Breaking: Fox News reports CIA command refused to help Benghazi consulate during attack

posted at 12:01 pm on October 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, Leon Panetta told reporters that the US military didn’t intervene to assist our consulate in Benghazi during the attack because of a lack of real-time intelligence.  Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin now reports that the CIA got at least three requests for support from the annex in the city to help fend off the attack — and that the chain of command not only refused the requests, but ordered its personnel to “stand down.”  Two of the Americans killed in the terrorist attack disobeyed orders and attempted to rescue their fellow Americans:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”

Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

It’s not as if there was no resources to respond, either:

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

Griffin’s sources tell her that the annex had painted a laser target at a terrorist mortar position and had called for an air strike.  I’m not sure what that looks like in Panetta’s world, but it at least sounds like real-time intelligence on the attack, as well as a clear target, if this report is correct.

Saxby Chambliss is right — this gets uglier every day.

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 5 6 7 8 9

There may have been confusion about what was overhead or the timing of overhead assets if the information was being passed through a serious of operations and command centers.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You are drowning, and no one is throwing you a lifeline…

HAHAHHAHHAHA!! You are a clown….but you give us a good laugh.

I always marvel at how, when one exposes a fraud, how guys/gals like you just keep posting and pretending everyone is not laughing at you…amazing, you are indeed the monkey at the end of the organ grinders chain…dance you little monkey, dance….

HAHAHAHAHA!!!dance…dance…dance…keep posting you are F’in brilliant.

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM

The CIA operators lugged a laser designator to the roof
Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM

First fail – a laser designator is not necessarily a large object. It’s not necessary to “lug” it anywhere.

laser target designators are not randomly used to identify targets
Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I’m operating on the assumption that the reporter wouldn’t know a “laser designator” from a “laser pointer”. There are several different types of lasers used in military ops: from basic pointers to range-finders (built-in to another device or independent) to designators. I won’t let myself get bagged by bad assumptions such as the reporters knowing which end of a weapon is the muzzle.

in vague hopes that some random air asset will be wandering by.
Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Fog of war. He very well might think one is on its way, when no such thing is true.

The fact that they bothered to call for fire, and lased the target, would only have occurred if the aircraft were overhead and the men calling in fire expected an immediate strike. Period. End of story.
Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Again, you’re assuming it was a call for fire, and not simply a desperate radio call for help.

Because you never ever designate a target until you’re ready as the enemy can id your location.

Minnfidel on October 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Not really true. With the right high technology, yes, you can tell when you’re being lased. But, unless it was a big red (or green) dot on Abdul’s chest or forehead, they probably gave it no thought.

They can do this now with even phones with a nightvision camera app.

Minnfidel on October 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Only if you have reason to believe you’re being lased. And, you would have to know where to look (admittedly that is probably a pretty narrow area in this case). And, you would have to have the sophistication to know to use that sort of app.

I’m willing to believe there was a Spectre in the air. I’m willing to believe the absolute worst about this administration – and then some. But – precisely because I am willing to believe it – I am not willing to let myself get sucked into a rope-a-dope without more evidence than the words written by a reporter – which might very well have been putting words into the mouth of their source.

In other words – Don’t Fire Until You See The Whites Of Their Eyes!

GWB on October 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM

There may have been confusion about what was overhead or the timing of overhead assets if the information was being passed through a serious of operations and command centers.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 3:45 PM

WHy the confusion? They had set up in a dangerous area that had been a war zone not long ago. The compound had already been threatened. They must have had a worked out protocol in case of an enemy attack. This wasn’t the consulate in Ottawa. I don’t buy it.

BoxHead1 on October 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Poor little Sheep Smythe on FAUX News is peeved that people are talking about this until after the official investigation is completed.

LegendHasIt on October 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Save for Red Eye there is nothing to watch on Fox these days. Even so called conservatives talk a good game, but then fail to ask tough questions. And you can’t avoid seeing rabid communists, at an ever increasing rate, even if you want to. Hannety had ex Gov of NM on last night and my first question was, Why is someone under investigation for financial impropriety even given access to TV? Same with that rabid communist calling GOP Nazis. I can go on and on, its like Fox is going out of their way to find the most idiotic communist scum around.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Oh, and it was 9/11.

