Glenn Greenwald and Sibel Edmonds: Two Whistleblowing Heroes

Greenwald and Edmonds Have Both Done Tremendous Good

Glenn Greenwald and Sibel Edmonds are both heroes.

Greenwald has not only published the Snowden leaks, but has railed against torture, drone warfare, government secrecy and many other forms of government corruption and abuse for many years.

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds was very well known after 9/11 for her allegations about corruption in U.S. intelligence agencies.

Edmonds was been deemed credible by:

The ACLU described Edmonds as:

The most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.

As such, Edmonds knows what it’s like to be a whistleblower.

And famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg – who is a hero to Greenwald and Snowden – says that Edmonds possesses information “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”.

Additionally, Edmonds broke the story this summer that a former NSA whistleblower says the government is using the information obtained by spying to blackmail people … including government officials. Edmonds’ reporting led PBS and other media to interview the whistleblower.

Greenwald has recently become much better-known that Edmonds:

But that doesn’t mean that she should be brushed off as unimportant.

The Main Difference Between Greenwald and Edmonds

Greenwald and Edmonds have butted heads concerning allegations that Greenwald’s new employer – EBay founder Pierre Omidyar – has cooperated with the NSA and is suppressing Snowden documents.   (We have no idea whether or not the allegations are true,  because we have not talked to any sources who would know.)

But we believe that a more important difference between Greenwald and Edmonds has to do with their interest in false flag terrorism.

Specifically, governments from around the world have ADMITTED that they carry out false flag terror … terrorist acts which they falsely blame on their enemies in order to justify.

Edmonds frequently writes on the topic … but Greenwald has never written a single word on it.

Given that the NSA spied on the 9/11 hijackers and Americans BEFORE 9/11, and that one of the NSA’s main justifications for spying – the lone wolf terrorist – is a myth, Greenwald should be naturally-curious about this topic.

And given that the NSA has carried out offensive attacks which were intentionally made to look like mere equipment malfunction,  Greenwald should be interested in this area.

And given that it is well-documented that false flag terror has routinely been used by governments around the world (Christian, Muslim, Jewish and otherwise) to consolidate control and justify wars – two topics that Greenwald repeatedly addresses – it seems like false flags should be an area of interest for Greenwald.

The bottom line is that Greenwald has done a tremendous amount of good for many years writing about spying, secrecy, torture and war.

His blind spot appears to be false flag terror…

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Tony

    Good points raised. However, Snowden is a Limited Hangout and Glenn Greenwald serves as a “Left Gatekeeper” of false flag terror to name just one topic he won’t touch.

    • jo6pac

      GG is not a member of the left. I have been reading him for a long time and as a member of the left myself he is far from that.

      • gemini33333

        It’s also not true that Greenwald never talks about false flag terrorism.

        Here is just one example where he talked about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag.

        http://mediamatters.org/tags/glenn-greenwald

        Author, George Washington, you need to update your blog post. You made a strong and false statement about how Greenwald has never written a word about false flag operations.

      • Amal Iel

        Bullshit!

    • moodforaday

      Says you. Now provide evidence.

      Is it really, really so hard to understand that no self-respecting journalist will ever publish anything without it being supported by trusted, cross-checked sources or documents? Bring in the sources, be a Snowden and show the documents, and then come back here to denounce Greenwald if he refuses to look at them.

      (I don’t know whether he would or wouldn’t, and I don’t care. He’s been doing us all a heck of a service. Not _everyone_ must be a 9-11 truth-teller. There are other stories to tell, like that of the NSA and corporate spying, and thousands of others.)

    • gemini33333

      Many, many journalists and bloggers won’t touch the false flag subject because they want to be published and taken seriously in the mainstream media. If they make these assertions without evidence, they’ll be blacklisted and written off as conspiracy theorists. This doesn’t make Snowden a limited hangout. You offer zero evidence for that. The response by the US govt, forcing down a plane of a head of state in order to try to get Snowden counters your unsupported limited hangout accusation and the chaos caused in the intelligence community.

