by Jim Hogue
(Edited by Kolki for better
readability and visibility. Thanks to Sibel
Edmonds for standing tall!)
|
"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." |
INTRODUCTION: Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar,
beginning in December of 2001, began filing reports to their superiors at the
FBI. These reports could lead to the collapse of a corrupt power structure that
has a stranglehold on the very institutions that are obligated to control it.
We cannot excuse these institutions, for while they fiddle, they pass death
sentences on their own troops, and on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my
guest for 50 minutes on WGDR radio. What follows is an edited transcript of the
interview. The editing is for the sake of a more readable piece.
Sibel Edmonds is a
former FBI translator. 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.
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." |
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.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Jim Hogue provided the following conclusion to this interview: "The facts
reported by Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar are incontrovertible. Result: Silence. And you must
agree to be a part of this silence.The gag order
permeates the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee, all levels of the
FBI, the CIA, the 9/11 Commission, the NSC, the Pentagon, the Republican Party,
the Democratic Party, and the mass media. The media and the White House will
next assassinate Miss Edmond's character, as they have done to others who
haven't rolled over and played dead. Never in the course of human events has so
great a story been covered up by so many on the orders of so few.
The likes of Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodard and Judith Miller should put their
tails between their legs and slink away, while the obscure academic, Dr. David
Ray Griffin, while candidate John Buchanan, citizen Eric Hufschmid,
author Gore Vidal, independent journalists Michael Ruppert
and Christopher Bollyn, and the 9/11 families are
recognized among those who kept open the window to Democracy.
Miss Edmonds has challenged us to do our jobs as citizens. It isn't often that
a phone call could change the course of history. Now is such a time."
Jim Hogue, a retired high school teacher and professional actor,
has been doing a Vermont-based listener-sponsored radio show each week for over
10 years. Prior to 9/11, the show was literary in nature, but since then
Hogue's coverage has greatly expanded.