October 26, 2012

"CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack."

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

204 comments:

1 – 200 of 204   Newer›   Newest»
Bru said...

Panetta's comments ignore the fact that they had operatives on the ground and a drone providing them with real-time information.

Seeing Red said...

And listening posts.

Seeing Red said...

They didn't know what was going on for 7 hours?

edutcher said...

OK, question:

Is Panetta, whom I believe did an end run around Zero (and Jarrett) to hit bin Laden, trying to save his own neck, because the reason given for not sending in the cavalry was that Hilla and Barry didn't want to violate Libyan sovereignty and thus would have had to buy into this nonsense, or is he trying to save the Democrat Party?

If he wanted to send in the troops and was overruled by the Apologist-In-Chief, then there's no culpability, but he ought to resign if he has any integrity.

Floating this particular balloon at this point is absolute lunacy.

Shouting Thomas said...

Damn it! It was the video!

Original Mike said...

My ears perked up in the third debate when Obama said (paraphrasing): “We did everything that night to provide aid for those under attack.” My reaction was, “Why did he feel a need to say that?” Now I know why. But it was a bald face lie. What a bastard.

cubanbob said...

Bru beat me to it. Besides they couldn't send a couple of planes from Sicily to over fly the area and confirm what is going on?

TWM said...

Like I commented in another post - people need to be fired, prosecuted and impeached over this.

Original Mike said...

Is THIS enough, Althouse?

Clyde said...

The basic principle is you don't leave your people behind, hung out to dry. I'm seriously disappointed in people like Panetta and Petraeus, who should have known better even if Hillary and Obama didn't.

Eddie said...

How tepid a response! I hope the police in my area don't operate under this principle.

TWM said...

If this manages to make it into the MSM, this could be the October surprise that seals the deal.

AaronS said...

There were two Americans already there fighting for their lives. Forces were already deployed.

I hope to God that my local PD doesn't have the same protocols as the DOD.

Seeing Red said...

Insty:

IT JUST GETS WORSE: AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire. Even though the consulate-attackers’ mortar was under laser designation

Cosmic Conservative said...

I wonder sometimes how well people have put the facts we know (and which Obama and his spokespeople have admitted to be true) together to paint a picture of what happened.

Here is what we know.

The entire episode was relayed in real time from several communication sources including official diplomatic channels, personal cell phones and a predator drone that was flying overhead. All of this communication was available in the White House Situation Room. During the last debate Obama admitted, in his usual sneering, arrogant way, that he was aware that the attack was not a protest and was a planned terrorist attack at the time.

So we know that as the consulate itself was being attacked, the President knew about it. We know also that the CIA team at the Annex nearby were asking for permission to go to the rescue of Chris Stevens and his staff. Those requests were denied. What we don't know is who denied them. However we DO KNOW that Obama was aware of the situation and Obama could have made an executive decision at that moment to go rescue our Ambassador. He did not.

But it gets worse. This was not a five minute situation. There were two distinct attacks, one at the consulate and one at the CIA location. The first attack was over in less than an hour. But the attack on the CIA team lasted for several hours. The overall time of the two attacks was several hours. From the very start the CIA team was requesting military access. At one point during the attack on the Annex, CIA forces had laser tracking on targets and were desperately begging for helicopter or gunship support, support which use laser guided munitions that could have surgically targeted those "lit up" targets from the air.

Those requests were denied.

We don't know who denied them.

We do know that President Obama was aware of the situation and he did not make an executive decision to send in military support.

Hillary warned us that a 3:00 am phone call would come. When it did come our President knowingly allowed four Americans, including an American ambassador, to die violently at the hands of anti-American jihadists, on what is technically American soil, when he had resources at his disposal that could have been sent to their rescue.

The bottom line is that Obama had the ability to intervene. All he had to do was say "Go. Save them." For whatever reason Obama was either unwilling or unable to make that call.

That's what we know.

This is indefensible. But it will be defended anyway.

Original Mike said...

"The basic principle is you don't leave your people behind, hung out to dry."

Garage will be by anytime now to tell us that there is overwhelming support amongst the military for Obama.

Chip S. said...

The only logic I can see in Panetta's stated position is political logic.

Losing 4 Americans to an angry mob is a story that dies down well before the election, especially with fully compliant media. Losing more than that in a military action ordered by the president risks a Blackhawk Down scenario that couldn't be ignored.

Shouting Thomas said...

Garage will be by anytime now to tell us that there is overwhelming support amongst the military for Obama.

In another thread, garage is still defending the Obama administration for claiming that the video was the cause of it all.

TWM said...

"Garage will be by anytime now to tell us that there is overwhelming support amongst the military for Obama."

No doubt accompanied by Ted Turner who will state that it must have been their wish to commit suicide by terrorist.

Shouting Thomas said...

Appears to me that, with the exception of the awful Faux Noise and this blog, the major media are ignoring this story like stink on shit.

Baron Zemo said...

This shows you how it is unfair to compare the Jug Eared Jesus to Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy would have sent in the helicopters.

They might have worked....but he would have sent them.

Obama not like Carter?

MikeR said...

This is crazy. They could have helped them, and they didn't try?

Synova said...

The travel time allows additional time to figure out what is going on.

Those who responded from the annex didn't know any more than people in Washington knew or Italy could know.

I haven't said before but this reminds me of once when I went to the hospital for an outpatient surgery and then ended up being there four days. When I next saw my pastor he explained that he'd have come to see me but I was home so quick he didn't get a chance (the church secretary did come to see me.) Thing is... he was lying. That bothered me a lot. I was getting a *story* from him. That bothered me a lot.

The reason this reminds me of that is that... starting out it was probably reasonable to think that whatever happened was going to be done so fast that it would all be over too soon to do anything about it. Starting to mobilize help, just in case, had to have happened long before anyone knew if it was going to be a long siege or not.

My pastor made a similar decision that he wasn't going to have to plan a hospital visit and that was that.

Bob Ellison said...

The Watergate scenario is starting to sound plausible. This disaster has gone on for weeks, with most in the Administration and the MSM playing along. Eventually, the truth will come out. That truth seems increasingly likely to be horrible for Obama.

So...if Obama is re-elected, what will happen? Is it 1972?

The Drill SGT said...

Inserting a SOF team could be iffy given the SA7/24 MANPADS loose (20,000), and that might make an AC-130 vulnerable as well.

That doesn't give any military excuse (there might be a Diplomatic one) for not launching a couple of F-18s or -16's or -15's. they could have been on-station by midnight. 4 hours before the SEALs died. Anything with a half dozen SDB smartbombs and a sniper pod. they could have been at 10,000 feet, out of SAM range and dealt with the CIA attack. Nothing was going to help the ambassador.

Also it was night and an F-18 making a mach 1 low level pass over the city would have taken the fight out of the jihadi's.

Seeing Red said...

Any military or spook who votes for Barry after this needs a psych eval stat.

He did it to them, they're next in line.

Baron Zemo said...

