Death Race Damascus: “13 days in October”

By Douglas J. Hagmann

22 October 2012: How will our great-grandchildren’s history books recount the events leading up to World War III and the great culling of the earth’s population that resulted? While I hope that this question never has to be answered, it is with that level of urgency that I write this report. First, I believe some historical context will be beneficial for an accurate understanding of our current situation.

Cuban Missile Crisis redux

Some might be old enough to recall the Cuban missile crisis with clarity and context. Others know it only through history books and verbal accounts from older family members and friends. While accounts may vary by perspective, the one constant on which everyone seems to agree is that we were on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union during those “13 days in October” in 1962.  If things would have gone differently, historians estimate that up to a quarter of a billion people could have been killed by a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the USSR.


If one truly understands what is taking place on the world stage as I write this, then it is eerily appropriate that we mark the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis this month. We are, in fact, directly in the middle of those 13 days in October, 1962, and perhaps directly in the middle of the present day crisis. The path that the U.S. takes in the most immediate future could likely decide the fate of humanity. It’s that serious, yet unlike the very visible events of 1962, most people today are blissfully unaware how close we stand at the precipice of global war.

Iran: a deliberate diversion

Although a nuclear armed Iran is indeed a threat to the security of the world, it is less imminent than the currently evolving threat that is forming elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, our attention continues to be deliberately diverted to Iran from other areas where we are covertly involved. It is here that the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 finds additional relevance when we recall the covert attempts to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba in the years leading up to the actual crisis.

For better or worse, our own CIA was involved in numerous covert operations to overthrow Castro after he took power in Cuba. The most visible and well known of these attempts was, of course, the Bay of Pigs operation that went awry in 1961 during the administration of John F. Kennedy. It can be rationally and reasonably argued that we had a lot at stake here due to the close proximity of Cuba to the U.S. mainland.

Following the failure of the CIA backed mission, former President Eisenhower told President Kennedy that “the failure of the Bay of Pigs will embolden the Soviets to do something that they would otherwise not do.” It was because of the failure of the clandestine actions of the U.S. that the Soviet Union indeed became emboldened and set out to position nuclear missiles just 90 miles off of the coast of Florida.

Although Obama is no Kennedy, Putin is no Khrushchev, and the Russians are not advancing their political agenda in this instance, the template is otherwise eerily similar. In 1962, Cuba was America’s “red line” as the Soviets were exporting their agenda to the West. Today, Syria is Russia’s “red line” that this administration is intent on crossing.  In Syria, the Mediterranean port of Tartus is the location of Russia’s only remaining naval base and sea port outside of their country. Accordingly, it is of significant strategic importance to Russia.

The port, as well as the stability of Syria is of critical security to Russia, not only from a defensive perspective, but also for the free flow of oil and gas to and from Russia. Turkey buys up to 80% of its natural gas from Russia, making that country Russia’s second largest client. Turkey’s role as an oil and energy supplier is predicated on the free flow of oil and gas from Russia and Iran. The status of relations are now being changed by external influences, namely the United States via the Obama-Muslim Brotherhood alliance and Saudi Arabia. Today, the Syrian Ambassador to Tehran stated that Turkey, in collusion with others, is attempting to revive the Ottoman Empire.

It is for this reason that Russia has upwards of 100,000 “advisers” in Syria. Despite their presence and warnings from Russia, we have been actively arming the anti-Assad rebels so that the Assad regime can be overthrown and replaced by a government sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Putin has directly and indirectly warned Obama not to meddle in Syria or risk direct conflict with Russia. Despite such warnings, Obama has continued his foreign policy of using al Qaeda backed rebels, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, to install leaders affiliated with the Saudi-backed Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Why would Obama place billions of people in jeopardy in a world war by his attempts to reshape the Middle East? What is pushing this agenda?

The Obama-Clinton deception

Despite the claims of many right-wing politicians and conservative media pundits, it is not a failure of foreign policy, but because of the Obama foreign policy that we find ourselves at the precipice of World War III. More importantly, though, the Obama administration and his spokespeople are deliberately misrepresenting the events that occurred in Libya to cover-up a clandestine operation that encompasses the entirety of the so-called Arab Spring. Libya is the Obama CIA’s weapons hub for the region. It is where the weapons are being collected and shipped for use in Syria, to topple the Assad regime.

Unlike the more palatable and readily acceptable goals of the government backed operations  a half-century ago (i.e. fighting the expansion of communism), the goals of this administration reveal something entirely different. It is through this prism of understanding that all of the most recent historically significant events begin to make sense. Could answers to such basic questions concerning the background and meteoric rise of Obama, his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, his deep bow to the Saudi King be found in Benghazi? Might this covert agenda, if exposed, reveal that we are actually engaged in a proxy war with Russia on behalf of Saudi Arabia?

The above certainly sounds more plausible than the reason offered by Obama and his representatives to date, and also seems to be a more viable reason that this administration has gone to such great lengths to hide the truth from the American public.

Bay of Benghazi?

As I first detailed in my two previous reports, Lemmings at the Precipice of WWIII and Body of lies, from Barack to Benghazi, Barack Hussein Obama, it is becoming more apparent that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was involved in a CIA operation of the same magnitude as the Bay of Pigs, just not yet as visible. The actual story, however, is even bigger and even more deeply rooted in the “Obama agenda.” Ambassador Stevens is simply the most visible face of this covert CIA operation.

