CBS News: Why didn’t we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?

posted at 9:21 am on October 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

By now we’ve gotten the basic details of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi — no thanks to the White House, which tried to pass it off as a “spontaneous demonstration” that “spun out of control” for more than a week after the attack. Not too many people may have understood that the attack lasted for seven hours, however — and that American military assets were in easy reach.  The last two Americans who died had managed to survive six hours into the attack.

CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday: If we could fly an unarmed drone over the consulate while it was under attack, why didn’t we send the military in to rescue our people?

Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn’t arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

This question comes at a most opportune time. CBS News’ Bob Schieffer will moderate tonight’s presidential debate on foreign policy between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and the Benghazi terrorist attack will almost certainly arise as a topic. What are the odds that the CBS News host brings up this biting CBS News report on what we might have done to stop the attack in Benghazi?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Obama was asleep in bed, no?

MayBee on October 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM

What are the odds of this question coming up tonight, and what will Bob Schieffer do to make a difference?

CitizenEgg on October 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Ol’ Bob is gonna be squirming more than Barry will be. What an uncomfortable position his conscience must be in today…

beatcanvas on October 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM

What are the odds that the CBS News host brings up this biting CBS News report on what we might have done to stop the attack in Benghazi?

At this point I’m thinkin’, pretty good. Schieffer ain’t dumb, and he certainly doesn’t need to carry 0bama’s water.

Schieffer is more concerned with his own reputation to blow it for president failure.

cozmo on October 22, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Viva Las Vegas.

AcidReflux on October 22, 2012 at 9:27 AM

And if not rescue then to at least sanitize the site so that there would be no recoverable operational information laying around on the ground for people to pick up?

Isn’t it ever so handy to have operational documents to the consulate just sitting around where wandering by-passers, journalists and, oh yeah, terrorists could pick them up? Really, why wasn’t this done?

ajacksonian on October 22, 2012 at 9:27 AM

I suspect there was no drone.

There are still rumours about Stevens’ death and the three others who died with him. The reason for the ‘drone’ may be to establish the cause of death being smoke inhalation rather than something far more gruesome.

The media appears to be making a concerted effort to completely rewrite the Benghazi story. Debate prep ?

gh on October 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM

The moment Rombo utters the word “Benghazi”, ol’ Bob will sacrifice what’s left of his health by rushing the stage and body-slamming Rombo under the side curtains.

“I do this for you, Dear Leader!”

Bishop on October 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM

A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies

I’ve been asking the question of military response for weeks. Glad to see the media is finally around to asking it!

But the quote above is necessary. The CJCS and SECDEF were looking at available options to respond to a spontaneous attack by a bunch of film critics? Really? And that Marine FAST team that arrived stayed in Tripoli to protect the embassy, not deal with the massacre at Benghazi that is completely the fault of the rat-eared wonder.

Happy Nomad on October 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM

CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday: If we could fly an unarmed drone over the consulate while it was under attack, why didn’t we send the military in to rescue our people?

We could have. At the very least air strikes around the compound perimeter would have helped. Why didn’t Obama give THAT order?

dogsoldier on October 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM

So many questions, so little time.

esr1951 on October 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM

For Obama, staying in bed was a #gutsycall

MayBee on October 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM

But Obama’s not indifferent to those deaths, is he Ed.

Extrafishy on October 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Schieffer won’t bring it up. Instead, he’ll challenge Mitt on why he dared to speak up so soon after the attack.

changer1701 on October 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM

CBS News’ Bob Schieffer will moderate tonight’s presidential debate on foreign policy between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and the Benghazi terrorist attack will almost certainly arise as a topic. What are the odds that the CBS News host brings up this biting CBS News report on what we might have done to stop the attack in Benghazi?

About the same odds that Sharyl Attkisson will be fired for blasphemy against Teh One.

Steve Z on October 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM

A military move would have been non-optimal.

Zaggs on October 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM

What are the odds of this question coming up tonight, and what will Bob Schieffer do to make a difference?

CitizenEgg on October 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM

…make plenty of popcorn!

