News is more than a sound bite®



Barack you’re no Ronald Reagan and Benghazi is proof

By Kimberly Dvorak

When Americans were attacked by Libyan terrorists at a German Discotheque in 1986 President Reagan responded with F-14's; when Al Qaeda terrorists attacked America in 2001 President Bush responded with B-1's; when Americans were attacked by Libyan terrorists in Benghazi President Obama responded with tweets from his campaign fundraiser stop in Las Vegas.

It’s been eight weeks since the 9/11 terrorists attack in Benghazi, Libya and Americans are still trying to decipher the Obama administration’s “fog of spin.”

While there was no shortage of second-guessing in the White House Situation Room, military leaders in charge of quick response teams a half-a-world away sprang into action upon receipt of the consulate’s 911 call and readied the troops for a real-world rescue.

“As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began,” the Military Times reported.

It’s also been reported that on the fateful day in Libya, CIA/SEALs had a laser target trained on the enemy firing mortar rounds at the compound. The Pentagon has listed numerous explanations as to why the trained SEALs would use the lasers. However, they conveniently omitted the key component—the expectation that U.S. help was seconds away. The “fog of spin” from the Obama administration, no matter how creative, cannot conceal the truth. If fighters were dispatched to assist Ambassador Chris Stevens and other consulate personnel, a former Naval pilot says, “The paper trail would be a mile long. Not only do the pilots have to file logbook reports, but the ground crew, the crew arming the jets with appropriate weapons and the Italian air controllers would have exhaustive records.”

The President told a KUSA Denver reporter that the minute he found out about the Benghazi attack he directed all available diplomatic and military resources to secure American consular personnel.

Unfortunately for the CIA/SEALs fighting off the Ansar al-Shariah terrorists, the jets would never arrive. The fact, CIA/SEALs were painting their lasers on the enemy targets shortly after midnight, five hours before their eventual deaths, indicates they were expecting air support. And why would they be waiting for air support? Because the trained SEALs knew the oplans (operations plans) and military protocol for this exact operation once they requested the assistance.

According to Fox News, “The Annex team also had Ground Laser Designators, or GLD. This kind of laser equipment emits code and signal when there is overhead air support, unmanned aerial surveillance, drones or Spectre gunships.”

Keeping this in mind, the SEALs fighting on the ground must have been told the cavalry was on its way or why else would they train the lasers on the targets? And if employing force was the decision of the highest-ranking officer in the region charged with deploying the response team, why did the “cavalry” never arrive?

According to The Stars and Stripes, “The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment. The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.”

Currently, Rear Adm. Gaouette is headed to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., for a temporary reassignment. “The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed,” the Navy concluded. Even more curious is the fact the area commander, General Carter Hams (Commander-in-Chief, Africa Command [CINC Africom]) decided to retire in mid-sentence while authorizing support to the beleaguered Benghazi defenders (link to Washington Times story).


Staying true to form, Obama’s defenders, The New York Times, spun this ridiculous statement. “As officials in the White House and Pentagon scrambled to respond to the torrent of reports pouring out from Libya — with Mr. Stevens missing and officials worried that he might have been taken hostage — they took the extraordinary step of sending elite Delta Force commandos, with their own helicopters and ground vehicles, from their base at Fort Bragg, N.C., to Sicily. Those troops also arrived too late.”

“The fact of the matter is these forces were not in place until after the attacks were over,” a Pentagon spokesman, George Little, said on Friday, referring to a range of special operations soldiers and other personnel. “We did respond. The secretary ordered forces to move. They simply were not able to arrive in time.”

A frustrated Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), said he was not getting anything from those who know what happened in Benghazi. “I have written to commanders in the field, 3-, 4-star admirals and generals, and the response I got out of the Department of Defense is that ‘we will not be able to answer your simple yes and no questions,’ that I’m sure they already know the answers to. We will not be able to answer them on your timeline and we do not know when we’ll be able to respond. This is the first time I’ve seen where the military has been basically silenced, when they could not answer a direct yes and no questions from the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.”

Check back for more details, as the story remains fluid.

Read yesterday’s story in the Washington Guardian:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved

Was Romney right about Russia? The Benghazi connection …

By Kimberly Dvorak

As the presidential election nears its conclusion, the current Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, is finally facing media scrutiny surrounding his handling of the 9/11 attack in Libya that took the life of U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three others.

As the layers of spin are pulled back, information reveals that the U.S. may have been trafficking weapons under Ambassador Steven’s watch and Russia didn’t like it.

It is indisputable that the U.S. government was aware the Benghazi mission was under attack based on real-time drone surveillance video feeds from Libya to the Department of Defense, the U.S. State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and the White House Situation Room. What is also now known is that the mission was under surveillance before the Benghazi attack by the very Libyan security forces charged with protecting the U.S. consulate and numerous requests for additional security went unanswered by U.S. officials.

It’s also been reported that Ambassador Stevens had been meeting with multiple terrorist representatives in Benghazi. According to a Washington Times story, “The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group… It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria.

Just one hour before the fateful attack that cost Steven’s his life, Obama administration officials say Stevens met with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. This acknowledgement opens the door to arms trafficking. Prior to the Benghazi attack Stevens was warned about a ship sent from Libya and docked in Turkey loaded with arms intended for the anti-Assad rebels that may actually be destined for al-Qaeda fighters in the region. Apparently, after the meeting between Stevens and Ali Sait Akin did not result in an agreement to end the U.S. lead anti-Assad arms shipments, the Turk abruptly left the meeting and the U.S. Benghazi consulate was attacked an hour later.

In an interview with this reporter in San Diego, retired CIA/NSA Director Michael Hayden (General, USAF ret) said the Libya incident “was predictable.”

So why leave Benghazi open? Hayden said, “I can’t explain that.” However, he concedes the most plausible explanation for the Benghazi incident centers on the CIA’s efforts to move weapons from Libya through Turkey and to the Syrian rebels in order to overthrow Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad.

“I think the story is that this (moving arms) was going to go to the Sunnis that opposed Assad. And Assad is Russia’s friend,” Hayden said.

“I don’t know the specifics of attack, but the question I asked is what was the plan? What did you have on the shelf because this could not have been so unexpected given the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi? What was the concept for defending people? It’s kind of alone, small and isolated in (Benghazi),” Hayden explained. “I’m more concerned about the thinking that went on before the attack began and tend to be less critical of what happened seven hours after the attack.”

Another curious piece to this puzzle is Russia. Did they have a part to play inside Benghazi and was presidential contender, Mitt Romney right that Russia remains a threat to the U.S.?

The Russian response, under former KGB Cold War foe Valdimir Putin, who was visibly incensed last fall when a jubilant crowd of rebels murdered his ally, Muammar Qaddafi, has described the event as “repulsive and disgusting.”

Shortly after the death of U.S. ambassador in Libya, numerous Russian commentators used social media to describe their position on the destabilization in Libya.

“The democratized residents of Libya thanked the staff of the American Embassy for its support,” one Tweet read. “This is what you call exporting democracy, it seems. America gives Libya a revolution, and Libyans, in return, kill the ambassador.”

Aleksei K. Pushkov, the head of Russia’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote via Twitter: “Under Qaddafi they didn’t kill diplomats. Obama and Clinton are in shock? What did they expect – ‘Democracy?’ Even bigger surprises await them in Syria,” a New York Times story read in September.

It is no secret that Putin disagreed with the West’s view of Syrian ruler Assad. When Putin was Prime Minister, he delivered a scathing criticism of the Libya bombing by NATO and left the impression that under his leadership it would have never happened.

It’s also worth pointing out that Russia and China have consistently opposed any military intervention in Syria. Russia and its allies have repeatedly warned the West that efforts to aid Syrian rebels would only bring more bloodshed to an already embattled region. Also, the Russians have been demanding a cessation of U.S. aid to the Syrian rebels fighting President Assad, again noting that any military aid would destabilizes the entire region, and could have serious economic consequences for Russia.

Even Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cautioned the West against arming the Syrian rebels. However, the Arab Times news agency said, “Western officials say that Russia’s vetoes have abetted the Syrian violence by encouraging Assad to pursue an offensive with his Russian-supplied armed forces to crush the popular revolt. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are believed to have funded arms shipments.”

Case in point, in late August Russia said there was increasing evidence that Syrian rebels were procuring large numbers of Western-made weapons. They even suggested that America and other EU countries were spurring the violence in Syria.

So was Benghazi a message delivered by the Russians to end U.S. gun-running by executing Ambassador Stevens, the kingpin between the armed groups, the Libya stockpiles, and the shipments to Turkey?

Did this American meddling in Syria unhinge Russia’s patience? And is it possible that Russians or their surrogates assisted al-Qaeda in the Benghazi consulate attack?

“Moving (weapons) from Libya to Turkey to Syria or to Lebanon to Syria is completely plausible. I don’t know about the Russian part, but the trafficking piece is a yes,” Hayden concluded.

Read yesterday’s story in the Washington Guardian:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Pentagon aims to increase Islamic interpreters in US despite known risks By Kimberly Dvorak

In an effort to fast track more foreign interpreters, Senate staffers have confirmed the Defense Department has been lobbying the Senate to pass comprehensive immigration reform Bill S744 (skip to p. 845 for actual Bill).

Despite numerous cases of interpreters turning against coalition troops and contractors, including the high profile incident last year where a translator working for the British military attempted to crash Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s plane during its landing in Afghanistan, officials in the Senate say the Pentagon would like to double the number of Special Interest Visas (SIVs) America approves each year.

A US embassy official in Afghanistan told Stars and Stripes, “Visa applications are processed in the order they are received. The staff has been working every day to chisel away at the backlog, sometimes cramming as many as 70 interviews into a day.” The sheer number of visas being processed in a third world nation has many Americans concerned about homeland security.

The petition process for Special Immigrant Visas is relatively simple. An Iraqi or Afghan national who worked with the U.S. Armed Forces or under Chief of Mission authority, as an interpreter, must meet the following requirements: must be an Iraqi or Afghan national; must have worked directly with the U.S. Armed Forces or under COM (Chief of Mission) authority as a translator or interpreter for a period of at least 12 months; and must obtain a favorable written recommendation from a General or Flag Officer that supported the translator or interpreter, and/or a recommendation from the COM from the embassy where the interpreter worked.

“The total number of SIVs issued has risen dramatically this year, to 1,393 cases representing 3,302 individuals so far—perhaps a result of heightened media scrutiny brought on in large part by The List, a documentary about Iraqi interpreters. But the Afghan nationals who have served with U.S. and coalition forces have received less attention, possibly owing to blue on green attacks, with Afghans representing just 3 percent of this year’s figures: 109 Afghans have arrived under the program in 2012—50 translators, along with 59 of their family members,” The Daily Beast reported. “In 2010 one interpreter killed two soldiers on a base and wounded another. And a recent series of insider attacks have undermined trust in the Afghan army and policemen who we once trusted as allies.”

Enter Lebanese Hezbollah Commander, Wissam Allouche

Wissam Allouche arrived in America sometime in 2002. He married an American citizen and settled in Texas where he successfully navigated the Department of Homeland Security background check and eventually became a U.S. citizen.

However, his story falls apart once the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force looked into his life when he applied for a DoD job requiring security clearances. A number of red flags prompted the FBI to perform a more in-depth investigation.

In 2011 the FBI raided his home and found documents that suggest he fabricated security clearances, a membership in U.S. Special Forces as well as Defense Department intelligence units. Once this was discovered, Allouche was charged with non-disclosure of his prior Hezbollah membership when he sought a security clearance with the Defense Department.

During the three-year investigation, that included recorded undercover personal conversations, “he (Allouche) admitted on tape that he was a member of Amal and that he was a commander of Hezbollah,” Texas prosecutor Mark Roomberg told the court.

Army Criminal Investigations, Special Agent, Jeff Cram testified that his investigation revealed Allouche's ties. He further attested to Allouche being seen by multiple people at San Antonio’s Fort Sam Houston dressed in a U.S. military uniform displaying Special Forces insignias. Many of those witnesses included women.

“So being flirtatious would give him access to sensitive information? Roomberg asked Mr. Cram. “Yes, sir.” Cram also testified that he discovered eight Hezbollah photos of Allouche.

“He was given at least three aliases,” Cram testified. One meant “god of death,” Cram said, adding that Allouche was also known for “acting crazy or acting dangerously.”

Allouche entered a not guilty plea to all the charges according to the indictment, and his attorney, Cynthia Orr, challenged the government’s portrayal of her client. “The evidence comes from his disgruntled ex-wife and his disgruntled ex-father-in-law.”

If convicted, Allouche faces 10 years in prison, and his citizenship would be revoked. He also faces an additional five years for lying on security-clearance forms. The judge agreed to keep Allouche behind bars pending trial.

How could this happen?

How exactly did an alleged terrorist successfully gain US citizenship by entering America’s front door? Former U.S. Attorney Pete Nunez said the U.S. has been sacrificing national security for political expediency for decades and that the so-called background checks provide minimal details for those seeking to call the U.S. home. “You could subject everybody to a thorough background check but the cost and time would be overwhelming. It would not be acceptable for the political class.”

He continues to explain that; “Millions apply for visas each year and they must rely on host nations for information which is nearly impossible to verify.”

Thirty-year INS agent Mike Cutler concurs and suggests that it is vitally important to fully vet foreign nationals that work for the U.S. government where they may have access to classified information. “You need to talk to family members, friends and neighbors in the home countries. You have to see where they are traveling and whom they are associating with. It’s critically important.”

This sensitive information can also put undercover agents, informants and special operation plans at risk, not to mention the trust involved when using an interpreter, Cutler explains. “You have an allegation that a terrorist was working as a translator for the U.S. Army and if that isn’t scary enough, how many more are here to do us harm?”

Most national security experts agree that full background investigations would swamp the Department of Homeland Security, but Cutler points out the obvious; “What did 9/11 cost us?”

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers say “recent events in the United States provide clear and convincing proof that the failure of the Government to effectively enforce our immigration laws as written has already created a level of pervasive lawlessness within the U.S. that has dramatically reduced national security and public safety and facilitated more tragic events and outcomes, such as the 2001 Trade Center and 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings,” said Zack Taylor, Chairman of National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. “In the light of the current situation within the United States the latest proposal for Comprehensive Immigration Reform S744 would serve to create unrest and invite further attacks on America. The plan benefits the illegal alien, transnational criminals within our midst and those elements that intend to do us further harm. There is no practical way to ascertain the true identity, date of border crossing or purpose of entry of the more than 11 million aliens who are within our country in violation of immigration laws.”

