January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

The Kolkata incident was a spontaneous attack on an American Cultural Center not a US consulate! It was run and operated by India and did not involve American citizen deaths.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

A truck with a fertilizer bomb driven by a suicide bomber was detonated outside the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Twelve people were killed and 51 injured, all Pakistanis.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

No fatalities.  No attempt to blame a video.  Nice try but not good enough.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

It was actually Karachi, not Islamabad. On February 28, 2003, gunmen killed two police officers and wounded five other officers and a civilian in front of the consulate. The attack was conducted from motorcycles, and was deliberately aimed at the paramilitary rangers who have taken over guard duties at the consulate from the Pakistani police.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

As early as February 2003, the US State Department issued travel warnings that Westerners could be targeted by terrorists. The warnings followed an explosion at a private residence where weapons, explosives, cash, and false documents were subsequently discovered. In early May 2003, the US State Department warned that terrorists were in the final stages of planning terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government also warned of this, and issued an alert for 19 men believed to be members of AL-Qaeda planning attacks.

President Bush was informed of the attacks while on a national trip, and called them "ruthless murder". Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah condemned the attacks as the work of "monsters" and vowed to destroy the terrorist group that ordered them. After the attacks, Saudi Arabia began a harsh crackdown on the insurgency, arresting more than 600 terrorist suspects and seizing bomb-making materials, bomb belts, and thousands of weapons.

On 7 June 2003, an official Saudi statement identified twelve men as the perpetrators of this attack. According to that statement, the identification was based on DNA found at the scene. The names were Al-Qaeda member Khaled Muhammad bin Al-Arawi Al-Juhani , Muhammed Othman Abdullah Al-Walidi Al-Shehri, Hani Saeed Ahmad Al Abdul-Karim Al-Ghamdi, Jubran Ali Ahmad Hakami Khabrani, Khaled bin Ibrahim Mahmoud, Mehmas bin Muhammed Mehmas Al-Hawashleh Al-Dosari, Muhammed bin Shadhaf Ali Al-Mahzoum Al-Shehri, Hazem Muhammed Saeed Kashmiri, Majed Abdullah Sa'ad bin Okail, Bandar bin Abdul-Rahman Menawer Al-Rahimi Al-Mutairi, Abdul-Karim Muhammed Jubran Yazji, and Abdullah Farres bin Jufain Al-Rahimi Al-Mutairi.

Abdul Rahman Jabarah was killed in a gunfight with Saudi security forces, believed to have been involved in the attack, as was Zubayr Al-Rimi.

Much different response than that of Benghazi.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

Two Uzbek security guards were killed in both bombings.  NO AMERICAN DEATHS.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

Gunmen fought their way into the complex, reportedly taking 18 staff and visa applicants hostage for a short time before Saudi security forces stormed the building, killing three attackers and arresting two others.

Witnesses reported hearing two explosions, which breached the heavily-guarded compound's walls as the attack began shortly before midday local time (0900 GMT).

The blasts caused fire to break out, and clouds of thick black smoke could be seen above the consulate. Around 200 national guardsmen surrounded the building, and witnesses reported heavy exchanges of gunfire.

"We have five confirmed dead among our locally engaged staff and one of them is a contract [security] guard," the US embassy spokeswoman Carol Kalin said.

She said no Americans had been killed and a "handful of other employees" had been taken to hospital. Security sources told Reuters the dead were Arabs and Asians.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. 

On March 2, 2006, a suicide car bomb killed four people and injured thirty outside the Marriot Hotel in Karachi, which is about 20 yards from the consulate. Among the dead was David Foy, an American diplomat and three Pakistanis. It appears that Foy was the direct target of the bomber, who detonated his vehicle in the car park behind the consulate as Foy arrived. The bomb was reported to be the most powerful attack of its kind in Karachi, and it left a two meter crater in the car park and destroyed at least ten nearby cars. 

Not the US Consulate, but in a car park behind the consulate, with a SPECIFIC target.  This is an assassination. 

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

What BULLSHIT.  3 of the 4 killed WERE the attackers.  Nice spin on the attack by the pussy liberals.  Three gunmen and a Syrian security guard were killed in a foiled attack on the US embassy. Gunmen tossed grenades over the perimeter walls before opening fire with automatic weapons. A car bomb was detonated outside the embassy, although a truck bomb filled with pipe bombs and gas cylinders failed to explode. Thirteen people were wounded, including two security guards and a Chinese diplomat. 

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

No fatalities.  Non issue.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

More BULLSHIT.  The March 18, 2008 attack in Yemen has been disputed by Yemini Ambassador as being "a private dispute and that the school that was hit by a mortar shell was indeed the target and not the US Embassy next door. The mortar injured 13 students at the school 3 of them critically but no casualties were reported in the incident.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

Really?  Six killed, 3 of them ATTACKERS!  The 2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack was a result of gunfire on the consulate resulting in six casualties; of which three were the three gunmen, and three Turkish National Police officers. The attack occurred on July 9, 2008 in the morning hours, at a time when the embassy is at full function and an attack is most likely to cause more casualties. It is the responsibility of the host state to take care of security as per Article 30 of the Vienna Convention.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen.Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Except, that there is some dispute about the first attack, as described above.  And let's set the record straight on the casualties.  16 dead.  ONE American, Susan el-Baneh (Yemeni-American), cousin to Jabar A Elbaneh, on the FBI Terrorist most wanted list.  6 dead were attackers.  6 dead Yemeni Security force. 6 bystanders.  NO AMERICAN EMBASSY PERSONNEL KILLED.

