Diplomatic sources: State Department had credible intel 48 hours before attacks that U.S. embassies might be targeted; Update: White House denies

posted at 9:03 pm on September 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m looking forward to having it explained to me on the news tomorrow why this is all a misunderstanding and not a very big deal at all.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted

According to security sources the consulate had been given a “health check” in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.”

I’m awfully curious to hear how thorough that “health check” was given how quickly consulate security crumbled. Two thoughts here. One: While the bit about credible information is new and important, you don’t need that detail to know that Obama and his team dropped the ball on protecting the consulate. We already know there were no Marines stationed there; even the locals couldn’t believe how lightly guarded the building was. There’s no earthly reason for security to be that thin on 9/11, especially when jihadis had targeted the consulate and other western diplomats in Benghazi before. Two: I wonder if the “credible information” described in the piece has something to do with the Zawahiri video eulogizing Abu Yahya al-Libi, a top AQ chieftain from Libya. The video appeared on jihadi websites on Tuesday to coincide with 9/11, but intel experts who watch those sites sometimes see new material show up on their servers in advance. If they knew that a new Zawahiri video was coming on 9/11, that alone might have been reason to think Al Qaeda was out for revenge and eager to make a splash against U.S. interests somewhere on the anniversary. Is that the sort of intel we’re dealing with here or do they mean something more concrete and specific about a planned attack?

While we’re on the subject of Obama’s foreign-policy failures, here’s a blast from the past for longtime HA readers:

An Iraqi militia that carried out some of the most prominent attacks on foreigners during the Iraq war on Thursday threatened U.S. interests in the country over a film that has triggered protests in Libya, Egypt and Yemen.

“The offence caused to the messenger (Prophet Mohammad) will put all American interests in danger and we will not forgive them for that,” said Qais al-Khazali, leader of the Asaib al-Haq militia.

That’s the same Qais Khazali who led Iran’s “Special Groups” in Iraq, and who allegedly masterminded the famous 2007 operation in Karbala in which five U.S. servicemen were captured and executed. He was captured by American troops two months later. So why’s he back on the streets now and threatening to kill people over the Mohammed movie, you ask? Because, silly: We let him go as part of a prisoner exchange in 2009, over the strenuous objections of some military officers. Remember that, because Khazali’s expertly trained and sufficiently ruthless that he’s capable of following through on his threats in spectacular fashion. You might be seeing his name in the news again soon.

Exit question: Any word from the White House on whether Obama regrets not attending a daily intel briefing since September 5? I know he supposedly reads his briefing instead, but he’s been super busy lately doing interviews with morning-show DJs and scheduling appearances on Letterman, so maybe he hasn’t had time.

Update: It’s a big ol’ lie, says the White House.

The Obama administration is flatly denying a blaring British newspaper report that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were killed as a result of a “continuing security breach,” and that “credible information” about possible attacks had been ignored.

A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There’s no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”…

Shawn Turner, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, emailed: “This is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

The Independent didn’t claim that the intelligence said there’d be an attack on the Benghazi consulate specifically. It claimed that American missions generally, including the one in Benghazi, could be targeted. The point is, security should have been ramped up at U.S. missions worldwide. Why didn’t that happen in Benghazi?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11

Yeah, because extremist muslims are attacking Americans over here by the dozens right??

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 1:10 AM

So Denmark was wrong to leave their tiny nation? That was too much of a provocation?

So I guess if the US retreated into fortress America and sealed all the borders and refused to send out ships of trade or embassies then perhaps they will stop being such meanies?

Is that the plan?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Destroying the Japanese fleet that carried out the attack and killing the enemy commanders who ordered it would have meant nothing.

The world is not as simple as you are demanding.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:12 AM

I’m not demanding that the world be simple. I am desiring my government to end its military interventionism and to stop bombing people, to cut diplomatic relations with certain nations, and to pull our troops back home where they should be defending our borders.

Yes it is convenient because it allows one to avoid naming who the enemy actually is.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:12 AM

EXACTLY! But you don’t really realize what you just said.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Lots of bad caca about this out there on the www and none of it is even slightly positive for the campaigner-in-chief.

