U.S. officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours sources confirm..

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...tcmp=obnetwork


U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account sharply conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The officials said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.

Further, an official said, "No one ... believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob -- no one."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz27imnNBHY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet obama and the lying bastards lied to us for a week and a bit more!
Attempting to cover his worthless azz. Then they help defend muslim murderers by giving a false excuse-the movie!Which then caused further violence across the ME! INSANITY AND OBAMA THINKING ONLY OF HIMSELF!
This treasonous bastard has to go!-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

[logroller]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...tcmp=obnetwork


U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account sharply conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The officials said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.

Further, an official said, "No one ... believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob -- no one."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz27imnNBHY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet obama and the lying bastards lied to us for a week and a bit more!
Attempting to cover his worthless azz. Then they help defend muslim murderers by giving a false excuse-the movie!Which then caused further violence across the ME! INSANITY AND OBAMA THINKING ONLY OF HIMSELF!
This treasonous bastard has to go!-Tyr

I much prefer this over his handling of the Osama takedown; where he squandered any strategic advantages gained in the operation by immediately disclosing the location, source and team involved. He needs to go for that, (and fast and foolish) not because he spews some bullshit. To use information, even misinformation for strategic advantage-- that's an effective tactic. Believe it not, exposing what you know gives an advantage to the enemy. Look at the bold above--- pretending you don't know its an organized act with a leader to lull them into a false sense of security-- that's a good tactic Tyr.
As CIC, I expect Obama to put our national security first, and if that means he lies from time to time on matters of national security, I may not like it, but I can deal with it if it does indeed perform some strategic function. Truth be told, I give Bush the same break on Iraq. I'd rather have AQ attacking our foreign sites rather than our domestic ones. Now if what you're thinking is he put more people at risk by handling it the way he did, or his strategy undermines the government's ability to protect us from threats, there's ample evidence elsewhere to support that, e.g. fast and the furious-- this story doesn't present itself that way, to me atleast.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I much prefer this over his handling of the Osama takedown; where he squandered any strategic advantages gained in the operation by immediately disclosing the location, source and team involved. He needs to go for that, (and fast and foolish) not because he spews some bullshit. To use information, even misinformation for strategic advantage-- that's an effective tactic. Believe it not, exposing what you know gives an advantage to the enemy. Look at the bold above--- pretending you don't know its an organized act with a leader to lull them into a false sense of security-- that's a good tactic Tyr.
As CIC, I expect Obama to put our national security first, and if that means he lies from time to time on matters of national security, I may not like it, but I can deal with it if it does indeed perform some strategic function. Truth be told, I give Bush the same break on Iraq. I'd rather have AQ attacking our foreign sites rather than our domestic ones. Now if what you're thinking is he put more people at risk by handling it the way he did, or his strategy undermines the government's ability to protect us from threats, there's ample evidence elsewhere to support that, e.g. fast and the furious-- this story doesn't present itself that way, to me atleast.

True, he messed up big time on the Osama killing but Im not so sure that his deliberately tossing out misleading information on the Libya attack was strategy to foil the enemy . I would however now give that some consideration if he took a bold hardline stand with proactive policies specificly designed to renew our standing in the ME and had spoke out forcefully against the muslim riots, threats and now their insane demands that we curtail our freedom of speech. So far he has failed to do that ... which would have been good tactics, log.--Tyr