Taylor provides another example of the porous southern border. On June 4, 2013, a DHS Predator drone tracked a group of illegal aliens 15 miles north of the Mexican border near Patagonia, AZ.

Taylor said just before sunrise, the Predator operator could be heard on audio saying:

"...Uh.... be advised.... uh ... replay the tape shows.... uh.... about sun-up, there was some kneeling going on..." After that, no further transmissions from Omaha 25 or any other transmissions concerning this incident were discerned. Taylor confirms another fact that more Muslims are crossing illegally into America from Mexico. (Link to the Secure Border Intel audio is found here:

Link to San Diego 6 News Story by Kimberly Dvorak:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Border insecurity and illegal-migration renders “gang of eight” deal DOA

By Kimberly Dvorak

With federal investigators working furiously to uncover the backchannel intrigue of the legal immigrant Boston Marathon bombers, opponents of the comprehensive immigration reform bill see national security parallels to the lack of diligence in background investigations for legal immigration with the politically driven and completely myopic amnesty wave proposed for our Southern border.

First off, as the Heritage Foundation suggests, the new immigration bill would not have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing. “Thus far, the emotional and political arguments haven’t made much sense. A couple of key facts: The Tsarnaev brothers didn’t sneak across the border to get into the United States, nor were they here illegally. None of the ‘new security’ measures in the Senate immigration bill, such as biometric exit, would have helped us to better track the terrorists. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security admits it knew when the older Tsarnaev brother left the country to travel to Chechnya and Dagestan. In other words, the existing system worked.”

Secondly, testimony given last week by Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (DHS), revealed a number of glitches with the current dysfunctional immigration laws including a viable metric to monitor how secure the border is and keeping track of entries as well as departing visitors.

One of her staunchest adversaries, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu took issue with Napolitano’s repeated assertions that the U.S. borders are secure.

“Secretary Janet Napolitano almost daily proclaims that our U.S/Mexican border is already secure in an effort to pave the way to amnesty. One year ago, the Tucson sector alone had 122,000 illegals apprehended and now the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol recently testified that this number is up more than 13 percent. Additionally, our Sheriff's Office recently led a multi-agency investigation which busted the largest drug smuggling operation in the history of Arizona, valued between $2-3 billion, arresting 76 individuals of the Sinaloa Mexican Drug Cartel and seized 108 of their firearms. In law enforcement, we call these clues; the border is NOT more secure than ever.”

The Sheriff also takes issue with Secretary Napolitano’s inability to implement a serious metric that measures border security. “This immigration reform plan gives Secretary Napolitano six months to come up with a border security plan. What has she been doing for the past four years?”

In light to the Boston Marathon terrorist attack by brothers who immigrated to this country less than 10 years ago, critics are questioning the validity of background checks. According to Retired Senior Special Agent (INS), contributor to the 9/11 Commission report, and National Security expert, Mike Cutler, the “gang of eight” or in his words the “eight gangsters” failed to address the terrorism related issues that accompany border security and comprehensive immigration reform.

“If Comprehensive Immigration Reform was to be enacted, there would be no way to verify the identities, backgrounds, entry data or intentions of the millions or, more likely, tens of millions of aliens who would be granted immediate employment authorization,” Cutler argues. “This would irreparably undermine national security. The present administration is providing undocumented aliens with identity documents without even conducting face-to-face interviews.”

Unfortunately, America’s flawed immigration admittance program has been around for decades and open arms have now given way to more hatred by would-be Muslim terrorists.

“The fraudulently amnestied aliens included 1993 World Trade Center bomber Mahmud Abouhalima who used his new status to travel freely to and from the Middle East to pick up terrorist training. Had immigration law been enforced, he would have never received travel documents and instead would have been removed from the country as an illegal alien visa-over stayer, potentially preventing the attack,” according to Center for Immigration Studies' recent Senate testimony. “Within six months of passage of the Schumer-Rubio bill, illegal aliens would be entitled to driver’s licenses, travel documents, Social Security accounts, and a significant number of state-level benefits.”

Irrespective of past experiences, the Senate is forging ahead with virtually the same 2007 immigration follies that were torpedoed by a boisterous electorate.

Nevertheless, senior Democrat and member of the gang of eight, Charles Schumer, of New York stated, “The American people have been clear. Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. They know that, throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic.”

Schumer says his constituents, stakeholders, and other members of Congress, have made it clear that they want to fix the broken immigration system. “I truly believe that the fundamentals for immigration reform exist if we coalesce around seven key principles that the American people overwhelmingly support.” They include, operational control of our borders (no plan in place yet), a biometric-based employer verification system (E-Verify already in place), a requirement that all illegal immigrants must be currently in the country (responsible for current deluge of border crossers), illegal immigrant family reunification is a cornerstone value (Moms, dads, brothers, sisters, grandmas, grandpas, future children, neighbors kids etc...) and encourage those immigrants with entrepreneurial skills to create businesses that will employ American workers (Central and South American drug cartels).

Another group with strong objections to comprehensive immigration reform is Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Council leader Frank Morris who said, "The Senate Gang of Eight's immigration bill is not only impractical, but immoral. Increasing immigration levels through amnesty and new visa programs, particularly at the low-skilled level, will flood the labor market with millions more people, leading to higher unemployment, more poverty, and a lower standard of living for many in the black community."

Regardless of the political chatter, President Obama, for his part, has offered support for immigration reform, but has continued to deport some illegal aliens in the country. The President reiterated that his administration would continue deportations until immigration reform has been passed, even though immigration reform advocates beg Obama to stop deporting immigrants because they might be eligible for citizenship under the terms of the new overhaul legislation.

This must be news to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who are suing the Obama administration for not allowing agents to arrest illegals and allegedly ordered the same agents to release known criminal illegals. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said, “The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings [when the law requires it].”

Speaking of following the laws, opponents of the “gang of eight” legislation complain illegal immigrants will get something NO Americans can take advantage of, a reprieve from the IRS. How forgiving is Uncle Sam when citizens fail or refuse to pay taxes or make a mistake in their tax returns? Ask actor Wesley Snipes, he spent three years in the slammer for deceiving the taxman, plus he paid $5 million in fines and penalties.

On the flip side those who overstayed their visas or snuck across the border will avoid Snipes’ harsh treatment.

“Illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking laws for which American citizens are routinely punished," said Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "For example, an American citizen would face a maximum penalty of ten years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for using a fraudulent Social Security card, but under this bill the illegal alien would face a $1,000 penalty covering all his many offenses, a penalty which in many cases will be waived. Then, they would be issued a new Social Security number without any past bad credit or arrest records.”

Sheriff Babeu sees the writing on the wall and harbors numerous trepidations that DHS has the ability to “check out” and monitor 11-20 million illegal immigrants seeking America’s latest reprieve.

“We are asked to trust the very people who recently released 2,228 criminal illegals to our streets and continue to refuse to provide me their names, criminal history, their individual threat assessment, and location of their supervised release. We are asked to trust the very people who covered up Benghazi and gave over 2,000 high- powered weapons (AG Holder's Fast & Furious) to the Mexican Drug Cartel that we are fighting,” Sheriff Babeu asserts.

For more stories:

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Details of Reporter Hastings' Death Remain Elusive

By Kimberly Dvorak

Created: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:40:00 PST

Updated: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:44:36 PST

It’s been nearly three weeks since Michael Hastings was killed in a fiery car accident in West Los Angeles. The award-winning journalist earned his stripes as a wartime reporter and captured fame with his 2010 Rolling Stone story that forced General Stanley McChrystal to resign as commander of the US forces in Afghanistan.

According to City News Service Hastings, 33, “was driving south on Highland Avenue when he apparently lost control of the compact (2013 Mercedes Benz CLK250) near Melrose Avenue and crashed into palm trees in the median about 4:20 a.m. Tuesday (June 18). The car's engine reportedly ended up about 200 feet away from the impact site.”

An eyewitness at the scene, Jose, employed at nearby business ALSCO Inc said, the car was travelling very fast and he heard a couple explosions shortly before the car crashed.
In fact, the explosion was so intense that it took the LA County assistant corner, Ed Winter, two days to identify the burned-beyond recognition body of Hastings. Officials confirm that an autopsy has been performed, but the cause of death is pending. LAPD media spokesperson Lieutenant Andrew Neiman said, “it will take several weeks to get the toxicology results.” By stark contrast, in Italy, ‘Sopranos’ star James Gandolfini’s family received the toxicology report within a few days.

Despite the intensity of the single car accident, an LAPD statement determined that there was “no foul play” involved.

As news of the journalist’s death reached family and work colleagues another story emerged, one that would seemingly contradict the LAPD’s verdict. It quickly surfaced that Hastings reached out to Wikileaks attorney Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before his death claiming the FBI was investigating him.

In an atypical response the FBI Los Angeles-based bureau spokeswoman Laura Eimiller emailed media emphatically denying their agency was looking into Mr. Hastings background.

Once the back and forth commenced, friends of Hastings posted the last frantic email they would receive from their colleague. It read:

“Subject: FBI Investigation, re: NSA -Hey (redacted names) — the Feds are interviewing my “close friends and associates.” Perhaps if the authorities arrive “BuzzFeed GQ,” er HQ, may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news gathering practices or related journalism issues. Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the rada[r] for a bit.

All the best, and hope to see you all soon. Michael”

After learning about Hastings death, Ben Smith, editor in chief of, released a statement saying the staff was “shocked and devastated by the news that Michael Hastings is gone. Michael was a great, fearless journalist with an incredible instinct for the story, and a gift for finding ways to make his readers care about anything he covered from wars to politicians.”

One particular passage in Hastings book, “The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan,” revealed that a former McChrystal staff member made a death threat. “We'll hunt you down and kill you if we don't like what you write,” the unnamed staffer said. Hastings coolly retorted: “Well, I get death threats like that about once a year, so no worries.”

He later wrote; “I wasn't disturbed by the claim. Whenever I'd been reporting around groups of dudes whose job it was to kill people, one of them would usually mention that they were going to kill me.”

Disturbing details surrounding the actual accident

After reading accounts of the car crash and examining the scene of the accident erroneous details were hard to overlook. Stories discussed the road as narrow, not true, it’s a four-lane road with a large median dividing traffic. Some reports said there was a curve in the road, also not true; in fact it’s straight freeway-to-freeway. Also, there was no damage to the median curb, only fire discoloration. But the most significant missing evidence was the absence of any skid marks—even though the car made a 60-degree turn into a palm tree.

Research of this topic reveals a new angle to this story, namely —Boston Brakes.

This theory was explained by a former Marine Gordon Duff who refers to the “Boston Brakes” technique, in which “drive by wire” cars, specifically a Mercedes Benz, can be manipulated remotely to simulate an out-of-control accident, according to his Veterans Today story (The 2010 story is a must read). The story details are eerily similar to Hastings fiery accident scene as there were no skid marks.

Adding credence to the possible car-hacking scenario is former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke. After news broke on the Hastings car accident, he confirmed the “drive by wire” concept.

Clarke told The Huffington Post that a single-vehicle crash is “consistent with a car cyber attack. There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers -- including the United States -- know how to remotely seize control of a car.”

Specifically, a 2010 research project conducted by the University of California at San Diego and the University of Washington Engineering Departments demonstrated how easy it was to override a vehicle’s computer system and drive it remotely. A request for an on/off camera interview by this reporter was declined.

Clarke’s interview with The Huffington Post explains, “You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it's not that hard.”

Another significant detail pointed out by some members of law enforcement, is the intensity of the fire inside the car. It’s highly unusual since gasoline generally doesn’t burn that hot. Reviewing video footage from the scene, the intensity of the fire resembles a “thermite” burn.

No matter how you slice this highly suspicious car accident, a Mercedes is not going to explode into flames without assistance. Car aficionados say fires in new cars happen for three main reasons, “running the engine out of oil, running the engine out of coolant, or a mammoth car mangling accident, that leaves the hot side of the battery to short out against the frame before it reaches the fuse panel.”

First, thanks to science and mathematics accident scene re-construction analysts should be able to “somewhat” calculate things like the dynamic energy of the impact in addition to the gravity force required for separating the engine/transmission from the vehicle.

The 2013 Mercedes Hastings drove that fateful night in June is equipped with MBRACE (emergency call system), SOS telephone and the Voice Control System. It is similar to the ONSTAR program, and can directly link the driver to a representative in case of emergencies. The Mercedes manual reads: “Information about electronic data acquisition in the vehicle (Including notice pursuant to California Code § 9951). If your vehicle is equipped with MBRACE, data is transmitted in the event of an accident.”

The manual continues: “The wireless devices of this vehicle comply with Part 15 of the FCC Rules Operation and is subject to the following two conditions: 1) These devices may not cause harmful interference, and 2) These devices must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

Changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user’s authority to operate the equipment.”

In a statement from Mercedes, Olivia C. states; “At this time, the police are still conducting their investigation into this tragedy. They have not yet asked for our assistance, but we stand ready to assist if and when they do.”

Despite the LAPD's categorization of the Hasting fatal accident as a "no (evidence of) foul play" accident, LAPD refuses to release the accident and toxicology reports, or make the Mercedes available for inspection which only fuels speculation.

Relevant to the single car accident conclusion by LAPD, it must be noted that Michael Hastings had history that included alcohol and drug abuse, but reports from his family and friends say he kicked the habit.

Stay tuned for further news as this reporter's investigation continues.

Investigation into Michael Hastings accident continues

By Kimberly Dvorak

Details uncovered by this reporter shed new light into the June 18 death of journalist Michael Hastings.

Hastings’ friend and confidant SSgt. Joe Biggs disclosed a macabre twist in the award-winning journalist’s death in a suspicious single-car accident. According to SSgt. Biggs, “Michael Hastings’ body was returned to Vermont in an urn.”

This revelation provides another wrinkle in the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) handling of a case they labeled “no foul play” only hours after the writer’s death.

Nevertheless LA County assistant corner, Ed Winter, said it took two days to identify the burned-beyond recognition body of Hastings. Officials also confirmed that an autopsy has been performed, but the cause of death is still pending. Unfortunately the family will have to wait for cause of death answers as LAPD media spokesperson Lieutenant Andrew Neiman indicated, “It will take several weeks to get the toxicology results.”

SSgt. Biggs also emphatically stated that liquor was not a factor in the accident, as Hastings hadn’t consumed alcoholic beverages in five years.

So why is the LAPD delaying the reports?