For example, I’ve seen reports that Ambassador Stevens was at that consulate to evacuate non-essential personnel. If so, then why he go there with only 2 Marines. The Marines should have already been there… in mass… locked and loaded.

After all the insider attacks from “trusted nationals” in Iraq and Afganistan, what nitwit thinks that in the Middle-East we can trust local security to guard anything more important than the latrine?
Trick question, besides Obozo and Hillary?

WestTexasBirdDog on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Bogus propaganda? The entire Arab world is a flame because someone in this country exercised their freedom of speech.

Wow, you really are.. ignorant.

ShadowsPawn on September 14, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Not to be nit-picky, but I think the bold portion is bogus propaganda.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

So I guess if the US retreated into fortress America and sealed all the borders and refused to send out ships of trade or embassies then perhaps they will stop being such meanies?

Is that the plan?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:17 AM

No one that I am aware of is advocating isolationism.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:19 AM

God Himself isn’t ONLy the Lamb, but also the Lion.

pambi on September 14, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Bogus propaganda? The entire Arab world is a flame because someone in this country exercised their freedom of speech.

Wow, you really are.. ignorant.

ShadowsPawn on September 14, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Oh, my.

Your disease is worse than I thought.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

You are the one who is willing to buy his purity with the blood of his own people.

Very acutely stated. Wise words to the Pollyannish Anti-War crowd.

hawkdriver on September 14, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Its the deal that all liberals are willing to make.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

to cut diplomatic relations with certain nations,

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Which ones? Not Israel I hope.

hawkdriver on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

EXACTLY! But you don’t really realize what you just said.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

See definition of irony

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Regan did it

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Not to be nit-picky, but I think the bold portion is bogus propaganda.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Oh I’m certain that the attacks on our embassies were going to happen with our without the video. But the Middle East IS a flame because of the video.

ShadowsPawn on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

The muslims raped,tortured, and murdered an Americn ambassador, and you have the nerve to talk about Christian bloodlust, which only exists in your mind.

Kyle_Reese on September 14, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Only exists in my mind? Just read the comments in many threads on this website.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Yes it is convenient because it allows one to avoid naming who the enemy actually is.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:12 AM

EXACTLY! But you don’t really realize what you just said.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Who exactly is the enemy we’re up against ?.

pambi on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Yes it is convenient because it allows one to avoid naming who the enemy actually is.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:12 AM

EXACTLY! But you don’t really realize what you just said.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 AM

I am well aware of what I said and the implications that ensue from it in both directions. The encroachment of government does not invalidate reality.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

What happens in Egypt and Libya is a distraction. What also matters, and matters even more to the fate of America, is QE3 to infinity money printing. There is not one story here on HotAir about that.

Grames on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Oh, my.

Your disease is worse than I thought.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Yeah, way to stand up to the issue… oh wait, you didn’t.

ShadowsPawn on September 14, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Which ones? Not Israel I hope.

hawkdriver on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

For the time being, and off the top of my head, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Regan did it

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

He did no such thing. He invaded Grenada, he bombed Libya, he wrongly sent troops to Lebanon, and he built up the military in a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He also sent Pershing and Cruise Missiles to Europe.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Oh I’m certain that the attacks on our embassies were going to happen with our without the video. But the Middle East IS a flame because of the video.

ShadowsPawn on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Let’s call it Dante’s Inferno.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:25 AM

ShadowsPawn on September 14, 2012 at 1:02 AM

.
The people who murdered those 3000 were suicide bombers; they killed themselves in the attacks. There is no one out there in the world who is responsible for those attacks that has not been killed or captured. That’s the beautiful thing about a War on Terror, you know. Terror is an abstraction that allows one to constantly redefine a nebulous enemy to include whomever you wish, and to continue the funding for the war machine; it’s ever expansive. Very, very convenient.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:07 AM

.
The fact that the enemy has not (till now) been a sovereign country, doesn’t disqualify us from going after them wherever we believe them to be hiding.

I reject your premise that: “There is no one out there in the world who is responsible for those attacks that has not been killed or captured.”

I reject your premise that the militant Islamists were provoked into these actions against us, by our “interventionist activities” over there.