KOOLAID2 on October 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM

So the Obama admin played “wait and see” while our people died. How unusual.

mitchellvii on October 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM

The fact that even the uber uber uber leftwing CBS is showing concern over this should be troubling for Obama.

mitchellvii on October 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM

ROGER SIMON: Should Obama Resign Tonight?

Yes, Obama should resign.

petefrt on October 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM

On an edition of the PBS panel series Ethics in America, devoted to war coverage, which was taped at Harvard in late 1987, Mike Wallace proclaimed that if he were traveling with enemy soldiers he would not warn U.S. soldiers of an impending ambush.

“Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?”, moderator Charles Ogletree Jr. suggested.

Without hesitating, Wallace responded: “No, you don’t have higher duty…you’re a reporter.”

It’s been all downhill from there.

Washington Nearsider on October 22, 2012 at 9:33 AM

And if not rescue then to at least sanitize the site so that there would be no recoverable operational information laying around on the ground for people to pick up?

ajacksonian on October 22, 2012 at 9:27 AM

And if not to recover operational information to sanitize the site so the malfeasance of the rat-eared wonder’s administration.

Happy Nomad on October 22, 2012 at 9:33 AM

According to schieffer outline, benghazi won’t even be mentioned

Gotta protect dear leader
Mitt will have to bring it up

cmsinaz on October 22, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Why didn’t we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?

Because it would have required The Chosen One to make a decision. But he wouldn’t have had time to run it by his lawyers and then sleep on it.

GarandFan on October 22, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The last two Americans who died had managed to survive six hours into the attack.

I didn’t know this until now. 6 effin hours those dudes managed to hang on doing who knows what to survive and praying for help, meanwhile the Gun Running President is more concerned with triangulating with Axel and Jarrett to figure out how to minimize the political fallout.

If this doesn’t make your blood boil then nothing will, and I’m talking to you leftist trash who continue to prop-up this effing disastrous insect infesting the White House.

Bishop on October 22, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Uh oh… so much as for the little dose of reality. But I think the “chickens have come home to roust” fits much better in this situation (now where have I heard that before?).

The more I watch of this, the more I am reminded of how Russia and China treated their people – as useful tools. Watching the remorselessness of the President and Sec. of State towards the deaths of these American citizens, the more I think of Mao ordering more Chinese people to the fields because it was for the greater good – and his ego. It would seem that humans are a mere resource, a means to an end, to the progressives. Once gone, they can be easily replaced.

Wow. Just wow.

roxer on October 22, 2012 at 9:34 AM

As I recall, Obama went sent special forces after Bin Laden on about the 6th time he was made aware of an opportunity.

I guess our Embassy was only at the 3rd or 4th opportunity.
Rats.

tomg51 on October 22, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Because obama thought that letting the embassy be attacked and letting a few “NOT OPTIMAL” – “BUMPS IN THE ROAD” die would be a really awesome “CRISIS” to not let “GO TO WASTE”?

Pork-Chop on October 22, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Oh for crying out loud, people! It’s a bump in the road. It’s not like the ambassador was a big Obama donor or something. /sarc

Obama is either
A) stupid
B) malicious
C) not optimal
D) all of the above

the_moll on October 22, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I can’t wait til the hot shower Nov. 6 to wash the Obama filth off the American body politic.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 22, 2012 at 9:37 AM

So it was too dangerous to send AF jets because what, the spontaneous demonstrators might be armed with surface to air missiles in addition to mortars and heavy weapons?
/

STL_Vet on October 22, 2012 at 9:37 AM

tomg51 on October 22, 2012 at 9:35 AM

The timing wasn’t optimal.

cozmo on October 22, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Another thing – unlike the other 4 Sunday shows where Susan Rice spread her movie propaganda, her appearance with Bob Schieffer was preceded by the show opening interview with Libya’s interim President who stated that day that it was a planned, organized attack on the embassy. Rice then came on and lied straight to Schieffer’s face.

