US Closing Embassies in Mideast for a Day amid Possible Qaeda Threat.....

wolfie said:

Hi Sweetie..:hm

Frankly I think it has been too publicised for any such terrorist act to take place..

Jeez..I'm glad I'm not flying anywhere this week-end..we are virtually stripped naked at the border control as it is..

Strangely enough..you can walk into the UK without any such rigmarole..

Airline made me strip out of my shorts at the check-in desk because staff thought they were too revealing, says law student, 18 | Mail Online

Click to expand...

They were interviewing people here asking them what they thought of this. Many were concerned but not going to give up or change their travel plans.

I had a friend show me what one first class ticket to the UK costs. :shock: With all that people go thru just to fly somewhere. I think one could save up their money and buy their own plane for another 40k. Sheesh.

What a scam traveling has become.

MMC said:

They were interviewing people here asking them what they thought of this. Many were concerned but not going to give up or change their travel plans.

I had a friend show me what one first class ticket to the UK costs. :shock: With all that people go thru just to fly somewhere. I think one could save up their money and buy their own plane for another 40k. Sheesh.

What a scam traveling has become.

Click to expand...

I honestly think that the border control guys just wanted to see her in her knickers..

Jack Hays said:

Iran-Contra was an illegal activity. It is not a valid analogy. I spent 34 years in that business. The SoS is briefed.eace

Click to expand...

So define legal CIA activities, seems the very heart of the CIA operations is stuff we don't want to be held accountable for. Authorized, unauthorized, plausible deniability... part and parcel of covert ops.

You attended the briefings given the SoS? How is Iran/Contra not valid? The CIA and National security team ran guns, men, cash and supposedly drugs through the countries bordering Nicaragua and the Ambassadors didn't know? if the State coordinates all foreign policy then State had to know something, your logic is flawed.

More like the Ambassador knew a CIA OP was going on but the details were not divulged. Diplomats have to at least maintain an appearance of clean hands in the foreign relations community. Just as every embassy has a 'cultural attache' or 'communications consultant' with diplomatic immunity the State dept is an umbrella for CIA ops, but the diplomats are not privy to what all the CIA does on station.

I'm sure Hillary knew Benghazi was a CIA op, that is why she was very careful in how she answered a few questions about weapons, Syria, Turkey- but I don't think she knew any details nor was privy to any specific threats toward the CIA op center.

One detail I have wondered about- IF the State dept was actually running the weapons clean-up then who was the Head Fred, the man/woman in-charge on the ground?
What Department of State official was running Benghazi?

So bottomline who controls what, who is responsible for what-

State runs the above board foreign relations, the CIA the under the table stuff.

Hillary knows of most major operations the CIA conducts but not day to day activities, CIA in house threat evaluations concerning those ops, nor what measures are in place in case of a major incident. Benghazi was CIA from start to finish- they dropped their own hot potato, the Ambassador wandered into something he should have stayed out of.

State supports the CIA station Chiefs but does not coordinate nor in any way dictate the CIA operations.

I liken it to a hotel owner renting a room to a whore. Yes the owner knows she is a whore but as long as she doesn't parade around naked infront of the hotel he looks the other way and keeps clean sheets on the bed. but the owner doesn't stand outside the door incase a trick decides to give the whore a good beat down instead of money. The owner doesn't keep a few thugs on hand to rush to the whore's aid if she is getting a beat down. That is on the whore.

But I'll bet your 30 some years you claim in experience that NO SoS every knew ALL CIA OPS, and we will exclude the found out ones that were patently illegal from drugs out of SE Asia, Columbia, Iran/Contra, but as our dear friends on the radical right will quickly say- IF the CIA was running weapons to Syria they would call that illegal as well.

So using some 'patently illegal' label regarding CIA OPs leaves me thinking your 30 some years didn't get too close to the nitty gritty as we say.... eace

head of joaquin said:

So if Obama doesn't take security measures the tea partiers blame him and if he does take security measures the tea partiers blame him

Maybe the problem is the stupidity of the tea partiers.

Click to expand...

Ask a business, e.g. a bank or store, which day of the year that they choose to implement strict security measures.

cpwill said:

Even Case Officers have careers and families to take care of. :shrug: I know I've asked myself what I would do in that situation, and not been able to fully satisfy myself with an answer, suggesting that perhaps that is the sort of thing that you have to have Been There to understand.

