• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Report - State Department knew about impending attacks, did nothing

F

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
This was posted in the ambassador thread, but was buried at the bottom of a page, so it may not have been viewed:

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.

It will be interesting to see if anything more comes of this report, and, if it does, who receives the blame.
 
Most likely because there wasn't a belief it would spark such protests. Go on lock down every time someone says something negative and nothing would get done.
 
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.
 
Nebor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

He's the universal scapegoat for raving Righties.
 
Nebor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the "credible" portion negate the "bogus or terribly inaccurate/exaggerated"?
 
Jhhnn said:
Of course. But that doesn't fit with the whole Blame Obama! routine, so it'll be ignored by the usual suspects.

He's the universal scapegoat for raving Righties.
Click to expand...

I am sure you were\are front and center blaming Bush for 9-11 because he recieved a briefing a month earlier that an attack was imminent with no discernable info on where and when. This sounds like they had the location and time down and no warning was issued.

If they had credible info that an attack was going to happen on 9-11 at these two locations. And not a peep was given to the people manning those stations. This is a major fuck up by the state dept. Gee, an attack on the anniversary of 9-11? Think that might be something we want to warn our people about.
 
Demo24 said:
Most likely because there wasn't a belief it would spark such protests. Go on lock down every time someone says something negative and nothing would get done.
Click to expand...
+1.

This is no different, except in magnitude, to knowing about 9/11 or Pearl Harbor beforehand. It's not like they had no other potential threats to worry about, and this one just happened to be improperly filtered.
 
Genx87 said:
I am sure you were\are front and center blaming Bush for 9-11 because he recieved a briefing a month earlier that an attack was imminent with no discernable info on where and when. This sounds like they had the location and time down and no warning was issued.

If they had credible info that an attack was going to happen on 9-11 at these two locations. And not a peep was given to the people manning those stations. This is a major fuck up by the state dept. Gee, an attack on the anniversary of 9-11? Think that might be something we want to warn our people about.
Click to expand...

Re: the bolded-- It 'sounds' that way? What does that sound like? Is it a whistle?

Who is it you want to blame for what happened with your speculative hunches?

Also, with regards to 9/11, I'm assuming you didn't read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1
 
jackstar7 said:
Re: the bolded-- It 'sounds' that way? What does that sound like? Is it a whistle?

Who is it you want to blame for what happened with your speculative hunches?

Also, with regards to 9/11, I'm assuming you didn't read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

You cant be this daft. You took "sounds" literally?

Who do I want blamed? Who has the authority to warn the embassy it is about to be hit?

I have read enough articles like that. All you did was help make my point that Jhnn and the like will blame Bush for not doing something about an attack that had no information on when and where. While passing the buck on an attack that this article claims the state dept knew when and where.
 
Genx87 said:
You cant be this daft. You took "sounds" literally?

Who do I want blamed? Who has the authority to warn the embassy it is about to be hit?

I have read enough articles like that. All you did was help make my point that Jhnn and the like will blame Bush for not doing something about an attack that had no information on when and where. While passing the buck on an attack that this article claims the state dept knew when and where.
Click to expand...

Well, that joke didn't land for you, and that's a shame. But it was a joke. Who takes sounds literally?

The idea that you think I did... I mean jeez, man.

I missed the claim that the dept knew the where and when. It reads to me like they had warnings, but nothing specific enough to bring action. Similar to what Nebor was saying, unspecific warnings being treated as serious all the time would paralyze diplomats in every vaguely hostile nation.

Also, interesting to read the phrase "I've read enough".
 
Jhhnn said:
Of course. But that doesn't fit with the whole Blame Obama! routine, so it'll be ignored by the usual suspects.

He's the universal scapegoat for raving Righties.
Click to expand...

No, but it does fit with the whole Blame Bush! routine for 9/11 warnings, right?
 
Genx87 said:
You cant be this daft. You took "sounds" literally?

Who do I want blamed? Who has the authority to warn the embassy it is about to be hit?

I have read enough articles like that. All you did was help make my point that Jhnn and the like will blame Bush for not doing something about an attack that had no information on when and where. While passing the buck on an attack that this article claims the state dept knew when and where.
Click to expand...

The other thing that seems to be trickling out is that Obama isn't attending the security briefings. I don't know to what extent this is true, but if so, it points to yet another failing of Obama.
 
FerrelGeek said:
The other thing that seems to be trickling out is that Obama isn't attending the security briefings. I don't know to what extent this is true, but if so, it points to yet another failing of Obama.
Click to expand...

From where is it "trickling out"?

Because that seems like the exact right idiom.
 
FuzzyBee said:
Wouldn't the "credible" portion negate the "bogus or terribly inaccurate/exaggerated"?
Click to expand...

The media tends to ascribe the term "credible" on it's own. Just because I get a report from an organization, guy or source that's given me good intel before doesn't mean that I'm going to take everything he says as gospel. This is doubly true when dealing in Muslim cultures, where virtually all intel is gathered by word of mouth. It's extremely difficult to filter out rumors, exaggerations, idle threats, etc.
 
Budmantom said:
This is part of the Obama doctrine and we wonder why we were attacked.
Click to expand...

Surely you can give us links to this doctrine? I mean it must be spelled out somewhere if you have this clear idea of how bad it is?

No?


Must be because he is an environmental communist socialist muslim perhaps?
 
Nebor said:
The media tends to ascribe the term "credible" on it's own. Just because I get a report from an organization, guy or source that's given me good intel before doesn't mean that I'm going to take everything he says as gospel. This is doubly true when dealing in Muslim cultures, where virtually all intel is gathered by word of mouth. It's extremely difficult to filter out rumors, exaggerations, idle threats, etc.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that the reporter used the term "credible", and not the "senior diplomatic sources"? On what are you basing this?
 
The consulate that was killed said back in 2008 that there were strong anti-american forces in Benghazi...but nothing ever happened.

Can you imagine how much of this "credible information" turns out to be nothing. And by nothing I mean...nothing happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top