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Who exactly is the enemy we’re up against?

pambi on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

We as government or we as in we the people? If the former, then there isn’t one. If it’s the latter, then its our own government.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:26 AM

For the time being, and off the top of my head, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM

You have obviously put a lot of thought into these matters.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Another sad fact of history is that Truman was caused to use a second atomic bomb upon Japan because that dictatorship still refused to surrender after the first atomic bomb. That, and Truman also realized that every day meant more dying in Japan’s death camps and that Operation Downfall, if required, would mean a certainty of casualties in the millions instead of the couple hundred thousand anticipated for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

viking01 on September 14, 2012 at 1:27 AM

I’m not demanding that the world be simple. I am desiring my government to end its military interventionism and to stop bombing people, to cut diplomatic relations with certain nations, and to pull our troops back home where they should be defending our borders.

No one that I am aware of is advocating isolationism.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:19 AM

?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Why should I be the one to leave and not you?

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:04 AM

I am actually amazed you are still here:

I’m not too keen on my government killing innocent people, are you?

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Who exactly is the enemy we’re up against?

pambi on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

We as government or we as in we the people? If the former, then there isn’t one. If it’s the latter, then its our own government.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:26 AM

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM

?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Non-interventionism is not synonymous with isolationism.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:19 AM

?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:29 AM

.
He’ll explain it. Just give him a second, or several hundred.

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Non-interventionism is not synonymous with isolationism.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM

So do tell what the difference is?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:34 AM

And that roused up your Christian bloodlust? You’re always talking god this and god that, but look how eager you are to kill indiscriminately.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 12:44 AM

OK Dante, what should our response be to those who have killed by those who were actually there to help them?

Wait…I hear it now…”we should not have been there in the first place” right?

How about the aholes that hate us just for being us?

Oh wait a minute, that’s our fault too, sorry I forgot.

You’re theory also depends on these stoneage morons understanding what diplomacy means.

And if you don’t agree with that, than all we need to do is agree with everyting they say, Because they’ll never bring it to our shore because we like them…

Can you see the flaw in your argument?

Or am I conversing with Obowma?

ccrosby on September 14, 2012 at 1:34 AM

He’ll explain it. Just give him a second, or several hundred.

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Maybe a Non-interventionist is someone who is willing to sign a trade agreement and an isolationist isn’t?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I’m not demanding that the world be simple. I am desiring my government to end its military interventionism and to stop bombing people, to cut diplomatic relations with certain nations, and to pull our troops back home where they should be defending our borders.

If we end “interventionism” and stop “bombing people” then why would we need to defend our border?

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Obama is a miserable failure.

claudius on September 14, 2012 at 1:37 AM

He’ll explain it. Just give him a second, or several hundred.

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM

.
Maybe a Non-interventionist is someone who is willing to sign a trade agreement and an isolationist isn’t?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:35 AM

.
That may be his “angle”, but why doesn’t he tell us that?

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:37 AM

bluefox on September 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Channel 212, on dish, it is included in the top 250, or it is 5 bucks a month for just that channel. free till sept 26th

uncommon sense on September 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Thanks. I’m thinking of going with DirectTV. I checked out Dish and they have too many music channels for my taste. Counted 40-50 to make up a couple of packages.

bluefox on September 14, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Maybe a Non-interventionist is someone who is willing to sign a trade agreement and an isolationist isn’t?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:35 AM

That’s it! An interventionist wants to trade with other countries but vows NOT to protect those individuals and companies involved in that trade.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:39 AM

That’s it! An non-interventionist wants to trade with other countries but vows NOT to protect those individuals and companies involved in that trade.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:39 AM

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:41 AM

That may be his “angle”, but why doesn’t he tell us that?

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:37 AM

He hasn’t read that far ahead in the book?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:42 AM

bluefox on September 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM

.
Channel 212, on dish, it is included in the top 250, or it is 5 bucks a month for just that channel. free till sept 26th

uncommon sense on September 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM
.

Thanks. I’m thinking of going with DirectTV. I checked out Dish and they have too many music channels for my taste. Counted 40-50 to make up a couple of packages.

bluefox on September 14, 2012 at 1:38 AM

.
Channel 212 on Dish should be part of the “basic”, indefinitely.

But don’t let me talk into Dish, just because of that.
Plenty of other good reasons to go with Direct.