It was SSgt. Biggs who released the following chilling email to members of the media; “Subject: FBI Investigation, re: NSA -Hey (redacted names) — the Feds are interviewing my “close friends and associates.” Perhaps if the authorities arrive “BuzzFeed GQ,” er HQ, may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news gathering practices or related journalism issues. Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the rada[r] for a bit. All the best, and hope to see you all soon. Michael”

The receipt of this email from Hastings tipped the scales for SSgt. Biggs. “This wasn’t an accident and I will continue to investigate his death.”

As an investigative journalist, Hastings saw his fair share of threats. One particular passage in Hastings book, “The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan,” revealed that a former McChrystal staff member made a death threat. “We'll hunt you down and kill you if we don't like what you write,” the unnamed staffer said. Hastings coolly retorted: “Well, I get death threats like that about once a year, so no worries.”

Despite the LAPD's categorization of the Hasting fatal accident as a "no (evidence of) foul play,” LAPD continues to ignore FOIA (CPRA in Calif.) requests made by San Diego 6 News for the police report, 9/11 call, autopsy, bomb squad and toxicology reports, or make the Mercedes available for inspection which only fuels conjecture.

San Diego 6 News TV interview link:

Link to previous story: - storyComments

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


US troops fight and die to preserve Shariah Law in Afghanistan (Series pt. 1)

By Kimberly Dvorak

Most Americans would be shocked to know that THEIR government created an Islamic Theocracy subject to Shariah law when it developed the Afghanistan Constitution. (Link to Afghan Constitution).

That constitution establishes Afghanistan as an Islamic Republic subject to Shariah law: “We the people of Afghanistan With firm faith in God Almighty and relying on His lawful mercy, and Believing in the Sacred religion of Islam; Realizing the injustice and shortcoming of the past, and the numerous troubles imposed on our country; While acknowledging the sacrifices and the historic struggles, rightful Jihad and just resistance of all people of Afghanistan, and respecting the high position of the martyrs for the freedom of Afghanistan.”

Afghanistan is committed to Islamic Law/ Shariah Law as evidenced by Article Three, Chapter 1, “In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” Any doubt about the commitment to Islam is resolved by the oath of Supreme Court Justices… “In the name Allah, the Merciful and the Compassionate I swear in the name of God Almighty to support justice and righteousness in accord with the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam and the provisions of this Constitution and other laws of Afghanistan, and to execute the duty of being a judge with utmost honesty, righteousness and nonpartisanship (Ch. 7. Art. 4).”

But what is this Shariah law the U.S. and its NATO allies are passionately supporting in lives and resources? “Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual conflict: The House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where Islamic law (Shariah) is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al- Harb) comprises the rest of the world. The House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the latter is permanently assimilated into the former,” an excerpt from Shariah Law Definition – Religion of Peace, by Gregory Davis.

It continues; “The term jihad, which literally means ‘struggle,’ denotes the military effort to bring new lands into the House of Islam. While the state of war between the Islamic-non-Islamic worlds is sometimes hot or sometimes cold, it is permanent until Shariah law reigns over the entire planet.”

As with any nation building process, the U.S. government usually plays an active role is rewriting or constructing a country’s Constitution and the same is true in Afghanistan. In the past the State Department played a big role in establishing Russia’s Constitution after the Cold War. Yet, a call to the State Department produced coy words to deflect what input the U.S. made to Afghanistan’s new Constitution.

This vision for Shariah Law is shared by some Muslims in America. Check the website Shariah for America and read their plans to use U.S. laws to ensure the Muslim faith is followed worldwide.

It’s been a long war. Afghanistan is a tribal nation trying to transition to a “modern” nation through a small group of “globalists” and with the help of the all-knowing Western world. But what is it about the war-torn region that captivates the hearts and minds of the globalists that the people of Afghanistan are worth the cost?

History knows better. It doesn’t matter how long American/NATO troops occupy Afghanistan to enforce the Shariah Law based Constitution - the end result will be the same - more suffering and corruption. American troops are fighting the Taliban and other al-Qaeda sympathizers to establish an Afghan nation, but the Constitution Americans helped the Afghanis adopt mandates Shariah Law.

Meanwhile on the battlefield, U.S. troops display their heroic bravery and compassion in trying to make a difference in this tribal region. The 10-year conflict the American military has been waging is growing more and more unpopular. Currently only 39 percent of Americans think we are doing the right thing (an all-time low), according to a 3/18-21 CBS News Poll. Another survey from an ABC News/Washington Post Poll confirmed the American people are questioning the cost versus benefits of the war - only 31 percent want America to continue its Middle East wars. A big reason for the dwindling popularity of the Afghanistan War is the corruption within the government that U.S. officials have installed to bring democracy to the war-torn nation (see Part III of this series).

Insurrection in a fragile new country

As the old saying goes, ‘it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks’ and Afghanistan is no exception. The opponents to the “globalist's vision” look for any event to protest the West.

"Clearly the Islamist agenda is to use any tidbit of information out of the West to try to paint America and the West as anti-Islam and anti-Muslim," said M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a practicing Muslim.

Take Afghanistan for example, many say President Hamid Karzai was responsible for all the hype surrounding the burning of the Quran by a Florida preacher. Clearly the majorities of Afghanis do not own computers and aren’t glued to the smart phones loaded with social networking apps ready to start the next revolution.

However American leadership gladly complied with the corrupt rulers as they continually disparage westernized countries and incite violence.

The Quran burning episode should provide insight for Americans as the Afghan people embarked on a deadly three days of rioting; this unrest burdens the U.S.-led military against the Taliban.

Running the day-to-day operations of the coalition war is General David Petraeus, and he even scolded the insensitivities of burning the Quran. "Every security force leader's worst nightmare is being confronted by essentially a mob, if you will, especially one that can be influenced by individuals that want to incite violence, who want to try to hijack passions, in this case, perhaps understandable passions," Petraeus said. "Obviously it's an additional serious security challenge in a country that faces considerable security challenges. This was a surprise."

Petraeus also felt the Quran burning was "hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant."

In fact it’s been reported that the majority of Afghans learned about the Quran burning from President Karzai who condemned the act as "a crime against the religion and the entire Muslim nation." He went on to demand the U.S. and the U.N. to bring the Florida pastor to justice. Karzai also insisted that Americans provide "a satisfactory response to the resentment and anger of over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world."

President Barack Obama also weighed in and extended his condolences to the people who were killed by the protesters and said burning the Quran "is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry." But cautioned that there was no justification for attacking and slaughtering innocent people, calling it "outrageous and an affront to human decency and dignity."

It didn’t take long for the “peace loving” religious demonstrators in Afghanistan to recite the familiar mantra, "Death to America." In the end the deadly protests claimed dozens of lives, including U.S. soldiers.

Moving forward, the threshold question that remains to be answered is whether Americans wish to continue fighting so Afghanis women can be stoned and caned or thieves can have limbs severed?

Part two of this series: U.S. Pays Afghan Warlords to kill American/NATO Troops

For more stories;

© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


US payments to Taliban & Afghan warlords threaten American/NATO troops

By Kimberly Dvorak

(Part two of the series on Afghanistan) According to separate Congressional and Senate reports, the American government pays more than $2 billion for Host Nation Trucking (HNT) or in layman’s terms, private security firms that protect U.S. military convoys and materials in dangerous tribal areas.

Currently the HNT contracts are a $2.16 billion dollar boondoggle that provides indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts ground transportation in Afghanistan for over 70 percent of Department of Defense goods and materiel, including food, water, fuel, equipment, and ammunition.

A report titled “Warlord, Inc., Extortion and Corruption along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan” was published by Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) in June of last year. The report detailed the billions of dollars spent to protect U.S. military supply convoys in Afghanistan- the majority of the money is paid by the DOD through defense contractors and finds its way into the hands of Taliban leaders and warlords.

According to the comprehensive report, the principal private security subcontractors on the HNT contract are warlords, strongmen, commanders, and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority in the region.

“Providing ‘protection’ services for the U.S. supply chain empowers these warlords with money, legitimacy, and a raison d’être for their private armies. Although many of these warlords nominally operate under private security companies licensed by the Afghan Ministry of Interior, they thrive in a vacuum of government authority and their interests are in fundamental conflict with U.S. aims to build a strong Afghan government,” the Congressional inquiry explains.

The large infusion of U.S. cash into Afghanistan should raise eyebrows because a good number of these warlords and Taliban fighters are also connected to the production of poppies (the illicit opium trade). And according to recently leaked documents from WikiLeaks there are billions of dollars flowing out of Afghanistan that remains unaccounted for due the country's rudimentary banking practices. (See part three of this series)

The eye-opening report comes at a time when Afghan President Hamid Karzi is stirring anti-American passions about U.S. private contractors operating in the warzone and deadly Afghani rioting over the burning of the Quran by a Florida pastor.

The dilemma for both sides regarding the use of private contractors is that U.S. and NATO members operating in Afghanistan, as well as civilian organizations and news media, need private contractors to get around a country with little to no infrastructure.

Taliban fighters and tribal leaders look to the supply line convoys as a source of income; however, the outsourcing of these contractors has significant unintended consequences.

The HNT contract fuels warlordism, extortion, and corruption, and it may be a significant source of funding for insurgents. In other words, the logistics contract has an outsized strategic impact on U.S. objectives in Afghanistan, according to the Congressional report.

Congress also contends that the “Department of Defense has been blind to the potential strategic consequences of its supply chain contingency contracting. U.S. military logisticians have little visibility into what happens to their trucks on the road and virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided. When HNT contractors self-reported to the military that they were being extorted by warlords for protection payments for safe passage and that these payments were ‘funding the insurgency,’ they were largely met with indifference and inaction.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee also sent staffers to investigate the “convoy protection” issue. Their report titled, “Inquiry into the Role and Oversight of Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan” concluded the U.S. pays trucking contractors billions of dollars a year much of it ends up in the hands of local warlords.

Another concern the Senate report highlighted that the U.S. seemed to be unknowingly fostering the Taliban and other militias when the country is struggling to build its own security forces.

“Almost all are Afghans, almost all are armed,” Senior Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) explained. “We need to shut off the spigot of U.S. dollars flowing into the pockets of warlords and power brokers who act contrary to our interests and contribute to the corruption that weakens the support of the Afghan people for their government.”

Like the Congressional Report, the Senate oversight testimony concluded that private security contractors suffered from systematic failures with management and widespread failures in vetting or training armed-security personnel.

Even Secretary of State Hilary Clinton acknowledged the supply line corruption activity during a December, 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting when she said, “One of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.”

Up next, part three “Billion dollar corruption within the U.S.-picked Afghanistan government.”

Read part one of the series; US troops fight and die to preserve Shariah Law in Afghanistan

For more stories;

© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Billion dollar corruption within the U.S.-picked Afghan regime (part 3)

By Kimberly Dvorak

After reviewing Afghan custom records, the Wall Street Journal reported that during a three-year period more than $3.1 billion in U.S. dollars left Afghanistan through the airport destined for Middle Eastern countries like Dubai and Abu Dhabi. More than $3 billion has been shipped from a country the CIA Fact Book claims only collected $1 billion in taxes annually.

However, U.S. officials believe the number to be much higher. A senior U.S. official said one courier alone removed $2.3 billion in the second half of 2008 and into 2009.

Investigators believe the cash is being siphoned from legitimate Western aid programs and being declared, placed in suitcases and pallets, and shipped to safe havens with the knowledge of the U.S. and NATO officials. For example, NATO gave Afghanistan approximately $14 billion last year.

“More declared cash flies out of Kabul each year than the Afghan government collects in tax and customs revenue nationwide. It’s not like they grow money on trees here,” said one U.S. official investigating the corruption and Taliban. “A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen. And opium (poppies), of course.”

President Karzai’s brother, Mahmood, who coincidentally is a U.S. citizen (under investigation for racketeering in the U.S.), contends it is the political opponents who are skimming money and sending it out of the country.

“Yes, millions of dollars are leaving this country but it is all taken by politicians. Bribes, corruption, all of it,” Mahmood Karzai says.

Even more perplexing is the fact Mahmood Karzai fears nothing and even dares the U.S. to investigate. “Let’s find out who is taking it. Let’s not go on rumors.” He continues to explain that he has talked with U.S. officials about this corruption and maintains his innocence when it comes to profiting from U.S. contracts.

Afghanistan’s Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal confirmed there is missing money at a press conference, “We do not even know about it. We don’t know whose it is, why it is leaving, or where it is going.”

Senior officials are complaining that money is leaving faster than anyone realizes. “You get boxes loaded on the back of airplanes. You get guys, literally, bringing boxes of cash onto the plane.”

Another method used to get money out of Afghanistan is the airport’s VIP area. Often the VIPs are driven straight to their planes where they load their cash directly on board and fly off, according to Afghan General Asif and U.S. officials.

General M. Asif Jabar Khail, the chief customs officer at Kabul airport, described a recent incident where he came across one VIP who was taking undeclared millions out of the country and when they tried to stop the VIPs flight to Dubai, they were met with fierce opposition from higher-ups in the Afghanistan government. “It came from very, very senior people. They told me there was an arrangement with the central bank and told me to let it go.”

President Hamid Karzai sees the money changing hands differently. “Making money is fine and taking money out of the country is fine. The relatives of government officials can do this, starting with my brothers. But there’s a possibility of corruption.” If this is true why does America and NATO continue to send billions to such a corrupt country?

Middle men just making a buck

The preferred method of money transfer in Afghanistan moves through “hawalas.” This is a system the Muslim countries have used for many centuries.

The rules surrounding the money changers or “hawala” are sketchy and the handlers keep track of millions/billions in a simple notebook. There is no electronic process for the centralized government to monitor the money exchanging hands.

According to U.S. officials, Afghan couriers reportedly name the hawala responsible for handling the first transfer of the money as well as the second handler accepting the cash in other countries like Dubai.

These hawala’s are the backbone of the Afghan financial sector and the State Department discloses that 80-90 percent of all the monetary matters pass through the primitive hawala system.

While this fraud is sure to anger the U.S. taxpayer, there is even more money being carried through Afghanistan’s porous borders. Afghan officials claim there is more than $10 million that crosses the border each day. This adds up to an additional $3.65 billion a year.

Officials agree that much of the insurgency money is derived from the illicit opium trade, as drugs have long been an easy way for rebels to earn the capital needed to fight a war.