It is just like Watergate.

Except the tape is over Hillary's mouth instead of the lock in the hallway that Frank Wills found when he was making his rounds.

Tibore said...

On the one hand, Panetta is right: You do not risk your rescuers, first responders, reinforcements, etc. without knowing what you're sending them in to. There's no logic in sending professionals into a situation without at least some knowledge of what's happening and also what to do about it.

The bone of contention here, though, is the claim that the situation was not known. As has been pointed out repeatedly now, they had a drone in the air plus people near the situation telling them what was needed. Given that the principle does not apply here, the only question is why the aid wasn't provided.

Panetta may be right in principle, but that principle does not cover this situation.

X said...

why Mr. President?

Cosmic Conservative said...

I think this is important enough to repeat.

During the entirety of this ordeal, one man had the power to override all protocol, procedure and caution and simply say "Go. Save them." That man was Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama chose not to make that call.

Make of it what you will. But this buck stops at the man who makes the call. Or doesn't.

Quayle said...

That is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard coming from a SecDef.

Absolute rubbish.

He seems to forget that for the military, for years in 2004 or 2005 just driving down the street was to deploy forces in harms way without knowing what was going on.

When did the most powerful military in the world get so risk averse?

Lem said...

Ok.. I'm playing garage on this one.

If Obama didnt compromise on a budget deal... didnt compromise on his Obamacare... why should we expect that he compromise his reelection on a risky desert scheme to rescue Americans?

You people are loosing sight of the bigger picture here.

How did I do?

exhelodrvr1 said...

If they didn't want to insert ground troops, there were at least several other options available to them. And they didn't even put assets into position to be used (i.e. launch aircraft, and have them orbiting in close proximity) in case the situation changed.

I think they were surprised, dithered around/froze, then decided it was too late by that point to do anything, and since then have been trying to delay the truth coming out until after the election.

Cosmic Conservative said...

One more thing. If a field commander did what Obama did here, that field commander would be summarily stripped of all rank and drummed out of the service with a dishonorable discharge.

And rightly so.

LilyBart said...

...But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on.

Funny - this is what the Littleton Police said about why they didn't go into Columbine HS during the shooting - during the time when students and teachers were being shot. The local community was not sympathetic to that position. They felt that that is what the police were for - to save you - not to stand on the sidelines to protect themselves.

But another thing - there was plenty of indications that there was heightened danger there - Why was there so little security there?

Quayle said...

I hope to God that my local PD doesn't have the same protocols as the DOD.

Your local PD will storm into your neighbors house, shoot their dogs, terrorize their kids, then appoligize and walk next door to yours to see if you're still in need.

That's what I'm beginning to see happen.

Cosmic Conservative said...

I will quote Bob Owens from PJ Media here:

"If you don’t get torches-and-pitchforks irate about this, you are not an American."

Absolutely concur.

LilyBart said...

On the one hand, Panetta is right: You do not risk your rescuers, first responders, reinforcements, etc. without knowing what you're sending them in to. There's no logic in sending professionals into a situation without at least some knowledge of what's happening and also what to do about it.

See comment above re: Columbine shooting.


The Drill SGT said...

Seeing Red said...
Insty:

IT JUST GETS WORSE: AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi,


torches and pitchforks intead of tar and feathers.

The CIA/SEAL guys all know how to call for Spectre support. They had laser designators, most likely infra-red strobes and chem lights to mark themselves.

a gunship is 'god's wrath on two wings'

when firing in a pylon turn, a solid bar of light connects the plane to a point on the ground where thousands of rounds are impacting.

it was a political decision that we were willing to lose our guys to avoid collateral damage to the locals

Tully said...

They had AC130 gunships well within range and the enemy mortars already laser-designated ... and they did nothing. The White House wouldn't authorize.

Quayle said...

There is a larger point to Lybia that we can't overlook.

Despite being hailed as the most brillient president since George Washington, Obama made the exact same mistake that Bush made.

He invaded a country and took out its strong-man leader, and had no plan whatsoever to maintain stabiilty and keep bad guys from causing havoc.

The exact mistake the left torched Bush for, and Obama walked right into it.

And we hear crickets from the MSM on this.

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...


شات عراقنا
جات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
شلة عراقنا
عراقنا
شات العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات كيكه
دردشة عبدالله
جات
شات عراقنا
دردشة
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا
منتدى شلة عراقنا

Curious George said...

The saving grace from all of this is that Obama will spend the rest of his days trying to shore up his "legacy" like his twin Jimmy Carter....another pathetic failure.

He gambled in a dangerous situation because to take action would contradict his campaign narrative of "success" in the ME, and as a result people died. Then he lied about it. He looked the families of the dead in the eye and lied, and lied to the American people.

Obama is a piece of human garbage.

Christopher in MA said...

Ok.. I'm playing garage on this one.

If Obama didnt compromise on a budget deal... didnt compromise on his Obamacare... why should we expect that he compromise his reelection on a risky desert scheme to rescue Americans?

You people are loosing sight of the bigger picture here.

How did I do?


Not good enough, Lem. The subhuman creature calling itself garage is on another thread laughing it up about Romney getting taken in by a story that a Jeep manufacturer was moving out of the country.

Nonapod said...

People who know all the facts about this and still end up voting for Obama would have to be delusional. How is this defensible any more?

MayBee said...

We fired on Libya to save Libyans during the "kinetic military actions".

But not to save Americans.

Bob Ellison said...

exhelodrvr1 said "I think they were surprised, dithered around/froze, then decided it was too late by that point to do anything, and since then have been trying to delay the truth coming out until after the election."

Yes. This contrasts sharply with the he made the tough decision to kill Bin Laden, even against the advice of the wise Joe Biden story.

Incompetence! That was the first problem, but after that came malfeasance.

Cosmic Conservative said...

... and I had actually thought my opinion of Barack Obama could not go any lower.

The man is pond scum. I would not shake his hand in public. He deserves nothing but contempt. If this man gets elected again, his second term will be completely overshadowed by the revulsion of the American people (note I said "American" people) who will refuse to do anything with or for him. It will be Watergate II.

But Obama will not have the decency to resign.

Hagar said...

Panetta is a senior Democrat politician, and he is trying to help hold it together until November 7th.

His statement is B.S. and misdirection; it is not just about their not sending help, it is about the ways they went about not sending help, or having help to send, and their miserable behavior afterward.

Issob Morocco said...

There was no decision because Valerie Jarrett was busy that night and unable to tell Obama what to do.

Why the video condemnation ahead of any riots? Was this part of a political ploy to get Romney that was double crossed by the Muslim Brotherhood and became a hit on our Ambassador and Staff?

traditionalguy said...

It is apparent that our Muslim loving President's orders were to abandon these bumps in the road to keep his Brotherhood happy.

He could have blamed the Jews. That's what they are there for.

But he blamed the Coptic Christians instead. So maybe he is part pro Israel until after the election.

MayBee said...

#gutsycall

The Drill SGT said...

WTF: Where was Dempsey? Panetta, ultimately is a political hack sent to DOD to cut the budgets, but I expect the Chairman to stand up and say, "Mr President, we must take action. I recommend X!"

Petraeus may not have been in the room because he reports thru Clapper. But Clapper, even if he's a retired USAF wuss, was once a Marine rifleman. I thought better of a marine. And of course, even if Petraeus wasn't in the room, he should have called. Those were his boys left hanging...

I want some ass!!!

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

And just think: if Obama wanted to save this thing, he could call a press conference and say "I really messed this up. I should have been quicker to save our Americans. I am sorry, and I hope you will give me a chance to show that I can do better."

Reagan did that. Clinton did that. Can Obama do that?

The Drill SGT said...

In the old days, a gunship pilot would yell that they were taking ground fire, let'er rip and make a case for self defense.

Original Mike said...

There's a knowledgable sounding intelligence guy on Rush right now making a damn good case for the thesis that it had to have been POTUS, early on in this attack, who turned down sending in a response.

Mitchell the Bat said...

But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on.

And then there are the unknown unknowns.

Rabel said...

Bumped up from previous post.

"Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime."

If correct, this could explain why we haven't learned the reason for the ambassador's presence in Benghazi. The loss of an American plane was not previously known.

exhelodrvr1 said...

OriginalMike,
I think it's a fairly safe assumption that that order came from the White House. If it didn't, Obama would have fired whoever gave the order without checking with him. Very publicly.

Nichole said...

You know what is amazing. CNN NOT covering this and look at all the angry comments...

Seriously, the news outlets are doing their best to look the other way. But newsflash it is not going away. So "do your job journalists!".

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/doubts-surface-over-e-mail-on-claim-of-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/?hpt=hp_inthenews

Original Mike said...

That's twice in the last 10 minutes I've heard professionals make the point that when AN AMBASSADOR is under attack, that information goes right up to POTUS.

Original Mike said...

Excellent point, exhelodrvr1.

Bob Ellison said...

Original Mike, I saw Bing West a day or two ago say on FNC that it's understood that when an embassy or consulate is under attack, you don't ask permission to go in with planes and bullets.

Isn't that what cops and firemen do? They make some mistakes, but they rush into danger to try to save the situation. They're trained to react quickly and decisively.

Seven hours. No action. This was commanded.

bagoh20 said...

Has anyone seen any reports of attackers killed by the men protecting these locations. I have to assume they put a few in contact with their 72 virgins during all that.

Christopher in MA said...

On another post recently, the question was posed to our troll contingent: is there anything Obama can do that would lose him your vote?

Garage? On another thread, sniggering about a Romney "gaffe."

Inga?
AF?
Reasonable Man?
Alpha?
Ritmo?

Not a word. I do believe we have our answer once and for all.

There is absolutely nothing Barack Obama can do that will lose him their votes. Absolutely nothing.

Cosmic Conservative said...

The US press may not have carried it, but the US F-15 shot down over Libya was covered by the English press.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381515/F-15-fighter-crew-shot-Libya-talk-rescue.html

gerry said...

Via Instapundit: Likely Voters...Romney 51%, Obama 46%, plus O's approval down 3% since yesterday.

Maybe Benghazi is having an effect.

Nonapod said...

I'm pretty sure Obama could eat a baby on live TV and he'd still get votes from certain people.

MayBee said...

We drop targeted bombs from drones and kill anybody around the terrorists.

We really couldn't do something similar in this situation?
How much better is the information on the ground in the middle of Yemen?

The Drill SGT said...

Original Mike said...
That's twice in the last 10 minutes I've heard professionals make the point that when AN AMBASSADOR is under attack, that information goes right up to POTUS.


When I was in Vietnam, this would have been CRITIC level info.

at that point, a CRITIC msg must get from the intel source to DIRNSA, Director NSA, within 15 minutes. I cant imagine the timeline is slower now, we were just using paper tape teletype radio relay stations.

Then, there were 15 info addresees as well. The President, Sec State, CJCS, Defense, all the COCOMs, etc.

Original Mike said...

No wonder the White House won't answer when the President was first informed.

Carl said...

Of course we're "Monday-morning quarterbacking," you moron. How the hell do we learn any lessons for next Sunday's game?

I'd say this is what happens when you appoint a bean-counter to be Secretary of Defense, but that would be insulting to bean-counters, not all of whom are weasely whiners.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

Hey, it's just a vote for President. What could go wrong? Lilly Ledbetter, free $8 birth control and skin color - that's what matters.

yashu said...

Horrible. Horrible.

Now I understand why Obama/Biden (with such immense self-congratulation) term the Bin Laden raid such a "gutsy call." Now it makes sense.

Apparently that was an extremely "gutsy call" for Obama.

Consider what Seals must feel toward their CIC now. The man who claimed all the credit for killing Bin Laden (failing to give due credit to the Seals) is the man responsible for two of their own heroically sacrificing their lives in direct contravention to White House orders.

Americans were calling desperately for military help; that military help was there, read and able to save them at a moment's notice; the White House (passively watching the 7-hour-long bloody ordeal) ordered them repeatedly to "stand down."

Two heroes disregarded those orders, and died.

Horrible.

bagoh20 said...

Civilian authority over our military is a very valued institution, but that requires us as voters to be very careful about who we give that authority to.

Lem said...

Ambassadors For Romney.

Lem said...

Benghazi is spinning out of control...

The White House is hunkering down... a bunker mentality has descended on the White House.

Where’s my narrative?

Quayle said...

Oh, and yes, there is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on.

That's what you do when you're deciding whether to fire the Quarterback.

Rabel said...

Cosmic,

You're right. I found one report from CNN buried in their pentagon section a month after the crash/shoot-down. A couple of follow-ups from a year later.

I think my point still stands in part - that they did not want this publicized.

brian said...

Had he had the courage to deploy our jets from Italy or the gunship that was present, he would now be winning in a walk. Ironic, isn't it?

tiger said...

Wow.

Panetta is nothing more than a bureauocrat working hard to cover his ass.

Disgusting.

Cosmic Conservative said...

Rabel, I do think Obama is still hiding something big in Benghazi.

I think it might have something to do with a report I saw recently from Russia that jihadists have been spotted in the area with American made ground to air missiles.

I have a suspicion that the Benghazi attack was in part to obtain weapons from the compound. Ground to air missiles in the hands of jihadists would be very, very bad news.

Nichole said...

This is an interesting read.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50586

brian said...

What really upsets me is that these brave men fought for four hours assuming there would be help coming. They had the laser on the mortar probably at their own risk. The idiots in Washington underestimated how long these SEALS could fight off these terrorists. They probably thought the SEALS and others would be dead in short order. The SEALS kept their hope alive on the thought they would soon be receiving aid.

Hagar said...

Re. the American plane shot down.

I believe their story at the time was that it was not really our planes flying in Libya; they had been "rented" by NATO or some such fantasy.

