You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault
By Catherine Herridge

Published September 15, 2012

While the Obama administration says there was no "actionable intelligence" foreshadowing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, there were at least four attacks on diplomatic and western targets in Benghazi leading up to the murder of the U.S. ambassador.

“This (the U.S. Consulate) was a place that was targeted months before with an IED (improvised explosive device)," Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence committee who has been briefed on the attack and investigation, told Fox News. “It's clearly a target that they wanted to hit and they wanted to cause casualties. ... It's just too many coincidences here”

On June 6, an IED was thrown at the perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. On June 11, the British ambassador's motorcade came under attack by a rocket-propelled grenade, or RPG. Two security personnel were injured. Seven days later, on June 18, armed gunmen attacked the Tunisian consulate and burned its flag. And on Aug. 5, five weeks before the assault on the U.S. Consulate, the International Committee of the Red Cross building in Benghazi was also struck by RPGs.

On Friday, the chairman and ranking members of the Senate homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, sent a letter to the State Department inspector general requesting an investigation into the U.S. Consulate’s security posture at the time of the attack. The letter specifically references the previous attacks in June on the consulate and the British ambassador’s convoy, adding:

“Does the risk assessment process consider the capacity or lack thereof of the host country to provide security? Did the Libyan government request or suggest that security could be improved at the Benghazi facility prior to September 12th, 2010?”

A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the nation’s top intelligence officials, said “actionable intelligence would have meant that we either saw or heard something, through intelligence collection, that told us that a specific act was being planned or was imminent. As I have said, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence related to the attack in Benghazi.”

But a former official with the Bush administration said the Obama White House appeared to be dodging the real issue. “This definition relies on the notion that action is only taken to prevent a specific plot where we know the time, place and even method of attack. Action can be, and is taken, to increase security when more general threats, like what we saw this summer in Benghzai, are known,” the former official said.

Asked if the four attacks prior to the ambassador’s murder were briefed to the president as part of the highly classified daily briefing which details threats against the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests, there was no immediate response from the ODNI nor the spokesman for the National Security Council.

Given the heightened threat picture, the former Bush administration official questioned whether more aggressive precautionary measures should have been taken at diplomatic missions even though the intelligence was apparently not specific. “President Bush was criticized for being disengaged before 9/11, but given what we all know now about the terrorist threat, there is no excuse for lacking engagement or focus on the persistent threats to U.S. personnel in North Africa.”

Read more:


This infuriates me, to ignore the signals, to be campaigning in Las Vegas the day after attacks, to not attend security meetings since Sept 5th. Now this blood is on Obamas hands and a failure on his watch.


And to be in "Las Vegas" of all places doesn't make the picture look any prettier. No doubt he was off drinking and gambling, and fraternizing with the prostitutes. Probably to avoid being seen he had his secret service escort a few prospects to his room so he could make his selection, complete with a case of beer and marijuana cigarettes.


As the turmoil continues over the supposed video, well I watched it on YouTube it is there for anyone to see and it is not worthy of causing all this unrest in so many countries, and for the attack to be on 9-11, then the fact there had been numerous attacks for weeks and months leading up to the actions going on today. The ball was dropped, campaigning became the center point, Obama is out there begging for votes for a job he can't do now, and at whose expense, to start with the ones who were killed. They were not protected, Obama has skipped security meetings , refusing to meet with Israel's Prime Minister citing schedule conflict..bullshit appearing on Letterman's show just doesn't seem to take top billing when you have your Embassy being attacked and your own people being murdered. Then to top this off start with another round of apologies from he and Hillary.
Could it all boil down to the fact he doesn't want to cross Muslim lines, step on the toes of his heritage. Now they are crying for Obama's death, oh heaven forbid his people are turning against him, they see his weakness in leadership and are like vultures picking away. Every military leader is calling for action, Sudan is refusing to allow our Special forces access to our own embassy and Washington remains silent. But you can bet Obama is rubbing elbows with Beyonce and the elite begging for votes and money, he isn't concerned about anything but being reelected, so he can finish getting this country discredited. Our standing in the world once again has dropped to a AA-.




Obama team tweets campaign message on 9/11 anniversary, day bodies returned from Libya
Published September 15, 2012

FILE: Sept. 14, 2012: President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walk back to their seats after speaking during the Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md. (AP)

President Obama and his re-election team marked the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks and events related to the killing of four Americans abroad that day with a slate of official and somber events. But they also took to Twitter for some campaign business on both days.

"The election is in eight weeks. Sign up to volunteer," reads the first tweet, on Wednesday, the 11th anniversary of the deadly attacks, from @BarackObama.

The tweet went out at 7:07 a.m. President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama then appeared on the White House South Lawn and bowed their heads at 8:46 a.m. -- the exact time the first hijacked plane struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The event was followed by the president and first lady laying a wreath at the Pentagon, where the third plane struck.

