Project EXPOSE MSM Report 2

Major DEA Scandal & Time Magazine

As noted in the announcement, 123 Real Change invites all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and reporters, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored/blacked out, tainted, or otherwise met with a betrayal of trust.

This second project report is based on the first-hand documented experience of Mr. Sandalio Gonzalez, retired Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent in Charge. Time Magazine reporters Tim Burger and Tim Padgett had an opportunity to speak at length with Mr. Gonzalez and several other veteran DEA agents with direct knowledge of a major corruption case involving several DEA agents on drug traffickers’ payrolls in Colombia. The involved corrupt US officers were also directly involved in helping Colombia's paramilitary death squads launder drug proceeds. Further presented was the documented cover up of this major scandal by the DEA and DOJ IG offices. Despite corroboration by a number of other sources, including several veteran DEA agents and other government officials with first-hand knowledge of the case, and documented evidence disclosed and provided, and despite being given an ‘exclusive’ to the story as insisted on by them, Time Magazine never published the story, and no reasons were ever provided.

Name, Title, and /or Background

Name: Sandalio Gonzalez

Title: Special Agent in Charge (Ret.), DEA

Background: Mr. Gonzalez retired from the DEA as Special Agent in Charge of the El Paso, Texas Field Division in January 2005 after 32 years in law enforcement. He began his career in 1972 at the local level in Los Angeles, California and joined the DEA in 1978.

For more detailed background information see here.

Name of Publication and/or Editor and/or Reporter

Publication: Time Magazine

Reporter: Tim Padgett & Tim Burger

Editor: Unknown


Complete blackout. No reason provided. The disclosure was supported and corroborated by three other highly credible veteran DEA agents, officials, and documents.

Description of Disclosure & Significance

By Sandalio Gonzalez

In late fall of 2005, Time Magazine’s DC Office was provided with detailed information and documents regarding a major story involving the DEA. The story had not been broken publicly before, and several publishers were competing to get what they referred to as an ‘Exclusive Scoop’, since they had been briefed generally and shown sample documents. Time Magazine seemed anxious to see and hear it all, and we were told they’d run it ‘big time’ if they were given documents, provided with access to witnesses, and all this ‘exclusively.’ Well, Time Magazine was in fact given everything they asked for; exclusively.

After Time’s DC office reporter Tim Burger received the initial/sample documents and statements (with NSWBC acting as coordinator and third party), they sat on the story for more than a month. Later we were told that the story was transferred to their Miami Office. After follow ups and pressure by NSWBC on the status of this ‘exclusive story’ with Time, one last meeting was set up with Tim Padgett, Time’s Miami bureau reporter.

The meeting with the Time reporter in Miami was attended by several other current and former DEA agents as sources and witnesses. Some of these witnesses had to travel to attend the meeting and provide the Time reporter with their reports. The three agents disclosed their account and documented information involving the never-public-before scandal and the subsequent cover up by the US government. Sibel Edmonds, Director and Founder of NSWBC, and Professor William Weaver, Senior Advisor for NSWBC, had also flown to Miami to attend and monitor the interview.

The center of the report dealt with ‘never-before-public’ documents and first hand witness statements, the Kent Memo, and related subjects and information. This case and its facts, statements, and documents, given to Time Magazine before and during that meeting, involved one of the most serious allegations ever brought against DEA officers.

On Dec. 19, 2004, Thomas M. Kent, an attorney in the wiretap unit of the Justice Department’s Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs Section (NDDS), submitted his memo to his section chief Jody Avergun, who would soon thereafter leave the DOJ to become the Executive Assistant to DEA Administrator Karen Tandy, with full knowledge of the reported corruption and cover up, and did nothing to correct it. The copies of this memo were forwarded to several high-level officials within DOJ and DEA.

In his memo, Mr. Kent reported several corruption allegations involving the DEA's office in Bogotá, Columbia. The allegations in the memo were supported by several credible DEA agents in Florida with impeccable records. These agents – witnesses - were muzzled and retaliated against after they attempted to expose the corruption. Based on Mr. Kent’s report, supported by other DEA agents, the DEA's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) covered up the report and the corruption charges and sabotaged investigations by the Florida DEA office.