Now, how about the US response: Foreign Minister Abou Bakr al-Qurbi said: "The attack on the U.S. Embassy was retaliation by al-Qaeda for the measures taken by the government to fight the terrorists." US Department of State spokesman Sean McCormack said that "the multi-phased attack bore all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda."

Again, MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE BENGHAZI RESPONSE.

Warnings issued.  Consulate and Embassy security doing their jobs.  No attempt to cover up or downplay any terrorists intentions.  No denial of support.  Looks like they did things right in the Bush years.  Nice try liberals. 

Tags: Benghazi-Coverup, Lame-Liberals

Views: 1352

Reply to This

Replies to This Article/Seed

 , that they have taken dead aim on the Obama administration twice , with fast and Furious and Benghazi, and come up completely empty.

The only thing we've come up short on in both cases, is getting the pertinent, non redacted   documents the committees have asked to see, that would nail these SOBs.  If they're not hiding something why all the reluctance, and political shuffling to keep them from Congress's eyes.  It's really unbelievable.  I saw a copy of one the other day that was redacted.  I'll bet there were 150 words in the entire transcript, and only about 25 were legible and not redacted.  There weren't enough to complete  a sentence.  Pretty hard to make a case against something when that's your evidence.  Aren't Congress and those supplying the transcripts working for the same team.  That team is TRUTH.

Yeah, we know John.  You're an Obama W&%$e.  Nothing he does, including lying to cover up his own inaction and that of his cabinet, lying to cover up his failed policy in the Arab spring, is ever wrong to you or your ilk.  Two operations on his watch.  Dead Americans from both of them.  Yet he gets a free pass from you and the other liberal pussies.  You're a traitor to America.

If you wanna' do it this way, I've got 35 …

You know.

Make sure that those 35 include cases of attacks where the administration purposly misled the public, failed to take action before with forwarning, and failed to take action during, when assistance WAS clearly available and ready to help.  Because if you want to show the Bush administration's actions equal to Benghazi, it MUST include all of that. 

Make sure that those 35 include cases of attacks where the administration purposly misled the public, failed to take action before with forwarning, and failed to take action during, when assistance WAS clearly available and ready to help.

Done!

The Deafness Before the Storm

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”

And …

More Evidence Indicates the Bush Administration Ignored September 11 Warnings

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/09/bush-administration-ig...

Eleven years to the day after September 11 and more than seven years after the release of the government's 9/11 Commission Report, newly public intelligence documents reveal just how much the George W. Bush White House knew in the lead-up to the attacks. In a New York Times op-ed, reporter Kurt Eichenwald writes of the presidential briefings that came before the well-known August 6 warning "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," concluding that "the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed." That included a warning from the CIA on May 1 that "a group presently in the United States" was planning to strike and one on June 22 that an attack could be "imminent."

As the 9/11 Commission noted, "There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBS [Presidential Daily Briefings] from January 21 to September 11 that related to Bin Laden." In a section of the report called "The Drumbeat Begins," the Commission highlights a late June briefing that alerts to the "high probability of near-term 'spectacular' terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties … including a 'severe blow' against U.S. and Israeli 'interests' during the next two weeks." But whereas the Commission report describes the threat of attacks worldwide, Eichenwald's exclusive intel specifically cites a domestic threat, one with "dramatic consequences."

However, as Eichenwald writes, the administration was much more concerned with Iraq:

An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

On June 29, the CIA insisted, "The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden." Almost a month later, "the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief."

This morning, leading the Bush loyalist response against these damning revelations, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted, "Disgusting op-ed in NYT by a truther implying Bush knew of 9-11/let it happen." Eichenwald writes no such thing, nor does he imply it. His findings are frightening enough.

And …

Bush received more warnings about 9/11 than we realized, according to a new column and book

by Kurth Eichenwald.

So why didn't his administration take them seriously?

Eichenwald gives an explanation that, at least in retrospect, seems foolish:

[S]ome in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Little surprise that the same administration found a reason to declare war on Iraq several years later.

And …

Bush ignored 6 warnings of an impending terrorist attack: report

On the anniversary of 9/11, a new report claims the CIA became increasingly frustrated at the White House's failure to take seriously their information of a terrorist attack.

Facebook
16
0
17
Sept 11 anniversaryEnlarge
NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 11: Dennis Swindell kisses the name of his partner Gary Lee Bright on the South Tower memorial pool wall during observances for the eleventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on lower Manhattan at the World Trade Center site September 11, 2012 in New York City. The nation is commemorating the eleventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks which resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people after two hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and one crash landed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Timothy A. Clary-Pool/Getty Images) (Pool/AFP/Getty Images)
What do you think?
0
Must read
0
Suprising
3
Tragic
0
Inspiring
0
Odd!