Schieffer may be very liberal but he also is old-fashioned on some things. He came up as a beat reporter and is one of the few reporters in DC that is not afraid to ask hard-hitting questions. I doubt he appreciates Rice’s narrative and has been around the block enough times that he knows that narrative could only have been given to her by the White House.

Revenge is a dish best served cold?

Greyledge Gal on October 22, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Barky aint talking. Hes blaming.

Philly on October 22, 2012 at 9:40 AM

“Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”

dirtseller on October 22, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Taking off my tin foil hat — the October surprise was supposed to be a September surprise. Obama was going to get his foreign policy cred, not just by killing OBL but also by doing what Carter didn’t do – rescuing hostages. The Obama Administration knew that there was going to be an attach, and had the military close by for the rescue. Then Ambassador Stevens ruined the plan by dieing of smoke inhalation. Getting the other 3 people but still having the Ambassador die would not have worked.

retreating to my corner with my tin foil hat back on.

talking_mouse on October 22, 2012 at 9:40 AM

So it was too dangerous to send AF jets because what, the spontaneous demonstrators might be armed with surface to air missiles in addition to mortars and heavy weapons?

STL_Vet on October 22, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Hmmmm.

WisRich on October 22, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Attempting a rescue would have conflicted with their “normalization” of relations and their story line that terrorism was no longer a threat. So they looked on as bystanders for six hours while our people died.

Obama’s foreign policy is make-believe. It’s a hoax.

petefrt on October 22, 2012 at 9:40 AM

CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday…”

Between this and her reporting on Fast & Furious Sharyl Attkisson is the stud of reporters. Too bad the rest of her contemporaries don’t have half the balls she has.

Mitoch55 on October 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM

And if not to recover operational information to sanitize the site so the malfeasance of the rat-eared wonder’s administration.

Happy Nomad on October 22, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Any way you cut it, the non-action only helps one group.

And that isn’t the United States of America.

ajacksonian on October 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Revenge is a dish best served cold?

Greyledge Gal on October 22, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I agree that Schieffer is liberal and old-fashioned. I disagree that he will do anything other than his level best to protect President Obama.

His politics will trump his personal values every time.

Washington Nearsider on October 22, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Mitt will be fine tonight. Peace through Strength will be his theme.

kingsjester on October 22, 2012 at 9:42 AM

The most likely reason is that Ambassador Stevens and the others were victims of “reset”. Obama and Hillary wanted to show the new Libyan government how much confidence they had in them, just as they’ve bent over backwards to try to prop up the new Egyptian regime’ (after helping torpedo Qaddafi and sink Mubarak, of course).

As such, they expected that the Libyan government wouldn’t let anything happen to their State Department personnel. They never considered that the Libyan government wasn’t even in control of its own capital, Tripoli, let alone Benghazi, halfway to the Egyptian border.

When it blew up in their faces, they reverted to their default position when anything goes wrong. Lie, and blame somebody else.

The thing that’s most telling about this is that not only Obama, but Clinton, suffer from an exaggerated confidence in how well their “reset” has worked. To an unbiased observer, it is apparent that they never had an accurate assessment of the forces involved to begin with. Much like Jimmy Carter in Iran in 1979. (“Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”- George Santayana)

The Libyan “government” reverted to the default position of all Muslim governments when confronted by the angry Islamists with guns. To survive, such governments have the choice of (1) assisting the killers or (2) just staying out of their way.

Most governments which choose the second course revert to Captain Chenault mode afterward. (“I am shocked- shocked! Sergeant, round up all the usual suspects!”) Which is exactly what the Libyan regime’ did.

Going back to Obama and Clinton, we now know the answer to what happens with that eponymous 3 A.M. phone call. Obama went back to sleep, then went fund-raising and golfing. Hillary started spinning like a Pratt & Whitney F-119 turbofan.

So the answer to “Who will be able to deal with a three A.M. phone call?” is- neither of these two.

clear ether

eon

eon on October 22, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor:

“There was an accident involving some Japanese tourists in airplanes, who had spontaneously chosen to fly around the harbor early on Sunday morning. Apparently they were angry that an American movie had insulted their Emperor. Some of our cruisers suffered damage. We will spend the next two weeks trying to find out what happened.”