Cosmic Conservative said...

Nichole, interesting read indeed. That would certainly explain why Russia would "leak" the missile information to their own press.

I that is even remotely true, the Obama White House is in so far over its head that it can't even see the light anymore.

Scary stuff.

Christopher in MA said...

And the truly disgusting thing about Panetta's "quarterbacking" line, as pointed out on Insty, is that it comes from a representative of the party that spent every day of eight years obsessed with, second-guessing and condemning every move Dubya made.

This weekend is going to be an exception to my usual "no blogs, no news sites on weekends" policy. If there is even one honorable person left in the Democrat party, now's the time for them to step forward.

William said...

I think it's fair to say that this is a bigger scandal than the outing of Valerie Plame. I think it is also fair to say that the media is paying far less attention to this scandal than that of Valerie Plame......Valerie Plame is to Ben Ghazi as Anita Hill is to Monica Lewinsky. You just don't get it. Stop politicizing this tragedy. That's the real crime. Politicizing tragedy. The best way to pay our respects to these fallen heroes is by voting for President Obama, our commander in chief.

gregq said...

What Panetta is saying is superficially correct (it could have been the setup for a larger ambush). Nevertheless, it is total BS. You get the Specters over there, and some fighters, and some ground attack planes, fast. You get troops in planes off the coast, with tanker support so they can loiter. Then, when the attack goes in, and you've checked out the area to make sure there's no large force waiting in ambush, you send in the troops.

At least, that's what you do if protecting our people and Ambassadors is more important than protecting the lie that "al Qaeda is on the run." But to the Obama Administration, preserving their stories is more important than preserving American lives. So they gambled it would all go away.

And we lost.

John said...

The notion that no one knew what the situation was on the ground is absurd. Retired Navy Seals then CIA operatives were on the ground and making requests for assistance. If they were not capable of assessing the situation (which they did) and making request for support (which they did) then NO ONE could.

Isn't time for Althouse to declare BULLSHIT?

Cosmic Conservative said...

If the weapon shipment story is true, then this is beyond Watergate. Well, it was beyond Watergate as soon as there was a body count, but it goes beyond a cover up of a botched security response.

This is starting to look like Watergate x Iran Contra squared...

If there were only a free press in this country interested in doing actual journalism.

If only.

Chip S. said...

If there were only a free press in this country interested in doing actual journalism.

Maybe Univision will look into it.

gerry said...

This is incredible.

TWM said...

Didn't Ann post about Bill Clinton arguing with Hillary over releasing documents that could doom the Obama presidency? Just a few days ago? If not her, someone did because I read it.

Could she have finally done so and this was it?

creeley23 said...

You know what is amazing. CNN NOT covering this and look at all the angry comments...

It's worth having a look at the CNN page Nichole @12:51 linked.

Unless there is some compelling defense for the administration which hasn't come out, I'd say Obama has bought a one-way ticket to "Worst President of the Modern Era."

edutcher said...

Bob Ellison said...

And just think: if Obama wanted to save this thing, he could call a press conference and say "I really messed this up. I should have been quicker to save our Americans. I am sorry, and I hope you will give me a chance to show that I can do better."

Reagan did that. Clinton did that. Can Obama do that?


Sort of gods are never wrong.

DADvocate said...

Panetta, Obama, Hillary, et al need to learn a lesson from the Boy Scouts, "Be prepared."

Shanna said...

The more I see of this the more I say 'holy shit'. It's just so incredibly bad, all around, it's almost impossible to believe.

The Drill SGT said...

said...
What Panetta is saying is superficially correct (it could have been the setup for a larger ambush). Nevertheless, it is total BS. You get the Specters over there, and some fighters, and some ground attack planes, fast. You get troops in planes off the coast, with tanker support so they can loiter. Then, when the attack goes in, and you've checked out the area to make sure there's no large force waiting in ambush, you send in the troops.


his position makes sense EXCEPT.

1. there were SOF on the ground already. yeah, they didn't know about an ambush at the airfield, BUT

2. Tripoli had already dispatched internal support to Beghazi by plane. If they could, Sicily could. If faint of heart, the Sicily C-130 could wait till the Tripoli bird landed.

3. There was a Spectre gunship overhead, so the worry apparently wasnt a SAM.

PS: all those MC-130's are counter-SAM flare equipped. not perfect, but it helps

Nonapod said...

This story still hasn't floated to the top of the Google news aggregator. I'm guessing that the MSM will hold their ears and shut their eyes while humming loudly for as long as they possibly can on this one.

PatCA said...

Let's assume Panetta was correct. That still leaves a whole trail of lies and stalinist attacks from the WH and State, spitting on four graves. This was the best they could come up with, a video? Slamming some dude in solitary until after the election?

I think this is why Bams was so depressed for the first debate. He felt guilty and feared he was going to get nailed for this.

Tibore said...

"LilyBart said...

See comment above re: Columbine shooting."


Columbine doesn't change the principle. First responders, rescuers, or reinforcements must have some sort of picture of what's going on before intervening, else they risk becoming part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. That picture doesn't have to be anywhere near being perfectly clear or complete, it simply has to be enough to tell the intervenants what the proper way of proceeding is.

Yes, I personally think that the police at Columbine should've intervened earlier. I feel they knew enough. But that's a specific case; the principle remains. Columbine is simply a case where the principle shouldn't be used as justification for what the police failed to do.

The principle does not apply to Benghazi, however. I must emphasize that Panetta is wrong about asserting no one knew what was going on. That's totally contradictory to what's known. People not only knew what was happening, they were merely asking for approval to act. The denial of permission stems from ignorance and incompetence, not because of any lack of knowledge. What the White House lacked was wisdom, sense, principle, and caring. As well as will. Not situational data. That's the only thing that wasn't missing.

In short, Panetta's being disingenuous. The principle he stated was correct, but it simply doesn't apply in Benghazi.

Cedarford said...

This is all poised to break through not Obama's "Ohio firewall", but his liberal and progressive Jewish media firewall.

Too much stuff is coming out the public did not know...and CNN and certain papers are already starting to air parts of it.

The worst possible place for media pros, according to their "unbringing and child rearing" as journalists, is INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE STONEWALL as Watergate broke.
There is I believe, a real fear in media producer enclaves that they will be tattoo'd the rest of their careers as participants in a coverup bigger than Watergate.

This stuff is already filtering to voters and people calling news outlets asking why this is being suppressed.

It was a fine gambit - try to gloss this all over saying "Holder and the law enforcement Heroes of the FBI are investigating this and we will get back to you after our Boss's 2nd Inaugural.
Their coverup of John Edwards lasted until after the 2008 election, after all.
But this one I sense the clock is running out and most voters will have the Benghazi coverup being weighed as a voting factor by Nov 6th.

Tibore said...

"it was a political decision that we were willing to lose our guys to avoid collateral damage to the locals."