Here are the major points covered by Mr. Kent in the memo:

  • Several DEA agents in Colombia are in fact on drug traffickers' payrolls.
  • Some of these corrupt US officers are directly involved in helping Colombia's paramilitary death squads launder drug proceeds.
  • The implicated agents have been protected by "watchdog" agencies within the Justice Department.

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Kent’s Memo:

“As discussed in my (prior) memorandum dated December 13, 2004, several unrelated investigations, including Operation Snowplow, identified corrupt agents within DEA. As further discussed in my memorandum, OPR's handling of the investigations into those allegations has come into question and the OIG investigator who was actively looking into the allegations has been removed from the investigation.”

And here is another regarding other agents and witnesses who had come forward:

“As promised, I am providing you with further information on the allegations and evidence that is already in files at OPR and OIG. Agents I know were able to vouch for my credibility and several individuals close to the prior investigations that uncovered corruption agreed to speak with me…Having been failed by so many before and facing tremendous risks to their careers and their safety and the safety of their families, they were understandably hesitant to reveal the information I requested, including the names of those directly involved in criminal activity in Bogotá and the United States. They agreed to reveal the names to me on the condition that I not further disseminate these for the time being. They are prepared to provide the Public Integrity Section with those names and everything in the files at OPR and OIG, and then some, if called upon to do so”.

According to the report, one of the corrupt agents from Bogotá was actually caught on a wiretap in 2004 while he was discussing criminal activity related to the paramilitary group called the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). The group is known to be involved in narco-trafficking and arms dealing at the highest levels, and has been involved in death squads responsible for murdering thousands of Colombians. Kent reports that during the wiretap, this DEA agent discusses his involvement in laundering money for the AUC. However, despite being caught on tape the agent faced no reprimand. Just the opposite, according to Kent, the agent was promoted: "That call has been documented by the DEA and that agent is now in charge of numerous narcotics and money laundering investigations."

The memo also alleged that DOJ officials shut down a money laundering investigation because they knew it was connected to the DEA corruption case in Bogotá:

"In June 2004, OPR and DEA, the two agencies embarrassed by the prior allegations (involving the Bogotá agents) and likely to come under tremendous scrutiny for their own actions in response, demanded that my case agent turn all of the (investigation) information ... over to OPR," Kent states in the memorandum. "One week after submitting the (information) to OPR, the money laundering investigation was shut down."

In addition to the facts included in Kent’s reports, Time Magazine was also provided with corroborated reports on related cases, including a case of major leaks from the US Embassy in Bogotá that contained extremely sensitive intelligence.

That meeting gave Time Magazine one last chance, and the benefit of the doubt, to live up to its word given to us previously; to expose this major case and even more serious cover up by the Justice Department’s IG. We made it clear that after waiting for Time Magazine for months they had to give us a response within a day or two as to whether they were running the story, and if so when. The reporter, Tim Padgett, did seem genuinely interested, and made it clear that he had to persuade the editors and magazine management. He appeared to have his reservations as to the magazine’s willingness and or courage to ‘touch’ a story of this magnitude. We never heard back from him, or Tim Burger, or anyone else from the magazine. Time Magazine never delivered the ‘exclusive scoop’ given to them, all packaged with credible DEA witnesses and envelopes containing official documents. In fact, the MSM has never thoroughly covered this story. The only coverage of Kent Memo was given by web-based publisher, Narco News.

Comments in response by Mr. Tim Padgett, reporter, Time Magazine, Miami Office:

I contacted Mr. Padgett twice via e-mail. To my second request he provided me with the following reply:

For the record, I had no reservations about Time Magazine's "willingness and or courage to 'touch' a story of this magnitude." Time regularly takes on controversial stories; we simply decided in the end, after examining the material at hand, not to pursue this one. Tim PadgettMiami & Latin America Bureau ChiefTIME Magazine

Comments in response by Mr. Tim Burger, reporter, Time Magazine, DC Bureau:

Despite several requests for response, Mr. Burger did not reply.

Comments in response by Time Magazine:

Despite several requests for response, Time Magazine editor(s) did not reply.

