Philip Giraldi


Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi discusses the theory that WikiLeaks is carrying out the agenda of a foreign power, the State Department engaging in CIA-style espionage, the US/Israeli 5-part plan for regime change in Iran and why Bradley Manning‘s (alleged) exposure of government-gone-wild is laudable but should be prosecuted.

MP3 here. (18:05)

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest. He writes regularly for

53 thoughts on “Philip Giraldi”

    1. Damn straight. Giraldi's always interesting.

      An observation: Many in the Middle East support Iran's nuclear program, and its rights under the NPT. Once they realize that American satraps like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Mubarak are playing footsie with the U.S. and Israel against Iran, the brown stuff will hit the fan. . . .

  1. It is indeed suspicous why so much Israeli coms is left out of the dump. Perhaps bribery, but I dont think WL is some cia/mossad venture. they cia and mossad are way too dumb to do something like that, lets not overestimate them

    1. The people writing the cables are ignorant and towing the company line. They aren't going to tell the truth about anything because they aren't interested in the truth and don't know how to identify it if they were interested.

      The cables are mostly garbage talk from ignorant US ambassadors among others.

      The CIA is the dumbest organization on Earth, Congress, the dumbest representative body of the dumbest people on Earth…the "great" American people.

      People in the foreign service are generally idiots who believe the "world is a dangerous place"…and it's only dangerous because of them…they keep screwing everything up with their paranoia.

  2. Undoubtedly, Dr. Holmes! Keep those cables coming because the train has already left the station! Maybe the State Dept. will declare the Iraq/AfPak wars a lost cause?

  3. Girardi sounds really stupid.

    "Former" doesn't mean much.

    Girardi want Manning prosecuted. Except for the bombing of innocent Iraqis…as if that were an isolated incident.

    What fun adventures was Girardi involved in the CIA?

    Your interview was horrific and your guest really dumb.

    Hang it up, man

      1. What's so special about spelling your name right? What makes you think your "name" has any particular importance?

        Didn't you play undercover for the Chicago Cubs at one time?

        Frankly I cannot stand the CIA. It's the dumbest organization on the face of the Earth, made up of rural or suburban Americans who never let go of their naivete all the while imagining that they have some kind of "inner street" knowledge of "how the world works" and what people in other nations " are really like". The CIA perpetuates this kind of paranoia and imposes it on the general population which is really an uneducated population in terms of having simple common sense.

        So anyone who takes pride in belonging or having belonged or "interviewed" like Markos Moulitsas for such an organization, an organization whose track record is consistently creating disaster and mangling everything it touches ( almost always working for dim myopic corporate and not popular interests) is someone I cannot have anything but contempt for.

        And today I read you changed your mind.

        People who are always changing their mind are people I cannot trust. People who go from left to right and right to left are people who don't have any sense of themselves and therefore no common sense.

        What does Stu stand for? C'mon, think of somethin'.

        The world is really not a dangerous place. It really isn't. Not dangerous as described by the CIA. The CIA attempts to make the world a dangerous place, to justify it's

  4. Brezenski is utterly paranoid and also unbearably stupid. Paranoia makes people stupid. I remember Brezenski saying the collapse of the Soviet Union was a probably a plot. Wanting to know what the truth is, is helpful to real intelligence…

  5. I was a tad troubled by this interview, especially given what I would consider to be the generally good work of Giraldi. I would have liked to see Scott challenge him a bit more on this, what seems to me, bizarre theory that the leaks are some kind of plot.

    Further, Giraldi's belief that Manning should be prosecuted with the fullest extent of the law isn't really surprising considering his past history I suppose, but still I find his belief that what Manning did was essentially wrong to be more than disturbing.

    The diplomatic cables themselves cannot be used to verify fact, since they are, as a previous commentor noted, simply based on the viewpoints of US diplomats. Working for the US government suggests a certain world view that will create perceptions and assertions through these cables that don't necessarily hold true. What certain cables ay about Iran, for example that the Saudi's want war to me only shows how retarded the Saudi's are and how the satellits of Empire are attempting to control US foreign policy.

    Further, if there seems to be a pattern about the documents themselves in terms of content, well, wikileaks did say they would be releasing them in segments so that they could be reported on properly. Perhaps some of these holes will be filled in upon the next segment, or the one after.

    I don't know, I just found the whole interview a tad strange.

  6. Jlord – I knew some would be disturbed by my comments, but I do believe that any government has an obligation to protect SOME secrets. A true whistleblower reveals criminal behavior in the knowledge that he will probably be prosecuted. If Manning, who agreed to protect classified information, believed that he had the right to make the decision to expose 250,000 documents he has to expect that there will be consequences. And, while it is right to expose specific criminal activity, it is wrong to reveal great masses of information that demonstrate no such thing. Why should anyone have the right to know what US diplomats think after their confidential exchanges with foreign leaders? That goes beyond wanting to root out criminal activity, which to me is the justification for whistleblowing.