Part four; Terrorism’s down-payment in the form drugs and U.S. aid money

Part two; http://US payments to Taliban & Afghan warlords threaten American/NATO troops

Part one; http://US troops fight and die to preserve Shariah Law in Afghanistan (Series pt. 1)

For more stories;

© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Terrorism’s down payment in the form of drugs and U.S. aid money (part 4)

By Kimberly Dvorak

Afghanistan’s corruption is legendary (see Part 3 in this series). The war-torn tribal nation provides fertile fields for training terrorists and growing poppies, is home to al Qaeda, and is where the 9/11 plotters hatched their terrorist attack on America. But sadly, in the worst kept secret in Central Asia, the U.S. condones and encourages the growing of poppies, the base ingredient for heroin and cocaine. We do so, not to keep the poor farmers happy, but to line the pockets of the Taliban, warlords, and the Karzai government.

In other words Americans are fighting and dying protecting the poppy fields. According to Colonel (ret) Eugene Khrushchev (son of the former Soviet Premier) writing for the, “What Secretary of State (Hilary Clinton) called the ‘best decision in the face of an array of less-than-perfect options’ has set in motion the worse-case nightmare scenario- a boon for the drug lords, a bane for the drug busters.” Colonel Khrushchev contends that America’s drug eradication policy is nothing more than a ruse. Instead it supplies criminal elements with the means to destabilize the Afghan government while destroying the tribal population to ensure terrorists sympathy in the region forever.

The incentive for narcotic trafficking is the $2.7 billion in annual sales, according to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). And in Afghanistan, the drug trade accounts for more than half the country’s entire GDP.

Making matters worse is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government’s involvement. Afghan Parliament member, Amanullah Paiman has studied the illicit drug-trade and claims the government runs approximately 70 percent of the narco-fields. “The chain of narco dollars goes from the districts to the highest levels of government.”

Perhaps the most well-known trafficker is President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai. A Newsweek article described it this way; “He (the president’s brother) is the unofficial regional governor of southern Afghanistan and leads the whole trafficking structure,” said a senior Interior Ministry official. However, Ahmed Karzai flatly denies any involvement in the drug trade.

One US argument for letting the farmers grow their lucrative poppy crops rings hollow. Skeptics point out that those farmers could turn to insurgents to earn a living without the poppies. The second focuses economic hardship farmers would suffer if they were forced to grow another crop. Both arguments are false.

The New York Times reported in July of 2008 that Afghanistan was already a narco-state. “Karzai had long opposed aerial eradication. Why? More than 95 percent of the residents of the poppy growing provinces of Helmand and Kandahar- voted for Karzai.”

“Poppy cultivation was becoming limited to the south, more associated with the insurgency and disassociated from poverty…UNODC convincingly demonstrated that poor farmers were abandoning the crop and that poppy growth was confined to the wealthiest parts … ‘poverty doesn’t appear to have been the main driving factor in the expansion of opium poppy’,” according to the NYT.

“UNODC shattered the myth that poppies are grown by destitute farmers…Eighty percent of the land under poppy cultivation in the south had been planted with it only in the last two years …these farmers didn’t need an alternative livelihood. They had abandoned their previous livelihoods…to take advantage of the security vacuum [which coincides with the UK military presence] to grow a more profitable crop: opium…Yet Afghan officials continued to say that poppy cultivation was the only choice for its poor farmers,” the UNODC states. The truth is the insurgents pay the poppy farmers an advance in pay to plant poppies, according to the latest 2011 report.

“The ‘starving farmer’ was a convenient myth. [NATO] …wanted to avoid any uptick in violence from [counternarcotics] strategy; even if the strategy would result in long-term success…the Taliban loved it because their propaganda campaign consisted of trotting out farmers whose fields had been eradicated and having them say that they were going to starve.”

The question of what to do with the poppy fields has plagued every commander in the now 10-year-war. A Newsweek article describes the fear of Afghan officials who fear, “We are losing the fight against drug traffickers. If we don’t crack down on these guys soon, it won’t be long until they’re in control of everything.”

The question remains will the program that started under the Bush Administration and continues with the Obama Administration be the albatross that sinks the war effort? Or does President Obama realize his mistakes and correct them before the American people cry foul?

Part five; Afghanistan- the counterinsurgency- will it work?

Part three; Billion-dollar corruption within the U.S. picked Afghan regime

Part two; U.S. payments to Taliban & Afghan warlords threaten American/NATO troops

Part one; U.S. troops fight and die to preserve Sharaih Law in Afghanistan

For more stories;

© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Obama begins to wind-down the costly war in Afghanistan (Final in a series)

By Kimberly Dvorak

For antiwar groups, the President’s address to the nation was somewhat welcome news; the ever-increasing unpopularity of the war opened the door to common sense. On the other hand, critics called Obama’s speech a road map for insurgents to plan their takeover of the Afghan government.


The dilemma for commanders on the ground centers on the classification of the 10-year war. A mission change is in the works and military leaders will now shift the counterinsurgency strategy to a more stealthy counter-terrorism position.

Afghanistan’s corrupt government, lack of infrastructure and tribal tendencies have met a predictable ending- a U.S. troop departure, a small victory toppling the Taliban and killing Osama bin Laden.

General David Petraeus outlined the requirements for a successful counterinsurgency strategy in a 2006 military handbook. “As the counterinsurgent gains success, offensive and defensive operations become more in balance and eventually diminish in importance compared to stability operations.”

It has been five years since Petraeus wrote the Manual on Counterinsurgency and Afghanistan remains in the hands of corrupt leaders who provide economic and security failures for its people. Afghan President Hamid Karzai continues to swindle the American people by requesting billions of dollars for nation building; however, there has been little progress with building infrastructure in the past 10 years.

According to the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development in Afghanistan, the foreign aid dispensed to Afghanistan amounted to $320 million each month and the monthly military tab is approximately $10 billion. Other money earmarked for the corrupt Karzai government is a $19 billion slush fund that is included in the U.S. aid package, most of it coming under the Obama Administration for its counterinsurgency approach.

America’s love affair with exporting democracy has sent the nation into an economic abyss. In the case of Afghanistan, a 2003/04, a plan hatched by Army Lt. COL Anthony Shaffer could have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. His book entitled “Operation Dark Heart,” reported that Pakistan officials were meddling in the Afghan War and were not friends of the U.S. “They were playing both sides of the war efforts,” COL Shaffer said. Had COL Shaffer’s intelligence of the Afghan War effort been heeded by military leaders at the top, U.S. troops could have shifted their tactics and avoided a troop surge.

Evidence that the Department of Defense did not want COL Shaffer’s 2003/04 plan to find its way into civilian ranks came in the form of the heavily-redacted book “Operation Dark Heart.” The tell-all book chronicled gritty details regarding Pakistan’s and U.S. complicity with insurgents.

Many lawmakers as well as, Johnny Come Lately politicians, are arguing that the Afghan War’s focus should be on Pakistan’s unsavory alliance with the Taliban and al Qaeda. By focusing on terrorist organizations, the U.S. can unleash special op teams, and reduce the number of boots on the ground.

“There cannot be a gradual drawdown of troops without a change in mission objectives,” said Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA), a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Successfully implementing a counterinsurgency strategy is near impossible without enough Marines and soldiers to see it through. On the other hand, counterterrorism operations linked to a more simplified set of objectives is sustainable with a significantly smaller force size.”

Hunter continues to explain that a drawdown is on the horizon, and the military must narrow its objectives in Afghanistan. “These objectives should consist of making sure the enemy cannot get back on its feet, strengthening the Afghan military and stabilizing Pakistan. We can do all of this with a much smaller footprint, utilizing special operations forces, intelligence gathering capability and air assets.”

Hunter contends the situation on the ground has changed and, “what might have seemed like a good strategy years or even months ago is not showing the level of success that justifies continuing the mission with such a large troop presence. The time has come for a change in strategy that begins with a departure from nation-building and counterinsurgency operations - the centerpiece of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office.”

Corruption fuels instability

Afghanistan’s corruption is legendary. The war-torn tribal nation provides fertile fields for training terrorists and growing poppies, is home to al Qaeda, and is where the 9/11 plotters hatched their terrorist attack on America. But sadly, in the worst kept secret in Central Asia, the U.S. condones and encourages the growing of poppies (the base ingredient for heroin) paying billions to Taliban insurgents and warlords for convoy protection. We do so, not to keep the poor farmers happy, but to line the pockets of the Taliban, warlords, and the Karzai government. In other words, Americans are fighting and dying protecting the poppy fields.

“More declared cash flies out of Kabul each year than the Afghan government collects in tax and customs revenue nationwide. It’s not like they grow money on trees here,” said one U.S. official investigating the corruption and Taliban. “A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen. And opium (poppies), of course.”

President Hamid Karzai sees the money changing hands differently. “Making money is fine and taking money out of the country is fine. The relatives of government officials can do this, starting with my brothers. But there’s a possibility of corruption.”

If this is true why does America/NATO continue to send billions of dollars to such a corrupt country? This scenario implies the American government chose its political elites poorly and the continuation of business as usual will only leave disenfranchised Afghan civilians inflamed at the U.S.

According to separate Congressional and Senate reports, the American government pays more than $2 billion for Host Nation Trucking (HNT) or in layman’s terms, private security firms that protect U.S. military convoys and materials in dangerous tribal areas.

A report titled “Warlord, Inc., Extortion and Corruption along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan” was published by Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) in June of last year. The report detailed the billions of dollars spent to protect U.S. military supply convoys in Afghanistan- the majority of the money is paid by the DOD through defense contractors and finds its way into the hands of Taliban leaders and warlords.

The Senate Armed Services Committee also sent staffers to investigate the “convoy protection” issue. Their report titled, “Inquiry into the Role and Oversight of Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan” concluded the U.S. pays trucking contractors billions of dollars a year, much of it ends up in the hands of local warlords.

Two U.S. administrations have now promised a “hearts and minds” and "nation building" campaigns and to date both have subverted the ability to impose a military solution. This role is fraught with disappointments since it implies that the U.S. and allied forces will provide the Afghan people with an effective government, root out corruption, create a westernized Afghan military, value women’s rights and ensure fair elections.

It has been 10 years since America waded into the Middle East Wars, and the ability to achieve victory continues to be nothing more than a pipe dream.

Part one-

Part two-

Part three-

Part four-

For more stories;

© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Did a Russian sub patrol the Gulf of Mexico unbeknownst to US?

By Kimberly Dvorak 8/15/12

Proving to the world that they are still a major military player, allegedly a Russian submarine quietly patrolled the Gulf of Mexico unnoticed by the U.S. military. The stealthy nuclear –powered sub, armed with cruise missiles quietly traversed U.S. waters for weeks highlighting a potential flaw in America’s security.

Further, the possible overt military action calls into question the so-called “friendly” relationship President Obama believes he shares with a re-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin. At a March Nuclear Security Summit Obama was caught on a hot mike telling former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev “after my election, I’ll have more flexibility.”

That statement sent shock waves into the military world.

The Russian stealth-like submarine that patrolled in U.S. waters is part of the SSN Akula (shark in Russian) class of submarines, according to NATO. The Russian sub has significantly improved its propellers to patrol much more quietly and was designed to destroy American subs.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the Russian incursion caused concern for top-ranking military officials who point out the currently proposed $500 billion in military cuts would hinder America’s submarine detection capabilities.

Another reason for the military to be concerned about the possible provocative submarine move is the Navy’s nuclear submarine base is located at Kings Bay, Georgia. Currently, the Navy keeps eight missile-firing submarines in the Georgia port.

“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar told the Beacon.

“It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow,” Senator John Cornyn (R- TX), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said. “While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”

Defense skeptics question the veracity and timing of the disclosure of this Russian submarine penetration in Gulf due to the clear, shallow waters of the Gulf, US SOSUS acoustic devices and satellites that can penetrate hundreds of feet of water to detect and track submarines.

For more stories;

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Arizona governor says no taxpayer money for “newly waivered” illegal aliens

By Kimberly Dvorak 8/16/12

A firestorm of publicity has ignited in Arizona after Governor Jan Brewer signed an executive order that would prevent newly “waivered” illegal immigrants from receiving any taxpayer funds that are allotted for citizens. The executive order preempts details in President Obama’s executive order that gives the so-called “dreamers” (illegals under 30 who have completed some educational program) a two-year window to stop their deportation process and obtain a work permit.

Two-years ago Washington DC lawmakers battled and failed to pass the DREAM Act. The act would have given children in the country illegally a pathway to citizenship. Along with that new legal status guardians could begin collecting taxpayer benefits, like housing subsidies, food stamps and college grants typically reserved for citizens. Another reason that held up the DREAM Act is America’s stubbornly high unemployment and sluggish economic recovery.

However, in an effort to gain political favor, President Obama decided to grant temporary legal status for upwards of one million people. The executive order, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, began taking applications yesterday and is expected to process approximately 1,000 claims per day.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama may have underestimated Arizona’s tenacious governor as she signed her own executive order protecting state residents and their pocketbooks. Brewer’s prickly relationship with President Obama is well documented and she said the new waiver program was nothing more than “backdoor amnesty.”

The governor also directed state lawmakers to begin the emergency-rule making process ensuring Arizona officials do not issue driver’s licenses, state identification cards or other public benefits.

The executive order explains the added financial burden of 80,000 “newly” waivered applicants would cost millions of dollars. “Allowing more than an estimated 80,000 Deferred Action recipients improper access to state or local benefits, including state issued identification, by presenting a USCIS employment authorization document that does not evidence lawful, authorized status or presence will have significant and lasting impacts on the Arizona budget, its health care system and additional public benefits that Arizona taxpayers fund,” a portion of the order read.

The ACLU swiftly responded to Governor Brewer’s executive order.

“This is yet another reason why Arizona has no business trying to regulate immigration matters,” said the Arizona ACLU Executive Director Alessandra Soler. “Brewer is distorting federal law and inaccurately interpreting state law. This order conflicts with state and federal law because people who are granted deferred action will, in fact, have authorized presence in the United States and under Arizona law people who have authorized presence are eligible to apply for Arizona state identification. She is perpetuating the myth that deferred action applicants are somehow submitting fraudulent documents and that is completely false.”

The governor cites controversial SB1070 law as precedent and reminded critics that voters overwhelmingly passed the illegal immigration measure including the parts the Supreme Court upheld in June.

For more stories;

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Cracks Appear in Benghazi Wall of Shame

Special Operator in Benghazi blows the whistle on Obama's Libya failure

By Kimberly Dvorak


Benghazi roared back into the headlines with the allegations by a Special Operations Warrior, who witnessed that fateful night of 9/11. The whistleblower, appearing in disguise for fear of retaliation, made an appearance on Special Report with Bret Baier, where he contradicted the Obama administration’s account of Benghazi and leveled serious allegations that the military had assets in the region that were never deployed.

