--from a reputable source-- presents information that is not favorable to the administration.

they claim the Obama admin knew about this ahead of time, I think the wording in the Independent is "learned" that this was the case. The Obama admin vehemently denies this as fact, BTW. Then the Independent story goes on about the actual attack but doesn't say much else (nothing at all) about the administration knowing about this ahead of time. I'm not saying they did or didn't but the story itself is making a claim that it doesn't really follow through on.

That's like me saying on a blog, "I heard that WillPitt cheered on the attacks in Libya," and then write about something else entirely. It isn't passing the smell test for me at the moment.

That is a long way from "Hey, somebody is going to kill Chris Stevens tomorrow".

And it was the anniversary of 9/11. The threat level most likely ALWAYS goes up on 9/11. I didn't really latch onto that single sentence in the entire article or assume that the entire article was aimed at showing that Obama/Clinton KNEW what was going on. I got that this was a much more planned attack than originally thought and that there might be some kind of inside element because someone stole papers with sensitive information.

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination
Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

That pretty much implies the Obama admin had info it ignored. The first paragraph as follows:

"The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal."

The rest of the "report" says nothing about how "America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'".

I agree there was probably some increased threat levels due to 9/11, there always seem to be but, IMO, you can't make a claim like the Independent does above and then report absolutely nothing on that claim.

I didn't even notice the grayed out part of the title. I saw "Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination", read the story and couldn't figure out why everybody was getting so worked up.

I was pretty baked last night, so that might explain it...

I suspect it's not that unusual, and absent some indication of the nature of the threat or which embassies are targeted, it's not practical to put embassies on lockdown.

The article makes the threat sound more generalized than the subheading (which I didn't pay attention to and should have).

is a lot different than "will be" and where. Again, I'm not saying that the information wasn't there for the administration but the reporting is sloppy. They make a grand claim, use unnamed sources, who may or may not, have an axe to grind with the administration. The report is not a smoking gun. Then when you have a Republican on the Intelligence committee denying this aspect of the story, you have to wonder about the facts of the story itself. I'd think if the Republicans had definitive proof that the Obama admin had prior, specific knowledge, they'd be all over the airwaves shouting it from the rooftops.

anything

Something to do with the moon.

Yeah, that whole thread was bizarre.

As for the article, I agree. It is of major concern. And pretending like it just can't be true, when it very well could be, isn't smart.

I know the point your making, but this is not appropriate, IMO. We don't even call those women we don't like this name.

Especially since the oh so special jury system let it stand.

The only reference to prior knowledge of the State Department was this:

"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"

It does not say, "48 hours prior to the attacks, the US State Department received credible information that the consulate in Benghazi and the embassy in Cairo were going to be attacked."

It does not refer to specific missions being targeted. It states that the information that American missions may be targeted was received 48 hours before two such missions WERE attacked. It does not state how severe the information indicated the attacks would be, it does not state WHERE the attacks were going to be; it gives no specifics.

I am not sure why so many people think that it indicates that the White House knew that there were going to be attacks in those specific places and just didn't do anything about it. That isn't what it says at all.

I have little doubt though that the media isn't trying to find/hype SOMETHING about what happened the other day to fault Obama for, as well as to try to make George W. Bush's screw-up on 9/11 look not-so-bad, particularly with the recent release of a book claiming that Bush received MULTIPLE warnings prior to 9/11 and still did nothing.

that the killing of the ambassador was an organized terrorist attack and not related to the demonstrations due to that film. She made some very valid points.

Just a surprise attack of a hundred plus armed men.

So now the Middle East erupts in violence.

What a coincidence!

Those who DO want an attack on Iran are my first suspects in this latest wave of violence.

Big Picture: Someone is Trying to Precipitate "The Clash of Civilizations"

The film may be amateurish, but the use of patsies and cutouts is not.

And he's a Republican.

Game over.

They just talked about it on CNN a few minutes ago.

it makes the speculation less fun.

Seems this framing is to counter the accusation that Bushco did not act in the face of warnings re 9-11.

This is concerning, but as others have pointed out there is a bit of a gap between what is claimed and what seems to be substantiated. What exactly did they know and to what detail?

