“Sibel Edmonds’s Secrets” – Philip Giraldi Reviews Classified Woman @ The American Conservative Magazine

Sibel Conservative magazine ReviewThe anticipation is over. The review of my memoir Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story is published in the American Conservative Magazine. You can read the entire review here. I think Mr. Giraldi has done a good job, and done so objectively-free of any bias. I am grateful. I know how hard it is to review 350+ pages filled with information and try to fit it into only so-many words (limited space), so my hat is off to him for taking on that task, producing a solid and objective review. Here are a few excerpts from the review:

“I will not even try to reconstruct all the twists and turns that Edmonds describes in her 341 pages, but rest assured that she has the ability to surprise one with new revelations, even for readers like myself who have been following her case.”

“…She speculates that that her ostracism by the Fourth Estate, and also by congressmen who were ostensibly engaged in elevating government ethics, is due to the fact that both Republicans and Democrats were parties to the criminal behavior that she describes. In one particularly delicious account of high level shenanigans she recounts how an interview with Congressman Henry Waxman’s House Oversight and Government Reform staff was stopped abruptly when a staffer asked her if any Democrats were involved. “We have to stop here and not go any further. We don’t want to know,” he intoned after she confirmed that the malfeasance was not strictly GOP.

Perhaps more disturbing, Edmonds describes a number of failures to appreciate significant intelligence that might have enabled the government to foil 9/11, all part and parcel of a pervasive underlying narrative of espionage and corruption by high level government officials, both appointed and elected. She names names at the bureau, in Congress, and also at the State Department and Pentagon, including Congressmen Dennis Hastert, Dan Burton, Roy Blunt, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz, and Tom Lantos. She also fingers Douglas Feith, who headed the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon, and Marc Grossman, who was the third ranking official at the State Department. Per Edmonds, all were part of the vast criminal enterprise that stole U.S. defense secrets, diverted weapons sales through false end-user certificates, participated in drug trafficking, and engaged in money laundering and bribery.”

Again, I encourage you to read the entire review, and for those of you who have read my book, please consider posting your comment(s) there and thank Mr. Giraldi and TAM for daring the establishment, being journalistically objective, and continuing to stand up for issues and cases declared forbidden by the status quo.

Those of you who are new to this website, my case and my book, here is how you can purchase Classified Woman despite its being officially declared forbidden by the government, the establishment publishers-media and all the parasitic bottom-feeders below them:

You can visit the Classified Woman website here: http://classifiedwoman.com

Classified Woman can now be purchased at Amazon, Kindle, Nook and directly here:

Purchase Book

You can purchase your personalized signed copy for $49.95 + Shipping & Handling.

US Shipment

 

International Shipment

 

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. I agree – very good to have this review in the American Conservative. The only criticism I have for the author of the review is that he relied on incompetence to often.

    In my view almost all of the incompetence is related to corruption and is therefore defined as competence and evil-doing.

    He did mention some of the crimes and the names of the criminals and seemed to understand just how insane the government’s handling of Sibel’s case was. But he fell a little short of connecting the dots and just how related all of the smaller problems were.

    All in all this is great! Let’s hope the brush fire gets a little larger.

  2. And it was great that he mentioned BFP in such a positive light.

    Hopefully, other authors and publications will follow this courageous review.

  3. Read the whole review and left a comment. Saw Bill Bergman’s as well. A very positive piece that correctly describes Your experience as worthy of “The Trial”. But, like the first hole in the dam, the small leak now only heralds the breakage that will come later. If there is ANY chance of changing our system of so-called “self-government” it will be through the impact of your story and it’s influence on other Americans. Otherwise, the Candy Man’s already gone.

  4. avatar tonywicher says:

    I read the whole review and left this reply, that I will copy in here:

    Sibel Edmonds is a national treasure. I believe every word she says about what goes on in our government, and more. She is careful to confine her statements to what she knows, but I can say definitively that 9/11 was not just the unintended consequence of incompetence and corruption. If you visit the website of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) you will find proof positive the Twin Towers and WTC7 were demolished with pre-planted explosives. Just take a look and let 1700 senior architects, engineers, physicists and chemists present their case that 80,000 tons of structural steel cannot possibly crumble in the way we all saw unless previously planted explosives simultaneously cut the vertical steel columns.

  5. It might be wise to follow Sibel’s lead and lose the speculation, especially when the topic is a review of her book. The change of topic will give ammunition to the haters and is unnecessary, IMHO. Let’s save the WTC speculation for Gage’s next book review, eh?

  6. A very good review… More people need to learn about the Classified Woman. Forget Gage… he’s an opportunist Regan republican who is clueless about the topic… but has made a career of leading what has become a cult. That is unfortunate… because the 911 narrative was a phony as a three dollar bill. The collection of truther distraction is diverting attention away from the big crime… the complete corruption an nepotism that America is.