  • gozounlimited

    Don’t need a whistle blower with these guys……Guardian Global Warming Journalists Trapped In Non-Existent Melted Antarctic Sea Ice ….. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/guardian-global-warming-journalists-trapped-in-non-existent-melted-antarctic-sea-ice/
    Damn those Locust Demons…….

  • colinjames71

    Good thing for Greenwald, I’m sure he can afford one of those fancy new cars with video cameras and collision alert. So that blind spot won’t be a problem. Womp womp

  • colinjames71

    I wouldn’t call GG a hero, I’d say the best damn gatekeeper money can buy. But really, actually a very good writer, and had done some good work, but I’m with Sibel on this one

    • moodforaday

      Does Sibel Edmonds have a shred of evidence? Do you? You know, not just your say-so, but actual tangible evidence? Didn’t think so.

      As someone who has been following Greenwald’s writing since his early days at Salon, I find such comments utterly laughable. I used to take Sibelk Edmonds seriously until I realized she was never going to provide any detail, any document, any actual evidence for her claims. Heck,, she wasn’t even going to fully make her claims in public. Instead, she paywalled her blog. And she is trustworthy, but Greenwald isn’t?

      I am not defending Greenwald, by the way. I am just comparing my understanding of his journalistic record with that of Sibel Edmonds, and her hugely important mysteries that she can never reveal or provide evidence for. At my age I don’t need a hero, and if you look at history, sometimes it helped to have leaders, but no positive change has ever occurred without an active involvement by masses of regular people like you and me. Waiting for heroes, or deciding who deserves to be called a hero – THIS is the real red herring. This is what keeps us stupidly occupied with triviality.

  • Sister Jane

    Greenwald’s Blind side is not only False Flag Terror, it also appears to be pay off’s, much like most of our Politicians. With that being said, Greenwald and Snowden are indeed taking peoples eyes off of the real problem, that’s the breaking of the 4th Amendment. People should be prosecuted quickly, for instance Clapper (Reminds me of our Justice Head.) has already lied repeatedly, it’s sick. The most sicking aspect is, to these collectivist, our Constitution is just as Bush said once, “Just a god damn piece of paper.”

    • moodforaday

      Please say more on what Greenwald and Snowden can do to bring James Clapper to court in chains. I think they’ve done just about enough.

      And if THAT doesn’t puit Clapper (and Hayden, and Alexander, and…) in prison, then you have learned something important: that the system is a sham, that the principles of equality and rule of law have been entirely rejected by the ruling class. Oh wait: Greenwald devoted a whole detailed book to this problem (“With Libery and Justice for Some”, go read it).

      And how is Greenwald ” taking peoples eyes off of the real problem, that’s the breaking of the 4th Amendment”, since all he’s done this year has been about that single problem? (And note that the problem is much, MUCH wider than the 4th amendment to the US constitution. There are other countries on this planet,too, you know.)

      • Sister Jane

        Was that reply really for me? I never said anything about what “Greenwald and Snowden can do to bring James Clapper to court in chains. I think they’ve done just about enough.”