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:45 AM

That’s it! An non-interventionist wants to trade with other countries but vows NOT to protect those individuals and companies involved in that trade.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:39 AM

So we just keep sending ships and those rascally Somali pirates keep boarding them and ransoming the crew? Wasn’t there something called the Barbary Wars that had this whole scenario as the central theme?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:45 AM

How did the militants know that Ambassador Stevens was in the consulate, and not in the Embassy? They had to have known well enough in advance, so they could have the assault team in place outside the proper residence.

Hill60 on September 13, 2012 at 10:11 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/12/cbs-libyan-security-team-fingered-us-ambassador-to-be-killed/comment-page-5/#comments

http://drudgereport.com/

There are so many threads on HA and other sites, but that will give you a start.

bluefox on September 14, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Thanks for your help bluefox – I appreciate it!

I guess what I was wondering is this: How did the Libyans/militants know he was going to be at the consulate and not the embassy?
I understand that once the consulate came under attack, some members of the Libyan security team “ratted” the Americans out – but how did the militants even know to attack the consulate and not the embassy? How did they know his schedule? And quite honestly – why wasn’t the ambassador in the more secure embassy in Tripoli on 9-11?

Hill60 on September 14, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Maybe a Non-interventionist is someone who is willing to sign a trade agreement and an isolationist isn’t?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:35 AM

.
That’s it! An interventionist wants to trade with other countries but vows NOT to protect those individuals and companies involved in that trade.

weaselyone on September 14, 2012 at 1:39 AM

.
Okay, Dante. If you need to take a break, I’ll understand.

But you’ll be back . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:48 AM

bluefox on September 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM

You are talking about the same people who listen to the same talk radio, watch FoxNews and read conservative blogs.

bayview on September 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM

I know, but at least it will be better than Fox has been for a long time. They have been drifting to the dark side.

I had hoped that the Conservatives with the big money would have produced their own Network.

TV does have it’s advantages over the blogs in that I can do housework while I’m listening:-)

bluefox on September 14, 2012 at 1:48 AM

I know, but at least it will be better than Fox has been for a long time. They have been drifting to the dark side.

bluefox on September 14, 2012 at 1:48 AM

.
bluefox, I am your father . . . . . come . . . . .

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Flora Duh on September 13, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Thanks. That is most likely the real story. I have my opinion on who dubbed that 14 min trailer into Arabic and gave a heads up on it.

More and more info coming out, no wonder the W.H./State Dept. are in a tither.

bluefox on September 14, 2012 at 1:53 AM

How did they know? Well, people like Andrew McCarthy have been warning for some time now that we may have a high-level mole in State, Huma Abedin, who has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. But he was shouted down and called a bigot.

blue13326 on September 14, 2012 at 1:54 AM

He did no such thing. He invaded Grenada, he bombed Libya, he wrongly sent troops to Lebanon, and he built up the military in a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He also sent Pershing and Cruise Missiles to Europe.

So tell me about the war that followed the Beruit bombings and the new super base that replaced it

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Non-interventionism is not synonymous with isolationism.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

ShadowsPawn on September 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM

CW on September 13, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Wow, that list doesn’t look like a bunch of right wingers to me!!

Good job!!

bluefox on September 14, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Point taken.
Our government does NOT have an (any??) enemy.
Oookay.

pambi on September 14, 2012 at 1:57 AM

“There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa’ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks.”

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Translation: We shouldn’t blame the filmmaker for the uprising and subsequent deaths of four Americans – we have to blame whoever authorized the drone attack on Abu Yahya al-Libi.

So near as I can figure, that means Obama is responsible for the September 11th uprising.

Sounds about right to me.

Hill60 on September 14, 2012 at 2:00 AM

So tell me about the war that followed the Beruit bombings and the new super base that replaced it

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM

There wasn’t one, but it was the beginnings of the rise of Hezbollah.

Your claim that Reagan ran away from intervening in the world is false.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:00 AM

I’m not too keen on my government killing innocent people, are you?

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 12:44 AM

So, in all fairness, you’re pretty upset with all the collateral deaths that occur each time we launch a drone strike – right?

