BOMBSHELL: US had credible warning 48 hours before Benghazi attack … but did nothing

Un. Freaking. Believable:

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.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

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. (emphasis added)

No, wait.  Scratch that.  Entirely believable:

According to the White House calendar, there is no public record of President Barack Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing–known as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)–in the week leading up to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American members of his staff.

Think about that – the week before the anniversary of 9/11 and during a presidential election, President Obama sees no need to attend daily intelligence briefings.

Naturally I’m expecting complete radio silence from the gang that still insists President Bush was responsible for allowing the 9/11 attacks to take place.

Words are failing me right now, so I guess a clever graphic will have to suffice:

What Will It Take?
Pentagon Denies Reports That Marines At U.S. Embassy In Egypt Had No Ammunition
  • jim_m

    President Obama sees no need to attend daily intelligence briefings.

    That’s because he’s already smarter than everyone who works for him. He doesn’t need more intelligence. Doh!

  • jim_m

    So obama skips his intel briefing before 9/11. he hasn’t met with his economic advisers on over 6 months. Does anyone else get the impression that he’s really not interested in the well being of our nation?

    • Man’s gotta have priorities. How is he supposed to campaign with all that trivial bullshit messing up his schedule?


      Seriously, the long-term well-being of our nation isn’t something he’s excessively concerned with. Loot now, loot fast, and have an exit plan.

      (“Hey, Brazil? You know that $2 bil I passed you? Got that place we talked about built up yet?… What’s that? No, I’m not planning on bringing the wife and kids…”)

      • retired.military

        Not to mention sneak in a few rounds of golf.

    • Hank_M

      Excellent comment.

      Kinda of a side note….I wonder if Obama and the dems are going to continue bragging about killing bin Laden. I’d bet those are the meetings Obama and his staff are having right now.

  • GarandFan

    Well you can be sure that Barry won’t be throwing Hillary! under the bus. Right now, he really needs Billy Joe to schmooze for him.

  • Carl


    WOW. You guys rock. Thanks for exposing the raw truth.

    • Sky__Captain

      Damn right, it is.

      It’s also more than you’ll get from 0bama’s lapdog media. They’re busy distracting and covering up for the SCOAMF.

      This shows, once again, that the weakest candidate for President in 2012 is Barack Hussein 0bama.

      • Carl

        Yeah. And that whole birth certificate thing is a scam too.

        • Once a President has been sworn in the only remedy is impeachment, which is effectively a dead letter after William Jefferson “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski.” Clinton was acquitted before a Senate in which no member actually reviewed the evidence.

        • Sky__Captain

          Yes, Carl, it is. And it appears to have been perpetrated by none other than Barack Hussein 0bama:

          Barack Hussein 0bama is a confirmed liar – we just don’t know when he was lying.

          • Carl

            Well, I’m not surprised that none of the other news orgs are running this story, not even Fox News.

            It’s better to keep these bombshells till the week before the election.

  • jim_m

    Aw heck. obama could skip his intel briefings if he would just read the J Post.

    Egypt’s General Intelligence Service warned that a jihadi group is planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo, according to a report Tuesday by Egypt Independent, citing a secret letter obtained by Al-Masry Al-Youm.

    According to the report, the attack is being planned by Global Jihad, the group
    suspected of killing 16 Egyptian border guards in Sinai on August 5.

    Al-Masry Al-Youm reportedly obtained a copy of 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.

    Egypt’s military is engaged in an ongoing campaign to root out Sinai-based terrorists.

    That story is from 9/11. So the freaking foreign newspapers are getting better intel than our idiot president!

    [edit] Politico is now reporting that the White House is claiming that they did not have any intel in advance. That’s kind of hard to believe that they didn’t know anything when the J Post is publishing the freaking news. I guess obama would rather appear incompetent instead of being… incompetent. Damn, he’s an idiot no matter how you look at it.