Yes. This. What Drill Sgt. said. This is what happens when the default assumption was "The US did something to deserve this" and the default reaction was to find ways to apologize instead of rescue people.

Seeing Red said...

Cedar - the AMERICAN bubblebrain firewall.

This isn't about the Jews, this is open season on US.

Q said...

Unless there is some compelling defense for the administration which hasn't come out, I'd say Obama has bought a one-way ticket to "Worst President of the Modern Era."


Why, who was worse in the pre-modern era? I don't think Obumbles has much competition in the "Worst President Ever" sweepstakes.

Q said...

This isn't about the Jews, this is open season on US.


This is about the medias playing the palace guard for Obama. And that is about Jews, whether you like it or not.

Original Mike said...

"It's worth having a look at the CNN page Nichole @12:51 linked."

Wow, they're really getting reamed out.

tomaig said...

""But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

But you DO send in the freaking AMBASSADOR?

hombre said...

The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. Joseph Stalin

The death of four men is not optimal. Barack Hussein Obama

bagoh20 said...

"Tell Putin I can be more flexible after the election."

Doesn't it make you proud to be led from behind? A little lube would be nice though.



Cosmic Conservative said...

"Doesn't it make you proud to be led from behind? A little lube would be nice though."

The media/press IS the lube.

bagoh20 said...

"But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

Which means they still wouldn't do it today, or tomorrow.

This excuse is just a lie.

Bruce Hayden said...

PS: all those MC-130's are counter-SAM flare equipped. not perfect, but it helps

I posted this on the previous thread: AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire, and some here have picked up on it. It has a video showing an AC-130 live firing. It is daylight, so you get more sound than anything, except later when the video switches to the ground. But, at the end, it looks like the plane is shooting flares, and it looks almost like the 4th of July. A converted cargo plane like that can not only carry a lot of ammo, but also a lot of counter-SAM flares.

Not that that means that they are safe from ground attack, esp. since we have lost some - I believe during daylight operations, which is why I think that they are primarily deployed at night. (Drill Sgt. and others here obviously know much more about this than I do).

MrCharlie2 said...

oh this stinks

chickelit said...

Jake Tapper currently has a story up on this at ABC News.

Michael said...

A very credible caller on Limbaugh today was ex military intelligence. According to him when an incident like this occurs the cia station sends a message to the WH duty officer in real time like an IM. It requires immediate recognition of receipt and then the protocol is to carry the message to the POTUS or whoever is standing by the POTUS. These are not "emails" which the WH keeps referring to disingenuously but rather coded communiques that are transmitted in real time indicating that the ambassador is in imminent danger. These are not messages that pile up and get read later. These communications are urgent, they are classified and they are instantaneous.

Tibore said...

"tomaig said...
""But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

But you DO send in the freaking AMBASSADOR?"


Yes, I know. I've been saying that the administration's acted incompetently here. The people on the ground knew what was going on, and so did their immediate superiors. Higher echelons knew too. What was there left to know.

The wisdom of not leaping before you look is still wisdom, it's just not applicable here. The administration, via Panetta, is using it as an excuse to hide behind.

"bagoh20 said...
"But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

Which means they still wouldn't do it today, or tomorrow.

This excuse is just a lie"


That's what I've been saying. They're being disingenuous by having Panetta claim that no one knew what was going on. The people concerned knew, and the foundation for a response was already in place. Hell, they were even seeking permission for proactive actions, that's how much they knew. All that was lacking was permission from the top. That permission wasn't given due to lots of other things missing from the administration itself: Will, competency, basic sense, etc.

The Drill SGT said...

Michael said...
A very credible caller on Limbaugh today was ex military intelligence. According to him when an incident like this occurs the cia station sends a message to the WH duty officer in real time like an IM


that is the CRITIC I mentioned upthread

Michael said...

The Drill Sgt: I understand now. We are being played in a lot of ways but this may be the most infuriating. The president knew, not in 24 hours, but in 24 minutes. He went to bed. To rest up for Las Vegas.

gregq said...

"2. Tripoli had already dispatched internal support to Beghazi by plane. If they could, Sicily could. If faint of heart, the Sicily C-130 could wait till the Tripoli bird landed."

What we're facing here is the difference between "we handled it w/ what he had in Libya" and "the Obama Administration screwed up in Libya, and had to bring in forces from Italy in order to deal with the attack." Since, to the Obama Administration, President Obama's re-election is FAR more important than the lives of some US soldiers, it was an easy choice: don't send in anything that might make the attack look bigger.

I'm still waiting for confirmation that the 130 was still in Libya on 9/11/12. Anyone have it?

hombre said...

How in the Hell do you do "Monday morning quarterbacking" when the team forfeits the game without taking the field?

Cedarford said...

Right now, as far as I can make out, the CIA operatives requested a Spectre gunship for fire support.
Some are reading that request as evidence that one was somehow dispatched and in the air over Benghazi...but the Pentagon is saying no supplemental forces were dispatched.
More to follow.
More disturbing news though - a new report has the quick reaction force at the Annex CAPTURING 3 Jihadis in the attack - but were ordered by superiors in DC to turn them over to Libyan government forces arriving on scene the next morning, before they could be interrogated.
The same report says US officials are "unaware" if the Libyans questioned the 3 attackers, or just let them go.

Cedarford said...

I read Leon Panetta's response. There are some legitimate points he raised.
You don't want repeats of some Afghan war scenarios where rescue of a few man at all costs ended up with over a dozen dead American rescuers. Or a corpse retrieval mission also in the mentality of the moment to "leave no dead behind" killed 6 and injured another dozen and wrecked a 30 million helo.
But the time for this discussion was back in September, after members of Congressional Oversight on intel and military affairs - were briefed within days on who knew what, when and why certain decsions were made.

We didn't get that.

We got a coverup.

And it does seem that the liberal and progressive Jewish media firewall is starting to crumble as more and more of these terrible facts or claims emerge. The media masters do not want to be on the wrong side of the White House stonewall..and they are sensing serious professional damage if it is later widely thought they all covered up for their Black Messiah.

(Especially if he loses the Election).

wyo sis said...

I wonder how many people are lined up to replace Ambassador Stevens?
It might prove difficult for the Obama administration to find ambassadors in the improbable event there should be a second Obama term.

Roger J. said...

With respect to An AC130 overhead and not permitted to open up--that would be egregious. The AC130 is an awsome weapon. When you are in the thick of a firefight, as were the ex navy seals, you tell your firesuppot to say "danger close" and hope for the best. No commander wants to call in fire support on their own position unless it is a last resort, but sometimes the situation calls for it.

Roger J. said...

On the political side of this fuck up, I am personally dismayed at General Petraeus's silence. He has apparently taken a vow of silence. I do hope he hasnt morphed into the joke Colin Powell has become.

bob said...

the problem is that it doesn't seem like there was a lot of sunday morning quarterbacking either.

John Rhoades said...