    1. of course, if the purpose of the government is to preserve itself, then i got no quibbles… the government will have an obligation to lie to protect itself.

      on the other hand, if the purpose of government is to serve, as best it can, the people it governs, then you need to give us examples of when it's in the people's best interest to be lied to…

      …especially when that government bills itself as a democracy elected by well-informed citizens.

    2. how bout some straight answers, here, phil?

      no cables about israel… is that evidence of wikileaks being an israeli disinformation operation?

      if israel has a stanglehold on american politics, should that be kept secret?

      if israel is such a sacred cow that state department cables critical of israel do not exist, should that be kept secret?

      then, if cables critical of israel do not exist, is that a symptom of wikileaks' corruption or a symptom of israeli control of the state department?

      if the EIA and the IEA, the most respected oil production tracking organizations, say that crude oil production peaked in 2005 or 2006, should that be kept secret?

      if peak oil was the motive for israelis, israeli americans, and their exxon fellow travelers to commit 9/11, should that be kept secret?

    3. is the truth our best chance at saving the system?

      is the system too chickenshit to save, even if we told the truth?

      is the system so wasteful and so dependent on a depleting resource that it cant be saved even if we told the truth?

      has the situation degenerated so far that it's every man for himself, and the main thing to do is lie your ass off to preserve a semblance of business as usual, for as long as possible, to prolong your opportunities to loot for as long as possible?

    4. finally, do you have any estimation as to the cost of bribing israelis to fold their tents and move back to brooklyn once america can no longer afford to protect them?

      if america can no longer afford to protect them, will america be able to afford to bribe them?

      at the end, will israel leave a bunch of radioactive holes in the ground as monuments to the stupidity of zionism?

    5. And the whole damn place goes crazy twice
      and it's once for the devil and once for Christ
      but the Boss don't like these dizzy heights
      we're busted in the blinding lights
      of closing time

    6. so what it boils down to is: once you start doing stuff that needs to be kept secret, you get on sort of slippery slope.

      on the other hand, maybe the idea of nuking israel might be acceptable, seeing as how the holocaust is getting so raggedy and will need to be replaced by a new persecution myth.

      1. Regardless of the good points you bring up, your modus operandi is an eyesore, a bore, and a chore. Try to stick it all, broken up by paragraphs, in one response.

        1. sorry you disapprove of the formatting.

          it''s a good thing, though, that you like the ideas.

          meanwhile, i'm waiting for phil to reply.

        2. i have to say that my posts are not premeditated.

          i post things as i think of them.

          if you cant handle it, move

          meanwhile, i'm waiting for phil to reply

    7. "Why should anyone have the right to know what US diplomats think after their confidential exchanges with foreign leaders? "

      Why should our supposed "representives" be having "confidential exchanges with foreign leaders" at all?

    8. Oh PLEASE!

      The CIA assassinates, bribes, acts illegally in all nations of the world and assassinates and kidnaps the WRONG people with regularity….it's history is unbearable….to take a moral tone about CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR….it sure looks like the CIA or elements of the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination…it sure looks that way…

      Why don't YOU BECOME A WHISTLEBLOWER!…You must know something!

      Why don't YOU tell us if there's been any "criminal" activity that you are aware of that YOU or others might have been involved in…

      This is silly.

  7. Interesting interview. I respect and agree with Mr. Giraldi that it's always good to keep a certain level of healthy skepticism on everything, and we shouldn't dismiss every conspiracy theory on the grounds that it sounds too far-fetched because such conspiracies actually do exist (I'm sure sometimes truth is stranger than fiction), but there are some good reasons to give Wikileaks the benefit of the doubt.
    1 : The extensive government secrecy is such a huge problem – whether it being finding excuses for us going to war and destroying Iraq or other such lies which can have disastrous consequences – that any negative effects resulting from the Wiki dumps are surely a lesser evil. Glenn Greenwald talked about this in a recent article, and I agree with him. Whatever mistakes they have made, it is much more urgent to uncover far more egregious goings-on, which people have the right to know about, regardless of any laws which protect secret government documents from being reviewed by the general population.
    2 : We have only seen a couple hundred documents, so there will surely be more cables bearing on people like Mubarak, Netanyahu.
    3 : The whole deal on Iran seems like a complete misconception to me. The fact that certain Arab leaders have called for military / drastic action against Iran in order to thwart any imaginary weapons program is IN NO WAY in my mind proof of any support for it, on the contrary. Support from whom? The majority of the population in Arab countries is against it, overwhelmingly, so why is so much emphasis being put on what these corrupt rulers think, or are saying in order to curry favor with American diplomats? This is a total disregard for any democratic principles, to imply that they truly represent their populations. They don't.