Dextrous on October 22, 2012 at 9:43 AM

“In less than 24 hours, well ahead of established policies.”

What a load of crap. If they could send an unarmed drone, they could have sent multiple, armed drones, or an AH-64.

How much help would a few hellfire missiles, or some 30mm close-air support, or both, have been? Might have been enough…

mr.blacksheep on October 22, 2012 at 9:43 AM

talking_mouse on October 22, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Nahh. Occam’s razor.

Libya was his war. Everything was going well, or so he thought, so wanted to “normalize” or military presence, despite increasing violence had ignored the signals and requests from his underlings.

WisRich on October 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

CBS News: Why didn’t we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?

My guess is that Obama didn’t wanna risk another Black Hawk Down scenario happening on his watch, particularly so close to election time. Either that or he wasn’t even awake to make the call since he went to bed during the attack.

Doughboy on October 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Move along nothing to see here
-bob schieffer

cmsinaz on October 22, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Oh, it won’t matter what’s asked in the debate. Obama can always answer that there is an investigation underway and he can’t answer that question.

It’s the same answer he gave the guy that asked about who denied the security and why… After the debate Obama told that guy he can’t out particular people in the state department etc.

I’m afraid this debate won’t make a bit of difference, which is fine because Romney will win the election anyway.

happytobehere on October 22, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Is the MSM finally really going to start pursuing this story? Or are CBS and Newsweek off the reservation? Has the NYT shown any interest yet?

I suspect the NYT will continue to spike it unless they think they will be able to spin it in Obama’s favor by late next week.

farsighted on October 22, 2012 at 9:46 AM

CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday…”

Between this and her reporting on Fast & Furious Sharyl Attkisson is the stud of reporters. Too bad the rest of her contemporaries don’t have half the balls she has.

Mitoch55 on October 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM

same goes for Lara Logan…

jimver on October 22, 2012 at 9:46 AM

And why isn’t she the moderator instead

Dang it

cmsinaz on October 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Miss Atkisson will need a food taster.

Oink on October 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Bishop on October 22, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Read the Newsweek article. It’s the best yet.

How those two were killed makes it sound as if they weren’t there during the initial assault, as we’ve been told, and that they showed up later, entered the camp, and were ambushed by AQ mortar fire.

emphasis mine.

In fact, the closest crack combat unit, described by State Department officials as a six-man “quick-reaction security team,” was only about a mile away at the CIA annex.But by the time it arrived accompanied by 16 Libyans, the consulate villa was burning and the ambassador seemed to have disappeared ….

The survivors of the consulate attack had regrouped at the CIA annex. The quick-reaction team returned, and some skirmishing continued with shooters who had apparently followed the cars. But after a while a relative calm settled over the compound, like the pause near the end of a horror movie when the monster is supposed to be dead, but he’s not.

Hours passed. A handful of American reinforcements landed at Tripoli airport, and a group of about 30 Libyans drawn from different militias joined them. Some of those in the Libyan contingent who talked to Newsweek have given the only firsthand account so far of what happened at the CIA outpost in Benghazi. And while much of the assault on the consulate had been amateurish, depending on lax security, this attack had the mark of real professionals.

“Before we even showed up, they were there waiting,” says a Libyan militia officer who calls himself Ibn Febrayir. At about 4 a.m., as Febrayir and his men prepared to evacuate the Americans from the CIA compound, the street was dead quiet. And then a shot rang out. Then within seconds there was a whooshing sound of rocket-propelled grenades being fired, raining down into the annex compound from attackers in positions concealed on rooftops and behind a stand of trees. In two minutes 15 RPGs hit. Then a pause. Then came the muffled sound of a mortar going off, and a devastating detonation as it hit the roof of one of the annex buildings. “It was a good shot,” says Febrayir. “Whoever fired it knew what they were doing.” It was dark. And they were too accurate. “They must have known the coordinates,” said Febrayir. He and his forces retreated down the road. Inside the annex, the high explosive rounds lobbed on top of the buildings killed two members of the quick-reaction team, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who had taken up positions defending the compound. Special agent Ubben, who was barely able to move because of the smoke inhalation, also was hit by the blast but survived.