The Special Operator (SO) disputed Admiral Mike Mullen’s statement that “there simply was not enough time” to deploy assets to Benghazi to save at least two SEALs lives. The Fox News source implied that other SOs knew intimate details that would derail high-level commanders. More specifically, the whistle blower said, “there were at least 15 special forces and highly skilled State Department security staff available in Tripoli (Libya) that were not dispatched, even though they were trained as a quick response force.”

After 13 investigative stories written by this reporter, the truth finally bubbling to the surface could become a torrent as additional sources have expressed an eagerness to talk.

While the SecDef Leon Panetta, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and his predecessor Admiral Mike Mullen defended the President's outrageous assertion that no U.S. military forces were situated to render aid despite the U.S. Comptroller reporting the government has spent $7 trillion on defense during 2001-2012, suggests it must be the Keystone Cops running the Pentagon (not the pipeline).

President Obama rejected a War Powers Act accounting from Congress and told Americans that his administration would not put boots on the ground in Libya (he did) and claimed the U.S. would only provide humanitarian aid to Syria (while he violated the UN sanction against military aid by trafficking weapons from Libya to Syria).

A question that perplexes military personnel is the Cavalry never arrived in Benghazi despite President Obama's claim that he ordered DoD to render all available aid. Looking back to other crises like Somalia (aka Black Hawk Down) the U.S. lost 18 soldiers trying to recover two bodies; Lt. General William Boykin said … the same is true for the pilot that went “Down Behind Enemy Lines,” where a Marine platoon and aircraft searched for days to recover Air Force pilot Scott O'Grady; and more recently Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, who was the “Sole Survivor” of his team operating in Afghanistan (his team came under fire by the Taliban. Luttrell was the only survivor and his rescue cost 16 Special Forces personnel, including 8 SEALs, their lives.) The military’s “never leave a soldier behind” code stood tall until September 11, 2012’s Benghazi terror attack that claimed four lives, Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, DoS Information Officer Sean Smith as well as two former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

The SEALs didn’t have to die

If before going to bed, President Obama did order the U.S. military to render all available aid to Benghazi, where is the memorandum to that effect and the copy of the Flash that went to all ships and stations (link to Denver TV reporter asking the President about the order) and the responses from the defense establishment supporting the statement that not one unit could get a plane, ship, or unit on the move. The report states that, “The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense.”

While there was no shortage of second-guessing in the White House Situation Room, military leaders in charge of quick response teams a half-a-world away were able to get a Delta team from Ft Bragg to Sigonella about 24 hours after receipt of the consulate’s 911 call.

“As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began,” the Military Times reported.

It’s also been reported that on the fateful day in Libya, CIA/SEALs had a laser target designator trained on the enemy firing mortar rounds at the compound. The Pentagon has listed numerous explanations as to why the trained SEALs would use the lasers. However, they conveniently omitted the key component—the expectation that U.S. help was seconds away. The “fog of spin” from the Obama administration, no matter how creative, cannot conceal the truth. If fighter aircraft were dispatched to assist Ambassador Chris Stevens and other consulate personnel, a former Naval pilot says, “The paper trail would be a mile long. Not only do the pilots have to file logbook reports, but the ground crew, the crew arming the jets with appropriate weapons and the Italian air controllers would have exhaustive records.”

Unfortunately for the CIA/SEALs fighting off the Ansar al-Shariah terrorists, the jets would never arrive. The fact, CIA/SEALs were painting their lasers on the enemy targets shortly after midnight, five hours before their eventual deaths, indicates they were expecting air support. And why would they be waiting for air support? Because the trained SEALs knew the oplans (operations plans) and military protocol for this exact operation once they requested the assistance.

Speculation is nothing new inside the beltway, but several questions surround Ambassador Chris Stevens real/past employer. If he were working as a CIA agent he would be in violation of international diplomatic protocols by running an arms trafficking program under diplomatic cover (CIA Director David Petaeus was sacked after the election). Furthermore, former Tripoli Military Council head, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, claims Amb. Stevens was killed in retaliation for the drone killing by the CIA of Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaeda's Number 2.

Judge Napolitano offered this scenario to the Washington Times. “Now we can connect some dots. If Stevens was a CIA agent, he was in violation of international law by acting as the U.S. ambassador. And if he and his colleagues were intelligence officials, they are not typically protected by Marines, because they ought to have been able to take care of themselves.”

The Benghazi disaster takes a political angle, one that could have derailed President Obama’s reelection. Normally international gun trafficking is a crime, but sadly, Benghazi, Libya was just another U.S. sanctioned-weapons buyback program operated by State and run by the CIA. Under the plan, the U.S. pays jihadists large sums of money to turn in their stolen arsenals and then ships them to the new battle area (i.e., Syria). It appears that Ambassador Stevens acted as a point man to move those newly-repurchased weapons into the hands of Syrian rebels, many of whom are affiliated with al-Qaeda.

This made for Hollywood movie script includes all the action, violence and drama required for today’s bloodthirsty audience—except it is real. The State Department provided the Benghazi mission with the diplomatic cover, or the comprehensive alibi required for the Central Intelligence Agency to operate covertly in the jihadi-rich North African region.

Only the transparent Obama Administration has all of the facts, but it seems loath to provide the answers the American people and the families of those killed deserve.

All these details and more are covered in the most in-depth story “Did the CIA and State Department run illegal arms trafficking in Benghazi?” that was written December 10, 2012.

In conclusion, readers may want to reread Benghazi, Next Stop A Special Prosecutor

Check back for updates from the Pentagon later in the day.

For more Libya stories:

All these details and more are covered in the most in-depth story “Did the CIA and State Department run illegal arms trafficking in Benghazi?” that was written December 10, 2012.

In conclusion, readers may want to reread Benghazi, Next Stop A Special Prosecutor

Check back for updates from the Pentagon later in the day.

For more Libya stories:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.



It does make a difference ... Hillary? Benghazi revisited politics as usual


The latest GOP Benghazi Report certainly has the earmarks of a political hit job. The report highlights contradictions made by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as other senior officials, but it fails to make the case for assessing blame and winds-up looking like the opening salvo of the 2016 political campaign against Ms. Clinton.

By Kimberly Dvorak

The 46-page anti-Hillary propaganda report reveals little new information. The Report hangs its conclusions on an April 2012 cable from security officials in Libya addressed to Ms. Clinton, which discusses potential security issues. While the cable seems to contradict her testimony, it hardly sheds light on the Benghazi attack.

“An April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned,” according to the report. However, during her January 2013 testimony Ms. Clinton claimed, “They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them,” and famously replied, “What difference does it make.”

“The report also concluded that White House and high-ranking officials at the State Department changed CIA talking points following the attacks, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others (Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods), in order to shield the State Department from ‘criticism for inadequate security levels’ on the ground in Benghazi,” the Washington Examiner reported.

The Report’s highlights fail to mention the former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s plentiful weapons that went missing following the fall of the Libyan leadership. In fact, the significance of these weapons is lost on the report’s authors, and they fail to acknowledge the MANPADs (Man Portable Anti-Air Defense) as well as military-grade weapons that are now in the hands of al-Qaeda or affiliates and have been found on battlefields from Syrian to North and Central Africa covered in the blood of thousands.

Instead, the Report focuses on the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice. Ms. Rice infamously went on five Sunday news talk shows and told America the attack was the spontaneous result of a YouTube video that berated the Prophet Muhammad. The YouTube video theory was debunked by unnamed sources hours after the terrorist attack. The Report presented evidence to suggest the talking points were intentionally altered to mislead the American “public” [i.e., voters]

The GOP Report concluded, “The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi. Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.”

During the latest round of Benghazi hearings, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded to questions about why the military didn’t react immediately, claiming, “we never got a call.” Surely this is a question worth investigating, but in this report the military is given a free pass.

However, there are a few targets the GOP failed to mention that are worth exploring.

First, if President Obama ordered the US military to render all available aid, where is the memorandum to that effect and the copy of the Flash that went to all ships and stations (link to Denver TV reporter asking the President about the order). The report states that, “The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense.” Who is right?

Second, if the President ordered the US military to render all aid why did the two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf not respond? The distance from the Gulf to Benghazi is almost the same as from Rota, Spain. They would have required over-flight rights from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but did they ask for them?

Third, whose bright idea was it to separate the Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team (FAST) from its air transport? This aspect is simply inexcusable, especially with 9-11 approaching, multiple threats in the region, and the major combat units moved to the Persian Gulf, the FAST team was the only real rapid deployment force available to area commanders.

Fourth, there is no mention of the judgment of the EUCOM, CENTCOM, AFRICOM commanders who shifted the 6th Fleet carrier battle group and Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group with the 24 Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf in response to Iranian saber-rattling which severely limited military options in the Mediterranean. Was this move reminiscent of Admiral William “Bull” Halsey at the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, when he chased the Japanese carriers and left U.S. amphibious forces protected by destroyers against a much larger Japanese force? Regardless, the Iranian bait emptied the Med of American carrier forces on 9-11.

Fifth, the Department of Defense (DoD) moved a remotely piloted vehicle (drone) over Benghazi within 20 minutes of the initial attack, if the same sense of urgency had been applied to other assets, would two former Navy SEALs still be alive?

Sixth, DoD knew of the security issues in Benghazi because it had been providing the Security Support Team (SST) in Benghazi. The claim that DoD did not get a call is absurd. The duty officer in the Tactical Operations Center "immediately" notified State they were under attack. Somebody had to notify DoD because a drone was moved into position. Once alerted, a DoD contingency plan should have gone into immediate effect. This also begs the question as to what time did the President direct the "render all aid" order?

Finally, and most importantly, the investigation identifies State Department Under Secretary, Patrick Kennedy, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Charlene Lamb, as the individuals that refused to strengthen security at the diplomatic mission despite repeated calls for help. Both exchanged dismissive emails with State Department staff in Benghazi who pleaded for more security assistance and their sharp exchanges included political overtones as justification, not funding or necessity.

“Despite the denial of Ambassador Stevens’ request, Embassy Tripoli officials persisted in their requests for additional security. In July 2012, for example, RSO Eric Nordstrom alerted DS officials in Washington that he intended to submit a formal cable request for an extension of the SST and MSD teams. DS personnel in Washington alerted Mr. Nordstrom that Ms. Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, was “reluctant to ask for an SST extension, apparently out of concern that it would be embarrassing to the [State Department] to continue to have to rely on [Defense Department] assets to protect our Mission.” Moreover, in response to Mr. Nordstrom’s intent to request an MSD extension, Ms. Lamb responded, “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the MSD team to stay!”

According to the Report, there were 200 security incidents from June 2011 to July 2012 made by then- Regional Security Officer (RSO) for Libya Eric Nordstrom. He said 50 of those security breeches took place in Benghazi. Further, testimony from Nordstrom before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, October 12, 2012 revealed this sound bite; “I said, Jim you know what [is] most frustrating about this assignment? It’s not the hardship, it’s not the gunfire, and it’s not the threats. It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me ... For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Even Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who headed the military’s efforts to support diplomats in Libya, recommended that the State Department shutter its operations. “It was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.”

The report also criticizes the FBI’s handling of the Benghazi terror aftermath and investigation. The fact they failed to arrive promptly meant witnesses went unquestioned and evidence went missing. Under the circumstances, an independent review board must be appointed if family members of the fallen and Americans really want an honest accounting of the events that surround the 9/11/12 Benghazi terrorist attack.

As for now the Report opines, America remains operationally in a reactionary mode, and little has been done to prevent another Benghazi-like catastrophe.

Last Benghazi story:
For more Libya stories:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Benghazi revealed - Stevens WAS the target - Terror Tuesday was the cause

By Kimberly Dvorak

The overlooked and "palpable" motive for the killing of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty is the President's Targeted Kill List (TKL). The evidence for the “quid pro quo” killing of Ambassador Stevens by al-Qaeda is compelling. Details released in Congressional reports and testimony on Capitol Hill hearings suggest Ambassador Stevens was lured to Benghazi by the Turkish Consul General, Ali Sait Akin, who wanted to meet Stevens on 9-11 in out-of-the-way Benghazi instead of the more-secure U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, where the Ambassador conducted the bulk of his diplomatic business.

For obvious reasons, 9-11 is a significant anniversary for al-Qaeda, but sources from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) also report a weapons buyback at the “special mission compound (aka SMC)” in Benghazi was scheduled that same day. Coincidence? Perhaps, but Ambassador Stevens final trip to eastern Libya marked his first visit to Benghazi in nearly a year.

The Protagonists

A graduate of UC Berkeley, Chris Stevens was a career diplomat who served almost exclusively as a political officer in the Middle East while at the State Department. During the civil war in Libya he secretly slipped into Benghazi aboard a merchant ship, the Al Entisar, in 2011 to establish liaison with al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood fighters to aid in their fight against Qaddafi. Then diplomat Stevens (aka CIA) worked directly with Abdel Hakim Belhadj's Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) during the Libyan revolution. Ironically or not, on September 6th, 2012 Turkey objected to the cargo of a merchant ship, the same Al Entisar, which was transporting 400 tons of weapons from Benghazi to Turkey for reported transfer to Syrian rebels. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head and former leader of LIFG was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

Al-Qaeda in Libya had been working with the US CIA to overthrow Qaddafi. In fact, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, a former CIA detainee, who had been shopped around the world through the U.S. rendition program landed in Libya where Qaddafi gladly cooperated with the U.S. CIA in holding him and according to some sources torturing him. However, he was freed in 2010 by Saif Qaddafi (the dictator’s son) and resumed leadership of the LIFG resistance movement, ostensibly putting his personal vendetta on hold to use American money and weapons to achieve the takeover of Libya. With Qaddafi deposed, Abdel Hakim Belhadj assumed control of the Libya interim government.

There can be little doubt Abdel Hakim Belhadj knew about Ambassador Stevens’ CIA connections.

The motive

A fateful drone strike in June would change everything inside Libya and put the Ambassador in an unwelcome spotlight.

"Local (Pakistani) tribesmen and American officials said that a C.I.A.-controlled drone fired on a compound early Monday morning (June 4, 2012). Word spread quickly among local tribesmen that Mr. (Abu Yahya al) Libi had been killed or wounded, and American intelligence officials using powerful satellite and other surveillance equipment listened and watched carefully for a sign of his fate."

As fate would have it, this event would become the precursor for Libyan al-Qaeda retribution against American CIA.

Intelligence on the ground in Benghazi points to a well-planned eight-hour attack on the SMC and Annex. The well-coordinated assaults on the Benghazi SMC as well as a nearby safe house (the CIA Annex) are believed to be in retaliation for a drone strike ordered by President Obama that killed Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaeda's Number 2.

