Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Reviewing Sibel Edmonds: The Lone Gladio

Years before I began this blog, I had been following Sibel Edmonds' story for clues about what larger, darker truths would be revealed.  From the 60 Minutes story of her FBI whistleblowing to the gagging by Attorney General John Ashcroft, the State Secrets Privilege Gallery and sworn testimony in Schmidt v. Krikorian, the story kept getting more vast and labyrinthian.  But of all the stories that Sibel Edmonds' time as an FBI translator bore witness to, the story that fascinated me the most concerned what she learned about 9/11.  Most of this was detailed in her book Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story, an autobiography of her experience with the FBI.  But she has always been meticulous about strictly stating the facts that she uncovered, without resorting to speculation about what those facts mean in the context of the larger question: how did 9/11 really go down?

She found the perfect venue for elaborating the details of how she thinks it all went down: a fictional novel.  The Lone Gladio is a spy thriller written by Sibel Edmonds that deals with her experiences in a fictional manner, but has multiple story lines that weave together in unexpected ways.  If I were to approach this as a regular review, I would give this my highest praise for being a genuine page turner, filled with memorable characters, exciting plot twists and riveting confrontations.  But rather than approach this as a review of just the book itself, I want to review this through the context of what I have learned about Sibel Edmonds' experience through her public revelations.  Specifically, I want to review portions of the book in the context of her revelations in 2013 on The Corbett Report about Gladio B, which I synopsized here.


As Sibel Edmonds alludes to in her interview on The Corbett Report, 9/11 was a Gladio B operation. While I employed my own hyperbole to describe her allusion that 9/11 was an Operation Gladio false flag operation on steroids, a more accurate description in light of what Edmonds has illustrated in The Lone Gladio is that 9/11 was a highly compartmentalized Gladio-within-Gladio operation.  Though there is a character in the novel based on Edmonds named Elsie Simon, the character who really does the most to expose the Gladio B network is Gregory McPhearson.  Also known as OG 68, his story begins on June 18 2001, working for "the company" in Azerbaijan.  Greg seems calm, cool and impenetrable, though when the target of the false flag terror operation he is working on is switched to a Moscow day care center to ensure Russian retaliation against the Chechens, he seems bothered by the possibility of messy, unanticipated consequences.  When we see him next, it is October 6, 2003, in Mui Ne, Vietnam.  While still outwardly Greg appears the same strong, cold operative, his inward calculations now seem focused against the company.  The reason is that since he knows Operation Gladio did 9/11, and he was excluded from involvement, he was considered by the top tier to be not suited or undetermined, and would have to eventually be eliminated.  Besides his own safety and security, he has another motive: he fell in love with a beautiful young woman named Mai.

Part of the fun for me in reading this book was deciphering who some of these people named in the book might be in real life and who some of the organizations named really are.  I find it interesting, especially after reading a different book that I hope to review later that addresses memetic propaganda, that Edmonds never refers to 9/11 as 9/11; throughout the book she refers to it as the "2001 attack."  The attack was carried out by "al-Hazar", obviously al-Qaeda.  Greg found out about it at Frankfurt Airport watching "BCB", or BBC.  She refers to it as "a tool of the company", as well as "NCN", or CNN, and "New York Corp", or New York Times.  As she writes on page 84, "The entire thing was a supreme cosmic joke.  Yes, he was deliberately placed outside the loop: before, during, and after the attack.  And why?  They knew he'd know, of course; it was Greg and the rest of the company who had created al-Hazar in the first place.  They created a brand and coined it with a name that started as a joke among company men, and somehow it had stuck."

Greg is confronted at his place in Vietnam by an operative begging him to negotiate with the CIA for his life after running afoul of the agency by taping a politician with prepubescent girls that the agency was trying to blackmail.  The politician, Donald Keller, seems to me like an improbable cross between Dennis Hastert and Henry Waxman, though with Edmonds' physical description of him and his arrogant protestation, "I am the WHIP.", I couldn't help be reminded of Newt Gingrich.  Greg rebuffs the operative, but keeps the DVD evidence of the politician.  Desperate to save his life, the operative follows Mai to a coffeehouse to tell her to try to convince Greg to help him.  But he is too late; they not only gun him down in the coffeehouse but kill Mai as well.

For Greg, taking out his woman gives him an even stronger motive to take down Gladio B: revenge.  This resolve only increases his methodical and calculated approach.  He kills the CIA agent who killed Mai, as well as the pimp responsible for the child prostitutes, in a ritualistic fashion designed to take suspicion off of him.  He then travels, posing as a French tourist, to Turkey to kill Mehmet Turkel, a former Turkish lieutenant general involved in narcotics trafficking for Gladio since the 1980s.  Based on what Edmonds elaborates on in the six part Gladio B series, I think Turkel is most likely Mehmet Ağar or possibly some Turkish general pissed off by the Hood Event like Hilmi Özkök.  Next on Greg's agenda is a trip to Brussels where he deftly carjacks a NATO Colonel, using his identity to sneak into NATO headquarters to kill two Gladio operatives and a State Department liaison named David Perleman.  I'm not sure who the Gladio operatives are, but I'm pretty sure the State Department guy is Marc Grossman or Richard Perle.  Then Greg flies off to Washington, D.C. to take care of things on the home front.