The shooting at the annex went on for about 15 minutes, says one member of Febrayir’s team. And then it stopped as abruptly as it had started. The assailants simply disappeared.

budfox on October 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

Then why did it take 16 days to get boots on the ground there?

Memo to State Department employees overseas: When minutes count, Panetta’s military is 24 hours away.

Dusty on October 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM

At some point the MSM is going to have to find a way to keep from becoming irrelevant. I think they passed that point over 4 years ago, but that’s just me.

How is it going to look to anyone watching the debate when Romney keeps hitting Obama with facts and Obama can’t answer except to lie? How will Shieffer keep from looking like the prevaricator that he and Obama are? Candy Crowley set the standard along with Jim Lehrer for “helping” Obama out. Will that same standard be met yet again? Of course it will, but it will be a very glaring error to us and many Americans who are more irritated with the media than ever. That number is rising and they know it. How will they try to reverse the trend?

BetseyRoss on October 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM

obama slept through the 3 AM call…….

crosshugger on October 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM

My guess is that Obama didn’t wanna risk another Black Hawk Down scenario happening on his watch, particularly so close to election time. Either that or he wasn’t even awake to make the call since he went to bed during the attack.

Doughboy on October 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I’d say the former’s pretty likely. Especially considering how his “foreign policy” so far is nothing but a continuation of Bush’s.

Deep down he knows he’s nothing more than a half-wit halfbreed, thus didn’t try a rescue because he was (rightly) afraid of a horrific Charlie Foxtrot right before the elections. That would have played out EXACTLY like the Carter/Raegan switchover.

MelonCollie on October 22, 2012 at 9:52 AM

What are the odds that the CBS News host brings up this biting CBS News report on what we might have done to stop the attack in Benghazi?

He won’t. Mitt should.

College Prof on October 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I can’t wait til the hot shower Nov. 6 to wash the Obama filth off the American body politic.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 22, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Only impeachment, jail time, and a complete repudiation of the American media as a trustworthy source of information can do that.

Cleombrotus on October 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Obama was asleep in bed, no?

MayBee on October 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM

No, he was desperately surfing Youtube in search of a video sufficiently offensive to Muslims to pass off as the excuse for this.

CurtZHP on October 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The last two Americans who died had managed to survive six hours into the attack.

I didn’t know this until now. 6 effin hours those dudes managed to hang on doing who knows what to survive and praying for help

Bishop on October 22, 2012 at 9:34 AM

They survived for six hours?! When Pooky ran the math for me two weeks ago, he said that we could’ve had assets there in four, and that would’ve just been the start under normal procedures. There were policies, procedures and assets that were supposed to be in place in case something like this happened so that our ambassador didn’t have to rely on two former SEALs being in the right place at the wrong time. God bless them for trying to save his life and others, but it shouldn’t have come down to that.

pookysgirl on October 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM

CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday: If we could fly an unarmed drone over the consulate while it was under attack, why didn’t we send the military in to rescue our people?

I just read the Attkisson report. It says nothing about whether or not the drone was armed. It speaks of an unmanned drone. It’s an important distinction. If that drone was, in fact, armed and did nothing, it just raises more questions. I, for one, would like to know if that drone was unmanned and unarmed, or merely unmanned.

rogaineguy on October 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Obama watched, people died. It doesn’t have to rhyme.

ctmom on October 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Valerie Jihadist intervined!

HoustonRight on October 22, 2012 at 9:58 AM

The terrorists most likely prolonged the assault on purpose and had RPG teams ready to ambush any helicopters that flew in with reinforcements. The best option was air power. If a drone launched just one or two missiles it probably would have disbursed the attackers.

Wigglesworth on October 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Is the MSM finally really going to start pursuing this story? Or are CBS and Newsweek off the reservation? Has the NYT shown any interest yet?

I suspect the NYT will continue to spike it unless they think they will be able to spin it in Obama’s favor by late next week.

farsighted on October 22, 2012 at 9:46 AM

…how sad is it…that after more than a month…our bastions of free speech have now just started to ask questions?

