U.S. Ambassador Killed by Terrorists in Libya

[PETE'S BROTHER]

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=188&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1440&bih=728&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=Gh9FpZGbwAgPKM:&imgrefurl=http://static.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/this_urban_jungle/351722/smelly_rubbish_bin_at_city_hall_overflows_with_trash.html&docid=bZ0-xW_RQkV_zM&imgurl=http://static.stomp.com.sg/site/servlet/linkableblob/stomp/351722/thumbnail/smelly_rubbish_bin_at_city_hall_overflows_with_trash-thumbnail.jpg&w=500&h=300&ei=CoqJUNyFIenqiwKrjIGwDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1109&vpy=124&dur=3530&hovh=174&hovw=290&tx=85&ty=198&sig=102498455341051051505&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=209&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0,i:122

for nitro

[Nickdfresh]

Obama and his whole administration should be ashamed. It was one thing back on 9-11 when Bush was in office for only 8 months and had very undetailed Intel that Al Qaeda wanted to attack America. He didn't know when or where and it was thought they wanted to use some sort of aircraft or plane, but nothing concrete.
...

LOL "Undetailed" information? How much more "detailed" was the information the Obama Admin received? Bush's Admin was informed in May of 2001 that al Qaida was attempting to attack airliners within the U.S. Even if you think this was handled poorly by the Admin, which is somewhat was even given the partisan exaggerations, how can you ever defend Bush?

The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”

[BigBadBrian]

He's babbling? Jesus, you need to take less meds, in the ass as in steroids or something...

Damn Nick, do you have to copy everyone's shit? Especially, that moron, conspiracy-theorist Elvis for God's sake. If you're going to copy a conspiracy-theorist, may I suggest FORD? He may babble at times but at least he's got some intelligence and common sense. Elvis...not so much.

[Nickdfresh]

Damn Nick, do you have to copy everyone's shit? Especially, that moron, conspiracy-theorist Elvis for God's sake. If you're going to copy a conspiracy-theorist, may I suggest FORD? He may babble at times but at least he's got some intelligence and common sense. Elvis...not so much.

Um, dude, there is something wrong with you if you really believe any of that shit! Accusing Obama of treason IS pretty much conspiracy shit...

[MUSICMANN]

CAIRO (Reuters) - A Libyan militant suspected by Egypt of involvement in last month's attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya has been killed during a raid by Egyptian security forces in Cairo, a security official said on Thursday.

The Libyan was killed on Wednesday in a raid targeting him and other militants with suspected links to al Qaeda in Cairo's eastern district of Nasr City, the official said. Four Egyptian militants were detained in the operation, he added.



The Libyan, identified as Karim Ahmed Essam el-Azizi, was killed by a bomb he had tried to use against the security forces during the raid, the security official said.

It was not immediately clear what role Azizi had played in the assault on the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on September 11, in which the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were killed.

The security official, who asked not to be named, said Azizi had been living in a rented apartment in Nasr City for the past three months. He said police had found 15 bombs and various weapons, including assault rifles, in the Libyan's flat.
...

The Rest at Yahoo

And what does this have to do with the absolute failure of Obama and not doing his duty of protecting the American people that he proclaims he does in every other sentence. Fact, He fucking watched the attack in real time for 7 or 8 hrs and sat on his hands and did nothing, knowing that we had troops within 500 miles of that embassy. He could have sent in a quick strike team and saved those guys. Opinion, sending in troops didn't go with his narrative that Bin Laden is Dead, and Al Qaeda is on the run. His motivation to not send help was purely political. His cover story about all this was caused by a dumb you tube video is one of the most offensive things i have ever seen. As for Reagan, he didn't have any Intel that the Marine base was gonna be attacked and that was way back before you could watch events in real time like today and there was no such thing as an email back then.

[Nickdfresh]

And what does this have to do with the absolute failure of Obama and not doing his duty of protecting the American people that he proclaims he does in every other sentence...