Statement from Professor William Weaver, Senior Advisor, NSWBC:

This disheartening episode is, unfortunately, very familiar, and the story of DEA corruption and entanglement with Colombian drug cartels appears to have been ignored after initial interest for a variety of reasons. First, it is not easily digestible and therefore runs afoul of editors’ and reporters’ prejudice toward stories that may be quickly and simply related to the public. Emphasis on simplicity instead of on what the public should know about cuts down on research and reporter time, which are expensive, and feeds into the common belief that the public is largely incapable of understanding, or uninterested in, complicated stories. Second, running such a story may anger sources of information from government that reporters have come to rely upon. As great as any one story may be, a reporter’s career in these areas often depends on keeping friendly relations with cultivated sources. Ultimately, sometimes these sources end up dictating what shall and shall not be published. Finally, a story must make it past editors and staff who have interests that conflict with the goal of getting important news to the public. Considerations of effects on advertisers, sources of information, how shareholders and management will view decisions to publish particular stories, and other matters unrelated to “newsworthiness” affect a potential story’s fate. We need only look to The New York Times’ decision to delay reporting the existence of the probably unconstitutional Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) for an example of how forces inside MSM may outflank the newsworthy nature of a story. The story concerning the Bush Administration TSP was set to break just before the presidential election in 2004, but apparent appeals by Bush Administration officials and President Bush himself to The New York Times delayed publication until December 2005. And the story only came to light because of a whistleblower and the fact that the matter appeared destined to emerge in other forums. The refusal of The New York Times to publish the story in 2004 very possibly is the only reason that Bush prevailed over John Kerry. Time magazine’s failure to investigate the events outlined in the Kent Memo and by veteran, decorated DEA agents concerning wide-ranging government corruption is another abysmal example of how the public is ill-served by the MSM.

Statement from Sibel Edmonds, Founder and Director, NSWBC:

Our organization, NSWBC, persuaded these government sources and witnesses to come forward and provide the American people with this major report exposing corruption and cover-ups - which sheds light on the ‘real’ story of our government’s so-called ‘War on Drugs.’ Despite their reservations and the risks they faced, these witnesses agreed to disclose their first-hand accounts and documented facts, and to do so only once through what they considered to be a ‘major publication.’ During the interview, while listening to these agents and reviewing the sets of documents put in front of him, Time reporter, Tim Padgett, appeared flabbergasted and excited. At the end of the meeting he expressed it verbally and concluded that the story was incredible and highly explosive. This was a journalist’s dream: to have four veteran agents with impeccable career records as sources, to have tons of printed documents (official letters, IG reports, and more), and a major scandal contradicting the illusion of the War on Drugs - which has been costing lives and billions of dollars. I also have to add: Mr. Padgett expressed his reservations and pessimism regarding his editor(s) and Time’s management having the resolve and or willingness to run this ‘explosive’ story.

# # # #

Project Expose MSM is an experimental project created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers. I encourage those of you with direct knowledge and experience to join this project by sharing your experiences. Please E-mail me with your report, following the format described in the introductory announcement.

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG...

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Why do they make such decisions to blackout the story when they had all the information directly? I wonder to what end it serves.

  2. The moment I read the 'Miami office' was involved I knew that the story would silenced. Miami is the US headquarters for DEA operations.

    I've also read about US intelligence interests infiltrating the DEA, the MSM and organized crime in the 1960's & 1970's.
    We should not be naive enough to think that this has not continued nor that those 'assets' are not now in positions of leadership/control within their organizations. Silencing this bit of truth was al in a days work.

    Thanks for exposing this bit of 'truth', and hanging the Times and their Tims with a red letter.

  3. Metemneurosis says:

    Disgusting. What a cesspool of corruption and weaselly spinelessness. I hope you'll convey our admiration to Mr. Gonzalez Sibel. I've got my pitchfork ready. The rest of you let me know when.

  4. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Narco News Ran this in full today:

    Metemneurosis: Sandy will read this today. He is a member of our organization (MSNBC); a man of integrity.

    IMHOTEP: And you were right. Time Magazine has blacked out every single story related to NS Whistleblowers since mid 2002. No coverage of SSP either.

    MMONK: They have a very cozy relationship & arrangements with their government sources…

  5. I would like to know what activities related to drug running are related to activities that correspond with government operations in Colombia. I guess I'll just have to wonder.

  6. Anonymous says:

    CIA has a long history of involvement in the drug scene. remember pan am 103? seems there were a group of CIA members who were planning on blowing the whistle who just so happened to go down with that plane.

    If Iran-Contra , which resulted in a few convictions, wasnt capable of making a dent then i dont know what will be. the corruption is too entrenched. it would literally take large numbers of workers in these agencies just quitting and trying to expose it all at once.

  7. Yes, Anon.

    I just wonder what amount of activity has to be financed this way.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Well think about how much CIA and other clandestine services love to have to grovel before congress for money. They dont. and they dont like having to report to them either…so this drug money lines the coffers under the radar. congress is no much the wiser and has no idea how much is really being spent.

  9. Anonymous says:

    As a interested reader, I admire the efforts by Sibel Edmonds to publicize those aspects of society which the MSM neglects, especially, those involving apparently obvious corruption within the various government agencies which are presumed to be responsible for regulation and security involving drug control, national security, etc. While it may have come as a surprise to many that the situation under the Obama administration is beginning to appear so similar to that which prevailed under the Bush/Cheney administration, we have found out that the real rulers behaviors haven't really changed much.

    Having just read (only a portion) of the book 'Obama the postmodern coup' written in 2008 during the campaign season, but prior to the election, W. G. Tarpley puts forth his analysis that Obama, like Jimmy Carter, was 'picked' by Z. Brzezinski the 'Empire's Adviser' who continues to be not only fixated on the destruction of Russia but is looked up to by the corporate/banking elites who run both the Democratic Party and Council of Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission, etc. Tarpley explains how the latter group also controls the Democratic Party and probably (possibly) a branch of the CIA or 'dark government'. Thus, there are various elements who not only selected Obama, but watch to see that he does the 'right' thing. While many who supported the election of Obama (if only to avoid Mad-man McCain) are disappointed in his performance, it is likely that he will be a very effective front-man (Tarply uses the term – "Manchurian candidate') for those who actually run the government. (Many have already pointed out the inconsistencies between Obama's speech claims vs reality).

    Good luck in this effort to display the ineptness of the MSM and the corrupt nature of the FBI, CIA, DEA, and, perhaps, DHS, FEMA, NSA, SS, etc. You should also remember that the agencies only represent that segment of society who have the money and who actually run the show.

  10. Kathleen M. Dickson says:

    The USA would be better off in an alliance with Russia against the UK-US Banksters or the CIA.

    From the looks of things, things in the USA will only get worse, however, for the simple reason that the general public has no idea what is going on.

    YouTube should be used here, along with this blog.

    Kathleen M

  11. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Anon on Congress Angle: That's right. You sound like 'us,' NSWBC members.

    Anon on Obama Changomania: Thank you, and you are right.

    My DEA friends and those involved in reporting this major scandal are reading your comments with great interest. Please add your voice and let them know they are not alone.

  12. Metemneurosis says:

    Well being a natural skeptic I'm well, naturally skeptical of things that sound like conspiracy theories. But on the other hand I'm skeptical about the overall impression I get about how things are going when reading the MSM – and forget listening to government officials.

    So it's certainly difficult to know what exactly to believe most of the time. I try not to dismiss things just because they sound like conspiracy theories, however, and I spend a fair amount of time trying to look at different media outlets, comparing and contrasting stories and reading up on the background material and tracking down obscure sources. But I still don't really have enough time to keep up with all I'd like to. So I don't feel informed enough to form competent opinions on a lot of the sort of narratives that might for instance be given in say Mr. Tarpley's book or on certain websites. Once you start trying to investigate stories of government cover-ups, especially on the internet, you come upon things that range from patently absurd to almost certainly true. Unfortunately most stuff is in that vague shadowy middle area.

    I have no doubt about the stories being presented here. I also have no doubt that organizations like CFR, Trilateral, and many others have tremendous influence behind the scenes. But I'm often loath to talk about them on sites like this because they're such standard scapegoats for 'conspiracy theorists'. (And let's be clear there really are gullible and uninformed conspiracy nuts out there) But I'm uncertain whether it's really quite right to call CFR or Trilateral a 'secret government'. Even if everything you said about them were true if you used this kind of dramatic language you'd be asking for the label 'conspiracy theorist'.