Click to expand...

My answer is that we are not in the situation means we are not willing to put ourselves out there like that, so what we would do/think isn't very telling.

I can understand some of the agents who have families and put paycheck above doing the right thing so they will refrain from speaking out. What I don't understand about Maggie's post was the implication, later called 'reward', of early retirement and pension, used to silence so many agents. (That does knock out the career part- that is over once the pension mentioned) I can't see ALL the agents staying quiet if wrong doing happened. I damn sure don't see it as a reward as she tried to claim later. The OP blew up and an Ambassador was killed- the CIA frowns on splashy headlines and boy-howdy there were some splashy headlines!

Now if you want to put yourself in someone else's shoes how about this-

The numbers bandied about on how many agents were present that night are quite varied- over 20, over 60... so lets just say 40. Out of 40 how many agents who risk their lives daily are married with children? bet far fewer than half but lets say half. So 20 young proud dedicated young men and women single and risking life and limb daily. If found out they risk a slow torturous death.

So these 20 brave single young people find out the State Dept could have intervened but didn't, the Military could have intervened but didn't, the CIA could have intervened but didn't and their brothers in arms died. left hanging in the wind for hours to die. The Commander in Chief slept while brave Americans died. Hillary ignored repeated emails, the military was told to stand down, the CIA- well I have no idea what the CIA did or didn't do....

Not one of the 20 is willing to stand up for their fallen comrades? Not one????

So lets try this, the dead CIA contract labor is seen by the 'real' agents as simple hired muscle who failed to do their job- sucks to be them. The covert mission which uses the cover of 'securing regime weapons' has to continue. Agents across the Middle East are still in dangerous positions, exposing the covert op would endanger many 'real' CIA agents. Hard Right Rabble Rousing Republicans are more concerned with a shot at political advantage in 2014 and sullying Hillary anyway they can before 2016 than the lives, families, and careers of those agents still in harm's way. These agents hate the poor security and lax attitude at the OP Center in Benghazi, don't have a warm fuzzy for how poorly that part of the OP was handled, but they are dedicated and the OP must be having some sort of positive feedback- sort of like the very beginning of Arms to the Afghans in Reagan's era. (We didn't start out bragging about hauling weapons to fight the Roosian in Afghanistan- it wasn't until Stingers were introduced and it was difficult to deny our involvement did Reagan stand and sell it as a good thang)

Of the two scenarios I'd hate to think it is a whole herd of easy to cow agents and would rather think the agents are sucking it up so the mission continues.

MMC said:

Yeah.....I know. As I didn't see to many knocking him over this. But now we have an issued a Global Travel Warning Until the End of August. It was fast and this Warning is now put up one day after they said they would close these Embassies. Plus they are now saying they think it is AQ based out of Yemen that they received the chatter off of. That they are the Most dangerous of all of AQ today. So they are warning Americans this is significant. According to General Dempsey this time they are saying Western Interests and not just American. Yet I have seen no warning put out by any other Western Countries.

Global travel warning: US cites al-Qaida threat.....

The United States issued an extraordinary global travel warning to Americans Friday about the threat of an al-Qaida attack and closed down 21 embassies and consulates across the Muslim world for the weekend.

The alert was the first of its kind since an announcement preceding the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This one comes with the scars still fresh from last year's deadly Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and with the Obama administration and Congress determined to prevent any similar breach of an American Embassy or consulate.

"There is a significant threat stream and we're reacting to it," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He told ABC News in an interview to be aired Sunday that the threat was "more specific" than previous ones and the "intent is to attack Western, not just U.S. interests."

The State Department warning urged American travelers to take extra precautions overseas, citing potential dangers involved with public transportation systems and other prime sites for tourists and noting that previous terrorist attacks have centered on subway and rail networks as well as airplanes and boats. It suggested travelers sign up for State Department alerts and register with U.S. consulates in the countries they visit.

The statement said that al-Qaida or its allies might target either U.S. government or private American interests. The alert expires on Aug. 31.