I don't know? What does your bizarre, partisan shit have to do with the thread I started on the Libyan attacks?

But the fact that one suspect is down and "scored a goal in his own net" is very related to this topic. Are you high?

[MUSICMANN]

LOL "Undetailed" information? How much more "detailed" was the information the Obama Admin received? Bush's Admin was informed in May of 2001 that al Qaida was attempting to attack airliners within the U.S. Even if you think this was handled poorly by the Admin, which is somewhat was even given the partisan exaggerations, how can you ever defend Bush?

The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”

Like i said, it wasn't solid and concrete Intel. It was basically, they could attack, they might attack, we don't know when or where, but it could happen. Let's not also forget that under the Clinton administration, the CIA and FBI were not sharing Intel with each other under all the Clinton budget cuts and he basically put the Police in charge for such maters. Basically, the right hand didn't know what the left was doing. They didn't have anyone watching Arabs wanting to learn how to take off and fly jets but not learn how to land them. Obama, was watching this shit in real time, and didn't do nothing but come up with a cover story to tell the American people which makes this attack even worse. We got caught with our pants down on the original 9-11. It was a mistake and lack of our agencies working together. This is a pure administration failure and offensive cover up.

[MUSICMANN]

I don't know? What does your bizarre, partisan shit have to do with the thread I started on the Libyan attacks?

But the fact that one suspect is down and "scored a goal in his own net" is very related to this topic. Are you high?

Oh, i guess the real facts about what happened on that night and why our President watched it in real time and did nothing has a shitload to with this thread you started.

[Nitro Express]

It was that movie damn it!

[Nickdfresh]

Like i said, it wasn't solid and concrete Intel. It was basically, they could attack, they might attack, we don't know when or where, but it could happen. Let's not also forget that under the Clinton administration, the CIA and FBI were not sharing Intel with each other under all the Clinton budget cuts and he basically put the Police in charge for such maters. Basically, the right hand didn't know what the left was doing. They didn't have anyone watching Arabs wanting to learn how to take off and fly jets but not learn how to land them. Obama, was watching this shit in real time, and didn't do nothing but come up with a cover story to tell the American people which makes this attack even worse. We got caught with our pants down on the original 9-11. It was a mistake and lack of our agencies working together. This is a pure administration failure and offensive cover up.

So what was the solid concrete intell that Obama supposedly had? The Embassy Attack may well have been a last-minute, ad hoc plan by a bunch of militia douchebags.

And because there wasn't a "concrete" plan listed, Bush's Admin should have done nothing?

[Nickdfresh]

Oh, i guess the real facts about what happened on that night and why our President watched it in real time and did nothing has a shitload to with this thread you started.

Did you want him to use his magical presidential powers to invoke lightening on the perpetrators?

[MUSICMANN]

So what was the solid concrete intell that Obama supposedly had? The Embassy Attack may well have been a last-minute, ad hoc plan by a bunch of militia douchebags.

And because there wasn't a "concrete" plan listed, Bush's Admin should have done nothing?

He was looking at the attack in real time you stupid fuck. That was all the concrete Intel he needed. To make comparison, Bush would have had to be looking at all 3 of those jets in real time and not calling in an airstrike to do something that would have been the hardest thing i could imagine a President would have had to do. Shoot down a commercial airliner with it's manifest on board. Obama could have made the call and sent in a quick strike team to help those guys but didn't.

[FORD]

We all know why MullettMannCoulter hates Obama. That was evident from his first posts on this board, when he blamed the "ni**ers" for Hurricane Katrina.

[MUSICMANN]

Did you want him to use his magical presidential powers to invoke lightening on the perpetrators?

For you people, he's God. So he should have summoned those powers.

[Nitro Express]

Intel aside. You would think they would have the common sense to increase security around September 11. Because of the date and being in the Islamic world, someone might try something just because of the date. Oh well, Hillary bent over and took the blame. Ah yes that arab spring smells so fresh now.