The Obama campaign declined to comment Saturday for this story.

The second tweet, about a sale of Obama apparel, was posted Friday, about 30 minutes before Obama arrived at Andrews Air Force Base to welcome home the bodies of the four Americans – including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- killed at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"You would expect nothing less from a president whose priorities have been misplaced ever since he came to office," Paul Lindsay, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Saturday.

The second tweet read: "Winter is coming, but these sweatshirts are perfect for fall."

Read more:


Never have I seen a administration do so much backpeddling, could it be Obama has been so busy begging for votes he has no clue what is going on ??? How about attend a security meeting, or make deadlines for info congress is waiting for instead of shaking hands and kissing babies, he has made his priorities clear and it isn't the well being or safety of this country.


Administration walks tightrope, in carefully worded accounts of Libya violence
By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne

Published September 18, 2012

White House sticks to claim of 'spontaneous' Libya...

Did US have warning signs about Benghazi Consulate...

US: No longer feared, no longer a reliable ally?
The Obama administration is walking a tightrope on its explanation over what led to the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya -- sticking to its claim that the attack was "spontaneous" while allowing that the situation may have been exploited by militants.

The latest clarification from the administration came in response to an intelligence source on the ground in Libya telling Fox News there was no significant or sizeable demonstration when the attacks unfolded sometime after 9:30 p.m. in Benghazi last Tuesday. That appeared to challenge the view, espoused by the Obama administration, that ongoing demonstrations over an anti-Islam film had simply spun out of control.

"There was no protest, and the attacks were not spontaneous," the intelligence source said. "The Libyan attack was planned and had nothing to do with the movie."

Responding to the account, a U.S. official did not dispute that no major protest was taking place right before the strike. The U.S. official said a small group had gathered outside the consulate between 9 and 10 p.m. local time, but the investigation has yet to determine whether they were demonstrators or armed militants.

However, the official emphasized there had been a small demonstration, of about two dozen people, at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier in the day. Asked how many hours separated the small demonstration from the attack later in the evening, the U.S. official could not say but added it was also under investigation.

"Right now, this points to a plan that was hatched opportunistically that day. Of course, if credible new information suggests otherwise, the investigation will pursue those leads," the official said.

The working theory based on conversations known to the intelligence community, according to the same U.S. official, is that attackers in Benghazi took their "inspiration" from the demonstrations in Cairo.

"Spontaneous does not mean a 'bang, bang' connection," the U.S. official said emphasizing that a Cairo connection could not be discounted at this early stage of the investigation.

At first blush, it appears Libyan and Obama administration officials are offering two completely different accounts. The Libyans, including the Libyan president, say the attack was pre-planned. The Obama administration says it was spontaneous. Both sides are sticking to their version of events.

But Obama administration officials may be easing off just a little, in acknowledging that the protest in Libya before the attack was a relatively tiny one and that perhaps agenda-driven extremists took their cue from protests in Cairo and seized the opportunity to strike.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said as much when she told ABC News' "This Week" that "as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons."

This, by itself, is not so far off from what the Libyans are saying. The administration just won't go so far as to call this a coordinated terrorist attack. To the contrary, they still describe the whole situation as spontaneous.

To that, the Libyans say "preposterous."

Fox News was told that the assault on the consulate came without warning, and, to strengthen the view that it was pre-meditated, the assault included RPGs and mortars -- including at least one round that hit the consulate roof.

There were two waves to the assault, Fox News was told. According to the intelligence source, in the first wave, the attackers were heard to say "we got him" -- a reference to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Word spread, the attackers regrouped and the second wave went after the motorcade and support personnel.

The account relayed by the intelligence source on the ground in Libya is consistent with statements by the Libyan president that the attack was pre-mediated and the work of foreign fighters, which is code for Islamist extremists, including the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa. It is also consistent with an interview by McClatchy Newspapers with a purported Libyan security guard who was injured in the assault. The guard said the consulate area was quiet and "there wasn't a single ant outside" until dozens of armed men descended on the compound.

These accounts stand in contrast to some statements made by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday talk shows. In several separate appearances, Rice said the assault on the U.S. Consulate began as an ongoing demonstration that spiraled out of control.

On "Fox News Sunday," she said: "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack, that what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control. But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack."

Even before Ambassador Stevens' murder, U.S. officials say the CIA determined the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating based on four attacks, beginning in June, on diplomatic and Western targets in Benghazi, including the U.S. consulate. That said, U.S. officials insist there was no specific warning of an armed assault, like the one that killed the four Americans.

While the Obama administration maintains there was no "actionable intelligence" or specific warning about time, place or method of attack before the armed assault, Fox News asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a spokesman for the National Security Council if the four attacks were briefed to the president as part of the highly classified daily briefing. There was no immediate response from either office.