BoxHead1 on October 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I can rationalize the order even if I don’t agree with it.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

That’s true with most every bad or wrong decision…they can all be rationalized.

But we pay soldiers, Generals/Admirals to make these decisions and stand by them, not hide from them.

If a General said “stand down” or if Panetta said “stand down” than we want to hear the reason, and if it doesn’t make sense, they are out.

That’s how it works…not, if they never find out, I will be safe…

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Hey guys, don’t lose sight of whole point here. The fact is, somebody denied help to those in the consulate. That somebody is in the CIA, the State Department, or the WH.

Is there any real “win” in determining what “stand down” meant at the time it was uttered? Its semantics, and those 4 Americans didn’t die because of semantics. They died because our government made a decision to not help them.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 3:50 PM

The point about getting our facts straight is we can’t win arguments if we’re tossing out untrue statements. And, we will have to win some arguments over this if we want it to not disappear down the memory hole.

GWB on October 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM

No. The order was to stand down from a rescue mission to another location. The CIA annex at that point was not under attack. Disagree with it, but let’s keep our facts straight.

GWB on October 26, 2012 at 3:32 PM

My facts are fine.
The Stand down order would have sealed the fate of those at the Consulate. Those were the people who, at that time, were fighting for their lives. Whether the denied request came from the Consulate or the Annex is immaterial. In fact, I am pretty sure that the Consulate would have had some way to contact the Annex. The call for help probably originated AT the Consulate.In that case the stand down order was denying a Consulate request. Somebody who was capable to help the Ambassador was being told NOT TO !!

Jabberwock on October 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM

HAHAHAHAHA!!!dance…dance…dance…keep posting you are F’in brilliant.

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Looks like 3900 out of 4000 new HA signups during last drive were communist scum. One “poster” vanishes and 2 new ones take his place. Axelrod must be paying them by the post.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Somebody who was capable to help the Ambassador was being told NOT TO !!

Jabberwock on October 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM

That’s the gist of this entire sad and treasonous saga…

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Unless you agree with that old nut that the entire Pentagon is pushing an Islamic agenda?

And riddick. Betrayus? You’re worse than the liberals.

smoothsailing on October 26, 2012 at 2:05 PM

How long were you in a coma?

VorDaj on October 26, 2012 at 3:58 PM

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Yeah, I gave up on Hannity long ago. And have known (and despised) Richardson personally since he was running for Congress in the early ’80s and I was a semi-significant player in NM.

Although I wouldn’t call the Fauxes rabid communists. Except for maybe Colmes , Williams and Beckel. The rest are just closet socialists or populist douches.

LegendHasIt on October 26, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Human sacrifice 21st Century American style.

It would seem the Aztec High Priests of the 15th century have been reincarnated and are now in full reign at the building some still call the Pentagon.

America’s Generals are now very much like the Aztec High Priests of many centuries ago. The main difference, and it’s a relatively small one, is that instead of continually sacrificing what they regarded as their excess and disposable human property to the Sun God to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, America’s Generals keep trying to sacrifice America’s Constitution, and do sacrifice more and more of the lives and limbs of America’s troops, whom they regard as their excess and disposable human property, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of America’s rapidly shrinking treasure, which although itself is of much lesser importance is still no small matter, to the gods they reverently call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, and maybe even get an extra star and another few assorted colorful baubles for which to adorn themselves.

Is our military fighting for anything most Americans would regard as at all decent in Afghanistan? Certainly not our Army, nor our Marines. America’s Generals have repeatedly ordered them to respect the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” and if American troops get shot to death by what their Generals call their Partners in Peace, then the Generals conclude that America’s derelict and sacrilegious troops must not have respected the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” nearly enough and order them to take still more religious and cultural “sensitivity” training so they can better respect the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan, maybe even enough where they can start joining in the practicing of that Noble Muslim Culture themselves, which would no doubt delight the Generals to no end.

