... even if it is not 100% accurate.
It looks like we may have had credible warnings 48 hours before the embassy attacks:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-8135797.html
If it is true, it is on Obama. No ducking that.
- Guest032516
- 09-13-2012, 08:11 PM
- joe bloe
- 09-13-2012, 08:21 PM
How about this one? Cheney did have a mechanical heart for a while.
- Guest032516
- 09-13-2012, 08:29 PM
- I B Hankering
- 09-13-2012, 08:39 PM
... even if it is not 100% accurate.If true, it's very damning indeed.
It looks like we may have had credible warnings 48 hours before the embassy attacks:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-8135797.html
If it is true, it is on Obama. No ducking that. Originally Posted by ExNYer
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.
- Guest032516
- 09-13-2012, 09:20 PM
Before it comes up (and it will), I will address it first:
A lot of Bush bashers will no doubt say that Dubya did nothing despite being warned that bin Laden wanted to do attacks inside the US.
The problem with that comparison is lack of specificity. The so-called warning we got were nothing more specific than: "We have credible information that OBL wants to engage in terrorist attacks in the US." How exactly do you defend a continent sized nation of 300+ million based on nothing more than that?
It is not clear exactly what the warnings we had this time were, but if it is something like: "We have credible information that US embassies or consulates - most likely in Africa and the Middle East - are about to be attacked, then we could have done something. At the very least evacuate these facilities except for a handful of essential staff, add more Marines, AND BURN OR REMOVE ALL OF THE SENSITIVE documents.
We supposedly learned the lesson about burning documents after the Iranians stormed the US embassy in 1979. Apparently not.
If we did nothing at all, then Obama has to take it on the chin for this one.
There are more reports that the ragheads got there hands on sensitive documents and now the safe houses we have in Tripoli and elsewhere have come under attack. And, apparently, they have the names of Libyans that have been aiding the US.
If all that is true, then this is an unmitigated disaster.
And whatever gains Obama has made in the polls in the last week will likely evaporate.
A lot of Bush bashers will no doubt say that Dubya did nothing despite being warned that bin Laden wanted to do attacks inside the US.
The problem with that comparison is lack of specificity. The so-called warning we got were nothing more specific than: "We have credible information that OBL wants to engage in terrorist attacks in the US." How exactly do you defend a continent sized nation of 300+ million based on nothing more than that?
It is not clear exactly what the warnings we had this time were, but if it is something like: "We have credible information that US embassies or consulates - most likely in Africa and the Middle East - are about to be attacked, then we could have done something. At the very least evacuate these facilities except for a handful of essential staff, add more Marines, AND BURN OR REMOVE ALL OF THE SENSITIVE documents.
We supposedly learned the lesson about burning documents after the Iranians stormed the US embassy in 1979. Apparently not.
If we did nothing at all, then Obama has to take it on the chin for this one.
There are more reports that the ragheads got there hands on sensitive documents and now the safe houses we have in Tripoli and elsewhere have come under attack. And, apparently, they have the names of Libyans that have been aiding the US.
If all that is true, then this is an unmitigated disaster.
And whatever gains Obama has made in the polls in the last week will likely evaporate.
- joe bloe
- 09-13-2012, 09:39 PM
Before it comes up (and it will), I will address it first:It's amazing to me that the Marines were fighting Muslim terrorists (pirates extortionists), in Tripoli over two hundred years ago; President Jefferson sent them in. Not much has changed.
A lot of Bush bashers will no doubt say that Dubya did nothing despite being warned that bin Laden wanted to do attacks inside the US.
The problem with that comparison is lack of specificity. The so-called warning we got were nothing more specific than: "We have credible information that OBL wants to engage in terrorist attacks in the US." How exactly do you defend a continent sized nation of 300+ million based on nothing more than that?
It is not clear exactly what the warnings we had this time were, but if it is something like: "We have credible information that US embassies or consulates - most likely in Africa and the Middle East - are about to be attacked, then we could have done something. At the very least evacuate these facilities except for a handful of essential staff, add more Marines, AND BURN OR REMOVE ALL OF THE SENSITIVE documents.
We supposedly learned the lesson about burning documents after the Iranians stormed the US embassy in 1979. Apparently not.
If we did nothing at all, then Obama has to take it on the chin for this one.
There are more reports that the ragheads got there hands on sensitive documents and now the safe houses we have in Tripoli and elsewhere have come under attack. And, apparently, they have the names of Libyans that have been aiding the US.
If all that is true, then this is an unmitigated disaster.
And whatever gains Obama has made in the polls in the last week will likely evaporate. Originally Posted by ExNYer
Twenty percent of our federal budget, under President Washington, went to pay extortion to Muslim pirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
- LordBeaverbrook
- 09-13-2012, 09:53 PM
Yeah, the reports about OBL wanting to do an attack weren't specific and "According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before ... that American missions may be targeted" is, right? yeah.