Read more:


DHS report warned last week of call for 'burning the embassy down' in Cairo
By Catherine Herridge

Published September 19, 2012

Embassy attack a response to imprisonment of 'Blind...

DHS report warned of violence at US Embassy in Cairo

What do Egyptians want?
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."

The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi.

Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack.

The DHS report, released on Sept. 11, said an "unidentified user" on an Arabic-language forum posted the statement "inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy, indicating the U.S. Embassy shouldn't remain in Egypt" until Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the blind sheikh, is released. Abdel-Rahman, who played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks, is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison.

The DHS document described the source of the warning as "fairly reliable."

The Sept. 9 statement said "the time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained" sheikh. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released."

It continued: "Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."

In addition to the threat over the sheikh, Reuters reported earlier this week that a U.S. cable on Sept. 10 warned the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of possible violence over the anti-Islam film.

Asked about that alleged warning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that everything is "under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks."

Meanwhile, lawmakers raised concern Wednesday that the Obama administration might actually be considering the sheikh's release. Several Republican chairmen of top House committees wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referencing a report claiming the State Department was "actively negotiating" with Egypt's president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report.

"Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians," she said Wednesday.

But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and others wrote to Holder and Clinton saying they were "concerned" about the reports.

"If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason," they wrote. "The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ...

"While considerations regarding the blind sheikh's release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America's ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government's demands for the blind sheikh's release. Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength."

They urged the administration to keep Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., warning that releasing him would be seen as "a sign of weakness."

Read more:

10 DUHHHHH can anyone get the story straight ??? on Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:53 pm


Evolution of administration statements on Libya attack
Published September 20, 2012

The Obama administration's account of what may have happened in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi last week has evolved by the day.

At first, officials were reluctant to say whether the strike that killed four Americans including the U.S. ambassador to Libya was premeditated. Top-ranking officials ranging from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice subsequently gave briefings and went on television to claim they had no evidence the strike was pre-planned. Carney and others then began to open the door to other possibilities, as accounts emerged that there could be an Al Qaeda connection.

After more than a week, Carney said Thursday it was "self evident" the strike was terrorism. He and others continue to stick by claims, though, that there's no evidence the attack was pre-planned.

The following is a look back at administration statements over the course of the past two weeks.

Sept. 12

Carney, at White House press briefing, asked whether the attack was premeditated: "It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time."

Sept. 13

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, at briefing: "We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that's going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don't jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating. As the Secretary said this morning, while we as Americans, of course, respect free speech, respect free expression, there's never an excuse for it to become violent."

Sept. 14

Carney: "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy. ... The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned."

Sept. 16

Rice, on "Fox News Sunday": "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control."

Sept. 17

Nuland: "Well, let me start by reminding you that Ambassador Rice outranks me, as does my own boss, so she is often at liberty to say more than I am. And I guess that's going to continue to be the case. What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment. It was also an assessment that you've heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House. I don't have anything to give you beyond that. She also made clear, as I had on Friday, that there is an ongoing FBI investigation. So frankly, I'm not sure that it's useful to go beyond that. I'm not capable of going beyond that, and we'll have to just see what the FBI investigation brings us. ... I would simply say that what - the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government's initial assessment."

Nuland, asked whether it was an act of terrorism: "I don't think we know enough. I don't think we know enough. And we're going to continue to assess. She gave our preliminary assessment. We're going to have a full investigation now, and then we'll be in a better position to put labels on things, okay?"

Sept. 18

Carney: "Well, what I can tell you is that we have provided information about what we believe was the precipitating cause of the protest and the violence, based on the information that we have had available. There is an ongoing investigation. The FBI is investigating. And that investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead. ... I'm saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence -- not supposition -- concrete evidence that we have thus far. But there is a lot that is under investigation here, and as more facts come to light, if they change that assessment, we'll make that clear. ... Based on the information that we have now, it was -- there was a reaction to the video -- there was protests in Cairo, then followed by protests elsewhere, including Benghazi, and that that was what led to the original unrest."

Sept. 19

Carney: "What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as our Ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack. This, however, remains under investigation, and I made that clear last week, and Ambassador Rice made that clear on Sunday. And if more facts come to light that change our assessment of what transpired in Benghazi and why and how, we will welcome those facts and make you aware of them. But again, based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated. It is a simple fact that there are, in post-revolution, post-war Libya, armed groups, there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States."

National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen, in testimony on Capitol Hill: "Certainly on that particular question I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

Olsen: "What we don't have at this point is specific intelligence that there was significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack. Again, we're still developing facts and still looking for any indications of substantial advanced planning. We just haven't seen that at this point."

Sept. 20

Carney: "It is, I think, self evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials. That is self evident. ... Had this happened on any day of the week on any month, this would have been a terrorist attack. This was an assault on our embassy, a violent attack, rather, on our diplomatic facility there that resulted in the death of four Americans."

Read more:

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum