Report - State Department knew about impending attacks, did nothing

[woolfe9999]

I'll simply quote my comments made in the thread about Bush and 9/11:

In the intelligence world, there is a lot of noise and a little signal. The trick is separating the signal from the noise because we don't have the resources to act on all the noise and we do not want to be alarmist all day, every day. It's easy after the fact to criticize the government for not recognizing what later turns out to be a true signal. Yet do we know how often various admins receive warnings of similar magnitude and urgency but do not act upon them because they do not deem them credible, and it turns out they really were just noise?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33954814&highlight=#post33954814

I see no reason to depart from this logic here.

 

[Howard]

YES!

Obama is done for, this October surprise came early. Fuck be upon him, he's done.

I put $300 USD on Obama winning the election. Want to match?

 

[blankslate]

Speaking from an intelligence standpoint, you constantly receive reports and intercepts threatening all manner of things. If you allow them to paralyze you, then you can't accomplish your mission. If you get a flood of corroborating reports, then they may be actionable, provided they aren't caused by a single source running his mouth all over the place, causing multiple reports\intercepts to be generated. My point is, just because someone somewhere had a report that 9/11 or the embassy attacks were going to happen doesn't mean it would have been prudent to react to said report. Most of the time they're just bogus or terribly inaccurate\ exaggerated.

Of course. But that doesn't fit with the whole Blame Obama! routine, so it'll be ignored by the usual suspects.

Stop trying to talk sense about this...

The resident fuckwits won't allow it.

 

[monovillage]

Speaking from an intelligence standpoint, you constantly receive reports and intercepts threatening all manner of things. If you allow them to paralyze you, then you can't accomplish your mission. If you get a flood of corroborating reports, then they may be actionable, provided they aren't caused by a single source running his mouth all over the place, causing multiple reports\intercepts to be generated.

My point is, just because someone somewhere had a report that 9/11 or the embassy attacks were going to happen doesn't mean it would have been prudent to react to said report. Most of the time they're just bogus or terribly inaccurate\ exaggerated.

This ! It also applies to Bush and 9/11 and FDR and Pearl Harbor.

 

[kage69]

I put $300 USD on Obama winning the election. Want to match?

I'm sure cybersuck will take you up on that, you know he/she is good for it... lol