        However, I do think there are some very strange things with Greenwald and Snowden, there are many articles, some of which could be dis information, but some are very legitimate. Recently, there was this one.. http://www.globalresearch.ca/inconsistencies-and-unanswered-questions-the-risks-of-trusting-the-snowden-story/5363262 Now that is just a sample, there are many more out there. Some of the most important documents on Greenwald especially are on “Boiling Frogs post”. If you click on the Interview above, done by James Corbett in his interview with Sibel Edmonds you can get further information on these inconsistencies, and not just from what I’ve just given you to watch and read, there is more out there, do your own Research and make up your own mind. Actually just for me personally, I find since so many NSA people have already blown the whistle so to speak before Snowden, and most of it was the same thing. So for me a deeper investigation of Greenwald and Snowden needs to take place, not for the documentation they hold, but for their true motives, etcetera, especially Greenwald, because it looks like a Big Pay Day for him, and now mysteriously the U.S. Government is a little more tolerant of the whole thing now, it just smells IMHO, your mileage may vary. (When I said Investigation of their motives, I don’t mean Criminal Charges, especially because so far, very little new information on the NSA has come out, my personal belief is, the NSA has seen all the documents and already confronted Mr. Greenwald about it.) The other thing is, is the way MSM is playing this up from the start, it’s Snowden and Greenwald talk only, nobody is pressing the NSA to stop breaking the highest laws of the land, really kind of ignoring it entirely, oh, sometimes there’s talk from the President on down, but really it’s all so similar to all government actions when the government is caught doing illegal activity, it’s mysteriously swept under the rug, will it be just talk as usual, or real action? My money is on talk, and if they should really have some kind of action, it will be done by the same people who committed the crimes. It’s the modern American Way, when the U.S. decides to watch Monsanto, they have Monsanto watch Monsanto. When the U.S. decides to do something against the Banks, they call a Banker CEO and proudly proclaim his name with Honorable in front of it to the world and listen to him speak, and say thank you sir when he’s finished, and back to business as usual. Nothing will come of this NSA scandal, just like most American Scandals and that’s also IMHO. Always kind of felt deep down, that perhaps Barry is not pushing the money interest agenda fast enough or in the correct course, perhaps it’s all a warning to Barry, get on course now, or get ready for the next scandal. The reason these scandals are never pushed by the opposing Party is because they want the tools when they get the power, so they can’t do anything to upset their own apple cart. Team Work at it’s finest. But that’s all speculation or maybe it’s just decades of watching the criminals work their smoke and mirrors game over and over.

  • Charlie Primero

    Greenwald’s “blindspot”. Hahhaha.

    Yes Tony, there is that one little “spot” Greenwald and his ilk get luxuriously rewarded for protecting.

  • El Sid

    Thanks for that George.

    The fact that eBay is involved is enough to
    make you sit up and wonder what’s going on. However, we shouldn’t lose track of
    the fact that the Message is way more important than the Messenger.

    More worrying, in my mind, is the behaviour
    of Jeremy Scahill of late. He managed to kaibosh a Stop the War conference in
    London last Nov. 30, by threatening to pull out if Mother Agnes Marion of the
    Cross were to speak. Here’s Jonathan Cook on the subject:

    http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2013-11-18/bowing-before-the-inquisitors-on-syria/

    (though I would ignore the reference to Proyect, as he’s a bit of a twat.)

    I truly believe we should give credit where it’s due, but be at all times wary of personality cults.

    Well…

    …except in the case of my personal hero, Tina Turner:

  • xoxxxo

    Greenwald, Omidyar, PayPal and the NSA

    Here’s a must see discussion (Sibel w/James Corbett)…for people interested in this topic:

    • gemini33333

      I used to find Corbett interesting and credible — until I realized he’s a climate change denier. I really can’t take a climate change denier seriously. And Edmonds did a lot of good, but the fact of the matter is that she seems to have gone off the rails in recent years and especially in recent months, going as far as to say that Snowden is a fake, false flag whistleblower, and not a real whistleblower at all. She is now right in line with Mike Rogers and Hayden, selling the same garbage that the intel community is selling. Why? I don’t know, but she’s definitely not the person who I followed some years ago. All you need to do is read some of her recent columns, watch some of the video podcasts, and look at the incessant trolling of Greenwald that she does on Twitter. It’s beyond strange. Credibility is now gone, imho, and I am a person who once admired her and believed her.

  • magchielc

    Worse with Assange who supports the official report. But with Glenn Greenwald it is more difficult. He is publishing in the Gardian and all publications which will come out, certainly will be ratified bu the NSA. That means that information on Israel and 011, supposed theat they are there, will not be published. We have to waite for the next whistleblower who will not allow that this information will be censored and kept secret en will put the whole bulk on the internet instead.

  • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

    Great point about GG’s blind spot on false flags. But he DID put out a series of articles during Bush/Cheney anthrax inside job after 911 saying the “official story” of the anthrax wasn’t true (then why not go one step further about 911 itself? I always said if one part isn’t true, the whole thing isn’t true. That’s actually logical.).

