Charles Goyette Interviews Philip Giraldi

Charles Goyette, May 13, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Philip Giraldi, former DIA and CIA officer and columnist for Antiwar.com, discusses the possibility of war against Iran, the difference between a contingency plan and a plan of implementation, Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ opposition, the possible shape of a limited attack, the genesis of the thought behind a war and its possible consequences, the United States’ contacting of Iran through its Kurdish allies, U.S. support for dissident groups and bombing attacks inside Iran, the lack of Iranian made weapons inside Iraq, Iran’s support for Shi’ite militias in Iraq, the decision making process on conducting a military attack against Iran, Turkish military operations inside northern Iraq, the neoconservatives’ ability to conduct revisionist history, the lack of national media coverage on the possibility of a military attack against Iran, the lack of sourcing by the national media, why the presidential candidates are not talking about it and the leaks coming out of the British Intelligence Service.

MP3 here. (19:23)

Philip Giraldi is a former DIA and CIA officer, partner at Cannistraro Associates, Francis Walsingham Fellow for the American Conservative Defense Alliance, contributing editor at the American Conservative magazine and columnist at Antiwar.com.

5 Responses to “Philip Giraldi”

  1. well, this time the link worked fine.

    by the way, did I ever share with you my all time favourite Phil Giraldi quote? If not, here it is:

    [...] The firm retained Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and earlier one of the government officials responsible for overseeing US support of the Nicaraguan contras, as a consultant at $75,000 a year. “I did due diligence on a couple of customers,” Cannistraro recalls. [...] Phil Giraldi, a former CIA officer, was also on the payroll. According to Giraldi, there was not a lot of work for him and Cannistraro. “We would go to a company like Enron and see if they had any issues if they were looking to acquire a company,” he recalled. “See if the [company to be acquired] is connected to the Russia mob. That’s what we were selling. We were not very successful.” Giraldi left the firm in 1999. By then, he had become aware of the firm’s more unconventional activities : “Scooping garbage, trying to get penetrations of companies and environmental groups. I didn’t know a lot of the details.” But, he says, he knew BBI was “working on Greenpeace.” [...] BBI fell apart in 2001 amid arguments over the company’s finances. “It was not a happy company,” says Phil Giraldi, adding, “I have worked for a number of security companies. Some are ethical, some are not. Beckett Brown was not especially so.” [...]

    from James Ridgeway, Black Ops on Green Groups, Mother Jones
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/04/firm-spied-on-environmental-groups.html

  2. According to Dr Bob Bowman, former chief of US Air Force Missile Defense, missile defense is the missing link to a First Strike. Dr Bob Bowman thinks missiles in Poland will be very useful to shoot down any surviving Russian missiles after a First Strike. Therefore the Russians will implement Launch On Warning. The terrible consequences of a mistake will be caused by the Pentagon´s drive for a disarming, unanswerable first-strike capability. Dr Bob Bowman agrees that the Pentagon will get disarming first-strike capability by 2011/12. Acc. to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy subs simultaneously. The main danger is Russian Launch On Warning because of US First-Strike Capability. Please read Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy”, 2006 March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. By 2011/12 the Pentagon will have achieved that the Russians have no choice but Launch On Warning. A First-Strike Capability inevitably leads to Nuclear War, probably by accident because of Russian Launch On Warning which they will implement by 2011/12 because they have no other means of defense.

  3. Claus-Erik. Don’t you listen to the interviews? I don’t recall which one it was, but Launch on Warning is kind of old news, i.e. already in place.

  4. Claus-Erik doesn’t have to listen to the interviews. The subject matter is irrelevant in his eyes. Almost every post is his Dr. Bob Bowman thing. The guy needs to get some new material.

  5. No, because you haven´t got it yet. Dr Bowman agrees with me that everybody needs to read this message at least 117 times for it to be understood. And no, Launch On Warning is not in place yet. But as the US aims to achieve a First-Strike Capability (cross-targeting Minuteman-3s and Trident-2 D5s linked to NAVSTAR). When the US gets its missiles in Poland, then the Russians will implement Launch On Warning. And then it´s only a question of time. When they launch all of it by mistake because of US threats, we can survive in Peru and Colombia and few other places. I´ll recommend Bob Aldridge´s books First Strike! The Pentagon´s Strategy for Nuclear War, The Counterforce Syndrome, Nuclear Empire and his recent book America in Peril. http://www.plrc.org The US is aiming to achieve a first-strike capability as Weinberger stated and that´s still the official policy. AND THAT´S SUICIDAL.

Leave a Reply