Advance warning about the attacks? What BS is this?

[Geoff R. Casavant]

A FaceBook friend of mine has been posting all evening with an allegation that the administration knew in advance that the embassy and consulate attacks were going to occur and did nothing. I asked her for a link and she told me to google it myself. The source appears to be The Independent, a UK news source. The website gives clues that it's not a terribly hard-hitting news organization, but I thought I'd check in here for confirmation of The Independent's reliability and any bias it might have.

By the end of the thread, she apparently had a complete meltdown -- she told another commenter that he should be the next ambassador and get fucked in the ass. And she deleted my final arguments altogether.

[darkangel218]

1. It was a fake alegation, it has already been debunked. n/t

[Geoff R. Casavant]

4. A link to the debunking article? n/t

[DJ13]

2. The cons are still smarting from the additional warnings Bush had about 9/11

Those revelations just came out last week, so accusing Obama is a weak attempt at equivalency.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Advance warning? You mean, like a security briefing titled...

..."Libyan Militants Determined To Strike U.S. Embassy"...?

[CoffeeCat]

5. Here is my take on this...

One of my FB friends posted this garbage too. He had a link to the article. The article is from the Independent, which is a UK newspaper, I believe. Also, the paper is known for being a right-wing rag. The paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Also, I read the article. I don't have it in front of me, but this much is clear. The article does not state that we had specific notice of the embassy attacks in Libya. My FB friend asserted that the Obama Administration knew 48 hours in advance that our embassy in Libya could be under attack.

If you read the article, the 48 hours is mentioned. However, it is clear that the article makes NO MENTION that anyone knew about the Libyan embassy bombing 48 hours prior. The warnings listed in the article (again going from memory) were about general threats in the Middle East; no where specific.

And gee, it was Sept 11. Of course there were probably warnings and all kinds of precautions issued for Americans in the Middle East during that time. Of course!

Good luck!! It is so important to debunk this nonsense with the truth!! Others might not comment, but they will see your reason and wisdom--while Republicans can only spew lies and exaggerations!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Would not surprise me that *something* was heard *somewhere*

But that is not the same as credible and actionable intelligence. However, that will be enough to keep the grist mills grinding.

[warrior1]

7. You can't argue with crazy people.

Let it go. That's what I've been trying to do.

[justiceischeap]

8. I posted this comment in another thread concerning this matter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1344243

There was no credible, advance warning...as stated by a Republican member of the House Intel Committee.

Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House intelligence committee, told CNN there was no sign of intelligence “chatter” leading up to the Benghazi consulate attack that would have warned U.S. officials to take extra precautions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/u-s-diplomatic-security-tightened-with-few-good-options.html

But because we're talking about nutters, they won't even believe this guy.

[malaise]

9. Rmoney probably had advanced warnings

from the same old anti-Muslim posse.