The State Department said the potential for terrorism was particularly acute in the Middle East and North Africa, with a possible attack occurring on or coming from the Arabian Peninsula.....snip~

Global travel warning: US cites al-Qaida threat

Check that.....Britain is closing its Embassy in Yemen. Sunday and Monday.

Click to expand...

Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

How can you have an expiration date on an alert? Al-Quida is suddenly not going to hate us anymore? How likely is it that they will just wait until the alert expires, since it's iapparently no problem for them. That takes us into September, though, when bad things seem to happen around September 11. I don't understand this at all! :wow:

I have not taken time to read this whole thread but has anyone given thought to the idea that it would be a good idea to get out of middle east embassies just before Israel strikes irans nuke facilities?

polgara said:

Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

How can you have an expiration date on an alert? Al-Quida is suddenly not going to hate us anymore? How likely is it that they will just wait until the alert expires, since it's iapparently no problem for them. That takes us into September, though, when bad things seem to happen around September 11. I don't understand this at all! :wow:

Click to expand...

Hiya Polgara. I was thinking along those same lines as you.....are.

Sometimes one's enemy wants to test the waters. See how they react. They let their enemy hear and see them. Learn from their reactions. Have us looking one way. Preparing for what we were allowed to hear.

Which the Travel Ban should be extended past Sept 11th for sure anyways.

iacardsfan said:

Fair enough, after looking more deeply into each attack you are correct on most. The 2006 killing in Karachi did in fact involve an ambassador and his driver though. Making it essentially the same thing as Benghazi.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but it was widely reported that Ambassador Stevens was the first US Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the Jimmy Carter administration - are you sure about the Karachi reference you make - could it have been an American embassy staffer, not an Ambassador? I'd like to see that source, because if true I'd like to know my reliance on the other information was wrong.

iWRECKnSOW said:

I have not taken time to read this whole thread but has anyone given thought to the idea that it would be a good idea to get out of middle east embassies just before Israel strikes irans nuke facilities?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation that has the potential of being plausible - the basis for any conspiracy theory.

CanadaJohn said:

I could be wrong, but it was widely reported that Ambassador Stevens was the first US Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the Jimmy Carter administration - are you sure about the Karachi reference you make - could it have been an American embassy staffer, not an Ambassador? I'd like to see that source, because if true I'd like to know my reliance on the other information was wrong.

Click to expand...

Was not an ambassador but a foreign service worker. Also the attack was a suicide bomber not a prolonged attack by a terrorist group.

Seems like folks are trying the same tactic used with the IRS issue. Say the same thing happened to the other side, when no true correlation exists.

CanadaJohn said:

I could be wrong, but it was widely reported that Ambassador Stevens was the first US Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the Jimmy Carter administration - are you sure about the Karachi reference you make - could it have been an American embassy staffer, not an Ambassador? I'd like to see that source, because if true I'd like to know my reliance on the other information was wrong.

Click to expand...

My apologies, it says diplomat. I guess I jumped to conclusions

MMC said:

This Sunday is Obama's Birthday.....The US is being Threatened that our Embassies in the ME, will be hit. This is all we are being told at this time. Other than it may go beyond this Sunday. Thoughts upon the matter?



The United States is closing all of its embassies Sunday in the Middle East and parts of Asia because of a possible al-Qaeda-related threat to diplomatic posts worldwide, American officials told NBC News on Thursday.

The U.S. has been "apprised of information that out of an abundance of caution and care for our employees and others who may be visiting our installations, that indicates we should institute these precautionary steps," said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf.

A senior State Department official told NBC News that all embassies that are usually open in Sundays — primarily those in Muslim countries and Israel — would be closed Aug. 4 "out of an abundance of caution." Sunday is a normal workday in those countries.

Sunday is President Barack Obama's 52nd birthday, and it's also the day Iran inaugurates Hassan Rowhani as its new president. But U.S. officials told NBC News they had heard nothing to indicate that the date was chosen for either of those reasons.....snip~

US closing embassies in Mideast for a day amid possible Qaeda threat

Click to expand...

God forbid anything to happen on King Hussein's birthday.

iacardsfan said:

My apologies, it says diplomat. I guess I jumped to conclusions

Click to expand...

That's fair enough and no apologies necessary. I think your chart proves that the US was then and remains now unpopular with a lot of people in the Middle East who hate freedom and the primary symbol of freedom.

What it also proves is that in all of those other situations, the system worked. The host nation provided protection to the embassies/consulates and their own nationals died protecting Americans. In Benghazi, that buffer didn't exist and whether it was negligence on the part of the State Department or over-confidence on the part of Ambassador Stevens, it proves that those buffers are absolutely necessary and their importance shouldn't be minimized.

What happened during and immediately after the attack is subject to politics but hopefully all sides agree that no Ambassador and no embassy staff should be left so vulnerable in such a volatile part of the world ever again.

notquiteright said:

So define legal CIA activities, seems the very heart of the CIA operations is stuff we don't want to be held accountable for. Authorized, unauthorized, plausible deniability... part and parcel of covert ops.

You attended the briefings given the SoS? How is Iran/Contra not valid? The CIA and National security team ran guns, men, cash and supposedly drugs through the countries bordering Nicaragua and the Ambassadors didn't know? if the State coordinates all foreign policy then State had to know something, your logic is flawed.

More like the Ambassador knew a CIA OP was going on but the details were not divulged. Diplomats have to at least maintain an appearance of clean hands in the foreign relations community. Just as every embassy has a 'cultural attache' or 'communications consultant' with diplomatic immunity the State dept is an umbrella for CIA ops, but the diplomats are not privy to what all the CIA does on station.

I'm sure Hillary knew Benghazi was a CIA op, that is why she was very careful in how she answered a few questions about weapons, Syria, Turkey- but I don't think she knew any details nor was privy to any specific threats toward the CIA op center.

One detail I have wondered about- IF the State dept was actually running the weapons clean-up then who was the Head Fred, the man/woman in-charge on the ground?
What Department of State official was running Benghazi?

So bottomline who controls what, who is responsible for what-

State runs the above board foreign relations, the CIA the under the table stuff.

Hillary knows of most major operations the CIA conducts but not day to day activities, CIA in house threat evaluations concerning those ops, nor what measures are in place in case of a major incident. Benghazi was CIA from start to finish- they dropped their own hot potato, the Ambassador wandered into something he should have stayed out of.

State supports the CIA station Chiefs but does not coordinate nor in any way dictate the CIA operations.

I liken it to a hotel owner renting a room to a whore. Yes the owner knows she is a whore but as long as she doesn't parade around naked infront of the hotel he looks the other way and keeps clean sheets on the bed. but the owner doesn't stand outside the door incase a trick decides to give the whore a good beat down instead of money. The owner doesn't keep a few thugs on hand to rush to the whore's aid if she is getting a beat down. That is on the whore.

But I'll bet your 30 some years you claim in experience that NO SoS every knew ALL CIA OPS, and we will exclude the found out ones that were patently illegal from drugs out of SE Asia, Columbia, Iran/Contra, but as our dear friends on the radical right will quickly say- IF the CIA was running weapons to Syria they would call that illegal as well.

So using some 'patently illegal' label regarding CIA OPs leaves me thinking your 30 some years didn't get too close to the nitty gritty as we say.... eace

Click to expand...

I will not parade my resume other than to point out that in those 34 years 18 were in the foreign field in eight different foreign tours of duty, during four of which I served as Chief of Station. Your recitation is wrong in just about its entirety. The Ambassador, as Chief of Mission, is always briefed on all activities conducted by all agencies in the country to which he/she is accredited. The SoS is likewise briefed on all activities world wide. The House and Senate oversight committees are likewise briefed, and that's where Iran-Contra went wrong. Congress had explicitly forbidden aid to the Contras. eace

More information on this:

Officials: Chatter among al Qaeda operatives in Yemen led to warnings - CNN.com
Rep. Peter King says Al Qaeda threat is 'very specific' as US issues travel alert | Fox News

Jack Hays said:

I will not parade my resume other than to point out that in those 34 years 18 were in the foreign field in eight different foreign tours of duty, during four of which I served as Chief of Station. Your recitation is wrong in just about its entirety. The Ambassador, as Chief of Mission, is always briefed on all activities conducted by all agencies in the country to which he/she is accredited. The SoS is likewise briefed on all activities world wide. The House and Senate oversight committees are likewise briefed, and that's where Iran-Contra went wrong. Congress had explicitly forbidden aid to the Contras. eace

Click to expand...

So you was CIA? Briefed or knows the full details to include possible threats toward the CIA op? I'd say the Ambassador doesn't know all the details, nor wants to know. I am not saying the State Dept didn't know the CIA was running an OP in Benghazi, State gave them the 'securing regime weapons' cover, am saying it was not part of State's job to secure the Benghazi facility- that was for the CIA. State wasn't running around Libya looking for weapons- it just made a good cover for Americans moving weapons around.

My point is State didn't know a **** storm was about to descend on Benghazi. The CIA did a for **** job managing security and the Ambassador, most likely called to visit by the CIA, paid the price along with his 'IT' consultant and two CIA hired Guns. The CIA screwed the pooch, plain and simple. But sometimes the pooch gets screwed- FIDO. Who's head(s) roll is a CIA matter, not a public hearing Congress matter.

What does rub me the wrong way is a select few never risked a paper cut 'conservatives' are trying to use this for political gain. Now even that is expected- not honorable but expected- but I doubt the operation closed down because of the Benghazi BS so there are still men and women out there and these asshats are running around flinging spittle in the vain and somewhat forlorn hope the GOP can both avoid a split off of the tea party and so dirty the Dems that they can't win more seats in '14 and so dirty Hillary she can't run in '16.

When it comes to briefings I seem to recall many times the very select group of Congress critters who sit in on the briefings saying yes they knew about the program- but.... and the fun begins...

Now on the Contras, my point is the CIA was running guns, drugs and men around Central America and either the Ambassadors knew or they didn't. That shows the CIA can conduct large operations under State's very nose, or the ambassadors aided illegal activities.

See that is where this old grunt has trouble with spook-speak. Saying someone was briefed doesn't mean they have all the intimate details of the op, be it confined to the Ambassador in one country or the SoS looking at over 150 State/Spook joint houses called USA Embassies.

notquiteright said:

So you was CIA? Briefed or knows the full details to include possible threats toward the CIA op? I'd say the Ambassador doesn't know all the details, nor wants to know. I am not saying the State Dept didn't know the CIA was running an OP in Benghazi, State gave them the 'securing regime weapons' cover, am saying it was not part of State's job to secure the Benghazi facility- that was for the CIA. State wasn't running around Libya looking for weapons- it just made a good cover for Americans moving weapons around.

My point is State didn't know a **** storm was about to descend on Benghazi. The CIA did a for **** job managing security and the Ambassador, most likely called to visit by the CIA, paid the price along with his 'IT' consultant and two CIA hired Guns. The CIA screwed the pooch, plain and simple. But sometimes the pooch gets screwed- FIDO. Who's head(s) roll is a CIA matter, not a public hearing Congress matter.

What does rub me the wrong way is a select few never risked a paper cut 'conservatives' are trying to use this for political gain. Now even that is expected- not honorable but expected- but I doubt the operation closed down because of the Benghazi BS so there are still men and women out there and these asshats are running around flinging spittle in the vain and somewhat forlorn hope the GOP can both avoid a split off of the tea party and so dirty the Dems that they can't win more seats in '14 and so dirty Hillary she can't run in '16.

When it comes to briefings I seem to recall many times the very select group of Congress critters who sit in on the briefings saying yes they knew about the program- but.... and the fun begins...

Now on the Contras, my point is the CIA was running guns, drugs and men around Central America and either the Ambassadors knew or they didn't. That shows the CIA can conduct large operations under State's very nose, or the ambassadors aided illegal activities.

See that is where this old grunt has trouble with spook-speak. Saying someone was briefed doesn't mean they have all the intimate details of the op, be it confined to the Ambassador in one country or the SoS looking at over 150 State/Spook joint houses called USA Embassies.

Click to expand...

The CIA has never run drugs, anywhere. The CIA never bears any security responsibility for any State Department installation. That responsibility falls first to the host country, and then to the Diplomatic Security officers of the Department of State. eace

Jack Hays said:

The CIA has never run drugs, anywhere. The CIA never bears any security responsibility for any State Department installation. That responsibility falls first to the host country, and then to the Diplomatic Security officers of the Department of State. eace

Click to expand...

