That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?
Not offhand, but it doesn't matter. Well before 4 a.m. (before 1:30), almost all (if not all) living Americans from the consulate were at the annex, having been rescued from there by a small rescue team (two special ops, five security contractors, from what I can tell) from Tripoli. The personnel were asking for protection and evacuation from Benghazi. If the administration had been able to mobilize a larger force, they still likely would have had plenty of time, and certainly would have had sufficient information, to get to the annex. They were there for nearly three hours before the 4 a.m. attack.
If they had gotten to the CIA annex in under six hours -- a very plausible amount of time to get from Italy or somewhere else we've got troops close by -- two Americans (Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods) could be alive today
That only makes sense if they had a reason to go there and had such a reason in time to act upon it.
Setting time aside, you're not really making a case. They were attacked a mile away. They were rescued and retreated through the streets to the annex. On what planet would they have NOT thought they were still a target?
Keep in mind that they all knew by this time they were being attacked by al Qaeda. The black flag of al Qaeda was flown everywhere in the region, they were credibly threatened just a few months before that they would be attacked, and then they were attacked, seeing those same black flags.
(On the credible threat -- which is not the point of this discussion, I know, but just to round it out -- al Qaeda said they would first attack the British consulate, then the Red Cross, then the American consulate ... and they had already attacked the Brits and Red Cross. They knew an attack was almost certainly coming. This was far more specific and credible and actionable than that supposedly damning PDB that told Bush that someone at some point might possibly fly a plan into a building. This is my best guess as to why Obama lied for so long about the cause of the attack, because they really did very clearly drop the ball on this.)
What characteristics of the first attack gave indication that a second attack would be launched soon on a separate building?
The fact that the terrorists clearly knew where they were (the evacuation through the streets was not covert), clearly were out to kill Americans (due to the known threats etc.), and there was no reason to think they would not continue their attack.
If we had sent troops from Italy as soon as we had information on the first attack, and no second attack was launched, you would be criticizing the president for being heavy handed. After all, President Lawnchair had told us we would not have "boots on the ground" in Libya, right? You would just be criticizing him for breaking another promise, regardless of what the outcome would have been.
When Obama said is that there would be no boots on the ground, he was not speaking in the context of a specific attack on American personnel, in which case I expect -- as almost all Americans do -- that he will do whatever it takes to rescue them. When I criticized Obama for violating the War Powers Resolution in Libya, it was in the context of a total lack of an attack on Americans (nor any specific congressional authorization), and thus he had no authority to use the military, boots on the ground or not. But in this situation, he very clearly had that authority under the War Powers Resolution. It's not even an issue, and neither is his "promise," which was made under a completely different context.
There is no response that he could have possibly authorized in response that would have satisfied you.
Not only you are you a liar, but you're a coward. I show you what could have been done, and knowing you cannot criticize my points directly very well, you choose instead to make up lies about how I wouldn't want him to do what I say.
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.