There of course is never any “sensitivity” training ever even recommended for what America’s Generals call “The Noble People Of Afghanistan” so they might better understand and appreciate Western and American culture. But then as America’s Generals clearly must regard the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan as being far superior to Western and American culture, they would surely regard any such thing as, well, absolutely unthinkable, and blasphemous, and upon hearing any such suggestion would no doubt order even more “sensitivity” training.

* Mainstream Noble People of Afghanistan Muslim Culture includes child rape of both young girls and young boys, torturing dogs including puppies, total enslavement of women, stoning women to death for being raped, and death to apostates, which itself covers a whole lot, just to very briefly mention a few of the highlights.

VorDaj on October 26, 2012 at 4:01 PM

lots of blinking blinkered blinkers going on about blinking

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

What VorDaj and Winston Churchill said.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 4:10 PM

VorDaj on October 26, 2012 at 4:01 PM

LOL
Do you carry that diatribe around in your back pocket? Am starting to agree with you on Petraeus though. Might be this criminal enterprize(administration) is holding something over on him that causes him to act against his better interests.

kenny on October 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Petraeus has always been a son of a #itch. Check out http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/ sometime.

VorDaj on October 26, 2012 at 4:17 PM

What the Hindus learned the hard way.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The reason for this incredible fiasco appears simple to me: the Obama Administration encountered a problem eerily similar to one faced by Jimmy Carter: whether to attempt a rescue of embassy personnel under attack in the Middle East. While Mr. Carter gave the green light to extract the hostages at the Tehran Embassy on April 24, 1980, this time President Obama sat on his hands. Even though President Carter’s mission failed and eight servicemen died in the desert 200 miles south of Tehran, he made a courageous decision that risked his reelection. Only President Obama knows why he did nothing for the Benghazi personnel; my view is, given his demonstrated ignorance of most things military and his avoidance of risky decisions, he simply did not understand that our armed forces personnel are prepared to risk a greater number of their own lives in for the sake of a few. Unless absolutely guaranteed a successful rescue outcome, I doubt whether President Obama would consider any risky mission that could imperil his campaign. This is not one of the Administration’s finer moments: Americans admire courage and disdain poltroons.

Mr Mxyzptlk on October 26, 2012 at 4:19 PM

15 years after it came into being islam attacked the hindus.

They attack.

You fight or your over run.

Obama prefers not to fight.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM

He voted present. They needed an order from him to go in but Obama literally left the room. He went to the private residence…and someone (jarret?) gave the order that he was not to be disturbed.

WisRich on October 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM

From BLACKFIVE:

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Are you serious?

This situation seems like the very definition of confusion. Heck, confusion often exists even with well planned exercises that have limited scope.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Well, you’ve convinced me. This whole Benghazi thing is just one big mis-understanding, and that being the case, everyone involved gets a great big mulligan. I’ll go so far to say we should be commending Obama and his administration for not jumping to a single conclusion, but offering us a variety of plausible theories about that night, which proves the “confusion” casual factor.

Bless his heart, he’s doin’ the bestest he can.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 4:37 PM

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

Finally someone addressing a point that should have been raised days ago. Was that drone armed or not?

xblade on October 26, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Are you serious?

This situation seems like the very definition of confusion. Heck, confusion often exists even with well planned exercises that have limited scope.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No, I get that. Ugh, I don’t remember what your original post referred to. It was the laser sighting,right?

So, why would they be in the dark about assets? If any consulate should have known about how it was being defended on 9/11 it should have been the Libyan one, right? It points to a pre-planned expectation that sighting the mortar position would be beneficial.

BoxHead1 on October 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM

blink on October 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM

.
As I commented in the other thread, you are trying to educate people who are on a witch hunt.

Facts don’t matter – just upthread of your post the person using the laser designator has suddenly morphed from being the security person for the CIA at the annex to being one of the SEALS.

There is no fog of war – a CIA station security chief COULD NOT POSSIBLY be lasing something if there wasn’t something up above to shoot at what he was lasing.