Later, confirmation comes from Libyan Interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, who told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the Libyan assault was preplanned and predetermined to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11 (not spontaneous demonstrations against an anti-Islamic film as the President and Ambassador Rice concocted to escape a political firestorm from an angry electorate).

"As the founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, he (Abdel Hakim Belhadj) is the superior of Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al-Sharia, and Wisam bin Hamid, head of Libya Shield, both of whom clearly participated in the attack.”

It’s further reported on Nov. 17, 2012, by Saudi-based publication Arab News by Ali Bluwi, that the attack on the Benghazi mission was carried out in revenge for the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of Al-Qaeda. The article also reports that the U.S. Ambassador "prevented Abdel Hakim Belhadj from assuming the portfolio of defense (minister) or interior (minister) in Libya."

Abdel Hakim Belhadj also stated on Radio Darnah that the murder of U.S. Ambassador Stevens was retaliation for the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike.

(Targeted Kill List) TKL

President Obama's enduring legacy will be the Targeted Kill Lists and Terror Tuesdays, one appointment where he feels comfortable wielding American power.

In disposing of more than 700 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence guarantying individuals basic natural human rights subject to the Rule of Law and due process in a court of law, the President relies on a 16-page DOJ White Paper.

The President also meets with his counterterrorism team regarding "Terror Tuesdays" to review the bio's of potential candidates for killing by drone or other means.

The New York Times reports the President, "When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was 'an easy one.'" Shortly after taking the victory lap for killing al-Awlaki, the President issued orders for the CIA to kill the al-Qaeda cleric’s 16-year-old American son in Yemen, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to file a lawsuit on behalf of the boy’s U.S. family.

American dissidents like Anwar al-Awlaki can now be placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials close to the White House.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The Obama administration has taken, through some murky authority, the right to determine who will be placed on the TKL and who will be killed, whether Americans or foreigners, without being brought before a judge, or entitled to any due process rights of presenting evidence, refuting testimony, or explaining any mitigating circumstances.

Considering the number of erroneous entries into the no fly list it should be especially frightening to Americans that the Executive Branch of our government has assumed such rights and authority without a whimper from Congress or the Courts. We have come a long way from the Magna Carta.

How many more Ambassador Stevens retaliation killings will Americans face throughout the world because of the rogue actions of the President?

For more Libya stories:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Mike Hayden weighs in on Libya attack, questions security posture

By Kimberly Dvorak

Former CIA Director Mike Hayden says the attack on Benghazi was "predictable" and he can't comprehend why the Obama administration did not have a better security posture at the time terrorists struck the U.S. consulate and killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“I don’t know the specifics of the attack, but the question I asked is what was the plan? What did you have on the shelf? Because this could not have been so unexpected given the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi," Hayden said during an interview this week on the sidelines of a national security conference in San Diego. "What was the concept for defending people? It’s kind of alone, small and isolated in (Benghazi).”

Asked whether U.S. officials should have been more concerned about an attack leading up to September, Hayden answered. "It was predictable." Asked why more security wasn't present, he added: “I can’t explain that.”

“I’m more concerned about the thinking that went on before the attack began, and tend to be less critical of what happened in the seven hours after the attack,” he said.

CIA and Pentagon officials Friday night declined comment on Hayden's remarks. The administration has offered shifting stories about what it knew about the attacks and security concerns leading up to it, but insist officials had no specific intelligence pointing toward an attack on the consulate on Sept. 11, 2012.

Hayden, a retired Air Force general, is one of the intelligence community's most respected voices, even in retirement. Under President George W. Bush, he ran the National Security Agency in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and was credited with developing the sweeping electronic monitoring strategies to target and thwart terrorists that became known as the "NSA program." He then became director of the CIA in Bush's second term, serving into the early months of the Obama administration.

He is the latest in a series of prominent former officials to question the Obama administration's security posture in the days leading up to the first killing of a U.S. diplomat in 30 years

Citing recent news reports, Hayden also suggested that Libyans in the Benghazi area may have been involved in trafficking weapons to Syrian rebels seeking to fight Syrian President Basir Assad.

“I think the story is that this (moving arms) was going to go to the Sunnis that opposed Assad. And Assad is Russia’s friend,” Hayden said. 

Kimberly Dvorak is a freelance writer based in San Diego specializing in national security issues. She recently covered the military court proceedings against Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Guantanamo Bay


State Dept. offers $7 & $5 million rewards for al Qaeda leaders

By Kimberly Dvorak


Just when the 9/11 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba tribunals are gaining momentum for alleged co-conspirators of the 9/11 terror attacks; the State Department looks to add new al-Qaeda leaders to most wanted list. It’s particularly ironic that the U.S. State Department, who mishandled the Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack that claimed four lives including, U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens, are now offering $7 and $5 million rewards for information and capture of two Iranian al-Qaeda leaders.


American’s should keep in mind that terror factions have an endless supply of “suicide bombers.” What would stop other al-Qaeda leaders from turning over these Islamic radicals and pocket the $12 million to replenish their coffers to fight the West? Don’t think it’s possible? Think again, this reporter has written several stories about the American government paying Afghanistan warlords convoy passage money. (The U.S. pays Warlords hush money for safe travels along insurgent lined roads. Previous Story Here)

Despite the recent mishandling Libya debacle and American’s opposition the never-ending war in the Middle East, the State Department is attempting to salvage its reputation by capturing a few more alleged terrorists.

“The U.S. Department of State has authorized a reward of up to $7 million for information leading to the location of Iran-based senior facilitator and financier Muhsin al-Fadhli and up to $5 million for information leading to the location of his deputy, Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi,” according to a press release.

State Department officials say that Al-Fadhli and al-Harbi both facilitate and move money for known-terrorist operatives through Iran on behalf of the al-Qaeda.

“In February 2003, al-Fadhli and three other suspects were convicted in a Kuwaiti court and sentenced to five years imprisonment for providing funding for terrorist activities and military training in Afghanistan for purposes of terrorism. In June 2005, Saudi authorities placed him on their list of wanted terrorists in connection with a series of al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia,” the State Department said.

Additionally, the prominent al-Qaeda leader has assisted multiple operatives’ move from Pakistan through Iran and Turkey to destinations in Europe, North Africa, and Syria.

Al-Fadhli is from Kuwait and uses these aliases Muhsin Fadhil ‘Ayyid al Fadhli, Muhsin Fadil Ayid Ashur al Fadhli, Abu Majid Samiyah, and Abu Samia.

Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi is another Iran-based al-Qaeda facilitator and deputy to al-Fadhli. His role for al-Qaeda is to facilitate the travel of terrorists to Afghanistan and Iraq through Iran.

“Al-Harbi was previously placed on the Saudi Ministry of the Interior’s January 9, 2011 list of wanted terrorists and was charged with traveling to Afghanistan to join al­-Qaeda and providing technical support on the Internet to the terrorist group. He was born on December 1, 1986 in Saudi Arabia and has used the aliases Abu Ali Muharib, Adel Radhi Sager Alharbi, and Muharib,” State Department officials said.

The State Department did not respond to questions, including if they would bring the newest “most wanted” terrorists to the infamous island of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

For more information about these individuals click this web site The State Department encourages anyone with information regarding al Qaeda leaders to contact the nearest U.S. embassy/consulate, U.S. military base; e-mail ( or individuals in Afghanistan may call the RFJ tip line at 0700 108 600. All information will be kept strictly confidential.

Previous KSM stories:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


20,000 shoulder to air missiles missing in Libya

By Kimberly Dvorak


It's just been revealed that 10-20,000 shoulder-to-air missiles capable of bringing down a civilian airplane are missing in Libya and most likely in the hands of al-Qaeda or their affiliates.

Anti-Libya War critic Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) blasted those testifying about the four murdered Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens and two SEALs, at the Congressional hearings a short time ago.

The 9/11/12 terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate prompted widespread concerns for American interests in the region and outrage from several congressional members. Kucinich called the Obama administration’s war in Libya unconstitutional and questioned Congress’ ability to curtail the illegal war efforts in multiple countries.

Kucinich also asked Eric Nordstrom, the former Libyan Security Officer for the State Department if al-Qaeda has strengthened in the region as a result of the U.S. war and drone attacks. He replied, “yes.”

Previous Libya story:


© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


U.S. warned of violent Middle East protests- DHS report reveals

By Kimberly Dvorak

An intelligence report just released confirms the violent Cairo and Libyan protests that claimed the lives of four U.S. diplomats were planned. Intelligence officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the anti-American protests was directly related Egyptian officials seeking the release of the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The Egyptian terrorist is currently serving a life sentence in a North Carolina prison. Speculation surrounded a recent White House visit by new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a former member of America’s terrorist organization list. During his spring campaign Morsi said, “The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration. That is the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto.”

However, President Barack Obama invited the newly elected president to Washington DC in order to discuss continued financial aid and reaffirming America’s long-standing alliance with Egypt.

The usual hubbub about the terrorist turned president’s motives lit up the Internet. The blogosphere predicted the new Egyptian administration would renege on the 1979 Camp David Accords- Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. So far, the new government has protected America’s favorite Middle East country, Israel.

Conversely, the anti-American uprising last week changed everything. The world watched radical Islamists overrun the U.S. embassy in Cairo, deceptively over a 14-minute amateur video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad. Nearly a week later, U.S. officials admitted that two days before the “spontaneous” uprisings, a protest would commence.

According to documents from DHS, the “call to action” was posted two days before the violent Egyptian protests. The radical Islamists said they would burn the U.S. embassy to the ground with everyone in it if the Blind Sheikh was not released.

Catherine Herridge, of Fox News, broke the story just minutes ago. She revealed that DHS received a communiqué on 9/9/12 stated in part; “The time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained sheikh…Let your slogan be: No to the American embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released. Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.”

The latest intelligence report certainly throws a wrench in the White House’s contention that the deadly protests that spread throughout the Middle East and northern Africa were neither spontaneous nor caused by an anti-Muhammad YouTube video.

Earlier today, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at the daily press briefing that there have been no “recent” talks about releasing the Blind Sheikh to Egyptian authorities.

But, former Department of Justice prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who led the U.S. case against the Blind Sheikh, told The Blaze that a report was circulating in DC political circles seeking the release of the imprisoned sheikh. McCarthy also said, “there are very good reasons as to why it could be true.”

McCarthy, a radical Islamist expert, explained that Egypt’s new president has called for the release of the Blind Sheikh. “I think the plan has been to agree to the Blind Sheikh’s release but not to announce it or have it become public until after the (U.S.) election. That is consistent with Obama’s pattern of trying to mollify Islamists,” he said.

It hasn’t been a secret that the Egyptian government has repeatedly asked the U.S. to release the Blind Sheikh for humanitarian and health reasons.

Nevertheless, this could spell trouble for the Obama administration as the mainstream media spun the president’s anti-Muslim video theory, clearly a falsehood now.

Critics insist that the handling of this crisis is consistent with the White House pattern of leading through appeasement.

“Obviously, they did not want this information to surface yet… but sometimes a situation can spin out of control,” McCarthy finished.

Previous story:

For more stories:

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Meltdown in Middle East and Obama's foreign policy

By Kimberly Dvorak


President Obama’s coveted Middle East foreign policy is unraveling faster than a badly knitted sweater. After a week of bashing presidential GOP contender, Mitt Romney, the U.S. media is slowly refocusing their attention to the real story—America was warned about possible 9/11 attacks in Libya that left four diplomats dead.

The White House is asking Americans to believe that the chaos in Egypt and Libya stemmed from slapstick, poorly made, 14-minute YouTube video trailer mocking the Prophet Mohammed. The so-called spontaneous attacks that sparked anti-American protests weren’t anti-American or anti-U.S. policy at all, claimed Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary. He also said the video was a misguided attempt by an individual to provoke hate in the Muslim world.

“We need to understand this is a fairly volatile situation and it’s not in response to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video. A film. We have judged to be reprehensible that in no way that has any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive,” a White House statement read.

However for that statement to be plausible, American’s would have to believe that run of the mill protesters carry rocket propelled grenade launchers, can launch mortar attacks in seconds and keep military-grade arsenal handy, just in case an anti-American protest arises.

Susan Rice, UN Ambassador for the U.S., confirmed President Obama’s position on the Sunday talk shows that the Libyan violence coincided with the Cairo anti-American protests.

However, intel on the ground points to a well-planned four-hour attack. An unnamed militant group launched a well-coordinated assault on the Benghazi consulate as well as a nearby safe house in retaliation for Abu Yahya al-Libi, a known terrorist, who was killed in a drone strike ordered by President Obama.

Confirmation comes from Libyan Interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, who told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the Libyan assault was preplanned and predetermined to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.

This puts emphasis on President Obama’s controversial “kill list” and “drone strike” policies that provokes radical Islamists in the Muslim world.

Another report from CNN stated that the security conditions in Benghazi were quickly deteriorating. A senior official from the February 17th Brigade said they warned U.S. diplomats about impending violence three days before the U.S. consulate came under fire. “The situation is frightening, it scares us,” the Libyan official said. The British government heeded Libya’s warning and closed their consulate after UK Ambassador, Dominic Asquith and his bodyguard escaped serious injury when rebels ambushed their convoy.

Unfortunately, Ambassador Christopher Stevens disregarded the warning and traveled to Benghazi consulate.

British news agencies have been reporting for months that American drone strikes and kill lists do not sit well with Europe and the Middle East.

Instead of admitting the drone strikes may be part of the problem, the U.S. government continues to undermine the First Amendment by blaming the YouTube video. The administration even tried to have the so-called anti-Muslim video removed, but YouTube rightly says the video meets YouTube standards.

Once the target of a fatwa himself, Salman Rushdie, told the Telegraph, a British newspaper that free speech must be protected from “religious extremist of all stripes” and condemned those who did not stand up to free speech.

Adding to the failed Obama story line is a statement that Breitbart media uncovered when candidate Obama was campaigning in 2007; “Well, I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view.”

It’s also true that Obama thought the Muslim world would flock to him simply because he spent time in Indonesia, as a child. Nevertheless, the “hope and change” prognosticator still hasn’t convinced Islamic radicals to put down their weapons and hate.

Obama’s soft approach on diplomacy certainly didn’t save Christopher Stevens, US ambassador, Sean Smith, information officer, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, in Libya. In fact, the opposite is true. A Pew Research Center poll out today shows the president losing ground with the Middle East. In 2009, Jordan had a 74 percent unfavorable view of America—today it’s 86 percent; in 2009, Pakistan had a 68 percent unfavorable view of America – today it’s 80 percent and finally in 2009, Egypt’s unfavorable view of America was 70 percent -- today it’s 79 percent.