It also sounds like they had done some preparations for high alert (inadequate though they turned out to be).

Bryant

you find mention of this specific subject elsewhere :

"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."

It doesn't change the fact that the protests started as result of the Salafi TV channel in Egypt broadcasting details of contents of the film. Most people over there are unlikely to have seen the now removed Youtube clip - just heard of the contents by word of mouth.

It may be that the attack on the US ambassador was coincidental to disturbances caused by the film.

The paper is owned by the Russian Mafia. By a guy who used to be in the KGB, no less. Your concern is noted. It's a tabloid. If you rely upon an ex-KGB operated paper, you are on thin ice. It's a whisper campaign to keep the race close. I stand with the US. This article is so critical of the US it isn't even funny. I don't care if you are left or right, but this article is so harsh against the US that NO ONE should take it seriously. LOL. Thanks again for your concern. Concern troll FAIL. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Tripe. Smells like desperation. Right-of-center news source. Right-wing trying to facilitate an October surprise. Bullshit article. I stand with my president and his SoS. Un-named sources. I think this is less a "leak" and more "Republican foreign policy figures offering their version of reality". This is an attempt at Republican shit-stirring. It appears that the only ones that stink are themselves. If your concern is real... I'd BE SHOCKED. There's nothing there. Read the article. There's really nothing there when you dig deep. This will actually be beneficial to Obama IMO. Frankly the whole thing smacks of a Cheney production. Epic fail of a concern thread. I am old enough to remember when trolls actually had game. And I am old enough to remember that some of the trolls have stars and relatively high post counts. Now, bend over, touch your toes, and leave an opening large enough for Willard Romney to fit in.

At least according to the good DUers in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021338863

!) Seventy years after the fact historians are still debating whether FDR knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent.
2) Fifty years after the fact historians are still debating whether Viet Nam attacked our vessels in the Gulf Of Tonkin.
3) Over one hundred years after the fact historians are still discussing what happened to the USS Maine,
4) A decade and a Congressional hearing after the fact we still don't know if Bush* knew an attack by Al Qaeda was imminent.


And the answer to what happened to our embassy in Libya is not going to be answered in the fog of this campaign season except by some nutters and dead enders. Romney already has them. The problem is getting from 40% of the electorate to 50% is really hard....

Story Line One- There was a breach of security on behalf of Libyan security (entirely plausible)
Story Line Two- The act was premeditated at some low cell level (entirely plausible)
Story Line Three -The US knew their embassy was going to be attacked and elected to do nothing (entirely implausible)

Somewhere on DU around 2 am est. it was shown to be nothing more than hot air. And Rachel has been wrong and when she is she apologizes. The news hit piece does not back up its hype but wanders like drunk reich wing teabillies on a Friday night. Also the Benghazi attack was at the consulate not the embassy and was a direct attack with no protesting according to one of the Libyan guard who help defend our guys. Also he said possibly one of their own gave the attackers the location of the safe house. This article is nothing more than inflammatory BS.

Am I for real?

Yes, I was not reading DU at 2am.

Go outside.

Here's my thoughts:

We KNOW everyone in the government is on high alert pre-9/11 every year. We all are. Everyone heaves the inner sigh of relief over the unspoken thought , right?

If the military was on a heightened state of alert, so was the state department. I have heard they were.

The ambassador should have had security. Apparently he did. At least 2 ex-Seals provided security, and regular Libyan security, etc. The newspaper does not know what private warnings state department employees received.

The ambassador was liked by the Rebels for aiding them during the toppling of Gaddafi. One might assume his safety was assured especially if he was only dropping in for a quick visit in Benghazi.

Everyone involved fears that the terrorists will attack at anytime. They know the score. This week we are the victims. Next week we are the perpetrators. Seems like this is the new reality. There's no use pointing fingers.

Very informative.

But it is not. You're not trolling.


Heck here is the video anyway because its funny (especially if you followed the boxxy meme thing).

That's the first thing. Nothing sensitive should be outside of embassies.

Secondly do we really believe that Western forces could kill the President of Libya and create the chaos they did in Libya and not expect repercussions?
In the same way the West sees them as terrorists, they see the West as terrorists ad Gaddafi was no fly-by-night regime. Love him or hate him, his state's institutions were well established and sophisticated. This is spy versus spy.