Inconvenient facts are buried – You pointed out the Specter gunships do not use laser targeting weapons – IT DOES NOT MATTER – they could have used their “DEVICES” to see what was being designated – let’s not talk about NVD’s being burned out if you were dumb enough to use them simultaneously with the tracers from the 7.62 mini-guns.

Leave them to their witch hunt. Let them get burned.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Oh, and it was 9/11.

BoxHead1 on October 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Obviously just a coincidence. — President Rambo

farsighted on October 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Ok, all Embassies have an evacuation plan and a rescue plan for exactly these type of circumstances and it was reperted that there were ships right off the coast for that very reason. Also, the Pentagon would have contingency plans for this very scenario. Our Leaders just need to have the guts to call for it.

Sven on October 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Are people taking this to mean that Sigonella, Aviano, and Souda Bay each had fighters and AC-130s???

There is no way this is true.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM

.
You have a reporter who is being fed a story by someone (likely in one of the intelligence services) who knows the reporter has to hear their were multiple locations assets could be pulled from to get a report on air.

Let’s simplify this situation.

If there was a Specter gunship overhead above Benghazi – the odds are 99-1 it would have opened fire.

They do a LOT of operations in support of SOCOM forces and it is VERY easy to “misunderstand” the directive you have been given as green lighting a fire mission.

One other misunderstanding – a Specter gunship over Benghazi is NOT in communication with the White House Situation Room. It is at least two communication chains removed from that kind of direct control.

Side note: Why would Specter gunships be at all three bases in Italy? What is going to happen within their normal operating range that would justify that kind of disposition of assets?

“Hey, the Greeks are rioting!”

‘Well, we’ll send a Secter over there to settle them down.’

????

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Facts don’t matter – just upthread of your post the person using the laser designator has suddenly morphed from being the security person for the CIA at the annex to being one of the SEALS

The two ex-seals were contracted to provide security for the CIA I believe. The only security the consulate had was hired locals right?

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Side note: Why would Specter gunships be at all three bases in Italy? What is going to happen within their normal operating range that would justify that kind of disposition of assets?

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Oh….how just in case there’s an attack on US Embassy’s or other US interests on or near Sept 11?

I know, its lunacy to even think that.

Why would they be in Italy? Uh…thats where the AC130 support facility(s) are? I could be wrong, but I’m thinking we’re not basing AC130s in Libya or Egypt yet, so if they were in theater, they had to be somewhere.

And I’m not saying they were there; just positing an answer to your question.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 5:22 PM

The two ex-seals were contracted to provide security for the CIA I believe. The only security the consulate had was hired locals right?

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM

.
Security for the consulate was outsourced to locals.

Security chief for the CIA at the annex was an American. There were reportedly 30+ CIA people at the annex (including Woods and Doherty) who were pursuing the MANPADS anti-aircraft weapons looted from Ghaddafi’s armories.

No offense to the CIA personnel but they are nowhere near the ex-SEALS in terms of capabilities.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 5:23 PM

And if they were attempting to coordinate support over the phone through a series of commands and operations centers then it’s very likely that confusion was the result.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 4:55 PM

OK. But the Egyptian embassy had been sacked. Wouldn’t the safety of Libyan consulate be a primary concern before the attack? Especially since since they were in a self admittedly prone position. You are acting as if this was 1 of a dozen fronts in the region that had to be defended. I’m respecting and considering your opinion but it seems to me, since it was being watched by the executive in real time, that the lines of communication would not be the bottleneck.

BoxHead1 on October 26, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Why would they be in Italy? Uh…thats where the AC130 support facility(s) are? I could be wrong, but I’m thinking we’re not basing AC130s in Libya or Egypt yet, so if they were in theater, they had to be somewhere.

And I’m not saying they were there; just positing an answer to your question.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 5:22 PM

.
You don’t use a Specter ‘casually’ – the mini-guns will shred anything less than a tank with a burst or two.

One Specter brings he11.

