US Officials Knew Libya attack was work of Al Qaeda 24 hrs..

Post Reply New Topic

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... iates.html


It gets even worse:


The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”


Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... iates.html

In short unless the Obama White House is so incompetitent that they didn't brief the President; Barack Obama has been lieing to the American People for over a week.

Daily Beast isn't exactly a conservative site, I'm guessing that this is something that even they couldn't ignore.

I seriously doubt ABC, CNN, CBS, and MSNBC will report on this though...

I knew within the first minute.

you've got something there. very interesting.

It's plausible that the attacks were known about 24 hrs. after they happened.

Not simply the attacks, but an idea of who did it, and for over a week, the Administration proceeded to lie and blame some quack whom made a rather poor quality D rated film.

The administration's criticism of the film maker came prior to the attack.
And did you ever consider the possibility that there might have been a reason why the identities of the attackers weren't released that doesn't include the possibility that the President is incompetent or evil?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

A couple of things missing from your analysis.

First, the attacks on Benghazi were not the only attacks to take place. While the fingerprints of al-Qaeda were all over this one, the same cannot be said for the demonstrations in Cairo, and the ones that followed elsewhere. So when the administration pointed to inflammatory actions, that was not without foundation.

Second, there are often very good reasons why information of this type is not released--not least because it tells your foe something of what you know. It may well be that the better choice was not to take out the person that they had intelligence on, but rather to continue to follow his movements. But now that these people have made unauthorized disclosures to the press, people within al-Qaeda may be able to put two and two together, find out who the U.S. have been able to identify and cut him out.

You are not really in any position to assess competence here unless you know the options that are in front of the President.

Family members of the current leader of Al Qaeda, as well as the brother of the "blind sheik" were in the protest at Cairo. Also there is evidence to suggest that the embassy knew this was coming in advance.

Nice try visagrunt.


That would be plausible, except for the Ambassador's Journal seems to suggest that he had concerns about security for a while. You know the one CNN obtained....

Why wasn't there beefed up security, it was 9/11 for goodness sakes there was no "spontaneous protest in Bengazi."



If I were President of the United States, I wouldn't skip a single daily intelligence briefing. Obama has skipped about 60% of them, so yeah I kinda am in a position to assess his competence or lack of honesty.

The President of the United States lied to the American People, this had nothing to do with a stupid video. The Government failed to provide adequate security for our Ambassador, despite the ambassador relaying concerns about his safety.

Hell it's been 16 days and the FBI still doesn't have anyone in Bengazi.

How about you start facing the facts visagrunt.

Blame the Libyan and Egyptian governments for not allowing the FBI in to investigate immediately.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Uh the government in Libya isn't stonewalling the United States... Also if Bengazi is too dangerous for FBI agents, why the hell was our ambassador there with only minimal security?

You have two options Kraichgauer:

1. Our government sent the ambassador into a dangerous area and disregarded the fact it was dangerous by giving said ambassador only a token security force. Cause it apparently is too dangerous to send FBI agents, so the ambassador should never have been in that town with such an understaffed security force in the first damn place.

2. This administration is stonewalling to prevent an investigation from taking place, because the administration does't want the public (for example ignoring the ambassador's requests for added security, which went ignored).

Due to the Ambassador's Journal, which the contents were reported by CNN, are really the only two plausible scenarios.

No, the Libyans are apparently stonewalling us. And as they are a sovereign nation, it's not like we can force our law enforcement agents on them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Considering the President of Libya called it a terrorist attack from the get-go and told the truth even when it made his country look bad, while President Obama lied for over a week, it's reasonable to assume that the only plausible reason the Libyan government won't allow them into Bengazi is for their own safety which means that the Obama administration willfully ignored the danger they were putting our ambassador's safety in jeopardy.

You just admitted I was right Kraichgauer, doubt you'll figure out how you admitted it.

If I admitted you're right, it's beyond me.
And even if the Libyan president called the attack terrorism, so what? Obama had to be absolutely sure before he claimed one way or the other, or else the Republicans would make hay of how he jumped to a decision without all the facts first.
And by the way, you failed to address the point of my last post - that it's the Libyans who so far are forbidding the FBI to investigate.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer, that would actually be a plausible explanation if not for Obama's track record. Obama has a known track record of refusing to admit any violent actions by muslim groups to be terrorism.

The Fort Hood shootings for example was labeled "workplace violence" when the fanatic was shooting "Allah Ackbar!"

There is a pattern here, regardless of whether or not you choose to admit it.

Obama was right - the Fort Hood shootings weren't terrorism in the proper definition. Had he been associated with a terrorist group, it would be a different story (and no, being an adherent of Islam doesn't count). But he wasn't connected to any groups; he was proven to be a lone nut.
And as a matter of fact, Obama is saying that the attacks recently were terrorist inspired. So there goes your Anti-Obama theory that he's really a scary scary secret Muslim!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

There was plenty of evidence to suggest that Fort Hood was terrorism, then we have the tendency of the Obama Administration to label things as "man-caused disasters."

You would consider Timothy McVeigh to be a terrorist, so under that logic the shooter at Fort Hood was a terrorist. You can't have it both ways.

Also it could simply be that Obama isn't as big of an expert on Islam as he thinks he is, or he has a cultural blindspot due to his childhood.