As Greg continues his Gladio takedown in the USA, his path crosses fatefully with Elsie Simon.  Like Edmonds herself, she is an FBI translator who faces termination when she uncovers criminal activity connected with the Gladio B network.  She finds classified documentation of David Perleman and other top government officials holding meetings with, among others, Turkel, Amin al-Zakiri, who as "leader of al-Hazar" is probably Osama bin Laden, and Yousef Mahmoud, who seems to be a cross between Ali Mohammed and Ayman al-Zawahiri.  Elsie tries to become a whistleblower, but unfortunately, the Congressperson she decides to blow the whistle to is none other than Donald Keller.  Unknown to her, Greg bugged Keller's office, so when he finds out that Elsie has scheduled a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) meeting with Keller's Chief of Staff, he views this complication as a threat to his plans and decides to neutralize her.

However, after tailing her and learning more about her, Greg decides to not only let Elsie live, but have her help him with his plans.   He even reveals personal information about himself to her and how he came to work for Operation Gladio on pages 244-245:

"I began with the army; Special Forces, and after that, DIA.  I have a solid education and a good set of language skills, like you.  That moved me to another unit: Joint CIA-Pentagon Operations.  A year later, I became one of the chosen ones for the company.  That's where I spent the last twenty years."

"The company?  But that's the agency - the CIA."

"Well, yes and no.  The company is a special operations unit made up of several units: the Pentagon, on the top; NATO, CIA, and MI6.  There are less than two hundred operatives in the company.  All divided into their own small units.  Separate pockets.  Rigidly compartmentalized.  The top tier, OGs one to ten, oversees the entire operation without ever coming into direct contact with the bottom units."

Elsie tilted her head to the left and began stroking the nape of her neck.  "OGs?"

Don't, Greg thought.  He looked into her eyes.  "Operation Gladio.  Are you familiar?"

After detailing how Gladio, which Elsie is aware of, morphed from Cold War false flag operations in Europe to Operation B, utilizing Mujahideen and other Islamic operatives, Greg directs Elsie to a safe motel where she can help him with two parts of his plan - publicizing Gladio B and its role in 9/11 and stopping a new terror attack about to happen in D.C.  As they take the steps necessary to accomplish this, Elsie learns more about what the Deep State really is.  For anyone who ever had any doubt that George Tenet knew what was coming down the pike on 9/11, this next passage from page 305-306 should erase all doubts:

Seizing the moment, she'd asked her first question. "How deep does it go, the 2001 attack?  Exactly how deep?  Do you know?"

He had hesitated before answering with a question.  "Not sure what you mean...remember what I told you about pockets?"

"Yes, about compartmentalization; but I know you know more.  You said Gladio, for example, has two or three operatives inside the bureau, never the director himself.  We identified two: Assistant Deputy Marshall and Drake; yet what about inside the agency?  How many, and how far up?"

She could hear him thinking; did he know?  "I would guess...at least a dozen.  A minimum of twelve OG operatives within the agency.  Unlike the FBI, the CIA director is directly involved.  I would say somewhere between OG ten and fifteen."

"How about the president?  Does it go up that high?"

She'd heard something like a laugh.  "No, it doesn't.  Presidents don't want to know.  They have a general idea but that's it.  No details."

"The president doesn't know about 2001?  That's impossible."

"I didn't say that, did I?  Look...they do the same as they do with people like Keller.  You can't be president without certain qualifications: criminal background, sex maniac, mafia connections, you name it.  Those ingredients are necessary for any viable presidential candidate.  Without them, they haven't a chance in hell..."

"So we're talking CIA and the Pentagon; then why did you rank the CIA director in the OG teens?"

"You're making a false assumption: that the absolute top must exist inside the government.  Not so.  There are others outside the government, and they are the ones on top.  They are the true power that controls the second tier: the government front system - because government is a front.  The CIA too sets up front companies; it's strikingly similar.  The real power - the Deep State, let's call it - is out and above the actual visible government."

She'd heard of the shadow government, but never from a source like this.  "Major companies?  The military-industrial complex?  Oil companies?  Is that what you're talking about?"

"Some of those; but maybe some others, who serve those companies under what they call their vision.  They see themselves as visionaries and consider themselves gods.  They analyze and set the agendas.  They have one foot in and one foot out, and appear to have every leader's ear.  You know them.  I believe they would be within the first ten OG ranking."

