Tag Archives: Anwar al-Awlaki

Al Qaeda leader was invited guest at Dept of Defense luncheon

Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, 2008Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2008

Anwar al-Awlaki (April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was a U.S.-born Islamic  imam and a leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist group, whom the Saudi news station Al Arabiya called the “bin Laden of the Internet.”

Described by U.S. government officials as al-Qaeda’s senior talent recruiter and motivator, al-Awlaki was intimately involved in a number of major terrorist activities, including:

  • As imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), which had 3,000 members, al-Awlaki had spoken with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members.
  • In 2001, al-Awlaki presided at the funeral of the mother of convicted Fort Hood shooter and U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, with whom al-Awlaki exchanged extensive email in 2008–09 before the Fort Hood shootings.
  • After al-Awlaki went into hiding in 2006, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning that attack.
  • In 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of “regional commander” within al-Qaeda. He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.

In April 2010, the Obama regime placed al-Awlaki — a U.S. citizen — on a list of terrorists whom the C.I.A. was authorized to kill. On September 30, 2011, al-Awlaki was killed by an American drone in Yemen. Two weeks later, al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was also killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.

Given al-Awlaki’s sordid history, it is curious — to say the least — that in 2002, none other than the same al-Awlaki was an invited speaker at a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) luncheon.

This astonishing discovery is the result of the tireless efforts of the nonpartisan citizen watchdog group, Judicial Watch.

On September 11, 2013, Judicial Watch announced that it has obtained surveillance reports and logs from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) revealing that, on Feb. 5, 2002, FBI agents had trailed U.S.-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Aulaqi to the front doors of the Pentagon where he spoke as an invited guest at a private Department of Defense luncheon for high-level Pentagon officials. The luncheon — less than five months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks — was part of DOD’s outreach to moderate Muslims.

But just a day before the luncheon, al-Aulaqi had been identified as a “terrorist organization member,” and an FBI alert had been issued reading, “Warning – approach with caution . . . Do not alert the individual to the FBI’s interest and contact your local FBI field office at the earliest opportunity.”

According to the FBI surveillance log for February 5, 2002, at 11:30 am, “Aulaqi boarded the Metro train, blue line north for the Pentagon.” At 11:32 am, “Aulaqi exited the Metro train, walked through the turnstyle [sic] and greeted two unidentified white females.” At 11:40 am, “Aulaqi and the two unidentified females walked through the train station, onto the escalator, walked southwest and west adjacent to the Pentagon, up the steps and walked northeast towards the entrance to the Pentagon.” And at 12:00 pm, “Surveillance discontinued at the Pentagon.”

The 262 pages of documents were obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI and the Department of State seeking records related to the al-Qaeda leader killed in a CIA-led U.S. drone attack.

According to Fox News, the invitation list for the Pentagon luncheon where al-Awlaki was a featured speaker included up to 70 top DOD staffers, including Deputy General Counsel Charles Allen, former Deputy General Counsel Whit Cobb, former principal Deputy General Counsel Dan Dell’Orto, former General Counsel William Haynes, Deputy General Counsel Paul Koffsky and former deputy General Counsel Douglas Larsen. The London Daily Mail reported that “the Defense Department lawyer who vetted al-Awlaki wrote that she ‘had the privilege of hearing one of Mr. Awlaki’s presentations in November and was impressed by both the extent of his knowledge and by how he communicated that information and handled a hostile element in the audience’.”

According to FOIA documents previously obtained from the FBI by Judicial Watch, the FBI was aware as far back as September 27, 2001, that al-Aulaqi may have purchased airplane tickets for three of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers, including mastermind Mohammed Atta. On October 10, 2002, al-Aulaqi was detained at New York’s JFK airport under a warrant for passport fraud, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. However, the FBI ordered al-Aulaqi’s release, even though the arrest warrant was still active at the time of his detention.

