Obama Administration Was Warned 48 Hours in Advance of Embassy Attack But Did Nothing

Did Obama Administration  know and when did he know it …

This could be huge and one of those things that could bring down a Presidency, ala Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama and his minions have touted him as a foreign policy hawk, yet the actions that occurred the other day and the comedy of errors in releasing appeasement press releases and allowing them to stay up as our US Embassies were being attacked and over run lead many to question just who is in charge, if any one at all? The Middle East burns as Barack Obama campaigns away.  As reported at The Drudge Report:

Exclusive: America ‘was warned of embassy attack but did nothing’…
State Dept ‘had credible information 48 hours before’…
Revealed: Inside story of ambassador’s assassination…
Sensitive documents go missing…
Exposed: Names of Libyans who are working with Americans…
Was ‘revenge for drone strike’…
‘There were 400 attackers’…
OBAMA ADMINSITRATION DENIES…
PAPER: Egypt intelligence warned on Sept. 4 of possible attacks…

According to the Independent, the Obama Administration was warned of an embassy attack but did nothing. It is being reported that, “according to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted.” Many are  questioning a couple of things that occurred that day. One, how does anyone think that sending out an appeasement PR statement against the anti-Mohammed movie think that would work; two, how was it allowed to stay up as long as it did; three, where was the beefed up security on 9-11 anniversary and four, how was a US Ambassador allowed to be in a location that had so little protection and security on 9-11?

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

Yup, I guess President Barack Obama does not need daily intelligence meeting, the turmoil and explosion in the Middle East is a perfect example. BO’s got it covered and is handling it perfectly. His position, hope and pray it just goes away. As Marc A. Thiessen writes in the WAPO: Obama alone: This president does not need intel briefers.

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States.

According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

Daily Commentary – Friday, September 14, 2012 – Another WTF Moment for MSNBC When a Bizarre Question is Asked

• MSNBC panelist asks “Who is more dangerous, the supreme leader in Tehran or Bibi Netanyahu?”

Daily Commentary – Friday, September 14, 2012 Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Poll: Voters think Obama Would Beat Romney in a Fist Fight … Seriously, US Economy Going Off the Cliff and Middle East on Fire and We get This Disctraction?

Not only is the following poll beyond silly, it pretty much defies logic …

An Esquire/Yahoo News polled voters as to who would win a fist fight to settle the Presidential election. According to results Obama would win 58% to 22%. Really? Was Obama allowed to cheat and use brass knuckles while Romney’s hands were tied behind his back? Who were the judges in this hypothetical fistfight, the MSM? Not only is this foolishness intended to trivialize the 2012 Presidential election as the US economy is in the toilet and the Middle East is on fire, we get this silliness. BTW, does anyone really think that Obama could win a fist fight? This dude could not beat himself out of a wet paper bag. As Weasel Zippers states, ”
For real? I always figured the effeminate Obama had Mooch beat people up for him.”

Win a fist fight, eh?

If a fistfight could settle the presidential election, more people think President Obama would win than Mitt Romney, according to a new poll released Thursday.

When likely voters were asked “just for fun,” which candidate would win in a fistfight, 58 percent said Obama to 22 percent for Romney. Twenty percent had no opinion.

Esquire magazine and Yahoo! News commissioned the survey through Langer Research Associates. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Slightly more Democrats were polled, according to the crosstabs.

I guess GWB would win the butt kicking poll 100% – 0%

The DNC Convention Bounce is Over, Rasmussen Has Romney Up by 1% over Obama … 50% Believe Romney Better for Economy

It would appear that the sugar high of the post Democrat Convention poll bounce is over. The most recent Rasmussen poll has Mitt Romney now up by 1% over Barack Obama, 47% to 46%. It would also seem that Romney has energized his base as Republicans are more motivated to vote for Romney than Democrats for Obama. Also, it what may be one of the most important indicators of the 2012 Presidential election, the likely American voters trust Romney over Obama with the economy 50% to 43%.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 46% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Romney has solidified the GOP vote and holds a 77-point lead among Republicans. That’s slightly larger than Obama’s 72-point advantage among Democrats.

When “leaners” are included, it’s Romney 49% and Obama 47%. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either candidate but express a preference for one of them in a follow-up question.

Embassies in 7 Countries Warn of PossibleTerror Attacks, State Dept Issues Travel Warning … How’s That Obama Cairo Speech, Appeasment Forign Policy Working?

Seven embassies and counting added to the list of potential attacks. Add the Consulate in Berlin, Germany to the list. Just curious, how’s that Barack Obama “Cairo” speech, foreign policy of appeasement working for you America as the Middle East is on fire? Hmm, I though that electing Obama was supposed to be the miracle cure to the Muslims hating America? Exit question, who would rather have a “cowboy” in office at times like this, rather than an amateur?

U.S. embassies in at least seven countries in the Middle East, Africa and the Caucasus are warning of possible anti-American protests following the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

The embassies in Armenia, Burundi, Kuwait, Sudan, Tunisia and Zambia, along with the embassy in Egypt, which was hit by a protest on Tuesday, all issued warnings on Wednesday advising Americans to be particularly vigilant.

The warnings, posted on the embassies’ websites, do not report any specific threat to Americans but note that demonstrations can become violent.

U.S. State Dept. alerts travelers in wake of embassy protests.

As reported at The Hill, Sen. Inhofe Says the Embassy attacks a result of Obama’s ‘policy of appeasement’

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Thursday that the attacks on American embassies in the Middle East were happening as a result of “the policy of appeasement” and called for immediate congressional hearings into the violence that has left four foreign service officers dead.

“You can start them tomorrow. These hearings should start,” Inhofe told Fox News.

“Let’s keep in mind, this is a big deal,” he continued. “We have four countries right now attacking America. When you attack an embassy, you’re attacking America. We can’t sit around and wait for hearings. We’ve got to do it right now.”