Hill60 on September 14, 2012 at 2:02 AM

So tell me about the war that followed the Beruit bombings and the new super base that replaced it

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Tell me about Denmark and what they should have done to avoid being attacked by Muslim Rage Boy?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:04 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:00 AM

What Im saying is he knew when it was not worth it to get the hell out

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Denmark has absolutly zero in common with what has happened in Lybia…please explain how one has anything in common with the other?

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:07 AM

We who are not Muslim, yet breathe, are their enemies.
QED.

pambi on September 14, 2012 at 2:11 AM

What Im saying is he knew when it was not worth it to get the hell out

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM

You aren’t talking to someone who thinks we should be in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don’t think Islam is capable of sustaining a constitution or a Democracy.

That isn’t the same thing as running away from our enemies. They are NOT going to stay ‘over there’ as the Barbary raids of 1785 showed. They are here to stay and we need to find a way to deal with the problem that doesn’t involve lying to ourselves and passing the problem off to someone else. Colonialism kept the Muslim peoples in check for a long time but that day is over and now we are facing the same old threat from elder days.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:12 AM

If Romney can’t beat Obama in this economy with this meltdown if foreign policy he is the worst candidate in the history of earth.

Something few are talking about. One of the reason for Obama’s surge has been Bill Clinton and the popularity of Hillary. That brand is now damaged anew. If Romney goes all nice guy in the debates and doesn’t go right at Obama for this crap I am going to be pissed.

mitchellvii on September 14, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Denmark has absolutly zero in common with what has happened in Lybia…please explain how one has anything in common with the other?

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Denmark has been targeted by the Muslims. You speak as if the American presence in the Middle East or its support of Israel are the causes of Muslim belligerence.

Well what about Denmark?

What did they do to provoke Muslim belligerence?

If that nation cannot avoid Muslim hostility then who on Earth possibly can?

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:15 AM

I would say based upon all this that Hillary is finished in 2016. If Bill thinks Hillary is finished he will throw Obama under the bus without a second thought.

mitchellvii on September 14, 2012 at 2:16 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:00 AM

.
What Im saying is he knew when it was not worth it to get the hell out

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM

.
Reagan made an error in strategy where the Beirut event was concerned, and admitted it. But not in the fact that we intervened.

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 2:18 AM

I’m bugging out dudes . . . . . pick it up here in the morning.

listens2glenn on September 14, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Denmark has absolutly zero in common with what has happened in Lybia…please explain how one has anything in common with the other?

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:07 AM

The comparison is about the contrived nature of muslim outrage and their use of any convenient excuse to kill. The Muhammed cartoon outrage and this bogus video, being the related excuses. Ignorant fool.

The whole back and forth is pointless and a fool’s errand. It doesn’t matter what fresh intel was available or ignored. IT WAS TEH SEPT 11 ANNIVERSARY. The inbred psychotics at the core of the islamist jihadist movement are fixated on numbers, numerology, anniversary dates. How could anyone NOT expect some sort of islamist violence on that date at US facilities in any of the collapsing muslim nations where this ‘arab spring’ jihad is taking place?? The Obama Administration, the State Dept under Hillary, BOTH utterly failed in their principal duty to safeguard the security and lives of American citizens. Again.
Note that the US Ambassador to Egypt made sure that HER ass was conveniently in DC for 9/11. NOT in that Muslim Brotherhood -ruled craphole. AND that she ordered the Marines ultimately charged with the safety of that embassy’s personnel NOT BE ARMED. With huge mobs in the streets.

rayra on September 14, 2012 at 2:20 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Bottom line is that place is a disaster. Until it calms down and we can figure out if they are friend or foe, we should get the hell out. We should have never get involved from the beginning. When the civil war started we should have told all Americans to get out and withdrew and remaining American officials. After their differences were settled then we could determine if they are friend or foe. If they are a foe we cut off all aid, it they are our friend we commence trade.

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:22 AM

If Romney can’t beat Obama in this economy with this meltdown if foreign policy he is the worst candidate in the history of earth.
mitchellvii on September 14, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Unless it’s CLOSE, then the FRAUDS can pull it out, regardless of Romney’s efforts, or Zero’s failures.
WE MUST WIN THIS !!

pambi on September 14, 2012 at 2:23 AM

The comparison is about the contrived nature of muslim outrage and their use of any convenient excuse to kill. The Muhammed cartoon outrage and this bogus video, being the related excuses. Ignorant fool.

rayra on September 14, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Okay you Ignorant fool, do you believe everything Obama and our disgraceful lying media spoon feed you. This attack had absolutely nothing to do with this so called video….zero! You will learn that in the coming days. Apparently you are slow.