KOOLAID2 on October 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Easy question for Obama: When you were told about the attack on our consulate in Libya, what did you do and who did you talk to? What were your actions for the next 24 hours?

What do journalists call that? A tick tock, I think. I want Obama to give a tick tock of Sept 11- 12.

MayBee on October 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Just heard that mitt will get the last comments..

Hopefully bob won’t let dear leader filibuster or try to get a word after that

cmsinaz on October 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Obama watched, people died. It doesn’t have to rhyme.

ctmom on October 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM

How about… Americans died, then Obama lied.

farsighted on October 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Can’t a man just eat his waffle?

NickelAndDime on October 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Panetta should contract with CNN for a quick-reaction team since CNN had someone on the embassy grounds the very next day. How hard would it be to dress up a few FBI dudes with cameras and press cards and send them in to poke around while pretending to be reporters.

Bishop on October 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Why did Susan Rice lie about Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods?

MayBee on October 22, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Thank you Sharyl Attkisson! It’s the question everyone has been wondering about.

scalleywag on October 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I honestly hope that Mitt doesn’t try to “nail him” on this Libya fiasco. Obama is a terrible president, yes, but his people find a way with language to give him multiple outs regardless of the question. If Mitt really tries to nail Obama again then the moderator will either jump in and save Obama or Obama will merely deflect the question with the word “classified”.

He’ll probably even say something like, “if you become president, governor, you’ll need to learn that there are facts we can’t just divulge to those who wish us harm. And you making this a campaign issue is the height of blah blah…”

Romney needs to just go out there and speak to the American people as their new President. Just completely ignore Obama.

happytobehere on October 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Hat tip Sheryll Atkisson…between her relentless effort with F&F and now this, I do believe we may have a rare sighting of a MSM reporter who supports Romney, or at least maintaining credibility in her field…

hillsoftx on October 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Interesting concept to ponder, but let’s all ground ourselves in reality for a moment.

Most of us here want to see The One go home with his tail between his legs, whimpering the whole way as his entire cabinet and staff follows right behind him. Me included…I mean, come on!…Are you still wondering why I pushed so friggin’ hard for McCain four years ago?!? Why I fought the “Let Obama screw things up and lose3 re-election in four years…it’s better than McQueeg McAmnesty who will ruin conservatives forever”?

You’re looking at only one more dang reason with this Libya mess. Don’t blame me one bit…I voted for and unapologetically supported John McCain every step of the way after his nomination as GOP candidate. Hope the McCain-deranged are happy. :/

JetBoy on October 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM

But Obama’s not indifferent to those deaths, is he Ed.

Extrafishy on October 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM

He was clearly indifferent to those lives.

db on October 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Why didn’t we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?

Cause Barry said no…

albill on October 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM

happytobehere on October 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM

He’s got to put the Benghazi debacle into a broader context of Obama’s failed foreign policy, based on his flawed perceptions of the world and America’s role in it.

WisRich on October 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM

He’s got to put the Benghazi debacle into a broader context of Obama’s failed foreign policy, based on his flawed perceptions of the world and America’s role in it.

WisRich on October 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Agreed. I’m not saying he should ignore obama’s failures or Libya in general. I’m saying Mitt needs to ignore Obama the debater at the debate. Trying to get a devastating “moment” from Obama on stage is unnecessary and will likely backfire. Just stick to the known facts, be presidential and don’t go for some giant Perry Mason moment or whatever he’s hoping for.

happytobehere on October 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The Benghazi attack was a huge blunder on behalf of the Obama administration. All the people that want to make it out as malicious and purposeful are just grasping for a reason to feed their hatred. The reality is, they just weren’t looking, they weren’t paying attention, and the administrations focus was elsewhere and unconcerned at the moment with foreign occurrences. Which was a huge, huge, reputation damaging mistake since it was 9 effing 11. They took their eye off the ball and Americans died, and then they lied and obfuscated for weeks to try to downplay it, for their reputation and election chances.