- Guest032516
- 09-13-2012, 10:13 PM
Yeah, the reports about OBL wanting to do an attack weren't specific and "According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before ... that American missions may be targeted" is, right? yeah. Originally Posted by austxjrYes. It is specific. Certainly specific enough to take action.
Did you read what I wrote above and what is in the article? We were (apparently) told our consulates and/or embassies were going to be attacked.
That is a FINITE number of well known places - even if you count all of the ones around the world. It we just limit it to the Middle East and North Africa, you are talking about several dozen places - maybe a hundred? How hard would it have been to beef up security and do some evacuations?
And those places ALREADY have staff and emergency procedures in place to react when we get a warning. All we had to do was give the order.
People would have evacuated, documents would have been moved or destroyed, marines would have been deployed and armed. And Stevens and the other 3 might still be alive.
But, apparently we did nothing.
- joe bloe
- 09-13-2012, 10:22 PM
Yes. It is specific. Certainly specific enough to take action.You'd think with that kind of known threat, they would have, at least, let the Marines put bullets in their guns.
Did you read what I wrote above and what is in the article? We were (apparently) told our consulates and/or embassies were going to be attacked.
That is a FINITE number of well known places - even if you count all of the ones around the world. It we just limit it to the Middle East and North Africa, you are talking about several dozen places - maybe a hundred? How hard would it have been to beef up security and do some evacuations?
And those places ALREADY have staff and emergency procedures in place to react when we get a warning. All we had to do was give the order.
People would have evacuated, documents would have been moved or destroyed, marines would have been deployed and armed. And Stevens and the other 3 might still be alive.
But, apparently we did nothing. Originally Posted by ExNYer
- JD Barleycorn
- 09-14-2012, 03:28 AM
Having been stationed overseas in some dangerour regions it was the norm to increase security when a specific holiday or some threat was on the horizon.
- Whirlaway
- 09-14-2012, 06:25 AM
But Romney is the one being irresponsible (and looking the fool) in this situation guys. Not Obama and his State Department.
NOT !
NOT !
- Guest040616
- 09-14-2012, 06:41 AM
- timpage
- 09-14-2012, 09:24 AM
The article is long on background and short on exactly what sort of warnings may have been received. No sources, no specifics at all. Now, if they got a briefing summary that said something like "Al Qaida Determined to Strike US Embassy" then maybe we got something to talk about.....oh, wait.
The reality is that we're not prepared to shoot down foreign nationals climbing the walls into our embassies. It's bad for local relations. It's a long-standing policy. The further reality is that one squad of Marine embassy guards with M4's, SAW's, frags and all the other mobile organic weapon systems available to our troops these days, could have killed scores or even hundreds of these protesters, or whatever they were, had the decision been made to actively harden and defend our embassies. It looks to me like decisions were made long ago that a scenario like that one was going to make the situation worse, not better.
Can you imagine the level of rioting and insanity that would exist today if the Marine embassy guards in Libya had shot down a few dozen of the "protesters"? The entire Middle East would be protesting....not just a few thousand fringe fanatics.
I'm not defending the policy. But, I understand it. My gut tells me we should be shooting those people. But, my gut also tells me that escalating it in that fashion has the potential to make things a lot worse in the long run.
The reality is that we're not prepared to shoot down foreign nationals climbing the walls into our embassies. It's bad for local relations. It's a long-standing policy. The further reality is that one squad of Marine embassy guards with M4's, SAW's, frags and all the other mobile organic weapon systems available to our troops these days, could have killed scores or even hundreds of these protesters, or whatever they were, had the decision been made to actively harden and defend our embassies. It looks to me like decisions were made long ago that a scenario like that one was going to make the situation worse, not better.
Can you imagine the level of rioting and insanity that would exist today if the Marine embassy guards in Libya had shot down a few dozen of the "protesters"? The entire Middle East would be protesting....not just a few thousand fringe fanatics.
I'm not defending the policy. But, I understand it. My gut tells me we should be shooting those people. But, my gut also tells me that escalating it in that fashion has the potential to make things a lot worse in the long run.
- essence
- 09-14-2012, 09:36 AM
It doesn't exactly take rocket science to realise that embassies in the middle east on the anniversary of 9/11 may be more vulnerable to attack.
Geez.
Geez.
- WTF
- 09-14-2012, 10:18 AM
Yes. It is specific. Certainly specific enough to take action.And we did not suspect that the Towers would be a target? The WTC had been targeted before. Nothing was done.
But, apparently we did nothing. Originally Posted by ExNYer
We are still on some stupid alert for flying in this country. Orange? Do you know how many false alerts there are?