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:26 AM

The comparison is about the contrived nature of muslim outrage and their use of any convenient excuse to kill. The Muhammed cartoon outrage and this bogus video, being the related excuses. Ignorant fool.

rayra on September 14, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Okay you Ignorant fool, do you believe everything Obama and our disgraceful lying media spoon feed you. This attack had absolutely nothing to do with this so called video….zero! You will learn that in the coming days. Apparently you are slow.

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:26 AM

That’s what he just said.

Look up the meaning of ‘contrived’ and ‘excuse’.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:31 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:31 AM

The video had nothing to do with it in this case…the cartoon had everything to do with it in Denmark’s case

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:35 AM

The video had nothing to do with it in this case…the cartoon had everything to do with it in Denmark’s case

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:35 AM

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

The Koran is what it has to do with. Cartoons, teddy bear named Mohammad, flushed Korans, or videos are all just excuses for the Korans directives to attack the infidel.

Muslims are the common thread in the violence and you have to willfully ignore the truth not to see that. They don’t need an excuse…they will find one, or they will invent one. Not a damn thing you do will change that.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:44 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 2:31 AM

Dude, don’t think I am making excuses for muslims or are on their side for a second. I understand there are muslim extremists who would do anything to kill a non muslim. Which is the reason we should just get out of the region. Why are we even over there? Who care’s about them? Let them be. Let them rot in the desert. We should just leave and take our foreign aid with us.

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:52 AM

According to senior diplomatic sources …

According to security sources …

Please explain again to me the rules for Conservative Double Standard? I’m supposed to DISREGARD anonymous sources when they say bad things about Willard McDole but I’m supposed to NOT EVEN QUESTION anonymous sources when they say bad things about Obama?

Check … got it!

And …

Obama and his team dropped the ball on protecting the consulate. We already know there were no Marines stationed there

So this means Ronald Reagan “dropped the ball” on the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut?

George Bush “dropped the ball” on 9/11 because he didn’t have the security instruments in place to thwart that attack?

He also dropped the ball at Tora Bora when he allowed Osama to escape?

Really? You want to go down this road Allah?

HondaV65 on September 14, 2012 at 2:55 AM

I understand there are muslim extremists who would do anything to kill a non muslim.

It isn’t Muslim extremists. Its standard Islam.

Which is the reason we should just get out of the region.

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 2:52 AM

I think we should be out as well but that doesn’t mean we have no interests or that we refuse to act when that is called for.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 3:02 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 3:02 AM

Well, maybe it is standard Islam. All the more reason to leave. The only interest over there is oil and there is plenty of oil in other parts of the world including right here at home.

And as far as refusing to act…what do you suggest we do in this situation?

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 3:06 AM

So this means Ronald Reagan “dropped the ball” on the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut?

Yes.

Reagan shouldn’t have sent the troops in without a clear purpose and should have avoided escalating involvement.

George Bush “dropped the ball” on 9/11 because he didn’t have the security instruments in place to thwart that attack?

Yes. He didn’t have as much time as Clinton to act but he should have reversed many of the policies that hampered intelligence gathering. His father was CIA so I don’t imagine he didn’t have some idea of how to go about doing that. Clinton was mostly to blame but Bush had his share as well.

He also dropped the ball at Tora Bora when he allowed Osama to escape?

HondaV65 on September 14, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Yes. They should have sent in US or British troops rather than trusting the Afghans to do the job. They were well aware of the limited quality of the Afghans.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 3:11 AM

And as far as refusing to act…what do you suggest we do in this situation?

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 3:06 AM

Well I think we need to pull the consulates and embassies out and restrict American citizens from traveling to those nations.

Short term I would find out who is responsible and start taking them out with drone, missile strikes and assasinations. Long term I would continue with this with something like the Israeli Operation Wrath of God targeting any and all terrorist groups and supporters I could find. These should include bankers and financial donors both private and national. I would ban Muslim advocacy groups and expel anyone suspected of supporting such groups.