    It would be great to have a lot more discussion of groups like these and the way they actually go about influencing policy. It would also be great to have recommendations of things to read in that regard for time-strapped people like myself. That's one of the main reasons I come here – to get a little better feel for how to separate conspiracy chaff from factual wheat.

    It would be especially interesting to hear from some of the whistleblowers (even if only anonymously) on their experiences with the inner workings of government and what it is that creates the conditions for the kind of corruption we see here. Is it a problem of the way the system is set up? If so let's hear some specific examples. Is it certain individuals? Perhaps certain ones who've been a bad influence behind the scenes for long periods.

    What do you guys think of people like Brzezinski and Kissinger? How much influence do they really have?

  13. To Tim Padgett & Tim Burger: Just look at what you could be doing. Forgiveness ranks up there with redemption. I'm sorry you're so sick. Sorry for you and for the rest of us.

    To Mr. Gonzales: Thank you from the deepest place. I don't know how to explain my gratitude for what you have done. I'm recording the story you've shared in a database, along with the other stories Ms. Edmonds is bringing to us. I will share them with my friends and family, and encourage them to share them too.

    The story you've presented has so much meaning to all those who have been effected by the war. The war on drugs, on families, on the Constitution.

    Although you are presenting the rest of us with information that is ignored and derailed by the MSM, please know that you are heard and appreciated by the ever growing masses that are listening.

    You are NOT alone. Just the opposite.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Anon the Neocon-

    I think the allegations here are very serious. I suppose one way to get around the possible media censorship would be to have other DEA officers lend public support to Mr. Gonzales. As long as he is alone, the skeptics among us cannot place the Kent report within a proper context. Accusations are one thing – IG findings another.

    Columbia is America's toughest drug-case, and discussing paramilitaries without mention of FARC, is disingenous. It is a perfect example of a the environment America's agencies contend with.

    Drugs in Columbia are controlled by powerful factions within the country's elite – as well as having considerable impact on farmers. FARC enjoys popular support in many areas- for precisely this reason. It is close to impossible to intervene responsibly in this context.

    DEA corruption is another mater. Oftentimes, sting operations involve actual authorized corruption – but in Bogota – I think it would be foolhardy to try to eliminate any socialite due to a drug connection – unless we were talking of someone very specific, big, ambitious, and dangerous to the status-quo.

  15. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Anon the Neocon: "I suppose one way to get around the possible media censorship would be to have other DEA officers lend public support to Mr. Gonzales. As long as he is alone, the skeptics among us cannot place the Kent report within a proper context."

    That was one of the major points of this report: 3 other veteran DEA agents, despite the risk yo their careers (some still work for DEA), and despite life-threats, did exactly that. The MSM made sure the info was quashed. Same with documents: plenty; official documents. Again, all buried.

  16. Metemneurosis says:

    Whatever Mr. the Neocon. You say "it would be foolhardy to try to eliminate any socialite due to a drug connection". No one has mentioned any 'socialites' till now. Are you assuming the corrupt DEA agents would be Bogota socialites? Or should we assume you have some familiarity with this case that we don't? What status quo must this 'socialite' be dangerous to before it's OK to eliminate him/her? And if "DEA corruption is another matter", then how is it disingenuous to speak of it without talking about the FARC? DEA corruption is the 'matter' being discussed. Besides how hard can it be to figure out what AUC's relation is to the FARC? Isn't it your job as a reader to do that background research if you don't know? Or just ask. Finally, I'm a bit suspicious of your eagerness to hear of other DEA informants to back up Mr. Gonzalez.

    For others – would it be wrong to suspect that CIA operations are sometimes facilitated by DEA corruption. Is there any chance that's the case here.

  17. eric zaetsch says:

    This now is DEA, not FBI or CIA. Each has its aim and function. Each has separation of service, implementation, and decision. And, there is the saying –


    CIA primarily has to gain, analyze and pass on intelligence for higher stages.

    Think of a stacked series of sieves of decreasing mesh size. Things get winnowed out at one sizing level or another to avoid info overloading decision stages. At any level one person only sees a part of what the agency "knows and thinks." Also the adage holds, "If I control your information I don't mind your making decisions." Things are in that tension in any extended organization.