  • herddog505

    Yet, Bush is a total incompetent (if not outright villain) because he didn’t… um… er… well, do SOMETHING in response to warnings that AQ planned… uh… er… something in 2001. Or maybe 2002. Probably in America, but maybe somewhere else.


    But no worries: Barry has already apologized… AND promised to get the people who did it… and the people who made the movie that “incited” them… just as soon as he gets back from campaigning. Yep, that makes it ALLLLLLL better, don’t it?

    • retired.military

      Dont forget that he will funnel more foreign aid to the Muslim brotherhood to make amends for all the unfairness that the US has done in the Middle East.

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    Security postures for U.S. diplomatic missions are not decided in Washington. Each mission has a Regional Security Officer (RSO) who makes the rules in conjunction with the Ambassador or chief of mission.

    The RSO and Ambassador are informed by the full intelligence product of the USG, including whatever they and the CIA hear locally. So the idea that the “State Department” did not “warn” overseas missions is ridiculous. The overseas missions know more than the State Department. The mission in Benghazi undoubtedly maintained a high alert posture in any event.

    It would be highly unusual if not unprecedented for Washington to be ordering “lockdowns” of U.S. missions abroad.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Where does the buck stop, Chico?
      If the RSO isn’t doing his or her job properly, who does it fall to rectify the situation?
      You’re right, it wasn’t Obama. Obama was skipping the security briefings, so he wouldn’t know there was a danger that wasn’t being taken seriously by his state department.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        U.S. diplomatic missions in the Middle East, along with some other places, are analogous to military bases in a war zone. Remember that the US embassy in Beirut was bombed months before the Marine and French barracks were.

        The Kabul and Baghdad embassies get rocketed regularly.

        Bad shit is going to happen in effective war zones.

        Depending on the location and design of the mission, it can or can’t be defended. For example, the Cairo Embassy is a type of fortress. The Benghazi mission appears to have been much less defensible, not purpose-built.
        Not too many missions can withstand a sustained assault if local government forces do not adhere to their obligation to protect diplomats under the Vienna Convention.
        At a certain point, the only call that can be made is pull out the mission or take the chance of toughing it out. In Benghazi, the call to stay was made, probably based on a judgment of the reliability of local forces. But the US was betrayed by the government it helped install. Arab reliability is highly fickle and transactional.

        But making the tough calls and trying to maintain a U.S. presence is what these guys do and they deserve credit for doing so bravely.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          Egypt it is a war zone?!?

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            For the Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, Sanaa embassies, pretty close.

        • retired.military

          Not too many missions can withstand a sustained assault if local government forces do not adhere to their obligation to protect diplomats under the Vienna Convention.”

          Yeah it kinda helps if the marines who are supposed to protect those embassies have bullets to do it with.

    • retired.military

      But it would help if maybe just maybe Obama attended his intelligence briefings.

      And somehow Chico I doubt you would have posted your answer if Bush were president right now.

  • Hank_M

    As usual, the foreign media leads the way reporting on the Obama administration.

  • TomInCali

    According to the White House calendar, there is no public record of
    President Barack Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing–known
    as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)–in the week leading up to the
    attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. Libyan
    Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American members of his staff.

    About the same time, the Republican National Committee and prominent Republicans such as Dick Cheney and John McCain threw another faulty bit of plumbing at Obama: that the president “does not attend his daily intelligence meeting” more than half the time, in contrast to George W. Bush, who “almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.” This claim was the work of former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who writes a weekly online column for The Washington Post.

    In reality, Obama didn’t “attend” these meetings, because there were no meetings to attend: The oral briefings had been mostly replaced by daily exchanges in which Obama reads the materials and poses written questions and comments to intelligence officials. This is how it was done in the Clinton administration, before Bush decided he would prefer to read less.

    Bombshell! Score another “exclusive” for Breitbart!

    • herddog505

      Or score another for a lazy president who doesn’t want the burden of actually having to attend an actual briefing… or risk the potential trouble if he “misses” one.

      “Yeah, just send me the documents. I’ll read ’em on me way to the clubhouse.”