I would conduct military strikes at their training camps and mosques where jihad was preached or prepared.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 3:18 AM

This Admin. will be found out to be totally culpable…

PatriotRider on September 14, 2012 at 3:26 AM

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 3:11 AM

okay…sounds good. I agree we should pull the consulates and embassies out and restrict American citizens from traveling to those nations. But we should have done this a long time ago…back to my point…why were we even there? Why were we picking sides here?

You see, us being there just created the problem that we now have to solve…if we minded out own business to begin with and never picked sides with Al Qeada then Qadaffi might still be in power and this entire incident most likely would not have taken place. Can you say BLOWBACK! Of course Qadaffi was a nutjob dictator himself, but he was better than what is there now.

If you look back to my first post tonight, I explain exactly what I meant…I said this should not come as a suprise…if you would only open your eyes. Our economy is on the verge of collapse. They are trying to drag us into another war. Dont be suprised when they try and blame Iran. Another war will give them the political cover and allow them to shift blame for the collapse of the economy. They will use it to get rid of even more of our freedoms and unfortunately most of the sheeple out there will welcome it as they did the patriot act. Dont forget we helped Al Qeada into Lybia and Syria…this is by design. Now we have an enemy to go after and a reason to enter into a war. The movie was not the reason this happened. Of course we knew it was going to happen, just in time for the election

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 3:33 AM

why were we even there? Why were we picking sides here?

Because thats where the oil is. Because thats where the Suez Canal is. Because thats where the Dardanelles are. Because thats where the Straits of Gibraltar are. Because if we allow other nation to strategically dominate the region they will control the price of oil and the strategic trade routes which gives them a tremendous amount of power to influence events in the world.

You see, us being there just created the problem that we now have to solve…if we minded out own business to begin with and never picked sides with Al Qeada then Qadaffi might still be in power and this entire incident most likely would not have taken place. Can you say BLOWBACK!

Can you say 1785?

What BLOWBACK caused them to attack then?

What do they want? Let them tell you…

What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

Of course Qadaffi was a nutjob dictator himself, but he was better than what is there now.

Now we have an enemy to go after and a reason to enter into a war. The movie was not the reason this happened. Of course we knew it was going to happen, just in time for the election

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 3:33 AM

I suspect that may be so, but it does not follow that we should then run from every fight.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 4:05 AM

That’s the same Qais Khazali who led Iran’s “Special Groups” in Iraq, and who allegedly masterminded the famous 2007 operation in Karbala in which five U.S. servicemen were captured and executed. He was captured by American troops two months later. So why’s he back on the streets now and threatening to kill people over the Mohammed movie, you ask? Because, silly: We let him go as part of a prisoner exchange in 2009, over the strenuous objections of some military officers. Remember that, because Khazali’s expertly trained and sufficiently ruthless that he’s capable of following through on his threats in spectacular fashion. You might be seeing his name in the news again soon.

Newspapers and articles from throughout the world are making the release of the film in question to be the fault of “right-wing American extremists” AND the direct cause of the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi. No mention of the fact that this was but one PREDICTABLE outcome from Obama’s FAILED foreign policy. It’s as if the American air strikes over Libya had never happened while Obama has completely ignored the nuclear threat that Iran poses and as if ANYONE in their right mind actually believes that Obama OR Clinton actually know what they are doing. I can’t wait for Obama to blame Mitt Romney for this act of war.

We have idiot neophytes running the country.

DevilsPrinciple on September 14, 2012 at 4:12 AM

Anybody remember this? Obame on the Arab spring

“Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.”

Seems the moral force isn’t quite so moral or non violent Barack. Naive and incompetent with rose colored glasses, The Won just can’t imagine why they don’t like him, after all he kissed azz and apologized for all of the USA misdeeds. Go home to Chicago Barry, you failed miserably.

stormridercx4 on September 14, 2012 at 4:30 AM

What happens in Egypt and Libya is a distraction. What also matters, and matters even more to the fate of America, is QE3 to infinity money printing. There is not one story here on HotAir about that.

