Everyone knew attacks were coming --- interventionism has it's drawbacks On Sep 17, 4:23 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/16/obamas-intelligence-f... > **** > > ** ** > Obama’s intelligence failure**** Everyone knew attacks were coming but the > White House**** > > U.S. Ambassador to the United > Nations<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/>Susan > Rice is gamely trying to toe the administration line on the attacks > on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi and Cairo that left four dead including U.S. > Ambassador to Libya Christopher > Stevens<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/christopher-stevens/>. > On Sunday, she said the attacks were “spontaneous – not a premeditated” and > “in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.” White > House <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/> spokesman Jay > Carney <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jay-carney/> earlier claimed > the attacks were not directed at the United States and cannot be read as an > indictment of Obama > administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>policies. > **** > > In fact, the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo were the result of massive > intelligence failure at the top levels of government. There were many > indications that extremists were targeting U.S. diplomats in > Libya<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>and > Egypt <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/egypt/> months before this > year’s Sept. 11 attacks. These deadly plans had nothing to do with a > low-budget, anti-Islamic film. The Obama > administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>simply > failed to connect the dots. > **** > > Ambassador Christopher > Stevens<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/christopher-stevens/>had > been targeted in Benghazi before. On June 6, a jihadist group called > the “Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman” set off a bomb on > the consulate perimeter, wounding one. The attack coincided with Mr. > Stevens<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/christopher-stevens/>’ > first trip to the country as ambassador – he had arrived May 26 – and he > was the likely target of the attack, though when the bomb went off he was > not nearby. According to the SITE monitoring group, the Rahman Brigades > said they were “targeting a group of ‘Christian overseers’ who were > preparing to receive one of the ‘heads of instigation’ from the State > Department <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>.” > They were seeking to avenge the death of senior > Al-Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/>leader > Abu > Yahya al-Libi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/abu-yahya-al-libi/>, > who was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Even though the attack failed, the > jihadists knew the ambassador was coming.**** > > The Rahman Brigades is named for the “Blind Sheikh,” mastermind of the > 1993 World > Trade Center > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/world-trade-center/>bombing, > who is currently serving a life sentence in the United States. His > name runs like a current through both the events in > Libya<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>and > Egypt <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/egypt/>, and his imprisonment > is a much more important instigating factor in the violence than the > scape-goat video the Obama > administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>has > fixated on. > **** > > In Benghazi five days after the initial June bombing, the same group > attacked a car carrying British Ambassador to Libya Dominic > Asquith<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dominic-asquith/>with > rocket-propelled grenades, injuring two. The United > Nations <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/> special > envoy to Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> was also > targeted. These strikes were clearly pre-planned. The Rahman Brigades also > mounted several attacks on the offices of the International Committee of > the Red > Cross<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/international-committee-of-the-...>, > forcing the > ICRC<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/international-committee-of-the-...>to > suspend its operations in eastern > Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>. On Aug. 11, > General Mohammed > Hadia <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mohammed-hadia/>, a senior > military official in the new Libyan > government<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libyan-government/>, > was gunned down in the city. On Sept. 2, a Libyan > intelligence<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libyan-intelligence/>officer > was killed and another wounded in a car-bombing attack in Benghazi. > Three days before last week’s attack that took four American lives, > Benghazi security official Jamal Mabrouk warned U.S. diplomats that the > situation there was not safe.**** > > These are only a few of the numerous violent acts that were being carried > out in Benghazi prior to the Sept. 11, 2012 uprising. All are based on > open-source information, and presumably the U.S. intelligence community had > even more details. Mrs. Rice said the level of security afforded an > ambassador “depends on the circumstances,” but in Benghazi the > circumstances were dire. Any reasonable person would conclude that city was > a dangerous place, that U.S. interests were being targeted, that extremists > groups affiliated with al > Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/>were > involved and they knew exactly what they were doing. > **** > > In Cairo, there were also reasons to believe there were endemic threats > unrelated to the film. Again, the name that keeps popping up is Sheikh Omar > Abdul Rahman. There had been a sit-in in support of the “Blind Sheikh” > outside the embassy for 18 months. On July 27, the sheikh’s son Abdallah > Abdel Rahman threatened to organize a blockade of the embassy and to detain > the Americans inside unless his father was released. Two days later, > then-president-elect Mohammed Morsi vowed publicly to work to free the > sheikh, and it will be at the top of his agenda in future meetings with > President Obama.**** > > The build-up to the embassy breach ran like clockwork. On Aug. 30, Jamaa > Islamiya, the terrorist group formerly led by the Blind Sheikh, announced > that the embassy sit-in was being turned into an active protest. On Sept. > 4, the Egyptian General Intelligence Service warned all Egyptian security > agencies of planned attacks against the embassy by a group called Global > Jihad, which has been active in the Sinai.**** > > On Sept. 7, an Islamist named Nasser > Al-Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/>posted a > statement on the Jihadi chat group Shumoukh Al-Islam that the U.S. > embassy in Cairo should be burned down and everyone inside killed or taken > hostage in order to bring pressure to bear to release the Blind Sheikh. On > the day before the embassy assault, several other jihadist groups with ties > to al Qaeda <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/> – > including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group and Jamaa Islamiya – echoed this > threat and called for the release of the Blind Sheikh and all detainees in > all U.S. detention facilities including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. None of these > groups made mention of the allegedly offending film.**** > > The takeaway from this timeline is that the Obama > administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>was > blind to the growing threats. The State > Department <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/> has > admitted as much. On Sept. 6, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security Overseas > Security Advisory Council (OSAC) website announced it had “no credible > information to suggest that al > Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/>or any > other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to > coincide with the upcoming anniversary of Sept. 11.” This announcement was > taken down after the recent attacks took place. Secretary of State Hillary > Rodham Clinton must explain why this part of the historical record was > removed and what other incriminating documents have been deleted or > destroyed.**** > > The White House <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/> and > the liberal media want to keep attention focused on the film as a pretext > for the violence to argue that the protests were spontaneous and not > directed at administration policy. Yet substantial evidence exists to > fatally compromise this self-serving narrative. The crisis was building all > along, but the White > House<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/>simply > refused to see it. Mr. Obama’s soft spot for Islam became a blind > spot for American security.**** > > ** ** > > ** **
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
