Podcast Show #1


The Boiling Frogs Presents James Bamford

BFP Podcast logo

James Bamford discusses the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, the ties between NSA and the nation’s telecommunications companies including the Israeli companies involved in intercepting highly sensitive communications for the U.S. government, the agency’s failings pre-9/11 and the relevant information blackout by the 9/11 Commission, the US mainstream media, President Obama’s ‘no change’ so far, and more.


James Bamford is one of the country’s leading writers on intelligence and national security issues. His books includeThe Puzzle Palace,” “Body of Secrets,” “A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies,” and most recentlyThe Shadow Factory”. Mr. Bamford coproduced NOVA’s “The Spy Factory”, which was based on his latest book. He has written for many magazines, including investigative cover stories for The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post Magazine and The Los Angeles Times Magazine, and is a contributing writer for Rolling Stone. His 2005 Rolling Stone article “The Man Who Sold the War” won a National Magazine Award for reporting. He also spent a decade as the Washington investigative producer for the ABC News program, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, and taught at the University of California, Berkeley, as a distinguished visiting professor.

Here is our guest James Bamford unplugged!

Play

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    @Kingfisher

    What aspects of Blow the House Down do you think shed light on 9/11?

    Here are aspects of the book that I remember:

    1)KSM working for a US businessman.

    2)Bin Laden/Iranian link. I think it was Peter Lance who wrote that Ali Mohamed helped set up a meeting between Bin Laden and Mugniyah (infamous Hezbollah terrorist). Richard Clarke wrote of Iranian false flag terrorist attacks in his fictional account The Scorpion's Gate. His bad guy was the SoD so there isn't much real world comparison (yeah right). The problem with these stories is that one never knows if these officials are pushing propaganda.

    3)Corrupt high ranking CIA officials. Only believable in a novel.

  2. Dear Ms. Edmonds,

    I honestly apologize for taking any focus away from the excellent work you have done. As you have read, I have also followed up with comments relating to the distraction, and did so after you said that you didn't want to hear about the topic of the distraction anymore.

    It seems that there is a discussion between some members of your community, which you would rather not have happen in your community, but that IS happening. I know there are thousands of places to discuss this forbidden topic, but I don't go to thousands of places. This is one of very few places that I visit and respect.

    I would like to beg you to allow it to happen, as long as it can happen respectfully, for the positive development that can occur in such a community. If you allow your audience to discuss the "undiscussable", you would be true to your sentiments related to every other topic.

    You are one of the few public figures I trust and I want to respect any rules you set for this site. I also want to let you know when I question a rule you set and that's what I'm doing now.

    If you can, maybe post a community forum thread or something, where we can work out our issues and to where you can point us, when the conversation gets off-topic. That's my humble suggestion.

    Thank you.

  3. Sorry for the double-post-and-now-edit. This is my last.

    Goodbye, Ms. Edmonds and all of you else. Mr. or Ms. Edit_Mommies has inspired me to let go of this community. Maybe he or she will do the same for others in the future. I wish you all the best which becomes you.

    Ms. Edmonds, I have noticed a change in your demeanor, since your first post. Please keep yourself aware and stay strong. I'll be praying, like any good (I wish I didn't have to be called an) athiest would, for you.

    I have no more time for this, nor any other online community. I've got my own cute daughter and another on the way in a few weeks.

    I'm thinking of creating a site of my own after a while – something along the lines of a rehab for former believers in the existence of movements.
    (
    There are an infinite number of halfway points between point A and point B, BTW ;)
    )
    My last wish for us all is that we could all wish for us all. And yes, even you, Anon the Neocon.

  4. avatar Anonymous says:
  5. avatar Kingfisher says:

    @anonymous, re: Blow the House Down
    Re-read chapter 27 and 39. I don't know if it sheds light on it or not; but he must have put it in there for a reason.

  6. avatar Anonymous says:

    kingfisher. You are quite right and I take your point. I do not know enough about the make-up and actions of this secretive agency to have said snything. It did not and does not add to the discussion in any way.

    However,having read your definitive statement on flight 77, I take your pet peeve with a pinch of salt. .
    rm

  7. avatar Kingfisher says:

    @RM,
    I can see how one could think it was not coincidental that they met blocks from NSA, and use that to build conspiracy theories. The analytical problem with this is that it is seeing/thinking from one’s own perspective, when obviously the conspirators are going to have different perceptions and thinking.