What's more ReTHUGs see the Democratic party the same way the West sees the Middle East and will do anything for 'regime change'.

This is all way more complicated that we're inclined to believe. Sure I'm very upset that this mess is happening just before the elections but US foreign policy in the ME is not winning hearts or minds.

I really think there is nothing there or all the major news pundits would be falling all over themselves to report it.

of the "safe house". It indicates to me that there was a mole, or someone else with inside information of the plans for the safety of Mr. Stevens.

I saw the Faux and Fiends "dittiots" beating this report like a red-headed stepchild. That...and the "reputation" of the "Independent" says all I need to know about this "report".

Its Middle East reporters and commentators include Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn. Both award-winning. Both DU favourites.

This sounds like hyped up nonsense.

of the senate intelligence committee said that after a 3 hour long meeting with the CIA director that nobody knew about this attack and that there was no way they could. They did have notice that there has been unrest there, and it's been getting worse, since the elections -- but no specifics. That was noted in a Pentagon report and written about in an article on their news web site.

Also, no named sources. The combination is evidence enough.

Someone got a hold of sensitive information. Was it a mole?

There is no reason to assume, as a matter of course, that it came from Julian.

The Wikileaks twitter account is a shared account.

Wikileaks Twitter
"We open governments.
Everywhere."

That said, who knows what Wikileaks knows?

And I noticed when reading the article last evening that they promised supporting info in the first paragraph, and failed to deliver it.

I think there is a lot more to the story than any news rags have right now.

The most chilling thing I have read this morning is that there are "safe zones" within Libya and throughout the region where jihadists are allowed "free play" to help overthrow regimes in Syria and elsewhere. And that al Qaeda has been able to exploit those areas to prepare their own attacks.

It points to the challenges of our dealings in the region. Really, I think all this comes down to is blowback against 50+ years of asserting too much military power over others for the purpose of cheap oil and unlimited growth.

They are not the Telegraph or the Times. And they are certainly not the Mail.

You've been biding your time, haven't you?

I'll be 'concerned' when a more conclusive report comes out.

but I think Obama should hold a press conference and answer all questions. I have faith in the integrity of the president and if he says they didn't know or weren't aware of this then I believe them.

That's all he and any president will do...

just the attention it got. So I didn't. I thought I would wait and see if another source picked it up and investigated it. But it's too bad we can't put stuff up on developing stories that is maybe iffy for all to see and draw their own conclusions without the usual attack squad arriving.

by posters who consistently find it necessary to attack progressives who believe that it is critical to question the authority of the status quo.

I just didn't have the time to do battle with them.

Answer: He believed that he was safe because he routinely worked with Libyan militant groups in the area. He was the US coordinator in Bengahzi during the uprising against Ghadaffi, and has been liaison with Libyan Jihadi groups fighting in Syria. These same Libyan groups provide much of the manpower with Saudi and western backing now fighting to overthrow the Syrian regime.

Some background: The Ambassador arrived clandestinely in Benghazi in April 2011 on a Greek freighter and took up residence in that city to coordinate the US role in the anti-Ghadafi uprising centered in that city. It was his presence there, to a major degree, that ultimately convinced President Obama to okay US involvement in the NATO airstrikes that destroyed the regime's armored column approaching that city.

In a statement of condolence issued by the Libyan Ambassador to the United States, Stevens "served as the principal liaison of the U.S. to the opposition in Libya and he helped coordinate the U.S. response" to events on the ground, including efforts to rebuild and integrate radical Islamists into the government. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

Francis Townsend, a ranking Bush White House counterterrorism advisor was close to Stevens, CNN reported: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/townsend-libya-suffers-fragile-security/?iref=obinsite

I want proof.

according to the British "counter-terrorism think tank" Quilliam:

the neocons (http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/about/staff/us-advisors/) want to push this as an act of terrorism.


Chad Sweet

Fail fail fail fail.

Really?
'Oh, let's protest this movie at the US embassy -
hey! Pick up that rocket launcher - take out the US ambassador'
Ooops!

Please.....

... 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."

Should we be surprised when our highly illegal drone assassination program begins reaping precisely what it sows?