To date, Judicial Watch’s litigation has resulted in the release of more than 1,800 pages of responsive records, many of which were previously classified.  The documents also raise serious questions as to the nature of the relationship between al-Aulaqi and the U.S. government. As Fox News reported on August 23, 2013, “A four year investigation by Fox News, and newly declassified documents obtained separately by Judicial Watch, are raising questions over the U.S. government’s handling of Anwar al-Awlaki, and whether it tried to recruit the radical American cleric as an intelligence source in 2002.” Outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller did not dismiss the possibility, telling Fox News, “I am not personally familiar with any effort to recruit Anwar al-Awlaki as an asset – that does not mean to say there was not an effort at some level of the Bureau (FBI) or another agency to do so.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: “These FBI logs document Keystone-cop incompetence by our national security establishment.  For the FBI to follow a known terrorist to the Pentagon where the terrorist has a high-level meeting is beyond comprehension. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there’s more than meets the eye in Obama’s assassination of al-Aulaqi.  We were told that he was a terrorist, when in fact he was also probably a U.S. government informant.  Did Obama know about this?  Congress and the media need to get on the ball.”

One last tidbit from the FBI files on al-Awlaki:

The supposedly devout Muslim imam was a frequent patronizer of prostitutes. In fact, in 1997 in San Diego, al-Awlaki was booked for soliciting prostitution. Here’s his mugshot:

Al-Alwaki mug shot(photo: San Diego PD, via KPBS)

~Eowyn

Obama’s secret DOJ memo on killing US citizens

A secret Obama regime memo, detailing the circumstances and legal justification in which a US government may order the killing of an American citizen who is a high-ranking member of al-Qaida, has just been leaked.

Titled “Department of Justice White Paper,” a copy of the 16-page memo was obtained by NBC.

The memo gives a very wide latitude and flexibility to the Executive Branch of the U.S. government to decide whether an individual is “a senior al-Qaida member” and when and how that individual poses “an imminent threat” to U.S. national security. Add to all this the fact that the memo insists the President needs not consult or obtain the court’s approval.

Obama FOR WAR D

Peter Beaumont reports for the UK’s Guardian, Feb. 5, 2013, that the document, dating from 2011, lays out for the first time the precise rationale for carrying out targeted killings of senior al-Qaida members who are US citizens, and who are believed to pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” against Amercia.

Although the white paper deals specifically with the issue of when and how the president can order the killing of a US citizen who is a member of al-Qaida, it also provides one of the most comprehensive accounts of the wider international legal framework the US believes supports its controversial drones policy.

Although the paper does not specify the “minimum legal requirements” for launching such an operation, it insists that the killing would be constitutionally justified as the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict”, as defined by international law and authorized by Congress, with al-Qaida and its affiliates.

In a key passage in the document – which is unsigned – it argues that for a US citizen who has rights under the due process clause and the fourth amendment, “that individual’s citizenship would not immunize from a lethal operation”.

The paper concludes: “Where certain circumstances are met, a lethal operation against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida … and who himself poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, would not violate the constitution.”

The leaking of the documents came as eight Democratic and three Republican senators wrote to Barack Obama requesting the disclosure of all the legal opinions drawn up at his request authorizing the killing of Americans.

The question of the constitutionality of such operations emerged after the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born radical Muslim cleric, in a drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. Although the leaked paper is not understood to be the legal determination that authorized that killing, it is understood to mirror it.

The paper argues that the operation must be consistent with the laws of war, and that capture of the individual must have be found to be unfeasible. But in a number of areas, it controversially appears to give considerable flexibility to administration officials to define key issues.

Those include defining the imminence of the specific threat and the operational seniority of the target, considerations outside of the overview of the US courts. The paper insists the decision to authorize a lethal operation may be made by an “informed, high-level official of the US government”, rather than by the courts.

On the issue of imminence, the justification is particularly wide-reaching: as attacks are “continually” being planned by al-Qaida, it is argued, “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity.”

The paper justifies the exclusion of the courts by arguing that “judicial enforcement of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”

The leaking of the document, with its dense legal argument justifying the targeted killings of US citizens, is certain to escalate the arguments that have been swirling around the issue.

Speaking to the New York Times, Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project, denounced the memorandum as “a profoundly disturbing document”, adding: “It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority: the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them, far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.”

Here’s the URL of the 16-page memo, “Department of Justice White Paper”:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

If that URL doesn’t work, I’ve saved the pdf document to FOTM’s Media Library. Click here: DOJ_White_Paper

Now do you see what 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror spawned? We have gone from George W. Bush’s troubling Patriot Act to this monstrosity of Obama’s kill memo. :(

~Eowyn

FBI director not sure if Americans can be assassinated on US soil

Did you miss this astonishing news from last week?

The director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, is unsure whether the U.S. government has the right to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil.