    DEA, like FBI, is a crime prevention and enforcement effort. But for DEA in engaging other soverign powers there are subtle things at top levels that might be unapparent or confusing to those at lower compartments.

    Needed top-level compromise between a US agency and others may at lower levels appear as tolerating corruption unnecessarily, suggesting corruption reaches one's own top levels. Then, what is proper treatment for people in the field when they are the messenger bringing bad news; or going outside of channels to blow bad news whistles? Are they a threat to upset a corrupt applecart or rocking a precariously balanced boat between soverign states?

    With episodic, indirect and circumstantial evidence in the field, what valid conclusions can be drawn about one's home office honesty and policy apparatus?

    It is the age-old judging the judges problem.

    In the film Braveheart, a lasting scenes for me is King Edward throwing his son's advisor out the window. It seems anyone in a position at all near a "king" must show care around upper story windows; whistleblowers included.

    Whistleblowing is a preemptive act under an individual's own moral code AS PREEMINENT over knowing and sensing of any "other set of rules." The problem I see the blog aimed at is finding a universal moral code and then finding the role and maximized power of whistleblowing in that context. Absent a universal code, whistleblowers making their own rules may prove counterproductive.

    Tension arises because the moral code the system actually employs is different from the black-and-white one taught serving folks – it is the subtle-shades-of-grey code operative among agenda setters, those specifying the general public's training.

    We at the lower ranks looking on, what is realistic for us in the sense of accomplishing what is best for everybody – and what is counterproductive?

    There are premises underlying this blog's effort and perhaps there will evolve a method to the madness. Recall Brandeis –

    "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

    However, hauling the apparatus all into the sunshine is not easy and perhaps not best. It might prove impossible, as part of the ongoing human condition, ghosts in the machine and all.

    By 2050, where will we be? By year 2300, where?

    Humankind survives, becoming ever more skilled in science and its positive and negative applications. Whatever cultural throwbacks there have been, perfecting of ever more effective weapons has moved linearly or more rapidly.

    SO — Whistleblowing has a place; it vexes those pulling the strings; and the devil's always in details.

    End of screed. Even if unwittingly counterproductive to large truths, we agree whistleblowers almost always are well-intentioned public servants in the best and honest sense of the term, and free of improper motive or agendas.

    Going back to the old saying, is institutional tolerance for deviant wrong behavior of DEA field officials a sign of corruption, or of wisely keeping enemies close enough to know what is better known than guessed at by decision makers?

    The notion in any hierarchy, CIA, FBI, or DEA, seems to be pass on what you know, but don't judge those higher in the hierarchy in their judgment.

    Sibel and her commentators are not at judgment making levels. We only are looking and guessing. We could be wrong or hasty.

  18. Metemneurosis says:

    Eric, moral codes are not the issue here. Your concern is whether or not there might be some other purpose to what appears to us to be corruption, which only those higher up in government are aware of. But this is a factual question not a question about one's moral code. A question about moral codes would be something like, "Should reporting corruption be part of my moral code?" But if what you think is corruption isn't that's got nothing to do with your moral code. Again, factual mistake not moral.

    As for whether there is some higher cause for the apparent corruption here, what would be the point of having members of the DEA taking payments from death squads? If it was part of a sting why couldn't they just quietly tell Mr. Gonzalez before or after the original complaints were made? How would telling him, here in his US office, compromise a sting in Bogota?

    Mr. Gonzalez has worked at the DEA for 27 years. He probably knows the inner workings of the department pretty well. I'm sure he tried to think through all the different explanations that could be offered on the government's behalf. So I think we can believe his version of events on the assumption that if there are other possible explanations he's ruled them out already.

    We could always think of some logically possible elaborate internal double-bluff sting operation as an explanation here but I think we can rule that out on the basis of giving too much strategic planning credit to the higher-ups.

    If anyone can think of some other explanations I'm missing here, however, I'm open to being corrected. (not being sarcastic)

  19. Eric Pottenger says:


    With regard to other DEAs lending support to Gonzalez's story, have you tried contacting Cele Castillo, the former DEA agent (and author of "Powderburns")? Or, perhaps, you could find out some information by contacting Peter Dale Scott? These would probably be good sources to explore.

