First Fifty Years

Department of Defense - 1944-1997 Organization and Leaders

Design Guide for the Uniform Building Code -

Goldberg a Member of the DoD Historical Records Declassificaiton Advisory Panel -

http://www.stormingmedia.us/52/5250/A525033.html

Max Holland testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board:

....Finally, I would strongly urge the Review Board, while fashioning its definition of an assassination record, to consult two men who for slightly different reasons are very familiar with the government documents. The first would be David Belin, who was an assistant counsel on the Warren Commission, and later the Executive Director of the Rockefeller Commission and, as such, someone who has had unparalleled access to CIA records. The second man is Dr. Alfred Goldberg who is a historian in the Air Force who was brought on the Warren Commission by the Chief Justice to serve as a historical advisor. He is now the Chief Historian in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon.

http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/bas/newsletter_1988.asp

PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE VOLUNTARY PROGRAM FOR PRESERVATION OF SELECTED CONTRACTOR RECORDS

by Alfred Goldberg, Historian, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC

Many firms which do contract work for the Department of Defense create classified and unclassified records of enduring historical value and utility. These records constitute an important part of the institutional memory and of the documentation for Defense programs. Many of these documents are often lost to future use by either industry or government because of failure to treat them as a valuable commodity.

The Department of Defense is exploring with a small number of interested contractors the usefulness, desirability, and feasibility of a mutually acceptable trial program for identifying and preserving contractor records of historical significance. Whether a company participates, and to what extent, would be entirely its own decision. The proposed program concerns records that are not deliverable under contract but are related to Defense contracts; proprietary and technical data may, of course, be excluded by contractors.

If instituted, the program would be voluntary, concentrating on a relatively small number of items of high historical significance and immediate and future reference value that contractors would be willing to retire to U.S. government records centers. Such records would be helpful in many ways: documenting administration, concepts, policies, doctrines, operations, research and development, procurement, and production; reflecting significant decisions or events in development, regulation, and management; describing origins, organization procedures, and functions of major programs; and providing background on significant policy and operational studies. Records might include concept papers, critiques, correspondence, internal studies and reports, diaries and logs, minutes of meetings, interview transcripts, photographs, statistical data, and personal papers. It is estimated that only a small percentage of contractorsÖperhaps one percentÖand an even smaller percentage of contracts would be involved.

The Department of Defense would accept contractor records for storage, under its auspices, in the Federal Records Centers of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). On request, representatives of Defense and NARA would help review the records selected by the contractor for retirement and NARA would accept delivery for storage. The retired materials would become the property of the Department of Defense and eventually of NARA, but contractors would have guaranteed access to them.

The proposed trial program will be undertaken only if a significant number (as yet undetermined) of contractors signify a willingness to participate. It is likely that the results of such a program would not become evident for some timeÖperhaps several years. If the outcome of the trial program warrants, the program could be expanded to include additional interested contractors.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA330985

Department of Defense 1947 - 1997, Organization and Leaders,

Corporate Author : OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON DC HISTORICAL OFFICE

Personal Author(s) : Trask, Roger R. ; Goldberg, Alfred

Report Date : 1997

Abstract : The National Security Act of 1947 established the Department of Defense (named the National Military Establishment between 1947 and 1949) as part of a new national security structure for the United States. Exactly a half century after James V Forrestal took the oath of office as the first secretary of defense, the Department of Defense marked its 50th anniversary on 17 September 1997. This book presents a 50-year history of the evolution of DoD organization and the top leadership of the department. The higher organization of the department has evolved from the small office of the secretary of defense and three special assistants established in 1947 to a formal Office of the Secretary of Defense, now including more than 2,000 persons. As this study shows, developing an effective department-wide organization concerned Forrestal and most of his successors. Major reorganizations took place in 1949, 1953, 1958, and 1986, with important Incremental changes occurring over the years This hook discusses specific organizational issues, such as civil-military relations, the roles and missions of the armed forces, the positions of the service secretaries, and the organization and duties of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, especially its chairman.

Descriptors : *DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *HISTORY, MILITARY FORCES(UNITED STATES), MILITARY PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES, NATIONAL SECURITY, ORGANIZATIONS, LEADERSHIP.

Subject Categories : HUMANITIES AND HISTORY

MILITARY FORCES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA331009

Defense Technical Information Center -

Historical Records Declassification Advisory Panel, (Sixth Session)

Corporate Author : ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMMANDCONTROL COMMUNICATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE) WASHINGTON DC

Personal Author(s) : Goldberg, Alfred ; Kloss, Cynthia ; Cahn, Anne ; Clarke, Jeffrey ; Armstrong, David

Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331009 Check NTIS Availability...

Report Date : 18 SEP 1997

Abstract : Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information, requires automatic declassification of historical files over 25 years old. The Department of Defense (DoD) Historical Records Declassification Advisory Panel (HRDAP) was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a subcommittee to the Historical Advisory Panel. The HRDAP charter is to recommend information and topic areas for early declassification priority, that would be most valuable to historians. The HRDAP is chaired by Dr. Alfred Goldberg, OSD Historian. Six civilian historians and the historians from the military services and JCS comprise the panel. The transcripts for the open sessions are prepared by a contract transcription service.

Descriptors : *FILES(RECORDS), *DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *HISTORY, *CLASSIFICATION, MILITARY FORCES(UNITED STATES), NATIONAL SECURITY, LEGISLATION, ADVISORY ACTIVITIES, PANEL(COMMITTEE), GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, HISTORIANS.

Subject Categories : INFORMATION SCIENCE

HUMANITIES AND HISTORY

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE]

http://www.army.mil/CMH/acquisition/index.html

There are also references to Goldberg's interview with Earl Warren, apparently the last one before his death, usually quoted in regards to questions regarding Commission access to X-rays.

BK

Thanks for that Bill. Always interesting to know which foxes are around to guard the chickens....there seems to be a pattern. Look who was chosen to be on the WC, HSCA, 9/11 Commission...it is all the same inside the Secret Govt. foxes. No surprise to me...but not even mentioned in the best-media-Oligarchy-can-by-out Media.

Did you or anyoody notice AG's proposition for defense contractors, not legally bound to respond to FOIA requests, to voluntarily save 'histoiric' records?

Of course I was thinking of General Dynamics, Bell Hell and Collins Radio, but at least he's thinking in the right direction.

Also, does anyone have Goldberg's last interview with Earl Warren?

BK