  7. avatar tonywicher says:

    Xicha –

    Newton’s laws of motion are not “speculation”. Richard Gage, Stephen Jones and Niels Harrit are QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS who are saying what anyone with a decent science education can evaluate as correct science. That does not include everyone, but it includes me, whose father was a theoretical physicist. We are talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would be acceptable in any just court of law, if such a thing still existed today, which Sibel is better qualified than anyone to tell us is not the case.

  8. That’s fine tonywicher. Just let us know when you want to talk about Sibel’s book review at TAC. As I recall, she didn’t write about the physics, theoretical or applied, of the WTC destruction.

    It may be one of those “If your only tool is a hammer…” problems.

    I think many folks become comfortable in the knowledge of a single issue, important though it is, and they forget that there’s anything else to learn. It’s almost like a kind of special, powerful knowledge that stops them from finding out anything else. Got that one figured out; my work is done here.

    I did, in fact, suffer from this condition of concentrating on one important keystone thing and blocking out all other information. For a short while. Then Boiling Frogs Post broke me out of my stupor.

    Please try to recognize the focus of Sibel’s book and support that focus or disagree with it, whichever it may be, in the threads here and at TAC, which are clearly titled. If you are attempting to support the focus of Sibel’s book, which clearly does not talk about WTC physics, and you are aware of the doors for criticism that it opens, and the doors for new audience, by association, that it will close, then you are simply muddying the waters and creating an argument which Sibel will not defend, whether or not she is able.

    Or dig your heels in to change any and every subject into the right kind of nail. Obviously, TAC didn’t allow your comment as of yet, so your choice to hammer it into that conversation proved ineffective and left Sibel without your support there.

  9. Xicha,

    I must reply to your comments.

    “It might be wise to follow Sibel’s lead and lose the speculation”

    For the record, you engaged in speculation in your opening comment of this thread, and you have engaged in speculation many times before. Furthermore, Sibel has engaged in speculation many times in her posts and podcasts. Indeed, speculation is commonplace on this website. Why do you suggest tonywicher adhere to a different standard than everyone else here?

    “If you are attempting to support the focus of Sibel’s book, which clearly does not talk about WTC physics, and you are aware of the doors for criticism that it opens, and the doors for new audience, by association, that it will close,then you are simply muddying the waters and creating an argument which Sibel will not defend, whether or not she is able.”

    I think I admire Sibel Edmonds as much as anyone else out there. But I would not let that admiration stop me from speaking the truth as I see it. If Sibel Edmonds has taught me anything, it is that the truth is worth fighting for even when the stakes are very high. Take another look at the quote from Samuel Adams at the top right of this website. The truth is what it is. Should it be processed, filtered, softened, or otherwise sanitized to avoid offending those who are not ready to look at it? Fifty years of research and reporting on the lies surrounding the assassination of JFK have not managed to dispel the myth of the lone assassin. I think the time has come for all of us to speak candidly. The waters are already choked with mud and blood.

    I encourage tonywicher to follow the truth wherever it leads and speak it clearly, come what may.

  10. @ SanderO

    “Forget Gage… he’s an opportunist Regan republican who is clueless about the topic”

    Opportunist – how so?

    Gage voted for Reagan, so what does that prove?

    Clueless about what topic?

    “has made a career of leading what has become a cult.”

    What do you mean by career and cult?

    “The collection of truther distraction is diverting attention away from the big crime”

    What is the truther distraction?

    So you do not consider the deaths on 9/11 to be a big crime? And you do not consider the death and destruction around the world that was justified by the “phony narrative” of 9/11 to be a big crime? Is it not worthwhile to show Americans evidence that their government has knowingly lied to them about the events of 9/11? Is there any more dramatic and dangerous expression of “the complete corruption and nepotism” of America than the events of 9/11 and the consequences that followed from them?

  11. Hi Hal 9000,

    You are right about speculation. And without moving the goal posts too much, I hope that you can trust that I was specifically talking about CD at the WTC speculation (or FACTS, if you have a decent science education), in the context of Sibel’s book review at TAC. Not ever, anytime, anyplace. Please take the context into account.

    I am asking that people try to support Sibel’s book at TAC by referring to arguments made in her book. Is that a bad strategy?

    I apologize to everyone and especially tonywicher for coming off like a control freak. The truth that I have been led to is that blurting out CD in every freaking conversation doesn’t work. And as you can see, it didn’t. I see it as doing more harm than good in a conversation about Sibel’s book.

    I should say it again. This is a review of Sibel’s book. Not the “Oh, the microphone is on, so here I go with my truth, which I say when and wherever I want because it’s the most important thing to me.” I think we can be more intelligent about communication, strategy, and working together to support Sibel’s book.

    I can’t stop you from disagreeing or speaking about whatever you want, but look at the results. Holding me up as some kind of gatekeeper might feel good for a minute. So, I’m sorry for being a control freak, 9/11 soup nazi, gatekeeper.

    Should I not have said anything?

  12. Xicha,

    “Should I not have said anything?”

    It’s not for me to say. But your response to tonywicher provoked a reply from him and me, which have prolonged the focus on a topic you consider counterproductive. I sympathize with your concerns about bringing up WTC in this context. However, I agree completely with tonywicher and I feel an obligation to express support.