    Another name that I think of when reading this story is Terry Reed, the author of "Compromised." The reason I say this is because Time Magazine did a hit-piece on Reed in '92, in the run-up to the election in November (Reed's information dealt with then-Gov. Bill Clinton and Mena, Arkansas, drug-running, Nicaragua, CIA). I haven't personally vetted many of the details of Reed's story, but huge parts of it have certainly been confirmed in later years (like Gary Webb's Dark Alliance)…as he was supposed to be a contract employee of the CIA, you might want to look him up for your project.

    If I think of anything else I'll be sure to let you know.

  20. eric zaetsch says:

    Metemneurosis – The argument then is that on complaints-concerns going upstream in an agency, before any whistleblowing happens or is contemplated, something besides a downstream stonewall might be helpful. Factually, it apparently did not happen. Gonzales was left to speculate on whether plausible explanations existed – and to face apparent retaliation for boat-rocking. A simple, "We are aware, there is cause to let that one sit 'as is' for a while, we will keep you informed," could have been done personally – i.e. absent a paper or electronic trail.

    Apart from that, once the whistle was blown, the press whistle did remain silent. Presumably Time leadership did not get a downstream stonewall, but cause and effect reasoning, or threats?

    M. – Also, make waves vs. go with the flow is a moral code question. A matter of attitude as well as anything. Presumably Sibel, given a plausible reason to continue facing a status quo, might have.

    EP and others – Many of you people know more than I do. Please keep up that kind of suggestion, for SE and readers.

  21. Metemneurosis says:

    Mr. Zaetsch, thanks for respectfully engaging. I hope my earlier post didn't come across as confrontational. Appreciate it.

  22. wilwon32 says:

    In his book 'Obama: The Postmodern Coup – Making of a Manchurian Candidate' Webster G Tarpley, describes his view of the selection of Barak Obama by Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the chosen candidate of the so-called Democratic Party. Tarpley mentions one topic which may be of particular interest to Sibel Edmonds in so far as John Ashcroft was involved.

    A key target of Webster Tarpley's focus is Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski, a a politically very well connected, foreign policy expert. Brzezninski's strategies were among those acknowledged as fundamental for American foreign policy decisions during a large portion of the 40+ year contest with Russia after World War II.

    On page 101 of Tarpley's book, begins a chapter titled 'Obama campaign linked to Chechen terrorism', subtitled 'Grant of taxpayer-funded U.S. asylum for Chechen terror envoy gave Obama foreign policy guru Zbigniew Brzezinski "one of the happiest days of my life"'. In this section of the book, a description of the activities of Mr Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov. Mr Akhmadov has recently been living in the Woodly Park section of Washington D C with the blessing of the G W Bush administration. In 2004, Mr Akhmadov apparently won court approval which granted permanent asylum; it is not clear who paid $250,000 of legal fees to facilitate his asylum hearings. Under urging of Z Brzezinski, Mr Akhmadov was granted a U S taxpayer funded Reagan-Fascell grant (duration unknown) by the State Department; the grant provides 'a generous stipend for living expenses, an office at the National Endowment for Democracy complete with private secretary, plus extra money for travel and public relations purposes'.

    As background, a Mr Shamil Basayev (reputed Chechyan rebel leader and CIA agent) was killed by Russian troops following the 2004 Chechyn rebel attack on a school in Beslan, North Ossetia which resulted in deaths of more than 300 children. Mr Basayev had been the 'direct superior officer, mentor, and friend of Mr Ilyas K Akhmadov, the current protege of Z. Brzezniski'. In the 1990s, Mr Akhmadov had been involved in the government of Chechnya at times when rebel groups committed severe damage/atrocities which were apparently not properly investigated/pursued by Mr Akhmadov, a prominent operative in the government of Chechnya. Mr Akhmadov has been the object of investigations by the Russian government in regard to the Chechyn rebel activities; in UN deliberations, he has apparently been declared by Russia to be a terrorist. These factors had not gone un-noticed in 2003, when 'House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, John Hostettler (R-Indiana) jointly demanded that then Attorney General John Ashcroft review the ruling that granted Akhmadov political asylum.' They apparently declared "If the United States had evidence that Mr Akhmadov was involved in terrorist activities, it is unclear why he was not barred from asylum as a terrorist and as a danger to the security of our nation." Following Mr Akhmadov's success in the US court contest, Mr Brzeznisky expressed great satisfaction with the outcome." This scandal was eventually exposed in the pages of 'Johnson's Russia List', the scholarly clearing house for information about Russia. W G Tarpley then explains the efforts of Professor Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University to challenge the Washington Post writings of Mr Mathew Brzezinski (son of Z B) to defend Mr Akhmadov. I, for one, did not understand all of the issues when I originally read about Mr Akhmadov's involvement in the Chechen rebel activities. Webster Tarpley's explanation, while a bit disjointed, helps put that bit of Bush Administration confusion in perspective, though I still can't figure out how supposedly arch conservative John Ashcroft was able to reconcile harboring a terrorist so that the State Department could then spend unknown quantities of US tax dollars to support Mr Akhmadov's opulent life style here in America!