      If it’s not an actual briefing, you can’t actually miss it, can you?

      • TomInCali

        Did you read what I posted? The briefings were an invention of Bush, and not longstanding procedure.

        • jim_m

          So Bush instituted the briefings because there were clear national security risks. obama cancelled the briefings because he believed there were not clear national security risks. Sounds like a pretty good argument that obama doesn’t know what he is doing, or simply doesn’t care enough to do the job right.

          • TomInCali

            Now you’re just making up bullshit, and you know it. Nothing new for you. Bush canceled the national security reports because he didn’t like to read, and wanted the information spoon-fed to him via briefings. Obama wanted the detail, so he reinstated the reports.

          • jim_m

            Bush was known to read hundreds of books per year by authors like Hayak. Not simple reading. If he cancelled them it wasn’t due to not wanting to read. You can never include the amount of detail available in a one on one meeting in an email. You are an idiot if you think that you cannot convey more info in a conversation than you can in a written document.

            Furthermore you cite an opinion column by leftist dolt Dana Milbank as some objective authority. His petty and unsubstantiated opinion that Bush took verbal briefings because he wanted to read less is pure BS and is not supported by anything other than left wing hate.

          • TomInCali

            Taking Karl Rove as a source:

            Rove says that Bush read 95 books in 2006 alone. In 2007, he read 51 books and as of last week, he had read 40 in 2008.

            So much for “hundreds of books per year”. More invented glorification of Bush.

            And you may not accept Milbank as a credible source, but at least I cited one. Your claim came solely from your delusions.

          • jim_m

            Still read more than obama, who fails to read his emailed security briefings. Plus it still explodes your bullshit about Bush not wanting to read. He probably reads more books in a year than you’ve read in your life.

        • herddog505

          No, that’s not exactly correct. Millbank’s article merely says that Barry does what Slick Willie allegedly did, not that this has been “standard procedure” in the White House and that Bush’s policy of having briefings was something unusual, let alone the result of his “disliking to read”.

          Millbank is trying desperately to get Barry off the hook by claiming that Barry “reads” his intel briefings (which is something that conveniently can neither be proved nor disproved) while taking a typical gratuitous swipe at Bush: “Yeah, Obama does like Clinton and READS his briefings. Having a live briefing was something weird that BUSH came up with because he’s STUPID and illiterate. REAL presidents don’t have briefings.”

          At any rate, it doesn’t look well for Barry. Either he had no idea about the situation developing in the ME because he didn’t get any briefings or read any papers (golf and campaigning DO take up a lot of time, don’t they?), or he DID know… and did nothing about it.

          But perhaps, since Barry “reads the materials and poses written questions and comments to intelligence officials”, we can see his written questions and comments on this subject.
          Or not…

    • jim_m

      Anyone who has worked in any kind of management knows that having a face to face meeting is far more effective at communicating detail than an email exchange. What you are showing is that obama has decided that intel and national security is completely unimportant and he has relegated it to a very low level priority one that does not require full attention.

      • TomInCali

        As someone who works in management, I know that most meetings are a waste of time. There are even whole books written about that premise. I can’t fathom how you conclude that having important information presented in written reports renders it “unimportant” and unworthy of attention.

        • jim_m

          Many are. I have worked in several companies where they are not. If you have competent leadership meetings are structured, have clear purpose and result in action items assigned to responsible people for accountability.

          It sounds like you are saying that obama is not a good leader because his meetings are unproductive and a waste of time, so much that golfing is a more productive use of his abilities than actually paying attention to the matters of national security.

          It also sounds like you work in a company that is filled with crappy leaders and lousy management.

          • TomInCali

            Good luck finding business leaders who buy into your premise that more meetings equals better management.

          • jim_m

            That’s not what I said. You had said that meetings were a waste of time. I responded that they were not if they were run effectively and that poorly run meetings were a sign of a lack of leadership ability, and I surmised that such was the case with you since you have already expressed that your experience is that meetings are a waste of time.