U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

[DonViejo]

Source: The Daily Beast

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. "We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html

[The Straight Story]

1. The right is trying to make this mean something

For some reason (well, to make an attack political). X event occurred, initially seems like Y was the cause, later we found out it was Z..."why didn't you know Z right away and do ABC?"

You know they are getting desperate when they are making this a big issue (like fox has been). Where were they after 9/11/2001?

Manufacturing news to brainwash the sheep.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Hm.

The GW Bush Way: Someone cuts a loud fart, and they scream "Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 WHAAAARGARBLE!!!" while Rove checks how much scaring people has moved the polls.

The Obama Way: Get facts. Release them in measured fashion.

Hm.

[leveymg]

3. You may have soft-focused this picture a bit.

The Obama Way (as it actually happened): State Dept. releases some details in early hours (appears to be AQ group, organized attack). State Dept. releases contradictory inaccurate details next day (not an organized attack, just mob angry over idiot video). Contradictory Info refuted by details of the attack revealed by Libyan officials (two locations attacked, mortars and RPGs, 2 Americans security contractors killed during evacuation from safe house to airport, far more US persons at safe house than expected, Libyan Gov't has 4 in custody). Detailed Libyan Gov't info refuted by self-contradictory statement by UN Ambassador Rice after State Dept. embargoes information ("attacks weren't coordinated", but appears to have been well-executed and planned.)

If you want to call that "release in a measured fashion", fine. But, please clean your glasses.

[JDPriestly]

4. Let's see. Releasing the Wikileaks months if not years after events occurred is denounced by

the Republicans as treason.

But being cautious and releasing facts about subversive activities by terrorists well known to US intelligence in Libya (a country that recently underwent a revolution) only after a week is hiding facts.

Let's be consistent. An administration should disclose ALL FACTS truthfully to the American people, but they should be able to wait to disclose them for a short time so that they don't mess up actions on the ground to deal with the causes of the facts.

We have a problem with an intelligence bureaucracy gone wild.

I do not understand why people did not listen more carefully to what the administration was saying in the first place. Within a day or two of the events in Benghazi, reports were released saying that some of the action there appeared to be by Al Qaeda or by terrorists. Why didn't people pay attention?

People panicked and jumped to conclusions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1325173

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1333449

As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the murder of Stevens and the riot about the movie were directly related or whether they just happened to occur simultaneously or perhaps -- a third possibility -- the riot about the movie was a cover for the preparation for the murder and violent attack on the consulate. I think the facts on this are stilll unclear.

I posted this last comment on Sept. 13th after reading about the attack on Sept. 12th.

Maybe Fox News jumped to conclusions, but I and many others did not. The scene in Benghazi was created to look, from the video, like a mob attack. But when you think about it, it was well planned because there was heavy equipment.

Fox News and right-wing critics of Obama are just covering for their own failure to look at the news objectively in order to try to find out the truth. Romney jumped to conclusions and was accusing Obama over the event. A lot of right-wingers have and had an interest in trying to justify Romney's stupid reaction to the assassination of Stevens. On DU, leveler heads did not fall for the foolishness.