If this story is true... It's NOT GOOD...

[BarackTheVote]

132. Who are these "senior diplomatic sources"?

I doubt any of the survivors of the consulate attack have talked to this British tabloid; and how many people would definitively know that a phone call hadn't been made? Cause that's certainly what it sounds like from the Independent "exclusive story." Or, is this an insane extrapolation of what has been going around the RW echochamber already about Obama not coming to defense meetings (which is a ridiculous, scornworthy assertion), as member Laura PourMeADrink reported:

On a 2 hr drive today, I listened to a rw radio station. Their rant was:

1. Obama doesn't attend daily security briefings. (which supposedly isn't really true)

2. If Obama DID go to the briefings (instead of playing golf) he would have known there was going to be an attack.

3. Why didn't Obama arm-up ? If he had gone to briefings, he would have known about attack and could have saved those people who were killed.

4. Ergo, Obama killed those people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021338992#post8

So, a lie based on the compression of another lie, thus creating a super lie worthy of Ryan himself!

But even if this 48-hour warning WAS true... what was the threat that was reported? And isn't it possible that the threat was already something being planned for? It WAS 9/11, after all, and all government officials in the ME must have been on high alert already! BUT--the warning COULDN'T have been the demonstrations against Innocence of Muslims, since that only went viral over the weekend.

While I'm leaning toward Laura's interpretation of events, if I were to give The Independent a HUGE benefit of the doubt, it's possible that the "stress test" had determined that the threat reported could be defended against without further back-up, and that the consulate was already prepared for a threat such as the one reported... and then were taken off-guard by the spontaneous demonstration and by some of the Libyan guards supposedly (again, giving this story the benefit of the doubt) turning their backs due to the outrage they themselves felt about the film.

This story's really a non-starter. Way too little information for us to make a determination at best, a flat-out lie at worst, and OBVIOUSLY an irresponsible, if not libelous, headline!