FWIW, I flew close air support for over 20 years (A-10s, Korea, Europe (including the former Yugoslavia), etc. In the latter case, there were SAM threats virtually everywhere because the Serbs kept moving them around--we could tell that thanks to their periodic, area-wide "lighting us up" with their search and tracking radars that actually bagged one F-16 in the process before the real dust up in 1999.
But...
Whenever we got a call that someone on the ground needed help...EVEN WHEN WE WERE NOT SURE OF THE THREAT...if my flight got the tasking we rolled into 90 degrees of bank and pulled to the near stall to point the nose in the direction of the emergency. The Serbs had SA-6s--a bada$$ SAM in the hands of a skilled operator. What did al Qaeda have? Well, they sure as Hell didn't have SA-6s...and 1) it was dark, so 2) finding an airborne target, 3) without radar, 4) at night and 5) having on hand only MANPADs (maybe, but I seriously doubt it) didn't make it exactly Baghdad on Night One of Desert Storm.
Virtually anyone with two brain cells to rub together on the Air Staff would have known this and probably could have provided an off-the-cuff SITREP/Threat Analysis to the SecDef in minutes, much less hours and probably would have been backed up by CIA boots-on-the-ground intel.
Panetta's snark is not only lame in its own right, it probably doesn't reflect the advice he got from his uniformed military advisors. And I'll guarantee you it did not reflect the attitude of every human being strapped into or sitting nearby a fixed-wing war machine within 1000 miles of the guys on the ground getting shot at.
Not only were there Americans under attack, they were under attack on American soil, as I understand international law.
If Spectres were there, the s**t storm they would have unleashed would have been spectacular in the face of a threat that was very probably, if not certainly, well within their comfort zone for surface-to-air threats.
The timidity shown by our political leadership merely highlights their core values, not "How do we protect out own and respond to concerted and unmistakable enemy intent?," but "How will this play on the Daily Show?"

Roger J. said...

A last post on the subject--the ex navy seals apparently performed above and beyond he call of duty. Were they serving I would be recommending them for Navy Crosses or MOHs. And to listen to the idiot vice president of the United States say they had ball the size of cue balls is over the top. The quicker we are done with this Obama administation the better we will be.
They are clowns and ignorant bufoons. And this, my friends, is our national command authority.

Original Mike said...

Four more years of this, Roger.

Roger J. said...

OK this is yet another post, but I appreciate John Rhodes post. It goes to the basics of soldiering. You have absoulte confidence in your fire support, wether it comes from you own assets, or air force or Navy assets. These guys are professionals. They know your life depends on them doing their duty.

Were I involved in combat today I would not hesitate to call on these guys to save my ass. And when you tell them "danger close" that makes them even more precise.

Cedarford said...

MOre rumors afoot.
That the White House and Chicago Campaign HQ spent time conferring today with an all hands meeting with WH Special Counsel to the President Kathrynn Ruemmler.

chickelit said...

Jake Tapper tweeted something I thought strange:

If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013

To which I'd say yes, yes we do! We want media outlets to cover everything. It gives O2 to new media outlets when unfair MSM coverage occurs.

Would Tapper like some more rope?

Roger J. said...

John Rhodes--BTW sir, thank you for your service--as a ground trooper there is no other fire support I would like as an A-10. The warthog is the finest close air support ever created, and the guys that flew them were equally involved in the ground action. Good men (and now apparently women) as well. They were quiet coming in, could fly up and down gulleys and do unbelivable aeronautics, and when the opened up, the wrath of god came upon their targets.

DADvocate said...

Tapper thinks everyone is a biased, one sided slime ball like himself.

yashu said...

Wow, that Tapper tweet is so lame. Surprisingly so, because I consider him one of the few good ones.

FYI Tapper, it's not about what partisans on one side or another may "want." It's about the MSM's egregious double standards and glaring lack of basic journalistic integrity.

hombre said...

Jake Tapper tweeted something I thought strange:

'If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013.'


It's not aggressive coverage we want, Jake, it is thorough, unbiased and accurate coverage.

"Aggressive" is an interesting word choice.

DCS said...

Good thing Panetta wasn't running the D-Day invasion of Normandy, or we'd be speaking German.

Chip S. said...

Tapper's term "aggressive coverage" makes me laugh.

Jake, how about you guys start w/ basic coverage? You can get back to us later about "aggressive" coverage.

yashu said...

Bring on the aggressive coverage of a Romney administration! I'm counting on it.

That's one of the reasons I'm so enthusiastic to vote for him.

Marshal said...

chickelit said...
Jake Tapper tweeted something I thought strange:

If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013


Ha. Call me crazy, but I suspect we won't have to call for it - they'll take it upon themselves.

The nutty left calls Tapper every name in the book, but he's always come across as more an honest liberal than a conservative. So this is more evidence. That;s fine with me though. If Democrats were the party of honest liberals they wouldn't be so bad.

Michael said...

RogerJ: Perhaps Petraeus is leaking and timing the leaks.

Paul said...

"CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack."

Sounds like Obama and Hillary WANTED them to die!! Maybe they did and took the security away from them for that reason.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

And alot of coverup to Panetta. LOTS of coverup.

Obama lied and people DIED.

Original Mike said...

This latest revelation is from a leak? Do we know from which Department?

Roger J. said...

MIchael--I would like to think otherwise, but you may have a point. Regretably, bureaucratic survival in Washington requires brave men and women to be sacrificed to the benefit of their careet--I would have thought General Petraeus would have known that, but regretably Potomac fever is a virulent disease. It has already claimed Colin Powell.

Paul said...

And now we hear...

AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire.

I bet Gen. Petraeus is leaking all this. See it was not the CIA's fault. Obama and co. did this all by themselves.

Seeing Red said...

I don't understand Tapper's tweet.

What could a Romney admin cover up in a few weeks or do in a few weeks that the DTM would have to be aggressive about?

William said...

In his remarks,Panetta said:

“The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. It was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

Note to Leon, dumb ass – You and your boss put Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans “into harm’s way” without real-time information before the attack even happened. That’s WHY the attack happened. You should have known about the risk before you put any American boots on the ground, and you should have defended American lives and American territory.

If anybody has a Webster’s dictionary, look up the word disingenuous. Right next to the word, you’ll see Panetta’s picture along with today’s pearls of wisdom.

Can you imagine that we pay this guy $200,000 a year (plus benefits) for this kind of leadership? It is offensive.

Original Mike said...

"If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013"

So, in other words, you're not providing aggressive coverage now. Thanks for the admission.

Hagar said...

<a href="http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/10/26/white-house-insider-emergency-all-call-at-obama-white-house/>October surprise?</a>

Hagar said...

October surprise?

Quayle said...

William makes a great point:

Panetta says: "The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place."

A principal that apparently Obama and H. Clinton didn't follow when they put our unarmed ambassador into harms way without having some information about what was taking place in the country.

Seeing Red said...

Tapper has no issue hiding the deaths then? That's what he's really saying.

Hagar said...

Panetta could have said this any time prior to say Sept. 20, but by now it is just twaddle.

mark said...