  23. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Eric & Metemneurosis: Nice discussion!

    Wilwon32: Welcome. Very important and relevant comment, thank you. Here is a link to a Russian Documentary 'Plan Kavkaz':

    It mainly focuses on Turkish operatives in Chechnya, but those operatives are also connected to the people you mention here & the CIA. I know it is Channel 1 Russian TV, state-owned thus it's own propaganda, but I can vouch for the accuracy without 'being able' to go into details…Thanks to the SSP. Hope to have you with us regularly.

    Eric, Ishmael, and Metemneurosis: you'll find it interesting. The core information touches my case…

  24. Eric Pottenger says:

    wilwon32–I'm curious about the last part of your post, whereby you expressed confusion with regard to Ashcroft's actions. Are you confused because Ashcroft is billed as an arch conservative, spending taxpayer money on a terrorist? Or are you confused as to how Ashcroft can justify this action to his constituents?

    if it's the first of the two, just keep reminding yourself who these people work for. It's all in the Tarpley book, or, rather, if you read all of Tarpley's books you can do a pretty good job piecing this information together. these people aren't limited by the labels that are publicly attached to them. "liberal" "conservative" "democracy" "main street" "terrorism"…all are merely words, and as we humans use words them deceptive activities use words to confuse.

    Tarpley focuses on the National Endowment for Democracy as one of the command centers for intelligence ops in Soviet Bloc countries. Do you think "democracy" isn't an odious notion in these activities? it is regime change, pure and simple.

    thanks for bringing the Tarpley angle up, either way. I personally think that his brain is like a freight train of good ideas and good information. he has helped me a great deal.

  25. wilwon32 says:

    I thought it might be of interest to ask Sibel Edmonds whether any effort has been made to enlist Indira Singh in this project. I occasionally revisit the Google videos of Indira's presentations (e.g.: however, I haven't been able to find any recent writings by or articles about her efforts to pursue the P-Tech stories. I came across the following 2005 posting at the site:
    however, some of the links are non-functional. One point which is mentioned in that older article had to do with the very sensitive article of drug use and child exploitation during the GHW Bush administration. Again, there was involvement of drugs, banking interests, politicians in the White House, etc. – another of the many instances where only the Washington Times (among MSM organs) did any follow-up and that was as much an apology as a revelation because the story was so short-lived. As you have already pointed out, there is no legislative body which is so manipulated as the US Congress; however, I thought that Ms Singh might make an effort to follow up in an effort similar to that which you are undertaking. Would appreciate any links which might allow me to keep up. Thanks.

  26. Ishmael says:

    Thanks for the link to the Chechnya article(no video) Ms. Edmonds. I read it through while I thought of the continuation of The Great Game in Central Asia. I've been busy following developments in Iran vis-a-vis the "election" there. There was a small item in the Huffpo blog about Ahmedinajad going to a summit in Yekaterinburg(where the Czar and his family were murdered) with no other info.
    Then I saw this article on Opednews by Chris Hedges this morning entitled, "The American Empire Is Bankrupt". Link here:

    The article is about that meeting Ahmedinajad is attending and it's implications for the end of American hegemony. A good read for those interested.

  27. Deep Politics Forum says:

    Tosh Plumlee told us this morning that Celle Castillo has been ordered to present to prison by the end of the month to begin his sentence. This will likely be a death sentence as there is also a contract on his life once he get to prison. Bill Conroy's story here:

Speak Your Mind