Fox News reports, March 7, 2012, that Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga) asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”

Graves’ question was in reference to the killing, via a drone attack on Yemen, of Anwar al-Awlaki last September 2011. Al-Awlaki was a senior al-Qaeda operative who had been described as “the bin Laden of the Internet.” Al-Awlaki was also a U.S. citizen living in Yemen.

Mueller’s response to Congressman Graves’ question was that he would have to “go back” and check with Obama’s Department of Justice. Referring to the distinction between domestic and foreign targeting, Mueller said, “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not. I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.”

In fact, for more than a year and a half, the Obama administration has said it could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process. He even had written a memo on this — a memo that Obama steadfastly refuses to reveal.

And last December, both parties in both houses of Congress obligingly gave him legal cover with the passage of the abominable National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), better known as the Indefinite Detention of American Citizens Without Trial Act.

Writing for ZeroHedge, March 9, 2012, blogger George Washington quotes top constitutional and military law expert Jonathan Turley [on C-Span]:

President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion.

I don’t think the the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn’t relax …

Clearly, the Founding Fathers were wrong in their appraisal of the American people.

When news came of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki last September, some of us hooted and rejoiced. (See the comments on Steve’s post, “Ron Paul Says U.S. “Assassinated” US-Born al-Qaeda Terrorist“.) Now it’s coming back to bite us on the patootie.

Under the Obama administration, virtually any American can be considered a suspected terrorist, especially veterans, pro-2nd Amendment-ites, pro-lifers, conservatives, and Christians — according to a 2009 memo by the Dept. of Homeland Security.

No one is safe from being assassinated, abroad or at home.

~Eowyn

Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867

UPDATES: 

On December 31, 2011, Obama signed this effective martial-law bill into law.

Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “”U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”

See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”

+++

Some among us are puzzled as to why Obama has made known he plans to veto the recently passed Senate bill 1867, that will give him (and future Presidents) immense power.

The now infamous Section 1031 of S. 1867 does not exclude U.S. citizens from those “covered persons” whom the President can have the military arrest and detain without charge or trial. In effect, S. 1867 suspends and  removes the protection of the U.S. Constitution from American citizens if they/we are deemed to be “at war” with the United States, whatever “at war” means.

Obama’s opposition to S. 1867 is not due to his passion to preserve our civil liberties.

Matt Apuzzo of the AP reports that on Dec. 1, 2011, “top national security lawyers” in the Obama administration said exactly what S. 1867′s Sec. 1031 says — that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.”

The Obama administration’s CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure who died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen. The two lawyers did not directly address the al-Awlaki case, but they did say U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. Echoing S. 1867′s Sec. 1031, Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

So why is Obama opposed to S. 1867?

It is not for reasons of protecting U.S. citizens, but because Obama opposes S. 1867′s “military detention” of those “covered persons.” Military detention means those “covered persons” become prisoners of war (POWs), and POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention, which forbids the torture of POWs.

In other words, Obama wants to continue to be able to use torture on “covered persons” — a category that, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein says in her e-mail, includes U.S. citizens.

As former Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts explains:

“The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.[...]

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing "extraordinary renditions" to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)”

Update (12.11.2011):

More than 2 years ago, Obama had proposed the creation of “a legal basis” for the preventive and indefinite detention of American citizens. Go here.

~Eowyn

Duct Tape Time: Al-Aqaeda Disputes Legality of US Killing al-Awlaki

Posted at 03:14 PM ET, 10/10/2011

By Jason Ukman

Umm , just wondering , but after Pearl Harbor and we started fighting back and killing people from Axis powers did we send out condolences to them. No because we were at war with them. Same thing here. I know I’ll get grief over the killing of an American. They up their Constitutional rights when they started trying to kill us.  ——————-  ~Steve~ ————————————

Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

Guess you should have stayed here. Sucks for you.

(Associated Press via SITE Intelligence Group)

Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has confirmed the deaths of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the young American propagandist killed alongside him in a U.S. drone strike late last month.

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would find itself hard-pressed to claim the moral high ground in the debate over the killing of Awlaki and Khan.

But the killing of two U.S. citizens has prompted outrage among civil liberties groups, as well as a debate in legal circles about the basis for the administration’s position.

The Washington Post’s Peter Finn reported after the strike that Awlaki’s killing had been authorized in a secret Justice Department memo, a revelation that later prompted senior Democratic senators and scholars to call for its release. Over the weekend, The New York Times quoted people who have read the document as saying that the memo found it would be lawful to kill the cleric only if it were not possible to take him alive. The memo, the Times said, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Awlaki’s case.