@Cedar "Right now, as far as I can make out, the CIA operatives requested a Spectre gunship for fire support."

It most likely was in the air. You don't waste your time painting a target with a laser unless something is around to drop a bomb on what you are pointing at.

Calypso Facto said...

It certainly explains the big "early voting" push

Cedarford said...

Mark, we don't know yet.

The ground guys could have heard an AC-130 would soon be in the area, not knowing the deploy orders were not given/

They could have heard air assets overhead arriving, not understanding it was a unarmed Predator drone.

More info needed.

I would hope that members of Oversight have visited Petraus, Panetta and asked WTF is going on and why Congress was not informed about major events.

The latest bit about the Fast Response Team ordered to release 3 Jihadi attackers captured to the Libyans is really big news as well, if true.

JL said...

Jake Tapper tweeted something I thought strange:

If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013



What an ass thing of Tapper to say. And Tapper is purportedly one of the better ones in the media. Another example of projection. Since the left's instinct is to cover up for "their guy", they incorrectly assume everyone else is like them.

Tapper needs to leave his lefty groupthink bubble once in a while and meet some average Americans who are not cheerleaders for any political party. He might start by attending a Tea Party meeting. A lot of those folks dislike the establishment Repubs. as much or more than they dislike the Dems.

Rusty said...


Panetta says: "The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place."

They had real time drone information. They had eyes on the ground with real time information.

Leon. The guys shooting stuff into the compound? Those are the bad guys. Shoot them. The shooting from the inside out? Those are the good guys. Our guys. Don't shoot them.

bagoh20 said...

Seems likely and in character that the administration decided that doing nothing was safer politically than doing something and risking it being a disaster. You can't blame blowing up your own safe house on some film maker.

bagoh20 said...

"If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013".

It shouldn't need to be the public pushing the Press to do their job regardless of who is in office. You just do it. Some partisans may not like it, but too damned bad.

Rabel said...

"Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

From Bill Kristol thru Jake Tapper.

Rusty said...

I forgot.
The good guys on the ground had frickin laser target designators! They were painting the bad guys with lasers!
Leon. How much more information do you want?


"Can't I just eat my waffles?"



The Drill SGT said...

John Rhoades said...and 1) it was dark, so 2) finding an airborne target, 3) without radar, 4) at night and 5) having on hand only MANPADs (maybe, but I seriously doubt it) didn't make it exactly Baghdad on Night One of Desert Storm.
Virtually anyone with two brain cells to rub together on the Air Staff would have known this and probably could have provided an off-the-cuff SITREP/Threat Analysis to the SecDef in minutes, much less hours and probably would have been backed up by CIA boots-on-the-ground intel


at night, you cant find a AC130 in the dark without extreme luck with a MANPAD. you wave it in the air and hope for a tone...even then you don't have a bearing. just a point.

so I suspect the AC-130 approach is to fire a burst, pop flares, and exit the area then re-enter for another pass.

Paul Brinkley said...

Courtesy of a friend of mine on FB:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/26/foxs-new-low-accusing-obama-admin-of-abandoning/190948

There's a fair bit to slog through; I figure we could slog at the same time.

(Straw poll: I have a lot of pro-Obama FB friends. They're finally starting to stop posting about politics lately, but a few still do. This is the only Benghazi-related thing I've seen from one of them (I saw one other, from a conservative friend).)

gmama3 said...

Rabel,

He says no one in the CIA did, but doesn't say no one at all did.

Jeffrey Levin said...

Breaking news.

Weekly standard covered a CIA press event in which it was unequivaclly stated that NO ONE AT THE CIA gave the stand down order.

That leaves only SEC DEF or POTUS. Anyone care to place bets on it was SEC DEF. No way I would cover that spread.

Tim said...

Our president is a pussy.

A lying pussy.

So too are our Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

America deserves better.

Well, at least the America smart enough to know it deserves failure.

gmama3 said...

Hey...Obama was in bed by this time. He has an alibi.

Paul Brinkley said...

...having skimmed it now, the only thing I saw there that I haven't seen here are three AP articles printed in The Boston Globe mentioning a "large group of armed men" (first article), a "six-member quick reaction security team", "60 Libyan militiamen [good guys, presumably]" (second article), and a "team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli" (third article).

That's as many as four separate forces, but some of those might be referring to the same groups (I'm not sure yet), and it doesn't quite explain why the Obama administration wouldn't mention them, except possibly for security reasons (protecting knowledge of our quick-response capabilities in the region).

Also note that the only published source of the gunship story I know of is Fox News. (Instapundit and PJMedia both link there.) If it turns out Fox is the only outlet actually following this, it will sound less believable to anyone skeptical.

Checking the original AP articles now.

Paul Brinkley said...

As others have mentioned here, it's not CIA's job to make decisions to stand down. They're intelligence, not operations. So it's not very surprising or revealing to say that no one at CIA gave a stand-down order.

Amartel said...

Petraeus speaks!

(Hey, assholes, remember that time you took out a full page ad in the NY Times calling me 'General Betray Us'? Remember that? I do.)

Methadras said...

Bru said...

Panetta's comments ignore the fact that they had operatives on the ground and a drone providing them with real-time information.


And from what I've read a c130 ready and available to strike, but was called off.

Methadras said...

Jeffrey Levin said...

Breaking news.

Weekly standard covered a CIA press event in which it was unequivaclly stated that NO ONE AT THE CIA gave the stand down order.

That leaves only SEC DEF or POTUS. Anyone care to place bets on it was SEC DEF. No way I would cover that spread.


Hillary has already fallen on her sword for Urkel. Is Panetta going to fall on Hillary's back? Oh wait, she's so damn thick, the sword never made it all the way through. Here you go Leon. Nice and sharp. Happy Seppuku. Hope it was worth it to destroy yourself at the behest of this clusterfuck of a human being called POTUS.

Paul Brinkley said...

The first article quote, in context, is part of a reported timeline of events:

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see a large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little more than a mile away.


This is confusing. It reads as if that first "large group of armed men flowing into the compound" are actually the enemy, not additional security. That group isn't mentioned again, as far as I can tell.

It also mentions the six-person QR team and the 60-Libyan militia. Apparently they tried and failed to secure a perimeter around the compound. This is after Sean Smith had been killed.

More reinforcements from Tripoli arrive "in the night" and reach the compound. No more is said about them.

Note that the "around 9:40 pm" section contains a lot of events that could not all have happened at 9:40pm, and the next section is "around 4 am". Difference of over six hours. The six-person team could have arrived at 10:00pm or 3:30am and still fit the report; it's impossible to tell.

David said...

CIA Spooksman tonight: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

Chomp. Slash. Thud.

The Drill SGT said...

Methadras said...
Weekly standard covered a CIA press event in which it was unequivaclly stated that NO ONE AT THE CIA gave the stand down order.

That leaves only SEC DEF or POTUS. Anyone care to place bets on it was SEC DEF. No way I would cover that spread.


in theory there is a third or fourth player.