Two Specters – you are really pi$$ed off and want to make a statement

Three Specters – one at each base theoretically – well, I have difficulty imaging a furball requiring three Specters but …

… they are a lot more valuable operating out of our bases in Iraq, Saudi Arabia (well, Saudi bases but we’ve been known to use one or two), and Afghanistan.

I can posit one Specter in Italy but beyond that it is doing logical things with disposition of forces. If you are going to have a “spare” you put it as close to your current operations as possible.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM

These contingency plans often require much more than 6 hours and assets certainly aren’t maintained on standby for these type of contingency unless they are specifically put on alert.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

And why would they not be on standby on 9/11 after two previous attacks? It’s not like the plan would be sitting in a file drawer some where.

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 5:35 PM

blink on October 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

.
I don’t know if you have any experience with the MSM … but if a real, live intelligence agency type acted as a source to a MSM reporter?

The source could tell the MSM that they had the Easter Bunny available to parachute in as a diversion and I wouldn’t be shocked if the MSM type believed it.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I can posit one Specter in Italy but beyond that it is doing logical things with disposition of forces. If you are going to have a “spare” you put it as close to your current operations as possible.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM

The Middle East is a big region. Who’s to say the bad guys get to attack only one of our assets at a time? Just line them up…Egypt (probably out of range from Italy without refueling), Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Greece.

Not exactly a stable area, and all with active Al Qaeda or surrogate groups (Greece? maybe). Why expect a single event, when it could blow up anywhere/everywhere? Contingencies planning.

IF the AC130s were even there, they’d all be at one base.

My money says the military started moving assets when the flag went up, but got a “stand down” instead of “light’em up” from a civilian somewhere.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Why would they put an AC-130 on alert for 9/11 if they wouldn’t even given them an extra dozen Marines?

He asked why they would be at all three bases.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

See my post above. Its quite likely many assets were “alerted” to some degree worldwide based on the local threat assessment, and of which I have no knowledge nor will I pretend to.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Yes, it’s certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean that 6 hours was enough time.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Its plenty of time from Italy. Not as fast as the fire departments here at home, but they could been putting ordnance on target in less than 3 hours after getting the mission. Its right at 600 miles from Sigonella to Benghazi. Cruising at say, 250-300 kts, it’d take 2 -2.5 hours flight time.

But this is all academic. They didn’t even try.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM

But my point from the beginning has been that it’s possible that good options weren’t available. Many on here have definitively claimed that options were available, and I’m opposing that view.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM

There are no good options in combat. Just because the environment isn’t “optimal” doesn’t mean you don’t try.

Could we have put ground forces in there (assuming such forces are available…news reports suggest they were)? Absolutely. Would we have dropped them right into the fight? No. Thats dumb.

They would have been inserted some distance away for a couple reasons, like giving themselves a buffer (distance) in order to re-constitute into units after an air drop and then approach the battle as the current situation dictates (maybe try for an envelopment before you go hot?), or hey diddle diddle straight up the middle to the consulate (wasting anything that so much as twitches on the way there).

And depending on who got dropped (Delta, SEALs, Rangers, etc.) would also help inform the tactics when they got there. Delta and SEALs would probably go straight for the consulate on a snatch and grab. Units like Rangers would probably engage in force, then open a path to the consulate, secure it, then kill everybody outside the walls (its what they do), and wait for the choppers.

BobMbx on October 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM

There were reportedly 30+ CIA people at the annex (including Woods and Doherty) who were pursuing the MANPADS anti-aircraft weapons looted from Ghaddafi’s armories.

No offense to the CIA personnel but they are nowhere near the ex-SEALS in terms of capabilities.

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were ex-SEALs.

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Seven Percent Solution on October 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

But my point from the beginning has been that it’s possible that good options weren’t available. Many on here have definitively claimed that options were available, and I’m opposing that view.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Blink, if you have not already you need to listen to the special ops caller on Rush’s show today. If you have listened and disagree, I’d be interested to hear where he is wrong.

http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-rush-military-caller-says-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-obama-knew-about-benghazi-attack-ordered-no-response/

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Seven Percent Solution on October 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I wonder if this came from Petraeus or are they just ignoring him right now and commenting anyway?