She had been quiet, thinking permanent war and infinite death.

"You get the gist.  This is what I meant by Gladio Gods, and what they consider collateral damage: a small price paid for their vision..."

She didn't need to ask any more questions.

She was ready.

Ready, willing, but are they successful?  I don't want to give away the ending of this book, (and believe me, I have left out a ton of details, including many important characters and plot lines) but I will say that if you're a fan of how Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds changed history for the sake of enacting a tasty revenge, you'll get a kick out of how Sibel Edmonds ties it all up at the end of The Lone Gladio.

If there's any criticism I have of this book, it's regarding the torture.  Not that I personally had any problem reading literary descriptions of torture, which Edmonds does get quite graphic about.  My issue is that it's become something of a cliche in popular entertainment for the protagonist to torture the antagonist as a crisis approaches and - almost without exception - the antagonist gives up intelligence that solves the crisis.  My understanding of reality is that rarely, if ever, has torture produced actionable intelligence to stop an impending terror attack.  It's not as cliched as, say, your average TV show; Edmonds does create an extenuating circumstance through which I could buy someone as high up the Gladio food chain as Yousef Mahmoud giving Greg the appropriate intel.  I also found it fascinating that through Yousef, we find out the 9/11 patsies didn't believe they were on a suicide mission but were part of a drill.  After reading how dubious the description of these patsies being "devout" was in Daniel Hopsicker's Welcome to Terrorland, this is yet another hypothesis Edmonds presents in The Lone Gladio with enough circumstantial evidence to qualify as a valid theory.  But getting back to the fictional construct, was torture really necessary to elicit this evidence?  Perhaps that question, however you answer it, is part of the conversation Edmonds is hoping to stimulate by writing this book.

Overall, I have to give this book a high recommendation both for being an extremely suspenseful spy thriller and for digging deeper into how 9/11 happened than any other work of fiction I can think of.  I wish my recommendation was enough to give it a wider audience.  I suppose it's too much to ask for Hollywood to grow a pair and produce a faithful movie adaptation.  But then again, I never thought we would see a movie about Gary Webb and that got made.  There's even a project in the works with Tom Cruise set to play Barry Seal

Stranger things have happened.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

An American View of Greece Revisited

Almost five years ago, I interviewed my father and wrote a blog post regarding his experience of his most recent visit to Greece.  At the time, Greece was undergoing a strike where buses and trains had curtailed their services.  Economic growth had sputtered, debt had ballooned and unemployment had skyrocketed to double digits.  When I asked my Dad what he thought of James Howard Kunstler's insight that Greece might resort to communism, he responded, "As far as I'm concerned, they're really close to it, they're crazy over there."

Fast forward to today.  My father is no longer with us, passing away almost four years ago, but almost all the problems that plagued Greece then have magnified and multiplied.  Unemployment is now at 25%, as bad as it was in America during the height of the Great Depression.  Instead of communism, the extremist threat on the rise is from the far-right in the form of the fascist Golden Dawn, which took third place in parliamentary elections earlier this year.  But the biggest immediate problem is the debt.  To address the debt crisis, there had been a debt restructuring program set up by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Eurozone countries and the European Central Bank (ECB) which was initiated around the time I wrote my original post.  When the first restructuring obviously wasn't working, a second restructuring which carried over the bailout of the first one was ratified by all parties in February 2012.  But with the January election which brought the left wing Syriza Party to power, a new coalition government declared the old bailout agreements cancelled.  They were given until May 31 to negotiate with creditors.

How will this all play out?  The current outlook isn't very positive:

Greece is probably already defaulting on its debt. Here’s why

Avoiding a ‘hard’ default doesn’t rule out the softer forms, and there seems little reason to suppose that they won’t become visible soon.

The bad news is that Greece is already (probably) defaulting.

The good news is that it’s not going to be on you, dear taxpayer (and indirect contributor to the International Monetary Fund).

After a week of alarms, Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis promised IMF head Christine Lagarde at the weekend (and subsequently Treasury under-secretary Nathan Sheets) that Greece won’t default on a €450 million (roughly $490) payment to the IMF on Thursday.

But avoiding a ‘hard’ default doesn’t rule out the softer forms, and there seems little reason to suppose that they won’t become visible very quickly now. Tax receipts are falling well behind schedule, the government is making ever-more aggressive raids on whatever cash is left in public-sector entities such as the state pension fund, and the European Central Bank is still refusing to let Greek banks lend more to the government in the form of Treasury bills. As such, the only way to cover a widening funding gap will be to default on other commitments — to pensioners, public employees, suppliers of goods, and services to the government. In short, all those who don’t hold the immediate power of life or death over the country and its banking system.