So much for the 2009 Obama Cairo speech promising to change the tides after a decade of war. The lofty speech only verified the president’s naiveté when it comes to peace within Muslim nations … “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Sadly, those poignant words failed to take hold in Cairo and the 2012 Obama rhetoric is just that, words, without leadership.

For more stories:

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Islamic radicals kill 4 American diplomats in Libya

By Kimberly Dvorak

Yesterday Americans peacefully remembered 9/11 with prayers and ceremonies. However, halfway around the world the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and U.S. Consulate in Libya were targeted by hundreds of Islamic radicals that resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador for Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, a Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith and two other U.S. embassy staffers.

Gruesome photos of Ambassador Steven’s lifeless body being dragged through the streets in Benghazi lit up the Internet, and caused seven other Middle Eastern embassies to heighten security.

The attack yesterday in Libya highlights terrorists continued hatred toward America and the fact the murders occurred on 9/11 demonstrates U.S. policy may not be working as planned. Last year Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama, declared war on the Libyan dictator and after a bloody eight-month engagement, the rebels, with the help of U.S. air and ground forces, captured and then murdered their brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The New York Times reports, “The protesters in Cairo appeared to be a genuinely spontaneous unarmed mob angered by an anti-Islam video produced in the United States. By contrast, it appeared the attackers in Benghazi (Libya) were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Intelligence reports are inconclusive at this point, officials said, but indications suggest the possibility that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack.”

The mass protests in Cairo also stemmed from a Jewish Israeli-American filmmaker, Sam Bacile (a pseudonym), who produced a movie entitled “Innocence of Muslims,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Apparently the movie depicted a derogatory view of the prophet Muhammad, something Muslim extremists find offensive.

Regardless of the rational used by Islamic extremists the breeching of the U.S. Consulate in Cairo and Libya underscores the lingering hatred for America. It’s worth pointing out that America has spent trillions of dollars in perpetual Middle East Wars, billions in foreign aid and supported unsavory rebels to topple ruthless dictators.

The politically correct statement released by the Cairo embassy did nothing to curtail or pacify the terrorists who later brutally attacked the Libyan embassy and killed four American citizens.

“Obama’s first reaction was to apologize,” said Lt. Col. Army (ret) Ralph Peters. “The Egyptian government knew it was happening. Egypt is getting billions of U.S. aid and they refused to protect the U.S. embassy.”

It was the U.S. embassy apology statement controversy and subsequent murders that dominated news outlet coverage. Ironically, the State Department’s announcement contended the clear acts of terrorism were predicated on the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of speech.

While many pundits concluded that these attacks were an act of war, Peters disagreed and said they were a war-like act. “We are supposed to defend our Constitution not elevate political correctness. Our military takes an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution.”

Currently the elite Marine group, Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, (FAST) which responds to these types of terror-related emergencies, was on route to provide security for the U.S. embassy in Libya.

President Obama’s response

This morning President Obama began backtracking of the politically correct statement his Cairo staff released yesterday. In a Rose Garden press conference, the President insisted those responsible would be held accountable.

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward,” the President concluded.

A Muslim response

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy responded quickly to the attacks on U.S. embassies.

“The actions of the mob in Libya and the clear interventions of the former regime are nothing short of pure evil and in no way representative of the teachings and practices of the faith of Islam,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.” We must not blink in the face of this irrational reaction to the mere words of a little known filmmaker.”

Dr. Jasser said that the U.S. embassy in Egypt’s first politically correct apology statement regarding the Islamic extremist attacks was counterproductive and only justified their cause by condemning the free speech of a Jewish moviemaker. This type of terrorist tactic is nothing new. In fact, just like the mistaken Koran burning in Afghanistan, this method is a reliable propaganda tool used by Middle East terrorists.

“We need a bold strategy in this region to foster the liberty minded Muslims in these countries to work against these elements of hate and anti-Americanism. We need to help the people of these countries to go through a reformation and step into modernity and away from these irrational actions,” Jasser finished.


Unfortunately, as American’s wake up on this September 12, the country remains at war. The 11-year battle isn’t about freedom or democracy, but radical Muslim ideology.

It’s up to Islamic protestors to determine the heart and souls of their respective countries. America may choose to play a quiet role behind the scenes, but ultimately the citizens of Middle Eastern nations must take the lead, define their governance doctrines and rebuild their nations.

With the Arab Spring quickly turning into the Arab Winter, does America’s expensive foreign policy justify the end results?

For more stories;

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


9/11 “War on Terror” has come with a hefty price

By Kimberly Dvorak

Eleven years ago al Qaeda’s attack struck the hearts of America. The fall of the towers and the stories of heroism from ordinary citizens and first responders inspired a splintered country, to unite behind its new President George W. Bush who turned to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to avenge the brazen terrorist attacks.

Elite military forces descended into the tribal caves in Afghanistan and in the words of former CIA Officer in charge Cofer Black, “We’ll get them…and they’ll have flies walking on their eyeballs.” The no nonsense CIA leader trained 300 army Special Forces, 110 CIA officers and brought Afghanistan to its knees in 10 weeks. The cities and government were toppled, America’s swift and decisive action brought justice and victory to the shiny city on the hill.

Black further explained, “It would have been catastrophic to take our time and send in the conventional military, to do an imitation of the Soviet army getting chewed up in Afghanistan — 10 years, 10,000 killed and 30,000 wounded.” Not to mention they left bankrupt.

Unfortunately, both Presidents Bush and Obama didn’t listen to the man who brought a swift and strong response to the terrorists who murdered 2,996 people on 9/11.

It has been no secret that al-Qaeda expanded its successful (and U.S. supported) Afghanistan tactics against the Russians in its move to punish the U.S. for desecrating Islam’s holiest place, Saudi Arabia. The cave-dwelling extremists successfully launched numerous small attacks against the western world to hamper American’s ability to be at all places, all the time.

From the first New York Trade Center bombing in 1993, to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and 9-11 attack (al Qaeda’s timeline), al-Qaeda has sought to entice the Americans to commit military forces in the Middle East where they could be targets for an unconventional war. The major purpose of this escalation was to unite all Muslims against America by exploiting war atrocities in propaganda through the Internet, which was used as a recruiting tool to fight their great war.

So how successful was al Qaeda’s plan? The “War on Terror,” Obama’s kill lists and drone strikes have been recruiting goal mines for al Qaeda. Abu Ghraib, water boarding, rendition, Guantanamo detention facility, drone strikes, to name a few, have all been public relations nightmares for America.

Perhaps more predictably, the U.S. defense industry kicked into high gear to exploit the new “War on Terror.” And the costs have been staggering, over the last decade the Department of Defense (DoD) budget exponentially increased in order to fight the perpetual war. In FY2000 the DoD’s budget was $398.8 billion, it peaked in FY2008 at $718.4 billion and this year the Pentagon raked in $676.2 billion taxpayer dollars. Budget hawks can also visit the “Cost of War” website to monitor the war-debt clock.

To date, the U.S. has increased its national debt from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to more than $16 trillion in 2012. The hidden costs (like life long medical care) of the War on Terror have yet to be realized but conservative estimates are $3-5 trillion according to experts. But ultimately the 6,600 soldier deaths and thousands more wounded can never be replaced.

The constant fear mongering by both political parties has resulted in the adoption of the oppressive Patriot Act. Congress authorized and expanded “security” measures to protect Americans from future terror attacks, but the real consequence has been changing the way we live. This drastic change was al Qaeda’s second objective in their mission statement.

A post 9/11 world has consolidated dozens of agencies into super intelligence gathering machines, that have perfected warrantless searches, instituted eavesdropping programs to monitor phone calls, texts, and emails. Americans also learned last week that the FBI is launching a national billion-dollar face-recognition system throughout the U.S. to track the whereabouts of American citizens.

The focus of the “War on Terror” shifted from addressing the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 to a new “national war” on American citizens. Fueled by fear, the government has “justified” the implementation of the most oppressive national intelligence gathering and detention program in world history. The dictators of Germany and Russia would have been stunned by the enormity of this technological concentration and well-organized attack on the individual freedoms of all Americans.

Was al-Qaeda prescient in adopting its strategic goals as described by John Brennan, DNI (details here), of financially bankrupting the U.S. and changing the way we live by engaging in perpetual war or did they just know us better than we know ourselves?

Or perhaps al Qaeda’s objective of changing the way we live on the world stage can serve as a wake-up call for Americans to reassess the unbridled power of the government when constitutional safeguards are tossed aside and the subjective determinations of bureaucrats are substituted for the Rule of Law.

For more stories;

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.


Hastings’ 911 callers and new video confirm large explosions

By Kimberly Dvorak



It's been nearly two months since journalist Michael Hastings died in a fiery car crash in Los Angeles. A new surveillance video from a nearby business obtained by San Diego 6 News and posted by LA Weekly graphically shows multiple explosions consuming his 2013 Mercedes Benz.




The surveillance video captures the final moments of Hastings life and provides intriguing details of the "crash.” The video shows a flash of light appearing at the 13-14 second mark, the headlights are on at 14 seconds, but all lights are extinguished at the 16-second mark. The car then turns left and the first horizontal explosion appears just after the 16-second mark (it ejects the left front tire across northbound highland approximately 40-50 feet). The second explosion engulfs the engine compartment at the 17-second mark. The third and largest explosion consumes the passenger compartment at the 17-18-second mark.




Inexplicably, the palm tree Hastings’ car hit has scorched bark and slightly wounded base --approximately 16"W x 4.5" H x 1"D-- seemingly minimal damage for a 3,538 pound car striking the tree at a reportedly 100 mph. Also pictures taken by San Diego 6 News show the curb has a small scratch, but no major chipping or fractures and the rear tires resting against the curb.




The new video also captures three distinct explosions, but the intensity of the fire suggests an accelerant may have been involved since gasoline only burns at 530 to 550 degrees Fahrenheit.




Just prior to airtime, San Diego 6 News received the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) response to its FOIA request for transcripts of the 911 calls made by witnesses describing the sounds of explosions that woke them and took the life of the award-winning journalist in the early hours of June 18.


There were seven 911 calls included in the FOIA from the LAPD to San Diego 6 News:

 Call one; “Caller reported an accident, the car exploded. Caller was transferred to the Los Angeles City Fire Department.”

 Call two; “Caller reported a huge accident, and the car had blown up. Caller was transferred to the Los Angeles City Fire Department.”

 Call three; “Caller reported a car accident occurred in front of his house, and the car is burning.”

 Call four; “Caller reported a traffic collision, he is not involved, there is a possible fatality because there was a giant explosion that occurred in the median, unknown if anyone got out of the vehicle.”



Call five; “Caller reported a car is totally engulfed in flames.”




Call six; “Caller reported a large fire on the divider of the road, he is not sure if there is a car involved.”




And call seven; “Caller reported huge auto accident.”




Prophetically, just hours before his death Hastings sent the following email to close friends: “Subject: FBI Investigation, re: NSA -Hey (redacted names) — the Feds are interviewing my “close friends and associates.” Perhaps if the authorities arrive “BuzzFeed GQ,” er HQ, may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news gathering practices or related journalism issues. Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the rada[r] for a bit.


But, the FBI Los Angeles-based spokesperson, Laura Eimiller, atypically emailed media emphatically denying the agency was looking into Mr. Hastings background.



As an investigative journalist, Hastings saw his fair share of threats. One particular passage in his book, “The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan,” revealed that a former McChrystal staff member made a death threat. “We'll hunt you down and kill you if we don't like what you write,” the unnamed staffer said. Hastings coolly retorted: “Well, I get death threats like that about once a year, so no worries.”




A friend of Michael Hastings, who met him after the story on General McChrystal said “Michael was fearless, but he was obviously scared by something (referencing the email).”




Stonewalling and obfuscatory tactics seem to be indicative of the “new normal” response from government agencies when trying to avoid a finding of “foul play” and Michael Hastings' "accident" is no exception.


 The newly released 911 calls and LAPD's failure to produce the police report only postulate additional questions. No amount of personal threats or stonewalling from government officials will curtail the truth from eventually coming out. And despite the LAPD push back, San Diego 6 News will continue to seek the truth with the assistance of Judicial Watch, a Washington DC based foundation.



One puzzling aspect of the LAPD's objection to the release of the police report is the inference in the FOIA/CPRA response to San Diego 6 News that a federal investigation may be in progress, which only adds further questions as to what agency is investigating since the FBI said it is not investigating. This turn of events reaffirms this reporter's contention and the tens of thousands of individuals who have responded to this story that it IS in the public interest … Hastings was a national figure.




To find-out who is investigating and why, this week Judicial Watch will serve additional FOIAs against the DOJ (AKA Eric Holders’ war on journalists), Department of Homeland Security’s HSI, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Secretary of the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Secretary of the Department of the Army (due to unchallenged threats made directly to Mr. Hastings).





Despite official stonewalling and personal threats, the investigation continues. Stay tuned for further news from this reporter.


CIA Director Brennan confirmed as Hastings target 

By Kimberly Dvorak

This week Elise Jordan, wife of famed journalist Michael Hastings, who recently died under suspicious circumstances, corroborated this reporter's sources that CIA Director, John Brennan was Hastings next exposé project (CNN clip). 

Last month a source provided San Diego 6 News with an alarming email hacked from super secret CIA contractor Stratfor’s President Fred Burton. The email (link here) was posted on WikiLeaks and alleged that then Obama counter-terrorism Czar Brennan, was in charge of the government's continued crackdown or witch-hunt on investigative journalists. 

After providing the Stratfor email to the CIA for comment, the spymaster's spokesperson responded in lightning speed. Two emails were received; one acknowledging Hastings was working on a CIA story and the other said, “Without commenting on information disseminated by WikiLeaks, any suggestion that Director Brennan has ever attempted to infringe on constitutionally-protected press freedoms is offensive and baseless.”  

The emails also prompted a phone from CIA media spokesman Todd Ebitz. He said they were saddened by Michael’s death and reiterated their position that they had a cordial working relationship with the investigative reporter. 

On the other hand, Stratfor, specifically Fred Burton, remains nonresponsive. 

As for Hastings’ final story, his wife said Rolling Stone would publish the Brennan piece in an upcoming edition of the magazine.


Was speed a factor? 

The release of a new surveillance video from a nearby Italian restaurant by Michael Krikorian, an author, freelance blogger who also writes for LA Weekly, reveals a lot of information about Hastings’ final seconds.