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM

These Bastards not only deserve a Perp Walk, they deserve to be identified and released into a general population! Let them understand what it means to be Raped and Murdered by an angry mob!Whoever the SOB who told those men to stand down and refused to help the Americans under attack can NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, Be ALLOWED TO WORK IN GOVT. AGAIN! These, Walking Talking POS, Need To Be Identified as Cowards and Enablers of Terrorists and Murderers! These are not people! They cannot be trusted, ever again! If anyone ever deserved to have their American Citizenship REVOKED, It’s this POS!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America! And Please Make Sure That The Animal Who Did This, NEVER Sees Heaven!

paratisi on October 26, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Seven Percent Solution on October 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I wonder if this came from Petraeus or are they just ignoring him right now and commenting anyway?

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM

CIA spokesmen don’t go rogue.

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Petraeus runs for cover. The Process of Elimination continues…Where oh where might it lead?

Time for a new HotAir Benghazi thread.

spiritof61 on October 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM

blink on October 26, 2012 at 6:40 PM

And communist news keeps on spinning…

Pravda and Izvestia had more integrity than the corrupt American news media.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Okay, Petraeus is starting to push back.

There will be push back and then more push back when Obama continues to stonewall, until someone finally decides to outright bolt. Here’s hoping the bolt comes before election day.

Next move, Shillary or Panetta? I say Shillary. If she wants to cut her losses for 2016, opportunism will trump loyalty, and she will distance herself from this president like the plague.

petefrt on October 26, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were ex-SEALs.

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM

.
I know, the CIA security chief was the one with the laser designator not Woods or Doherty.

I want the truth of all of this out in the open as badly as anyone. I have a hard time typing Obama as opposed to my preferred designation, SCOAMF.

Like blink, I want the narratives on here to be accurate even when that means questioning what Fox News or others are reporting.

I have dealt with people like the SCOAMF before. You destroy them with patience, the truth and never giving them an opportunity for wiggle room.

My first post on this thread included a link to a story saying Bill Clinton is after Hillary Clinton to release State Department cables proving she requested additional security for Benghazi.

If that is true and documented before the election, we can watch the liberal agenda be destoyed on November 6th.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM

would be, “Four Star claims that he strongly advised President against rescue attempt” or something.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM

.
Biden would be the FIRST to say, “I told him not to do it!”

;->

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 7:10 PM

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.

.
Well, if it wasn’t Petraeus, the spokesman would be unemployed right now.

I guess General Petraeus wanted to get the sack of sh1t of his desk and looking for a new home this weekend.

This is going via special delivery to the White House – attention Mssrs. Hamm, Panetta & SCOAMF.

PolAgnostic on October 26, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Valerie Jarrett has to be fit to be tied by now. I expect her voice is hoarse from screaming at people and trying to shut down this story. Her epic collapse is going to be a joy to behold.

slickwillie2001 on October 26, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Seven Percent Solution on October 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Something doesn’t add up. Are they saying that requests from Benghazi, as attack raged on, NEVER CAME? These were requests from CIA on the ground in Benghazi to CIA via CIA communications, and all 3 requests came back with 3 Nos as answers.

What’s missing in this picture? Is CIA now saying they never got those requests?

Because that’s the only way I can read their very terse statement “that they did not refuse to support”. This only means they are saying they didn’t receive any requests to me, I can’t read it any other way.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:27 PM

But you need to ask yourself what you’d be writing if a C-130 full of in extremist troopers were shot down by a Libyan air defense missile because Obama ordered them to attempt a rescue. Would you be criticizing him for carelessly risking the lives of 100 people in order to try to save four via some ill-prepared and ill advised mission? I wouldn’t, but I have a feeling that many on here would. I have a feeling that the leak headlines would be, “Four Star claims that he strongly advised President against rescue attempt” or something.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Thanks, I just wanted to confirm that was the real reason no help was forthcoming.

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Because that’s the only way I can read their very terse statement “that they did not refuse to support”. This only means they are saying they didn’t receive any requests to me, I can’t read it any other way.

