U.S. Embassador and 3 staff dead. Religion of Peace indeed!

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 35797.html

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.

If this is indeed true, it will paint the Obama admin as bumbling fools that cost the life of several people. It was two days before 9/11, and there was word of a planned attack. Who sits on that type of intel?

[Partha]

From later in that article:

Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

If that makes Obama a 'bumbling idiot', then why don't we go back to 9/10/01 and talk about what the Bush adminstration you defended so notably was.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

No, the fact that Egypt intelligence was warning about something like this on Sept. 4th would make them bumbling fools.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=284684

[Ddrak]

Cairo is a long way, and a different country from Benghazi.

Similarly, if diplomats went to "lockdown" every time a vague warning of American missions being targeted went out then you may as well shut up shop.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I wouldn't call intel from a country's intelligence agency "vague".

@Partha - Consider for a moment that not all intel was provided to the ambassador's security so they could make an informed decision about his safety protocols. If it comes out that intel about the attack (and lets be clear, it was an organized attack, not a protest), then yes, Obama has an issue.

[Partha]

I wouldn't call intel from a country's intelligence agency "vague".

@Partha - Consider for a moment that not all intel was provided to the ambassador's security so they could make an informed decision about his safety protocols. If it comes out that intel about the attack (and lets be clear, it was an organized attack, not a protest), then yes, Obama has an issue.

Then what you'd be claiming is that Obama deliberately sent him out to die.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

O'h theres a crisis, well I'll just go sleep and let you guys handle it'bama?

[Ddrak]

I wouldn't call intel from a country's intelligence agency "vague".

Of course intel can be vague, and that's independent of the source.

All you've got is unconfirmed reports that there was credible information that US missions may be targeted. No date. No specifics. Nothing actionable at all. Seriously - when are US missions in Arab countries NOT targeted?

So, what I'm getting from you and Fallakin is the impression the US should be sending to the world is their Ambassadors run and hide every time something vague comes across in intel? Way to be chicken-shit cowards.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

When you get a credible warning like that, you at least bolster the defenses and raise the alert level a little.

[Ddrak]

When you get a credible warning like that, you at least bolster the defenses and raise the alert level a little.

Credible warning of what though?

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

When you get a credible warning like that, you at least bolster the defenses and raise the alert level a little.

Credible warning of what though?

Dd

the September 4 letter, sent to all Egyptian security sectors, warning that Sinai- and Gaza-based Global Jihad cells were planning attacks on the two embassies.

[Partha]

So, because of a tip that they were going to attack the Cairo embassies, they should have increased security in Benghazi to prevent the attack?

Do you even understand how ridiculous that sounds?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Credible threat from one fledgling Muslim nation should've resulted in increased security in all Muslim nation embassies. That's how their world works, if you haven't noticed.

[Ddrak]

Credible threat from one fledgling Muslim nation should've resulted in increased security in all Muslim nation embassies. That's how their world works, if you haven't noticed.

Uh, no. No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. You can't generalize a third of the world in that sort of racist manner, in much the same way you can't refer to Judeo-Christian nations in similar generalizations. Threats to the Egyptian embassy, are irrelevant to the Indonesian embassy, are irrelevant to the Turkmenistan embassy/whatever, are irrelevant to the Northern Cyprus official shack, are irrelevant to the Libyan mission.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Racist manner?

I'm basing it solely on what happened last year during the 'Arab Spring'. One nation started it and others followed, same in this case.

Additionally there has to be some intelligence out there on what countries are linked by the same radical roots; thats really the determining factor here.

Came out today that a Libyan official was warning 3 days before the attacks.

[Ddrak]

I've no doubt that after any attack there will be people able to cherrypick all sorts of evidence that it was clearly going to happen. For a high risk post (which all of these are), it's just confirmation bias kicking into high gear though.

Dd