Based on my research and investigation, in addition to much assistance from a confidential source well-connected to the intelligence community, it is becoming clear Stevens was the “go-to” man on the ground for providing assistance to the “rebels” in Syria who are attempting to topple the Assad regime. This is the reason that he was at a CIA operational post in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 and not Tripoli, where the U.S. Embassy is located.

It appears that Stevens was working for the CIA under the direction of the Clinton State Department and the Obama administration to facilitate the transfer of weapons, including portable surface to air missiles from Libya to the rebels or freedom fighters in Syria. It is now being revealed that the weapons “confiscated” in Libya were being moved by the ton from Benghazi to outposts in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan for their eventual use by anti-Assad rebels. Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood play a role in the weapons distribution, while the “freight” is paid by Turkey, Qatar and most importantly, Saudi Arabia.

The amount of weapons is staggering. It is estimated that within the last year, between 30-40 million pounds of weapons were transported out of Libya. Considering that the U.S. and the intelligence agencies have had 24/7 surveillance over every inch of Libya, can anyone of reasonable sensibilities really contend that the U.S. was not aware of exactly who was smuggling weapons from Libya, if not directly involved in that activity?

Much like the Bay of Pigs, the CIA, under the direction of Obama, is deeply determined and extensively involved in overthrowing the Assad regime. Here we come back to the question of why? Is it for humanitarian purposes to free an oppressed people? No.

Body of lies and diversions

There are many lies being perpetuated by Obama, the Clinton State Department and even a complying and complicit media. There are also distractions being forced on the American public so that the truth can remain hidden, at least until certain objectives are accomplished. The most ludicrous of lies is blaming an obscure internet video for the attacks in Benghazi. Although that has been sufficiently debunked, all of the lies should be addressed one more time.

The initial “official” response to the Benghazi attack was to place blame on the video The Innocence of Muslims, and by asserting that the attack was the product of a spontaneous protest in Benghazi. The nature of the attack proves otherwise, and the adherence to that story is now exposing the foreknowledge and complicity of those parroting that account. The attack was preplanned, was directed at a CIA operational post which was looted of all documents and materials before being destroyed by the attackers. Simply put, it was a professional “hit.”

The issue of the “security failures” is also a bit of a lie. True, a security problem existed in Tripoli, not Benghazi, where “official” personnel were deliberately kept at a minimum to maintain operational security. To divert discussion to the issue of security of our diplomatic personnel is to intentionally divert attention away from the events taking place in Benghazi.

Furthermore, the brave men who died in the attacks were not part of Steven’s security detail. They were working under the direction of the State Department, ostensibly for the purpose of searching and destroying weapons left by the deposed Qaddafi. Based on information provided to me, they were collecting all of the working weapons, transporting those to Benghazi for transport to Derna, where they were to be shipped to locations in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. The display of weapons being destroyed by these contractors in Libya was pure theater, as those were non-functional.

Additionally, there was never any kidnapping plot as part of an October surprise. So, what’s the larger picture?

Western media AWOL on arrests

Few Americans realize that two suspects in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans were arrested in Istanbul, Turkey more than two weeks ago. Where is the U.S. media on this story?

Perhaps the media is absent because their arrest might lead to some very embarrassing facts. According to my intelligence source, the key leaders of the attack were speaking a foreign language identified as Persian.  According to this intelligence source, the known escape route from Libya by foreign operatives would be through Turkey, into Syria and out to Iran, which is the exact route taken and intended.  Identified as citizens of Tunisia, they were reportedly carrying false passports and spoke with a false accent, which was the initial reason they were detained. Further investigation, however, linked the two men to the attacks in Benghazi.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

Obama: Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood operative?

At this point, take a few steps back and review the complete picture. Many astute people continue to search for answers about Barack Hussein Obama – from his origins to his current agenda. One provides answers for the other. Motive, means and opportunity are an investigator’s trifecta for matching a crime with a suspect.

Despite his claims of transparency and after four years of holding the highest position in the free world, there continue to be a number of unanswered questions surrounding Obama’s past. His sudden rise from obscurity, his trip to Pakistan, his mother’s work in Indonesia, his step-father’s Muslim roots… there is a seemingly unending list of “coincidences” and curiosities surrounding Obama. Too many to include here, yet too important not to note.

The relationship between Obama and Saudi Arabia is not exclusive to this administration, however, and could very well be considered a continuity of agenda of certain previous administrations. The Bush administration is one example. Consider that the September 11, 2001 attacks happened on his watch. Out of nineteen reported hijackers, fifteen were Saudi nationals and money used for the attacks was traced to Saudi Arabia. Despite these facts, many prominent members from Saudi Arabia living or present in the U.S. were given the “royal treatment” in the week of the attacks, and were allowed to fly, without questioning, out of the U.S. This fact alone still angers many intelligence officials.

Is it possible that Obama represents a new but well planned chapter in U.S. and Saudi relations? Could it be that Obama was groomed and financed by the Saudis for just this moment in time? Is this all part of a larger, globalist plan that transcends political parties in the West and creates interesting alliances across the globe?

So many unanswered questions, yet few seem to be asking anything. Meanwhile, the entire Middle East has been set afire, a new Ottoman empire or Islamic Caliphate is being constructed, and the continued course of action by Obama will likely result in the crossing of the red line, quickly ushering in World War III.