Goldwater Nichols act describes the Chain of command as POTUS-SECDEF-COCOM, though the POTUS can designate the CJCS into the loop.

General Ham, the AfriCom Cdr is the appropriate COCOM IMHO.

alternately it would be POTUS-SECDEF-SOCOM



Inga said...

Christopher in MA, you ask liberals here a question and on a different thread wish them dead, a horrible death? Why the hell should any liberal waste their time answering you? A few of you conservative commenters here have gone over the edge, with your death wishes to liberal commenters here. Weird and disgusting.

Paul Brinkley said...

The other two articles turn out to be quotes from the same timeline. Just to save people some time, here's the most complete AP source I found:

http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/e109e277e48c4e219e07a1d4710177b3/Article_2012-10-20-Libya%20Timeline/id-be9ddd3e9767483a9a3c263ca196bf41

Given what I've read, it's AP reporting four forces coming to the aid of the embassy, and Fox and CBS reporting AC-130 gunships were available to be deployed if needed, and only Fox so far reporting that gunship support was requested and denied.

In my opinion, without that last report, the whole situation sounds relatively better for the administration (they sent some security, but simply not enough); without that first AP report, or with that last Fox report, it sounds very bad (they either didn't send anything, or they sent a little and withheld air support). So the ball game pretty much hinges on whether AP's and Fox's reports can be independently verified, and then after that, how it might be spun.

(If AP's report were true, and Fox's were not, and I had to spin it for Obama, I'd probably end up with something close to Panetta's statement. If both were true, I'd probably give the same statement and defend the refusal to send air support by claiming it wasn't clear that that much was necessary given the intel at the time, but it'd look a lot like the "we thought Iraq had WMD" argument does to someone opposing the Iraq War. If AP were false and Fox were true - well, I'm sure glad it's not my job to spin these things.)

Chip S. said...

Aaaand a lefty finally shows up, bringing the fake outrage at those nasty wingnuts.

You can't deflect this issue with that move, Inga Binga. It's too big.

Synova said...

The guys at Black-five ave pointing out that for anyone on the ground using a laser to paint a target only happens if something armed is on station. And once it gets to that point no "yes" is needed, only a "no".

Chip S. said...

Don't worry, Obama has assured us that he's determined to get to the bottom of this. And if he sounds to you like OJ Simpson vowing to find Nicole's real killers, then you're obviously a racist.

Today's hint from Petraeus should give Obama some help in his investigation, which I'm sure he's grateful for.

kentuckyliz said...

The best way to pay our respects to these fallen heroes is by voting for President Obama, our commander in chief.

I certainly hope you're fucking kidding.

The more details that come out about Benghazi, the more fucking furious I am.

This fucking idiot doesn't deserve to continue serving as Commander in Chief through the fucking weekend.

cubanbob said...

William said...
I think it's fair to say that this is a bigger scandal than the outing of Valerie Plame. I think it is also fair to say that the media is paying far less attention to this scandal than that of Valerie Plame......Valerie Plame is to Ben Ghazi as Anita Hill is to Monica Lewinsky. You just don't get it. Stop politicizing this tragedy. That's the real crime. Politicizing tragedy. The best way to pay our respects to these fallen heroes is by voting for President Obama, our commander in chief.

10/26/12 1:36 PM

The best way to pay respects to those fallen heroes is to vote against the traitor-in-chief and against every member of the party of treason from the white house to mayors office and from congress to the town council.

Inga that you, the mother of a service woman could still vote for that bastard after all of the recent revelations is incomprehensible. Vote for Jill Stein or whatever other lefty floats your boat but what Obama has allowed to occur and did nothing to stop is beyond the pale.

Baron Zemo said...

Squirrel!

Inga said...

Cubanbob, my daughter, the service member, is voting for Obama, so are many of her fellow troops. I know this is quite unbelievable to some here, but we will have to see how it breaks down after the electon.

Inga said...

And Cubanbob, when the evidence shows what really happened over there, THEN we can place blame where it needs to be placed.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Christopher in MA, you ask liberals here a question and on a different thread wish them dead, a horrible death? Why the hell should any liberal waste their time answering you? A few of you conservative commenters here have gone over the edge, with your death wishes to liberal commenters here. Weird and disgusting.


Let's just review our sacred lefty commenter priorities:

Actual dead bodies: zero expressed outrage.

Internet death wishes: outrage ad nauseum

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I don't want to Cook.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Christopher in MA, you ask liberals here a question and on a different thread wish them dead, a horrible death? Why the hell should any liberal waste their time answering you? A few of you conservative commenters here have gone over the edge, with your death wishes to liberal commenters here. Weird and disgusting.


Lrt's recap our sacred lefty commenters' priorities:

Expressions of outrage over actual deaths: zero.

Expressions of outrage over internet death threats: Five I counted.

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I don't want to Cook.

JAL said...

And Obama went to bed and flew to a cheerful Vegas fundraiser the next day.

Wooo hooo !

LilyBart said...

"If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013".

We won't need to demand it. It will be there. Remember in the Bush years where we had poverty and homelessness? We had a government that violated peoples' liberties? Now, not so much.

And with Obama - unemployment is FUNemployment cause you have lots of free time to spend with family and friends!

JAL said...

@ Inga /Allie whoever Cubanbob, my daughter, the service member, is voting for Obama, so are many of her fellow troops.

Many?

They vote for a guy who abandons his men?

LilyBart said...

"If Romney wins, we'll see how many people demanding aggressive coverage of the admin feel the same way as of feb 2013".

We won't need to demand it. It will be there. Remember in the Bush years where we had poverty and homelessness? We had a government that violated peoples' liberties? Now, not so much.

And with Obama - unemployment is FUNemployment cause you have lots of free time to spend with family and friends!

Hagar said...

I take back what I said above about Panetta could have said this up to Sept. 20. With what we have heard today, he could have said it Sept. 12 and maybe on the 13th and gotten away with it, but that is it.

The problem is not with what happened in Benghazi, which is still somewhat confusing, but with the administration's, particularly at the top, the President himself and his cabinet officers, statements since, which have obviously been straightforward lies for a purpose.

But what is the purpose?

Hagar said...

I take back what I said above about Panetta could have said this up to Sept. 20. With what we have heard today, he could have said it Sept. 12 and maybe on the 13th and gotten away with it, but that is it.

The problem is not with what happened in Benghazi, which is still somewhat confusing, but with the administration's, particularly at the top, the President himself and his cabinet officers, statements since, which have obviously been straightforward lies for a purpose.

But what is the purpose?

Inga said...

JAL, the military is a microcosm of society, some vote Democrat some vote Republican. Your opinion that he abandoned his men isn't believed by everyone in uniform or their parents.

I'm sure both our children are good military members and patriotic Americans.

reformed trucker said...

Obama could club a baby seal to death with a puppy dog and the media wouldn't cover the story.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer› Newest»