The downside to years long presidential campaigns, you either do the things your supposed to be doing, your job, and lose the election because you’re not fighting the pr war, or you fight the pr war, and your actual job gets sidelined and people can die.

Most of you probably don’t remember, won’t admit it, or don’t care. But the media treated bush the same way his first term and it wasn’t until the blunders and momentum started piling up towards the end of it and into his second term that they really turned on him.

Meaning, even if Obama wins, you’ll see the media begin to tear him apart and challenge him more and more and he will lose whatever is left of his luster in short order, just like Bush did. The media NEVER asked the real hard questions of bush until things just got so bad and the momentum shifted. You’ll see the same with Obama.

It’s ALWAYS the way it works. Think for yourself and see the big picture, rather than just seeing it on the “other side”, take the blinders off and you’ll realize it never changes and is always the same.

Obama is fading.

Boomer_Sooner on October 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Well we should all refrain from asking questions till all the facts are known. And, since there is an FBI investigation underway we obviously won’t know enough about Benghazi to ask anything about it until they can release the unredacted parts of their investigation sometime in 2017. I’m sure Scheiffer understands this.

Oh yeah. We’re all cool with that. Thank you President Obama!

/

Harbingeing on October 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That is a great question. Another great question is what exactly happened in Benghazi? I know the president’s story keeps changing, but hopefully he has had enough time to grasp a better understanding.

I would love, LOVE to see Romney turn to the President tonight, and say something along the lines of “Mr. President, the American people are frustrated because the message from your administration keeps changing. Why don’t you take this opportunity to tell the 70 million people watching tonight to tell us exactly what happened, who was responsible, and what your doing to bring them to justice”.

In this scenario, Obama either gives a complete dodge, or he has to provide a narrative that doesn’t contradict the labyrinth of lies that his people have erected around this issue.

HarryBackside on October 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Can anybody get in Bob’s ear today and remind him that his morning show was one of those Obama sent Susan Rice to in order to lie to the American people… right to Bob Schieffer’s face?

Sugar Land on October 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Four of my countrymen, including an American ambassador, were murdered on September 11th. It is the second dastardly attack to be perpetrated on that date. Given the first horrendous attack, one would think not only would this President have learned from our past misfortunes, but would lead vigorously to prevent a repeat.

So I would conclude my countrymen were apparently sacrificed for political expediency. They were left helpless and exposed while this administration evaluated the political ramifications and “appearances”.

They were murdered as a feckless administration slept and hoped for a favorable political outcome that would not expose their failed foreign policy. They languished in pain and despair, while the military assets that could have saved their lives sat close, but idle because the President lack the leadership and foresight to deploy them.

Even after these honorable citizens have left us, the administration still tries to cover their inaction, bad judgment and tom-foolery. They lie to the families and our fellow Americans about the cause of their death- which is really the outright incompetence and political foolhardiness of Mr. Obama.

RIP my brothers. Because in about 15 days we are going to try with all our strength to make this right.

Marcus Traianus on October 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM

So the issue is no longer that there wasn’t a marine contingent there – but that Panetta didn’t get a force there within a few hours.
Ahhh…the ever evolving political opposed argument.
Of course few of you take any issue with the ineptitude of Daryl Wissaleaks and his team.

I understand why there’s so much passion here over this – but I know that passion has nothing to do with any real concern about the events and deaths in Benghazi.

verbaluce on October 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

When even hacks at the Alphabet networks start asking these kinds of questions, you know the dam has truly burst.

Bye bye, Barack.

dczombie on October 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM

ABC is reporting on its Political Punch blog that Intelligence says there was no evidence of planning for this attack.

What?

Do they mean there was no evidence it was always going to happen on Sept 11, or are they trying to sell the idea this was just a completely spur of the moment activity?

MayBee on October 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I’ve been asking this for weeks, ever since a poster here (I’m sorry I can’t recall who) posted a link to an interview by Howie Carr of Col. Hunt. He said in that interview that it wouldn’t have just been the State dept. that had the real time viewing of the attack, but the Situation Room, the Pentagon and multiple others in Europe, Africa and the ME. They could have done something, they were paralyzed by fear/incompetence and by the CiC going to bed/voting present.

txmomof6 on October 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM

The attackers were our new allies…we couldn’t send our military against them.