Among those who have raised legal objections to the strike: Samir Khan’s family in Charlotte, N.C.

In a statement, the family said that, Khan was a “law-abiding citizen of the United States” and “was never implicated of any crime.”

“Was this style of execution the only solution?” the family said. “Why couldn’t there have been a capture and trial?”

Khan’s relatives also described themselves as “appalled by the indifference shown to us by our government,” saying they had not been contacted by a U.S. official.

After the release of the statement, the Charlotte Observer reported, an official from the State Department called the family last week to offer the government’s condolences.

“They were very apologetic [for not calling the family sooner] and offered condolences,” Jibril Hough, a family spokesman, told the Observer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/al-qaeda-joins-those-questioning-legality-of-awlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html

Obama Refuses to Reveal Secret Memo Authorizing Murder of US Citizen

We may differ on whether or not the recent killing of al-Aqaeda operative and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki is a good thing or not. (See the comments on Steve’s post, “Ron Paul Says U.S. “Assassinated” US-Born al-Qaeda Terrorist“.)

But I think, whatever our stance, we will all agree that there is no legitimate reason why Obama should keep secret his memo that authorized the killing of al-Awlaki. Why? Because the memo is setting a very troubling precedent for the U.S. government to assassinate any American citizen for any reason the government deems justified.

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason….”     

~Eowyn

Conor Friedersdorf writes for The Atlantic, Oct. 3, 2011:

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama’s order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. “The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials,” the newspaper reported. “The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”

Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”

Obama hasn’t just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It’s time for the president who promised to create “a White House that’s more transparent and accountable than anything we’ve seen before” to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, “The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion.” And then there’s the fact that “a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department — rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example — had gone out the door along with the Bush administration,” he adds. “But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution’s restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers’ arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine.” What doesn’t he want to get out?

Ron Paul Says U.S. “Assassinated” US-Born al-Qaeda Terrorist

I’ll have to disagree with Dr. Paul on this one. His foreign policy leaves little to be desired. This is why he will never ever be elected.

I like some of his ideas, just not this one.   ~Steve~

——————————————————————————————-

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an “assassination.” Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.

Anwar al-Awlaki was considered one of the most influential al-Qaida operatives wanted by the United States. U.S. and Yemen officials say he was killed in a U.S. air strike targeting his convoy Friday morning.

Paul made the comments to reporters after a campaign stop Friday at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. He said America’s leaders must think hard about “assassinating American citizens without charges.”

We Now Have A 4th War Going In Yemen, Oh And Libya Link You Will Love.

Is it just me, or you think we have a bit much going on? And Having Skippy manage 4 wars really does give me the warm and fuzzies. How about you?

 

MARK MAZZETTI Writes in The NY Times. Published: June 8, 2011

U.S. Is Intensifying a Secret Campaign of Yemen Airstrikes

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.

The acceleration of the American campaign in recent weeks comes amid a violent conflict in Yemen that has left the government in Sana, a United States ally, struggling to cling to power. Yemeni troops that had been battling militants linked to Al Qaeda in the south have been pulled back to the capital, and American officials see the strikes as one of the few options to keep the militants from consolidating power.

On Friday, American jets killed Abu Ali al-Harithi, a midlevel Qaeda operative, and several other militant suspects in a strike in southern Yemen. According to witnesses, four civilians were also killed in the airstrike. Weeks earlier, drone aircraft fired missiles aimed at Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who the United States government has tried to kill for more than a year. Mr. Awlaki survived.

The recent operations come after a nearly year-long pause in American airstrikes, which were halted amid concerns that poor intelligence had led to bungled missions and civilian deaths that were undercutting the goals of the secret campaign.

Officials in Washington said that the American and Saudi spy services had been receiving more information — from electronic eavesdropping and informants — about the possible locations of militants. But, they added, the outbreak of the wider conflict in Yemen created a new risk: that one faction might feed information to the Americans that could trigger air strikes against a rival group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=1&hp

For Rest Of Story Pls Go Here 

Oh , and we can link that with this.. Just Lovely.

Got to tell ya, this is starting to Irk me. Stevie Get’s cranky when he’s Irked. :D


US  military operations in Libya are on course to  cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according  to figures obtained by the Financial Times

Rest of story from Financial Times Here

~Steve~            H/T Drudge.