Smoking Gun: "We had no actionable intelligence"

There's a video on Drudge purportedly showing the moment the ANIMALS captured him and the cheers that went up..
 
The big difference between Bush's intelligence and obama's is that there's no one to say "We TOLD you so". There weren't any tweets going out saying "we might die tonight".

Can't you see what's developing? There are leaders of these pissant countries calling obama a liar, to his face and doing it around the world. obama is sending out his little army of Baghdad Bobs repeating his stuck on stupid story with everyone lining up against him.
 
It's a mistake. It's not that they didn't have actionable intelligence, they have no actual intelligence.
 
Turns out that 72 hours before the attack of the Libyan Consulate in Bhengazi; US diplomats were warned of the impending attacks.

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments - CNN.com

Must've been one of those security briefings that Obama missed while planning his party in Vegas.
 
Turns out that 72 hours before the attack of the Libyan Consulate in Bhengazi; US diplomats were warned of the impending attacks.

It turns out that you're thread title is misleading as your link proves nothing of the sort (big surprise). Nowhere in the article you cited does it say that Americans were warned of the attack; only that, "Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area".

I've read that quote over and over again and have yet to find the part where Americans were warned of this specific attack. Perhaps you could point it out for me? I'll wait :eusa_whistle:


More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments - CNN.com

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

Not good for business... I read no where where they were warned of a probable attack on the embassy.
 
Im not really seeing what's unactionable there. If you have reports that security is detiorating, the logical response would be to increase security... That seems pretty actionable and fairly uncontroversial.
 
Perhaps you could find a quote with more specifics? Thanks.

As much as I dislike our dim gov,
and would LURVE for this to be some egg on their faces,

I don't see it, either ...

Just telling "some diplomats" that things are turning to shit in rather rapid order,
during a time of CURRENT major unrest,

isn't exactly what I'd call a warning of imminent attack.

And, I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire article,
nor the subsequent links,

so I could be full of crap,

but from what was posted, I didn't see it.
LowProfile.gif
 
Last edited:
Im not really seeing what's unactionable there. If you have reports that security is detiorating, the logical response would be to increase security... That seems pretty actionable and fairly uncontroversial.

Didn't I see that some special forces were dispatched?

I'd sure like to know WHO the "some diplomats" actually WERE ...
 
Perhaps you could find a quote with more specifics? Thanks.

As much as I dislike our dim gov,
and would LURVE for this to be some egg of their faces,

I don't see it, either ...

Just telling "some diplomats" that things are turning to shit in rather rapid order,
during a time of CURRENT major unrest,

isn't exactly what I'd call a warning of imminent attack.

And, I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire article,
nor the subsequent links,

so I could be full of crap,

but from what was posted, I didn't see it.
LowProfile.gif

Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. The article offered no specifics. Neither did the OP.
 
Someone tells JoseFK that his daughter is going out with a rapist and he is going to say....without specifics, I can't do anything.
 
Someone tells JoseFK that his daughter is going out with a rapist and he is going to say....without specifics, I can't do anything.

What, in your opinion, should he do?

Just believe the person telling him?
No thoughts for "innocent until proven guilty?"
No trying to research and find any evidence?

Just kill the dude when he shows up? :eusa_shifty:
 
Someone tells JoseFK that his daughter is going out with a rapist and he is going to say....without specifics, I can't do anything.

What, in your opinion, should he do?

Just believe the person telling him?
No thoughts for "innocent until proven guilty?"
No trying to research and find any evidence?

Just kill the dude when he shows up? :eusa_shifty:

Uh, maybe take a few precautions.....like not letting her go out until he gets it cleared up.

What he shouldn't do is NOTHING.

Does that answer you question....or do you need more ?
 
Uh, maybe take a few precautions.....like not letting her go out until he gets it cleared up.

What he shouldn't do is NOTHING.

Does that answer you question....or do you need more ?

What sorts of "precautions?"

Send two armed guards to her,
since you don't know WHEN it might happen?

I'm assuming, for the sake of the analogy, that she's GOING to go out with the dude,
will be In Harm's Way, as it were, even WITH the unvalidated warning,
until some sort of evidence is turned up which nails the man.

Your try at an analogy was fail, this time.
 
Last edited:
Uh, maybe take a few precautions.....like not letting her go out until he gets it cleared up.

What he shouldn't do is NOTHING.

Does that answer you question....or do you need more ?

What sorts of "precautions?"

Send two armed guards to her,
since you don't know WHEN it might happen?

I'm assuming, for the sake of the analogy, that she's GOING to go out with the dude,
will be In Harm's Way, as it were, even WITH the unvalidated warning,
until some sort of evidence is turned up which nails the man.

Your try at an analogy was fail, this time.

Did you miss the part where I said....don't let her go out....that's a precaution.

Your second statement is simply stupid. You don't when it might happen. If it can happen at all....you don't let her go out. Is that really hard ?

No, she's not going out with the dude, as long as the potential exist (or she shouldn't) until you get it cleared up.

Letting things proceed and taking no action is STUPID.

Again...what is so hard to understand here ?
 
It is vague and I can't account for why. But "The situation is frightening, it scares us...." seems to sound the alarm. Also, seven heavily armed Americans were sent to regard the situation. So clearly there was "actionable intelligence" and we were lied to once again.

Link, please?

Evidently, 7 troops were sent to provide additional security,
and it would be interesting to know if troops were sent to any OTHER embassies that are in countries that contain radical muslims.
 
wow...the fauxrage around here is thick and deep

And you are right on queue with your one line meaningless post.

Welcome to the thread. We need someone to take up bandwidth with useless comments.

You are the best.
 

Forum List

Back
Top