First the CIA ran drugs in SE Asia, and later Columbia using Panama as a transit point.
Second you didn't answer my question- were you CIA- yes/no
Third the State department had no personnel assigned to Benghazi- the CIA did. The CIA employed the dead 'security officers'. Benghazi was a CIA OP center.
Fourth the CIA is always responsible for it's own nest and Ops.

notquiteright said:

First the CIA ran drugs in SE Asia, and later Columbia using Panama as a transit point.
Second you didn't answer my question- were you CIA- yes/no
Third the State department had no personnel assigned to Benghazi- the CIA did. The CIA employed the dead 'security officers'. Benghazi was a CIA OP center.
Fourth the CIA is always responsible for it's own nest and Ops.

Click to expand...

False on SE Asia, false on Columbia, False, period.
Yes.
False. The Consulate was a State Dept. facility. The Annex was not.
I won't comment about operations. The CIA never has primary security responsibility for any Dept. of State installation.eace

Dooble said:

God forbid anything to happen on King Hussein's birthday.

Click to expand...

Heya Dooble. :2wave: Well.....nothing better happen even up to Sept and 911. What AQ and the Sunni will discover is that instead of Americans fearing and worrying about going on Holidays. That we will end up tiring of their BS and then they will just have Americans looking to Go Big Game Hunting. Which they don't even want to see any of that.

Jango said:

More information on this:

Officials: Chatter among al Qaeda operatives in Yemen led to warnings - CNN.com
Rep. Peter King says Al Qaeda threat is 'very specific' as US issues travel alert | Fox News

Click to expand...

Heya Django. :2wave: Thanks for that Update. So now Germany and France will also close their Embassy in Yemen.

Fresh intelligence led the United States to conclude that operatives of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were in the final stages of planning an attack against U.S. and Western targets, several U.S. officials told CNN.

The chatter among al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operatives had gone on for weeks but increased in the last few days, the officials said.

Taken together with a warning from Yemeni officials, the United States took the extraordinary step of shutting down embassies and issuing travel warnings, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

While the specific target is uncertain, U.S. officials are deeply worried about a possible attack against the U.S. Embassy in Yemen occurring through Tuesday, the officials said.

Officials have told CNN that some analysts believe the threat is solely in Yemen, while others are convinced plots are under way in several countries.

The threat appears much worse than it has in a long time," the Yemeni official said.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operatives filmed video of the building, which is near the U.S. embassy in Sanaa, and the U.S. personnel who were in it, the source told Cruickshank.....snip~

Jack Hays said:

The House and Senate oversight committees are likewise briefed, and that's where Iran-Contra went wrong. Congress had explicitly forbidden aid to the Contras. eace

Click to expand...

The Boland Amendment was a poorly written amendment that was open to interpretation and was easily for those Americans who refused to stop fighting the Cold War to get around including the Reagan administration.

The Boland Amendment was just another attempt by the radical Left in Congress to have America surrender and stop fighting the Cold War.

The big question should be, who paid for those obsolete Hawk and Stinger missiles ? Not the U.S. Government.
Anyone who ever bought a six pack of Coor's back during the 1980's probably helped armed the Contras.

But the Iran Contra "scandal" is history. It was just one battle of the Cold War and the endgame was, our side won and the left in America and the Soviets lost.

I learned a long time ago that when you see something that isn't right but doesn't involve you it may be best to keep your mouth shut. But when it leads to murder, one doesn't necessary have to go public but be willing to testify under oath what he saw or knows.

Does Col. Jim Sabow ring a bell ?

notquiteright said:

First the CIA ran drugs in SE Asia, and later Columbia using Panama as a transit point.
Second you didn't answer my question- were you CIA- yes/no
Third the State department had no personnel assigned to Benghazi- the CIA did. The CIA employed the dead 'security officers'. Benghazi was a CIA OP center.
Fourth the CIA is always responsible for it's own nest and Ops.

Click to expand...

If you refering to Air America during the Vietnam War, they were civilian contractors not CIA operatives.

APACHERAT said:

If you refering to Air America during the Vietnam War, they were civilian contractors not CIA operatives.

Click to expand...

Air America did not run drugs either.

Air America - Official Web Site for Air America

www.[B]air[/B]-america.org/‎eace