    I know you have the best intentions, Xicha, and you are working hard for change. You don’t need any advice from me. I don’t have this all figured out. You have my respect. Do what your conscience tells you to do. Each of us will have to find our own way to truth and love.

  13. Thanks for the reply Hal 9000. I will honestly contemplate what you have said. This is exactly what the injection of said topic always does. Or is it the complaint of the injection?

    tonywicher, I really do apologize for being blunt and a jerk – telling you what you should say. I will attempt to have more tact in the future.

    Thanks for your consideration of what I have said.

    And most importantly, I will shut up for a while!

  14. I just wish Stephen Jones hadn’t done a paper on Jesus possibly visiting America. I understand that what he writes about his faith shouldn’t have any bearing on his theories on nanothermine, but this does make me cringe at the thought of his credibility as a serious scientist being undermined.

  15. I put this comment on the review comments on TAC last night but it’s still “awaiting moderation”.
    Perhaps because it exposes the false paradigm which they are a part of.

    John Bamboo says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    November 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    I read the kindle book which is difficult to put down (switch off). I knew Sibel’s story from boilingfrogspost.com which I subscribe to and find one of the most believable sources of news on the internet, but the book fills in a lot of gaps.
    To say the book is shocking is an understatement. It seems that in her battle with the PTB Sibel “stumbled” upon something which Anthony Sutton explains in his book on Skull and Bones;

    ” The intellectual world is still locked into a phony verbal battle between “left” and “right,” whereas the real struggle is the battle between individual freedom and the encroaching power of the absolute State. In the West the choice is basically between a controlled “left-oriented” information and a controlled “right-oriented” information. The conflict between the two controlled groups keeps an apparent informational conflict alive.
    Unwelcome facts that fall into neither camp are conveniently forgotten. Books that fall into neither camp can be effectively neutralized because they will incur the wrath of both “right” and “left”.
    In brief, any publication which points up the fallacy of the Left-Right dichotomy is ignored … and citizens keep trooping down to the polling booths in the belief they have a “choice”.

    Let’s hope that Sibel’s book is not ignored but spread to the 4 winds of heaven for everyone’s enlightenment.

  16. Update; Looks like their moderators accepted my comment after all.

  17. Sibel writes from direct personal experience inside the belly of the beast. Gage, Jones, Harrit et al are trying to make sense of a very technical event and frankly don’t have the expertise nor the data to produce a cogent and reliable explanation. I know Gage personally and he’s no scientist by a long stretch. I agree that we need to get to the bottom of 911 and killing is always a crime so 911 would be a crime if it was done by islamic terrorists or those in the national security state or a both!

    My take away from Sibel’s (and other persons) experiences is that our that people within our national security state did nothing to defend the nation against what happened on 9/11. I don’t know that her work demonstrates that the national security state literally planned and carried out the entire event. But there is plenty of evidence that the MIC/national security state was not going to kick a gifthorse in the mouth and appears to have decided that they could really benefit from such an attack.

    There is often reference to a New Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is aware of what happened after Pearl Harbor AND wanted to the USA to start a war with X would certainly be aware that an attack by X or attributed to X would get the exact same response from the USA and the public. I can immagine anti Castro Cubans hoping for some sort of terrorist attack from Cuba inside the USA… It would be the perfect excuse to send in the marines and rid the island of the Castro regime.

    This seems like a pretty easy false flag to engineer… Why hasn’t it happened? I suppose the answer would be that the 911 false flag was engineered by Zionists inside the US national security state… as Israel was the NATION that clearly had the most to gain and the least to lose…. no blood or treasure. Maybe.

    Meanwhile there is absolutely no proof that the three towers were taken down by pre planted devices. This remains only speculation and only ONE explanation to explain the cause of the collapse. NIST appears to be not producing the correct one. But that too does not mean they covered up a CD. That too would be pure speculation.

  18. @ SanderO

    “Gage, Jones, Harrit et al are trying to make sense of a very technical event and frankly don’t have the expertise nor the data to produce a cogent and reliable explanation.”

    Your opinion is noted. Gage recently produced a two hour documentary filled with expert testimony on the demolition of WTC 1,2 & 7. Gage and everyone else trying to uncover the truth about 9/11 are hindered by the fact that they have no money and most of the evidence has been concealed or destroyed. Since the people who confiscated and destroyed evidence have been unable to provide “a cogent and reliable explanation” of the events of 9/11, it seems unfair to launch personal attacks on those trying to make sense of what little evidence is publicly available.

    “I know Gage personally and he’s no scientist by a long stretch.”

    Easy claim to make when you’re hiding behind an alias. Gage has put his personal and professional life at risk to pursue the truth. If you’re going to claim you know him personally to add weight to your ad hominem attacks, then you need to disclose your real name and the context in which you know Gage so your claim can be verified.

    “Meanwhile there is absolutely no proof that the three towers were taken down by pre planted devices.”

    One thing we do know is that the towers were not taken down by planes and fires. That being the case, pre-planted explosives must be ruled out and no one has been able to do it.

Speak Your Mind