    The trick is to step into the conspirators eyes, and to see things from their perspective. This is going to reveal if and where the flaws exist in such a theory. So, making the assumption it was not a coincidence and there was a sinister conspiracy where the NSA was involved and stepping into the shoes of a conspirator, it just doesn’t make any sense because you would want to hide NSA’s role.

    What may make sense from your frame often doesn’t from others.

  8. avatar Kingfisher says:

    Take my definitive statement on Flight 77 with a grain of salt if you like, but play my game first:

    - Ok, assume it was a conspiracy; a plane didn’t crash into the Pentagon.

    - A sinister conspiracy was powerful enough to make a plane disappear and then successfully fire a missile or laser, or explode a bomb, or use whatever, to blow up a part of the Pentagon.

    - Why ONLY kill 125 at the Pentagon and 64 on the aircraft? Wouldn’t you want to use this amazing capability to kill MORE people than that? It’s not efficient considering the two planes that hit the WTC killed thousands.

    - al Qaeda says they targeted the WTC and the Pentagon because they are symbols of American economic and military hegemony; they had an agenda and a point to make, that would explain their inefficiency.

    - What would explain the apparent inefficiency of this nefarious and sinister conspiracy that reaches into the government?

  9. avatar Anonymous says:

    kingfisher.
    thank you for the civility of reply.
    In response I suggest we apply your criteria to the question and look at it through other eyes.

    What if the terrorists actually achieved what they set out to do. That the numbers are not what this was about but the location. Quality of kill, not quantity. That the use of the name Al Qaeda is as the use of the name Oswald. A device. Like inefficiency as a device to explain the impossibility of there ever being complexity enough to facilitate false flag at this extreme level.
    Lets consider this not an inefficient conspiracy but rather a completely successful conspiracy. The world has changed, remember. The whole wide wide world.
    Not inefficient at all.
    For my part, there are way too many dissenting voices for it all to be noise. Far too many highly qualified and expert voices stating straight out a commercial airliner the size and configuration of 77 did not and could not have hit the Pentagon that day in the manner reported , and giving precise reasons for saying it. That whatever it was was not piloted by Hanjour.
    That whatever else, there was no phone call from Barbara Olsen.

    rm

  10. Hello again Sibel.

    Sorry for my absence. I've been very busy.

    And my apologies if I went a little over the top above. I sometimes wake up on that side of the bed. And though it was intended to be a little tongue in cheek, I normally don't go there (in public) with people I have never actually met. In hindsight I wished I had toned it back a notch. Thank you for taking it in the spirit it was intended.

    That said…. NEW ZEALAND?! And I just read a comment on another post that you are considering a PhD program there. Well… what a coincidence.

    I've spent just a wee bit of time living and working in New Zealand myself. I absolutely love NZ and maintain certain interests, associations and relationships there. (Financial, real estate, business, government.) If you get this before you leave, or even after you leave, I would be glad to offer any helpful insight or introductions… or sightseeing advice. I traveled both islands extensively… when I wasn't working… or racing sailboats. :)

    I haven't noticed any contact info for you, would it be alright, is there some way I might? Perhaps your highness would deign to leave a private comment on my blog?

  11. Actually, I think my email address is visible on my blog's header.

    If I don't speak with you, have a safe and wonderful journey. I suggest catching the ferry from Wellington and driving down the coast (past the NSA Echelon downlink in Blenheim) and down to Kaikoura for some whale watching and hanging out with the international backpacker crowd, erm… actually, it's winter there now. Nevermind. Alrighty then, it's snow skiing in the Remarkables! I think Queenstown is just as beautiful in winter as it is summer. :)

  12. avatar Sibel Edmonds says:

    bh: E-mail me at sibel@justacitizen.com

  13. What a wonderful site. I found you via Scott Horton’s link and antiwar radio. Great one to stat with.

    Hey Obama has made changes. He increase the war in Afghanistan, allowed even larger bail outs, started bombing Pakistan more, pushing through a carbon tax, and most importantly gave the war on terror a new name. There a we have a new name everyone can go back to sleep now. ha ha. So changes have been made… Just for the worse.

Speak Your Mind