Grames on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”…

Harbingeing on September 14, 2012 at 5:00 AM

Diplomatic sources: State Department had credible intel 48 hours before attacks that U.S. embassies might be targeted; Update: White House denies

Meanwhile, in the White House:

What to do, what to do…?

1. Blame Bush.
2. Blame Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick policy.
3. Release some more Nixon tapes.
4. Blame Romney.
5. Release new film of Mooshie in the garden with some little kids.

Dang, I could work in the White House!

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 14, 2012 at 5:17 AM

Typical “White House” . . . lie and deny.

rplat on September 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM

Lets not forget the Council on Foreign Relations just told us how great Al qaeda was and how the FSA needed their leadership…” Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now. ”

Directly from their own website…

http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 5:34 AM

The White House denies any specific knowledge, they pointedly do not deny there was information about attacks on embassies & installations.

Not taking the precautions was a choice. Those who made the choice must be accountable for it.

Adjoran on September 14, 2012 at 5:56 AM

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Destroying the Japanese fleet that carried out the attack and killing the enemy commanders who ordered it would have meant nothing.

The world is not as simple as you are demanding.

sharrukin on September 14, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Uh, actually it did. At the conclusion of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the last ship that sailed with the Kido Butai was sunk. We then went on to win the war, as the IJN essentially ceased to exist. In previous operations in the Marianas, Japans’ Fleet Air Arm was decimated leaving few pilots with any appreciable combat time.

Isoroku Yamamoto was shot down in the Solomons. After that, the Navy reigned in the Combined Fleet, reducing offensive fleet actions considerably post-Midway.

Chuici Nagumo committed suicide on Saipan, near the conclusion of the battle.

This stuff is all in the non-Zinn history books.

BTW, do Apples and Oranges look identical to you?

98ZJUSMC on September 14, 2012 at 6:00 AM

My take.

kingsjester on September 14, 2012 at 6:31 AM

I see the Paulbots are apologizing for terrorists like their cult leader. Let me guess paulbots, its the jews and we deserved it.

Go back to stormfront.

The Notorious G.O.P on September 14, 2012 at 6:35 AM

Since Assad was so much more of a threat to the U.S., of course we would deal with Assad first then worry about those pesky al-Qaeda…you know, 9/11 was nothing compared to what Assad has done to us. It olny makes sense that the the State Department counterterrorism chief would take this type of action against al-Qaeda:

“And in July, the State Department’s counterterrorism chief, Daniel Benjamin, rather incredulously suggested that the United States will simply ask the FSA to reject al-Qaeda. The unspoken political calculation among policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran’s position in the region—and then deal with al-Qaeda later.”

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 6:36 AM

sing it: What did Hillary Clinton know, and when did she know it?

screwauger on September 14, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Take a large mass of barbarians that would go ape shitte if you looked at them wrong…
and give them the internet….

Electrongod on September 14, 2012 at 6:53 AM

Obama: Egypt is an ally before it wasn’t before it was.

albill on September 14, 2012 at 6:58 AM

“This is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

Gee that “we are not aware” sounds like the trained lawyer, Hillary under oath, denying everything that happened at the Rose law firm during Whitewater.
I’d file that denial next to the default liberal apology format..”gee, I’m sorry if you’re offended…”

Don L on September 14, 2012 at 7:04 AM

The Notorious G.O.P on September 14, 2012 at 6:35 AM

Here, you’ll enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tmnr0vcwk4I

dom89031 on September 14, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Yahoo CEO is a Obama Bundler.

She has raised more than $400,000 since 2007 for his campaign.

Now I see why Yahoo News is so Anti-Romney.

They are using very unflattering pics of Romney at every opportunity (head down, tense looking, embarrassed looking).

I despise the filthy media. There is a war going on for this country, and it’s being fought by the Media against Conservatives……..but do people even realize it?

PappyD61 on September 14, 2012 at 7:25 AM

The muslims raped,tortured, and murdered an Americn ambassador, and you have the nerve to talk about Christian bloodlust, which only exists in your mind.

Kyle_Reese on September 14, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Only exists in my mind? Just read the comments in many threads on this website.

Dante on September 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM

And have readers here acted on that ‘bloodlust’ as you refer to it, Dante? You are truly despicable.

zoyclem on September 14, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11