In what is likely to be a last throw of the dice, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is due to visit Moscow on Wednesday to see if Greece’s crucial veto rights over European Union sanctions on Russia can be parleyed into some hard cash in the short term.

He’s likely to be disappointed, because President Vladimir Putin has already seen his foreign exchange reserves fall by over a quarter in the last year, and he’s in no hurry to take on such an obviously acute credit risk, especially when his immediate entourage is telling him that the same reserves are needed to dig Russia’s own economy out of the hole his policies have left it in.



If Greece defaults, then what?  Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan recently weighed in on how he foresees the shape of things to come.

Alan Greenspan: The euro is doomed

alan greenspan

Alan Greenspan has harsh words for Greece: hit the road jack.

The former Federal Reserve Chairman told the BBC that Greece's best course of action is to leave the Eurozone. But Greenspan didn't stop there. He predicts Greece's exit is the beginning of the end for the euro.

"Short of a political union, I find it very difficult to foresee the euro holding together in its current form," Greenspan told the BBC's Mark Mardell on Sunday.

Greenspan went as far as to say the world would be better off without the euro. He says the currency union is too complex unless Europe decides to have one unified governing body to call all the shots.

Greece is a good example of the uneasy strain of the currency union. The country is mired in debt that it can't figure out how to pay back. The Greek people are so fed up with all the cutback measures imposed by Eurozone leaders that they recently elected a new prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, who campaigned on a platform of fighting back.

"I don't see it being resolved without Greece leaving the Eurozone," Greenspan said. "It's just a matter of time before everyone recognizes that parting is the best strategy."

Tspiras and European leaders are in ongoing talks about Greece's bailout for the rest of 2015. There's not a lot of optimism about a good solution. Greece's stock market is tanking again and dragging down much of Europe with it.

More headwinds for the euro: Greenspan never liked the idea of the euro to begin with. When European leaders were negotiating the Euro in the mid-1990s, the desire for unity after two World Wars masked the difficulty of an economic tie, he says.

"Fundamentally, what clearly was a driving force was the fact that we had two World Wars," says Greenspan. The Euro, "was a geopolitical decision with economic wrappings."

When asked if it would be a catastrophe for the global economy if the euro broke up, Greenspan said no.

"I think the system would function. Holding the system together is putting strains on everybody," he predicted.


While it remains to be seen if Greenspan is correct about Greece leaving the Eurozone and the ultimate demise of the Euro, I find it hard to believe that such an event would not have catastrophic implications for the world.  Perhaps Greenspan doesn't view another huge global recession qualifying as a catastrophe.  Or perhaps he's not thinking clearly through the implications that if the desire to create the Eurozone in the first place was born out of the horror of two world wars, what might the geopolitical implications be in Europe if you destroyed that unifying force?

The elephant in the room where these implications are concerned is Germany.  National Geographic recently had a great article exploring the current relationship between Greece and Germany.  The short version is while Germany has the appearance of the strongest economy in the Eurozone, because they are tied to Greece through their currency, the bailout may have the effect of targeting the economic holes in Germany's armor and dragging them down with Greece.  What the article doesn't explore is how this strained relationship might be exacerbated if Greece defaults.  If, after seven years of a crippling depression, the people of Greece have become so desperate that the rhetoric of a neo-Nazi party became appealing enough for them to finish third in a snap election, could we expect a similar or worse reaction in the birthplace of the Nazis if the collapse of the Euro brought the German economy to its knees?

Greek neo-Nazi Golden Dawn

German neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD)

In addition to reflecting on the death of my father, I'm also reflecting on the suicide of Michael C. Ruppert almost one year ago.  When interviewed for the documentary Collapse in 2009, he described the events unfolding in Greece as a "revolution."  As the situation threatens to grow out of control, I wonder how different things might be if Greece took his advice into account as he wrote in Crossing the Rubicon on page 593: "If you decide that you want to change things, I am telling you right now that you will change nothing until you change the way money works."  Haggling with the Troika (IMF, ECB and the European Commission) over how much debt to pay and which services to cut changes nothing.  Zigzagging from the far left to the far right changes nothing.  The only way for the Greeks to truly change their circumstances is to change the way money works.  That goes beyond the name of their currency, though their exit from the euro may be an inevitability.  It means switching from the pyramid scheme of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and compound interest where there can be no escape from debt because under the current paradigm, money is debt.

Whether they choose to do that by having a currency rooted in energy credits, as Ruppert advocated, or having a currency rigidly tied to the gold standard; I'm not sure what would be best for them, but it should be their choice.  My hope is that the people of Greece will remain positively focused on searching for sustainable solutions.  Because if they lose focus in the search for solutions, my fear is that the dark undercurrent of fascism will become the mainstream.  The search for solutions will be subsumed by the search for scapegoats.