    BUT…it might say even MORE what he DOESN’T say about false flags. The jury is still out on Greenwald because of this. Or it’s limited hangout: what he DOES report on is good and it’s true.
    I keep saying these guys blow my mind, and they’re all on the left, as being ultra-fantastic investigative journalists – Bill Moyers (Iran Contra), Matt Taibbi (Wall St) – and they actually RIDICULE 911 truthers.

    Are you telling me Bill Moyers and Matt Taibbi believe the “official story” of 911? Only a MORON would, and these guys are NOT morons. And to boot, they have PROVEN they are not afraid to out just as serious 1% crimes like Iran Contra & Wall St. Are these guys the definition of “limited hangout”?

    I still can’t figure that one out. They CAN’T be that stupid just on 911. CAN’T…NO WAY…not in a million years.

    I’m going to repeat it: ARE YOU SERIOUSLY GOING TO TELL ME BILL MOYERS & MATT TAIBBI BELIEVE THE “OFFICIAL STORY” OF 911??? R U KIDDING ME???

    • Tony

      Sibel has definitely called 911 as an inside job, she even went further, check out her work on Gladio B.

    • moodforaday

      We cannot know what they believe. But in one way or another they work within journalism. They are not going to publish anything which they cannot support with documents or sources. Documents on 9-11 and inside sources is what we do not have.

  • Tony
    • Daisee

      Like to see the hard evidence of FDR’s ‘asassination’. I take Tarpley with more than a grain of salt.

    • moodforaday

      Tarpley is severely unhinged. Now, some of his diagnoses are correct in general: for example, he was right about Obama even before Obama got elected. That is, he was right about Obama being a false hope, he was right about his allegiances and intentions and outcomes. But when he proceeds to build specific conspiracy constructs (Obama is a Manchurian candidate; the Snowden affaiir is a war between CIA and NSA), he should better be able to support therm with something he did not pull out of his a**. Alas, he can’t.

      Oh yeah, and FDR was assassinated. How about this for a conspiracy theory:

      When a popular hero like Snowden emerges, the first task of the establishment is to make him or her unpalatable to the people. (Read Chomsky on that.) For most right-wingers and most middle class people, the mainstream media do the job just fine. But there are people – both on the right and on the left – whose minds will not be swayed by the standard-issue smear jobs on Fox or MSNBC. Another channel is required to reach those people, to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in their (our) minds, Which is exactly what Tarpley is doing. (And now apparently Sibel Edmonds as well, and John Young of Cryptome).

      Me, I’d rather trust my instincts, and I’d rather trust people who did significant stuff and put their lives on the line over those who merely talk. And Occam’s razor.

      Maybe Tarpley doesn’t really like his job. Maybe the FDR red herring is a signal to the reader: don’t believe any of this bull****.

      I am not saying this is true. But why trust Tarpley’s conspiracy theory over this one?

  • dchrist81

    Sibel Edmonds: What is Greenwald Covering Up? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-nC36D3nBk

  • moodforaday

    I followed the story of Sibel Edmonds for several years. Eventually I got tired of the incessant droning on how she knows so much but cannot say a word. I realize she was barred from speaking out on several levels. And I respect that she chose her life and well-being over our access to the information she has. I really do, because it is deeply immoral to demand heroism from other people. Only Edmonds herself can make that choice. But make it she did, and she is not a whistleblower, at least not in the sense Edward Snowden is. She never revealed all that important knowledge. (Unless she did that in her book, which I have not read, in which case I am sure someone will correct me.)

    She then proceeded to put her writings and videos behind a paywall and began cashing in on the information she did NOT reveal. Doesn’t that give anyone a pause? I don’t care, but now that she is casting empty, unsupported suspicions on Greenwald and Snowden, it is beyond the pale. It is as if someone who _almost_ saved a child from a burning house were to denigrate someone else who actually did that very thing.

    Sibel Edmonds had her chance to change the world, though she had no duty to do so, and she made her choice. Now she is working to defame someone who did take that chance at great personal cost. I think it is shameful.

 

 

Twitter