On the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it is claimed that former US President George Bush ignored six specific security briefings during 2001 of a terrorist attack involving mass casualties. 

The New York Times reported the White House was given a series of briefings between May and August 2001 from the CIA about an Al Qaeda attack, but failed to take any significant action.

The briefings included information from a number of sources about an attack with explosives and involving numerous casualties. 

The Daily Mail reported that by May 1, the CIA told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation, and on June 22, the daily brief reported that Al Qaeda strikes could be “imminent.” 

But Bush continually dismissed them, and questioned the reliability of the reports and the thoroughness of the briefings. 

The repeated warnings came before the famous top secret briefing, which has previously been made public, given to Bush on August 6, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US."

A few weeks later, on September 11, nearly 3000 people were killed when terrorists used planes to crash into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington DC.

The new report by the Times comes as thousands of family and friends of the victims gathered at Ground Zero today to mark the 11th anniversary.

The Times reporter, Kurt Eichenwald, claims that officials within the CIA's Counterterrorism Center became increasingly angry that the White House was not taking action, and in one meeting an official suggested the staff request a transfer so they could not be blamed when the attack occurred.

Eichenwald told CBS News: "What I've been able to see are the presidential daily briefs before August 6 of 2001. And they're horrific, and they are — our reports are 'an attack is coming,' 'there are going to be mass casualties.' The worst of them, the Pentagon, the neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, as the CIA was coming in saying, 'al-Qaeda's going to attack,' said, 'Oh, this is just a false flag operation. Bin laden is trying to take our attention off of the real threat, Iraq.' And so there are presidential daily briefs that are literally saying, 'No they're wrong, this isn't fake, it's real.'"

As for …
Because if you want to show the Bush administration's actions equal to Benghazi, it MUST include all of that.
INDEED!

Sorry, not the same.  The Bush administration from day one called it a terrorist attack.  Pretty fucked up example to try and cover for your saviour Amac.  Not good enough.

Of course it's not good enough; you righties never want dialogue. i only post responses to piss you off and get your predictable responses.

Oh, and make sure they changed the reason for the attacks to some bullshit video instead of a terrorist attack to cover up their failed policy during the Arab Spring of Democracy!

Oh, and make sure they changed the reason for the attacks to some bullshit video instead of a terrorist attack to cover up their failed policy during the Arab Spring of Democracy!

How 'bout …

WMD > Operation Iraqi Freedom > Spread Peace Throughout the Middle East and then there were …

How'd I do?

Again, you fail. 

I'm shocked! I was so sure you'd give an objective response.

WTF was I thinking?

Not this time AMac.  I'm sick and tired of the Liberals giving this son of a bitch a pass on every fuckup he does.  And this one is crystal fucking clear.  They KNEW it was a terrorist attack, and purposly lied to cover their own incompetence.  There was help available, brave men ready to answer the call, 7 of whom disobeyed direct orders and went to their aid.  Now two of them are dead, as well as the Ambassador, and another employee, and this fucking administration tried to downplay, hide, and otherwise cover up every fucking aspect.  I don't give a shit what Bush knew or didn't know about WMD's, or 9-11.  He owned up to every fucking thing he did, unlike this fuck.

Peddle your Bush Bashing to someone else.  It doesn't fly in this scandal.  It doesn't fly in this level of incompetence, both Obama's and that stupid bitch Hillary.

RSS

Blog Posts

#EndColumbusDay

Posted by Rainbow Warrior on October 12, 2014 at 7:22pm 10 Comments

Never a bad time...

Posted by Souls Prison on October 12, 2014 at 12:05pm 1 Comment

Leading a Successsful Life

Posted by Robert in Ohio on October 11, 2014 at 12:05pm 1 Comment

image.jpg

The Grass is Greener ......

Posted by Robert in Ohio on October 10, 2014 at 4:41pm 2 Comments

Grass Greener.jpg

The Right Attitude

Posted by Robert in Ohio on October 9, 2014 at 11:00am 2 Comments

pic00307.png

Take Risks!

Posted by Robert in Ohio on October 8, 2014 at 11:16am 0 Comments

Wisdom.JPG

Success

Posted by Robert in Ohio on October 8, 2014 at 10:22am 3 Comments

WATT.jpg

Three Simple Rules in Life

Posted by Robert in Ohio on October 7, 2014 at 2:00pm 4 Comments

IMG_61868086168532.jpeg

A trip to Florida Redux I....

Posted by Broliver "TheSquirrel" Stagnasty on October 5, 2014 at 8:30am 13 Comments

So far, it has been uneventfully eventful.... Got the truck from the U-Haul drop off and pick up point, drove it, loaded it, slept, got up on Saturday morning and left about 9:30. About 11 o'clock my brother and I were going through the toll booths for I-90 in Albany, and when we started from the toll booths the truck it was not responding to helm properly, in that seemed to rev but not move as quickly as we thought it should. 

Here the trouble began. 

Pulled of to the side of…

Continue

Follow NT's Forum

© 2014   Created by Perrie Halpern.

Badges  |  Report an Issue.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service