An SDSU professor Morteza M. Mehrabadi, Professor and Interim Chair Areas of Specialization: Mechanics of Materials told San Diego 6 News that calculating the speed of Hastings car follows a simple mathematic equation. By using the video and the distance traveled (195 feet) as well as the seconds that lapsed prior to the explosion – in his opinion, the car was traveling roughly 35 mph.

That revelation is important because Jose, an employee of ALSCO a nearby business, and a witness to the accident told KTLA/Loud Labs (Scott Lane) the car was traveling at a high rate of speed and he saw sparks coming from the car and saw it explode BEFORE hitting the tree.

The pre-explosion could possibly explain the flash of light on the video that preceded the appearance of the car in the video. The pre-explosion and slower speed could also explain the minimal damage to the palm tree and the facts the rear tires rested against the curb. It also provides an explanation for the location of the engine and drive train at more than 100 feet from the tree impact area.  

This new information prompted another round of FOIA/CPRAs and only adds to the questions that remain unanswered. One of those questions is where was Mr. Hastings going at 4:30 in the morning? Based on the accident location, Hastings was only 1.5 miles from his home and was headed away from his address. 

Other unanswered questions point to the contents (computer, phones, notes, etc.) of his home, so far there has been no response from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) FOIA request regarding these issues. Also, numerous FOIAs have been filed with other federal agencies concerning details of Hastings suspicious car “accident.”

I would like to thank the tens of thousands of people following this important story and the supportive comments that include many helpful tips. You can post anonymous tips for me at or or email:

 Stay tuned more developments…

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.



Barack Obama and John Brennan: A new American-killing “Murder Inc”?


“The views of men can only be known, or guessed at, by their words or actions.” George Washington, 1799

Before the Obama administration, I would have dismissed outright the idea that the Rolling Stone-journalist Michael Hastings might have been executed by the federal government because he was about to publish an expose about CIA chief John Brennan. Today, however, I am inclined to go a bit slower in dismissing the idea. I still doubt the possibility of such an abomination — partially, I admit, because I hope it is not true — but until the whole matter is thoroughly and publicly investigated and documented the idea should not be ruled out.

If I was asked why I would want to go slow before dismissing the idea that the federal government murdered Mr. Hastings, I would answer that the power of the examples set by Barack Obama, in his two terms, and by John Brennan, in his work for Clinton and Obama, give me pause. From my perspective, both men consistently have demonstrated themselves to be completely comfortable with creating situations, or permitting situations to exist in which Americans — civilian and military — are killed, in essence, by their own government’s decisions, actions, or inactons. And what would these situations be, one might ask? Well, let me start with the following ten items.

–1.) John Brennan prevented the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden before 9/11. He was perfectly at ease with staying America’s strong right arm — in the form of a CIA operation vetted and approved by U.S. Special Forces Command/Fort Bragg — in favor of letting his Saudi government “friends” get bin Laden for America. This was not a mistake, Brennan was currying favor with his Bedouin buddies, who in fact never did anything more than talk about getting bin Laden. One wonders if Brennan had read Bob Baer’s Atlantic essay in which he quotes Saudi Prince Bandar’s public admission that the Saudis always take very good care of their “friends” in the U.S. government after they retire? In any event, should anyone ever bother to look for the person who started building the trail that has led — so far — to the deaths of c. 3,000 people on 9/11 and all of the U.S. military personnel and civilians who since 9/11 have been killed or maimed by the mujahedin in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere, there is no need to look further than Mr. Brennan and President Clinton.

–2.) In a smug, self-righteous manner, Obama and Brennan ended the CIA’s rendition and interrogation programs, thereby cutting off an invaluable and continuingly refreshed channel of intelligence collection, one that allowed U.S. forces to counter some of the operations and growth of the al-Qaeda-led Islamist movement. This program was especially important because Obama, Rice, Biden, Mrs. Clinton, and their lickspittle senior generals sent U.S. soldiers and Marines to war as the targets for the mujahedin, not as their killers, and so renditions and interrogations were America’s major if still inadequate tool for protecting Americans at home and abroad. Obama and Brennan gleefully blinded the U.S. Intelligence Community by ending rendition — and then attacked U.S. civil liberties by enormously expanding the NSA collection program so as to replace the intelligence lost by ending renditions — because both men are quite at ease with the dead U.S. citizens that have and will result from the CIA’s lack of rendition-derived data. And, after all, for Obama and Brennan hurting Americans by destroying their Bill of Rights is much more fun than killing our Islamist enemies or, as Brennan would deceitfully refer to them, “Violent Extremists” who have nothing to do with Islam.

–3.) Obama and Brennan — with Mrs. Clinton and Susan Rice — have been consistent liars about the motivation, legitimate religiosity, intent, manpower, durability, growing lethal capabilities, and ongoing geographic spread of our Islamist enemies. Brennan, of course, is the crown prince of liars in this regard, glibly describing “jihad” to Obama’s media pets not as the thoroughly martial concept it is, but rather as an idea akin to some kind of benign Rotary Club-like activity. As a result, most Americans have yet to recognize that they are engaged in a full-scale and expanding war with militant Islam, and that many more of them will be killed by the Islamist fighting forces about which they have been duped by the American-killing lies of Obama, Brennan, Clinton, Rice, etc.

–4.) Obama was perfectly comfortable with his administration’s “Fast & Furious” program, a daft but inexpensive program that even a pea-brain should have seen held a near-certain likelihood of blow-back in which Americans would be killed. One has been killed; more will be. Obama and his Capo Holder clearly are comfortable with that reality.

–5.) Obama’s decision to announce a date-certain for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan told the Taleban and its allies that America had decided to lose the war and was surrendering. Every soldier and Marine who has died or been maimed in Afghanistan since that announcement is the direct and unshirkable responsibility of Obama, who kept them there to protect his 2012 election prospects. And so too, every American who is killed or maimed by the mujahedin in the years ahead will be Obama’s responsibility because he knowingly is turning Afghanistan back to the Taleban, its al-Qaeda allies, and their funders and enablers in the governments of Pakistan and the Arab Peninsula. Obama seems comfortable with this reality and the American corpses it will yield.

–6.) To shine Obama’s apple, John Brennan disclosed to the media that the U.S. and its allies had a human source in an Al-Qaeda-in-the-Arabian (AQAP) group while it was preparing to install explosives in ink cartridges for printers and then place those bombs on cargo aircraft. Since the original AQAP operation already had been stopped, the only point of Brennan’s deliberate leak was to take credit for himself and his boss. He thereby publicly identified a source who may have been useful in stopping future anti-U.S. attacks. In short, Brennan — probably jointly with Obama — weighed future, successful anti-AQAP operations against winning more fawning praise from the media, and the latter won by a mile — and so more Americans will die.

–7.) Benghazi I: Anyone who has ever worked in the Intelligence Community — especially after 9/11 — will tell you that Obama, Brennan, and Mrs. Clinton all knew that the U.S. ambassador to Libya had called repeatedly and urgently for more protection for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi. It also is certain that these three disgraceful individuals met on the issue, discussed a response, and jointly and knowingly decided to leave the Ambassador and his subordinates vulnerable to the Islamist attack that killed them. This result was more acceptable than jeopardizing the plausibility of the gross lie they were telling about how peaceful and near-to-democracy the “new Libya” was. Once again for Obama and Brennan, dead Americans are just fine as long as there is no erosion of Obama’s position in the political polls. And in the case of Benghazi, Obama and Brennan also were able to enjoy watching the murder of Americans on a live video feed. (NB: And who changed the talking points from CIA truth to Susan Rice’s lies? Well, the National Security Council’s Terrorism Czar’s main job under both parties — in my experience — is to make sure nothing gets blamed on the president. Mr. Brennan, of course, had the last review on the talking points that Susan Rice used to lie to the media. The talking points also included no mention of al-Qaeda or Islam in discussing the fatal attack, another standard tool Brennan uses to deceive Americans and ensure more of them die.)

–8.) Benghazi II: Nearly a year went by after the Benghazi attack before the American public learned that 400 surface-to-air missiles had been acquired by the Islamist fighters who killed the Americans in Benghazi. For all of those months, not a single member of the American flying public knew that those missiles were missing and had to be assumed to pose a threat to their lives whenever they stepped on an airliner anywhere in the world. Again, Obama and Brennan decided that the former’s election and subsequent political standing were much more important than alerting Americans to this new and highly lethal threat to air travel.

–9.) Egypt: Obama, Brennan, Mrs. Clinton, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham have been an effective bipartisan interventionist team, one that has ensured that many more Americans will be killed by Egyptian Islamists and their allies. Because America’s bipartisan interventionists are terminally arrogant, willing to cause unlimited numbers of American deaths by motivating Islamists to attack, and are to-the-bone ignorant about how the world works outside North America, Obama’s Egypt policy — if it can be called that — has admirably paved the road leading America to endless war with Islam. When put into plain English, Osama’s statements to Americans about what has gone on in Egypt since 2011 amount to the following:

–Obama first said, “We support Mubarak but urge a peaceful resolution.”

– Then, “Mubarak has to go.”

–Then, “The Egyptian demonstrators are secular democrats.”

– Then, “Mubarak is gone, the democrats won, and coming elections will solidify the ‘new, secular, and democratic Egypt’.”

–Then, “The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists won in a free and fair election.”

–Then, a period of silence while Obama and his NATO peers probably authorized covert operations to organize, fund, and motivate the until-then-hapless “democratic” opposition to cooperate with the Egyptian military, stage large public demonstrations, and thereby create a situation where the Egyptian generals could — with clear if muted Western cheers — overthrow a legitimate, popularly elected government and imprison its leaders.

–Then, Obama said, “It was not a coup and we urge new and peaceful elections.”

–Then, “We urge the Brotherhood to negotiate and reconcile with those who stole power from them through the illegitimate non-coup.”

–Then, “We are sending the our ace Muslim haters McCain and Graham to persuade the Brotherhood to seek reconciliation with the Egyptian generals.”

–Then, “We hope the generals will not kill too many Brotherhood members while moving to eradicate all opposition to the newly installed and illegitimate non-coup regime which will rule until a round of dependably fixed-elections can be conducted.”

–Then, late last week, “You Egyptian generals should be less nasty. We are going to delay military exercises with you, but worry not, you are our non-coupists and you will still get 1.3 billion in U.S. military aid.”

Thus, Obama, Brennan, Mrs. Clinton and their Republican allies have been wrong at every step in their continuous intervention to make sure that Egypt’s effort at self-determination recreates a regime Mubarakian in all but name. They have taken intervention to new extremes in order to destroy an operating democratic process that produced an outcome they abhorred. In doing so, they have made sure that no Muslim — radical, moderate, or nominal — will ever again be fooled by Washington’s public support for democracy in the Muslim world. And they have put countless American heads on the Islamists’ chopping block by greatly increasing the credibility of the Islamists’ core argument, which, in paraphrase, is “the Americans do not want democracy for Muslims, they want to destroy Islam and its followers.” This reality, however, will have no impact whatever on our bilateral interventionists. They will — with Obama, Kerry, Brennan, and some senior, senile Republicans in the van — continue pursuing an interventionist policy which benefits only the Islamist movement and America’s undertakers.

–10.) Ibragim Todashev: Perhaps this young man’s apparent execution by the FBI and their law-enforcement colleagues is what tips the scales for me in terms of arguing that we should not rule out the possibility of the federal government having killed Mr. Hastings. As you probably will not recall — because the Obama-adoring media have buried the story — Ibragim Todashev is said to have known all about the Tsarnaev bothers who conducted the attack on the Boston marathon. During the FBI’s interview of Todashev in his Orlando, Florida, apartment, the FBI shot Todashev through the heart and in the back of the head. The media first described the incident as one in which Todashev attacked the sainted if reliably bumbling FBI. Then the story changed and the “authorities” said Todashev “lunged” at the FBI officers with a “weapon” in hand.. Then the story changed again, leaving the impression that there was no lunge, no weapon, but plenty of lead pumped into Todashev. Then the story disappeared. The media now reports that the FBI is blocking the return of Todashev’s body to his father, and also will not allow the Florida medical examiner’s report on Todashev’s corpse and cause of death to be made public. I wonder what Todashev knew about the Tsarnaev brothers, about who they were working with, about what other plans they had, or about what other Obama administration lie or fiasco the Tsarnaev brothers’ activities touched on? Were the brothers Tsarnaev about to be hired as IRS/ObamaCare Enforcers? After all their talents were perfect for that task. Anyway, and again, for Obama, Brennan, and company, the dead folks in Boston, as well as the deaths of Americans that may yet result from the unpublicized data held by Todashev are a worthwhile price to pay if killing him can foreclose the chance of any negative political fall out that might result if Americans learned what Todashev knew.

This list could, of course, be expanded, but the ten items above ought to do for starters in attempt to discern consistent patterns of behavior and the ends to which those behaviors have and will lead. Indeed, how else are we to judge the attitudes and intent of men like Obama and Brennan except, as our first president suggested, by their words and actions. Given how much more Obama, Brennan, and their senior colleagues value political power when weighed against American lives — and given the murderous extent they have shown themselves willing to go to keep that power — Mr. Hasting’s death indeed requires a very close investigation. For me, at least, I can no longer rest easy with just hoping that the federal government under Obama has not become a new Murder Inc. designed to kill Americans, or allow Americans to be killed, in order to protect its political viability.

AFTERWARD: Just as I finished this piece, I took a quick look at GOOGLE news to see if there was anything new about Mr. Hastings, and, lo and behold, it appears that Massa’ Barack cracked the whip up at the Big White House and his servile journalists have emerged from the slave quarters to attack those questioning the cause of Mr. Hasting‘s death. These forelock-tugging, Y’ez-boss reporters damned those looking into Mr. Hasting’s death, accusing them of being amateurish and scare-mongering. With Obama’s media goons now in action, Mr. Hasting’s death more than ever merits a thorough and public investigation. But, of course, that process cannot begin until the few remaining non-servile journalists and the adults in the reading public are able to halt the paralyzing waves of side-splitting laughter brought on by the idea of such Obama-worshipping rags as Mother Jones, the Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and CNN having the monumental nerve to call other journalists “amateurs”.

© 2013  All rights reserved.




Grim assessment of wars

A USA TODAY/Pew Research Center poll underscore the erosion in support for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the loss of faith in the outcome of the wars, both launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The public's soured attitudes may make it harder the next time a president tries to persuade Americans of the value of military action when it involves putting thousands of U.S. troops in harm's way.




Click here to send us a tip