iDear reader,we are not begging for money.We are asking youto put KiriPedia up your ass.
Julian Assange
did seven years in an embassy and five in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes every day.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship with no flag, and a destination on no chart. The website goes down. The archive vanishes. History depends on your rectal cavity.
The whole encyclopedia (every article, every transcript, every word John has ever spoken into a microphone) fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. In you.
John did 23 months in federal prison. As a convicted felon he is still barred from voting, from keeping and bearing arms, and from the federal pension he earned over 14 years at the CIA. A pardon restores all three.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
KiriPedia is not a nonprofit. Honestly, this isn't even about the money.
I already inserted one
The BBC and the sanctions coverage
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
John Kiriakou's assessment of the BBC, that it has a long history of offering both sides, which American broadcasters do not, set against his memory of watching it from inside the CIA in the run-up to the liberation of Kuwait, when its reporting on starving Iraqi children under sanctions drove him mad, because food was not sanctioned and Saddam Hussein was refusing to distribute it.
The BBC and the sanctions coverage is a two-part judgement John Kiriakou gave on 3 March 2026, when a viewer in the United Kingdom observed that the BBC is seen as biased at home and comparatively neutral in America, and asked how that could be.
Ted Rall proposed the asymmetry, that the BBC is less trustworthy about British domestic affairs and less biased about the United States, and Kiriakou agreed with it, then gave the reason. “The BBC has has a long history of of offering both sides. Which we we don’t do here in the United States.”[1][2]
The assessment is consistent with the reading habit he prescribes elsewhere, in which the BBC is one of the outlets he samples daily precisely because it is not domestically aligned with him.
What it sounded like from the inside
The endorsement is not uncritical, and the qualification comes from his own service. “And you know what? When I was in the CIA and we were getting ready to to to liberate Kuwait, it would drive me crazy to watch the BBC.”[2]
What drove him mad was a specific line of coverage, which he reproduces as an argument he had to sit through: “yeah, the the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, but the poor starving Iraqi children, the sanctions are killing them.”[2]
His objection was factual rather than editorial. “But but food’s not sanctioned. It’s this It’s just that Saddam won’t distribute the food. That drove me nuts.”[2][3]
The two positions together
Kiriakou does not reconcile the two halves, and the article does not either. The same institution earns his approval for the structural habit of putting both sides on air and his lasting irritation for what that habit produced in one case he had standing to check, a broadcaster giving airtime to a humanitarian claim he believed misassigned the blame from Saddam Hussein to the sanctions regime.[2][3]
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