Karmi on October 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Beyond the obvious, the POTUS was asleep, ther is the fact that NO FORCES TO SEND.

Sure an a/c or an armed drone could have been present, but without a Forward Air Controller or a means of communication they can’t do much…and it was going to take TROOPS to effect anything of value. And troops aren’t just on an hour’s standby, worldwide…sorry.

Even Rambo or Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal, or a FAST unit, or a MAU or members of the 173rd Airborne.

JFKY on October 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Meaning, even if Obama wins, you’ll see the media begin to tear him apart and challenge him more and more…

Boomer_Sooner on October 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Dude. You are completely nuts if you honestly believe that. I’m just gonna pretend you didn’t write that out loud… For your sake.

happytobehere on October 22, 2012 at 10:23 AM

A ‘means of communication’… you mean like the guy who died on the embassy radio, begging for help? Gee, I wonder if either of the two SEALs there, using that radio, could possibly have acted as a Forward Air Controller.

Chuckg on October 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

My guess is that Obama didn’t wanna risk another Black Hawk Down scenario happening on his watch, particularly so close to election time. Either that or he wasn’t even awake to make the call since he went to bed during the attack.

Doughboy on October 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Yeah, because a dead ambassador and three others is so much less politically sensitive than risking a Black Hawk Down scenario.

And while on the subject, the administration was claiming a bunch of film critics were upset. Where would have been the risk to a rescue helicopter? The reality is that the administration knew from the beginning the real story and lied their asses off because it didn’t fit the political narrative that Obama brought a more democratic and stable Libya by overthrowing the regime. The most sorrowful part is the way the David Patraeus is lying to this date by skewing known facts to put the administration in a better light. I remember when high-ranking former military officers acted with integrity and in the best interests of the nation instead of protecting their boss by affirmig lies and cover-ups.

Happy Nomad on October 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I understand why there’s so much passion here over this – but I know that passion has nothing to do with any real concern about the events and deaths in Benghazi.

verbaluce on October 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

NOTHING? What are you, clairvoyant?

Cleombrotus on October 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Why not?

Because that’s what Cowboys do.

Ben Hur on October 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Why did they have to wait for a reaction force from Germany? Sigonella is a Naval Air Station. There are Marine security team and aviation personnel there. Every Marine is always first a rifleman. I’m pretty sure a platoon sized rescue force could have been assembled and transported by C130 to Benghazi Airport and from there to the consulate or by helo directly to the consulate from Sigonella. A rescue mission could have been attempted had there been the will to do so.

xkaydet65 on October 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Certainly the Libya debacle and the ensuing cover up will get the attention it deserves tonight, but where has Obama ever done anything of not successfully regarding foreign policy? Serious question to you leftists.

Granted he made the obvious call to kill Osama bin Laden, but really that is all he had to do, he “inherited” the infrastructure Bush put in place to even give him that opportunity.

He botched the green revolution in Iran right out of the box and we have seen Iran get even more dangerous since.

He simply continued Bush’s exit strategy out of Iraq so he gets no credit for that, but then he failed to negotiate a plan to leave troops and an operating base in Iraq that essentially wasted all we worked for and sacrificied and puts us in more danger in the region.

He told the terrorists when we are leaving Afghanistan and has turned that into a debacle.

The middle east is on fire and he has alienated our allies in the region.

All this before even mentioning Russia and China and the threats they pose while Obama seeks to downsize our military ata time we should be showing more strength.

Fact is as awful as Obama has been with the domestic economic issues his record is even worse from a foreign policy standpoint. I really don’ think he even understands how the economy and foreign policy go together.

Ellis on October 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

“looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

So, you can’t get from Italy, Germany, or Iraq to Libya in 6 hours? There’s no warships with helicopters in the Mediterranean? On September 11, there were no rapid response teams at the ready?

hawksruleva on October 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6