    1. What I wanted to say (but better) about the Iran "problem" is that the real issue is the fact that corrupt Arab leaders supporting an attack on Iran (or SAY they do – let's remember that these are just reported conversations, and they shouldn't be read as any absolute truth) is even being presented as "evidence" of support for an attack. Of course, it's a classic "argument by authority", which is not an argument at all. It's a classic case of people (in this case the cowering courtiers in the "professional" press corps), who would normally revile the king of Saudi Arabia (rightly so) for his repressive regime and servitude of American power, supporting his conclusions heren because they support their OWN conclusions. Pretty shoddy in my opinion.
      The fact that this is being presented by "journalists" in the NYT as some kind of "proof" that attacking Iran would be a good idea is totally missing the point.

    2. You should always pretty much discount any conspiracy theory perpetuated by the CiA….the CIA creates consipiracies….it doesn't know how to identify them. They create problems

  8. and I lift my glass to the Awful Truth
    which you can't reveal to the Ears of Youth
    except to say it isn't worth a dime
    And the whole damn place goes crazy twice
    and it's once for the devil and once for Christ
    but the Boss don't like these dizzy heights
    we're busted in the blinding lights,
    busted in the blinding lights

    closing time

  9. The leaks have been "cherry-picked" and redacted by the newspapers who "analyzed" them. If you want all the data, go to the Wikileaks website (see twitter #imwikileaks for its current location).

    Wikileaks has previously published documents dealing with totalitarian regimes, including China. It's interesting that it is publicly blamed for "picking on" the U.S. The amount of information Wikileaks receives is directly proportional to the number of worried whistleblowers in that culture. The interest of media organizations in that material is directly proportional to the influence of that culture on others. Material about the U.S. government is therefore very likely to be emphasized, but it is not all, or even a majority of material sent to Wikileaks.

  10. True, leakers often expect to be prosecuted. But that's hardly the same thing as saying that they believe they ought to be, or that their expectations justify prosecuting them.

    Minimizing the capacity of thugs to engage in aggression against others is laudable. The state deserves no more privacy than does the Mafia.

  11. This makes sense to me. It's all about perception management and, like or not, the CIA put the capital letters on that little technique. Think psyops you people:

    Western Civilization Has Shed Its Values
    by Paul Craig Roberts, December 06, 2010

    “Perhaps the most discouraging development is the accusation that is being spread via the Internet that Julian Assange is a dupe or even a covert agent used by the CIA and Mossad to spread disinformation that furthers U.S. and Israeli agendas. This accusation might come from intelligence services striving to protect governments by discrediting the leaked information. However, it has gained traction because some of the cables contain false information. Some have concluded, incorrectly, that the false information was put into the documents for the purpose of being leaked.”

  12. The reason US diplomatic traffic contains so little critique of Israal is that crititquing Israel even in internal US diplomatic traffic is a career-ending move. Come on people, its not rocket science.

    1. But the controversy arises not necessarily from the fact that the cables are critical, but that they reveal diplomatic cover-ups (U.S. or Iran spy plane washing ashore in Yemen, responsibility for bombing sorties in Yemen, Chilcot investigations in U.K., etc.).

      I think that the recent release of other cables in Lebanon that do illuminate Israeli skulduggery muddies the water further. Were they retrieved from the same batch of cables? All the coverage I've seen thus far suggest those cables have been authenticated. Were they tossed aside by the media outlets Wikileaks engaged to vet the cables and release them? If so, why? Were they tossed aside by Wikileaks themselves? If so, how did they end up in Lebanon? Are there multiple factions at work within Wikileaks? Did Manning approach more than just Wikileaks with the cables?

      Wherever the answers lie, it sure is fun to watch the U.S.G. scramble to contain the damage to their credibility and their empire.

  13. Those who are disturbed by Giraldi's comments, shouldn't be. Giraldi is no civil libertarian, nor does he give a hoot about human rights. Anyone who has read his commentaries over a certain period of time, could have come to this conclusion. Yes he takes a contrarian view and foams around the mouth when discussing Middle East policy. But his opinions are not based on human rights concerns; he is simply anti Israel.

    1. Being Anti Israel is like being Anti American. I don't think there's a difference. Israel and America are two of the leaders in the newest form of fascism, with Israel instructing America on everything on how to run it's army of morons to who should run for congress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.