I can.

‘We did not refuse to support; National Command Authority did.’

Chuckg on October 26, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Would you be criticizing him for carelessly risking the lives of 100 people in order to try to save four via some ill-prepared and ill advised mission?

No. I didn’t blame Carter for the botched rescue either. That was the military’s fault.

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Thanks, I just wanted to confirm that was the real reason no help was forthcoming.

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Please stop listening to a communist moron. PLEASE.

Those Spectres are well protected against ground fire. This is communist weasel’s way to create even more excuses.

Delta forces were on the ready. As was the drone allowing cowards in the WH to watch the attack in real time, ALL of the drones in that region are ARMED and ready to go. As was at least one fully armed Spectre, and by some reports there were 2 in the air. No other reason for Navy SEALs to laser paint the target.

There was absolutely NO EXCUSE not to fight back unless A) WH wanted Stevens dead and B) WH wanted to save islam lives.

Both objectives were achieved as we can see.

Please stop listening to communist azzholes twisting in the air and trying to come up with one excuse after another. All shot down by facts we already have and more as this develops.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

‘We did not refuse to support; National Command Authority did.’

Chuckg on October 26, 2012 at 7:33 PM

I’m a riddick fan, but that’s the way it came across to me too. In spite of whatever CIA inputs he may have had, the decision to refuse support was made by POTUS.

petefrt on October 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I can.

‘We did not refuse to support; National Command Authority did.’

Chuckg on October 26, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Then that’s what CIA should state. CLEARLY.

As is, they say nothing much to clear up the question.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Are you claiming that I’m spinning communist news?

blink on October 26, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Yes, idiot.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I’m a riddick fan, but that’s the way it came across to me too. In spite of whatever CIA inputs he may have had, the decision to refuse support was made by POTUS.

petefrt on October 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I also know that’s the way it played out. I just want CIA to clearly point this back at WH where this belongs.

Not that I would have done what Petraus did had I been in his shoes. My first priority would be to save American lives and my resignation letter sent to all the news media outlets next morning CLEARLY explaining the reasons.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Because that’s the only way I can read their very terse statement “that they did not refuse to support”. This only means they are saying they didn’t receive any requests to me, I can’t read it any other way.

I can.

‘We did not refuse to support; National Command Authority did.’

Chuckg on October 26, 2012 at 7:33 PM

The quote was:
“No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

They knew people were in need – which lines up with the Fox reports. They were not the ones who refused to help.

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Then that’s what CIA should state. CLEARLY.

As is, they say nothing much to clear up the question.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:38 PM

True. Petraeus may be pushing back, but he’s still weasel-wording. Sad.

petefrt on October 26, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Taken as a whole, doesn’t the Benghazi disaster qualify as the ’3AM Call’ which Hillary referred to in 2008? And doesn’t it qualify for both her and the Prez? Shameful behavior from the adolescents who are running this country.

ronco on October 26, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Please stop listening to communist azzholes twisting in the air and trying to come up with one excuse after another. All shot down by facts we already have and more as this develops.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I was agreeing that the reason no help was forthcoming was because a General or higher thought the political risk was too high, not that it couldn’t be put in motion.

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 7:44 PM

R.I.P. to those who were lost in Benghazi. God bless and guide their families and their nearest friends, as they attempt to help us all find the truth about this shameful mess.

ronco on October 26, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Are you claiming that I’m spinning communist news?
blink on October 26, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Figured that out all by yourself, did ya?

tommyboy on October 26, 2012 at 7:47 PM

But you need to ask yourself what you’d be writing if a C-130 full of in extremist troopers were shot down by a Libyan air defense missile because Obama ordered them to attempt a rescue.

blink

Wasn’t air clearance given by Libya? I know it was requested, but I could have sworn there was a report here a few days ago saying clearance was given as well.

xblade on October 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM

I know, the CIA security chief was the one with the laser designator not Woods or Doherty.

I did not know that. So he was one of the other two who disobeyed orders to stand down? Four actually went right? That means two witnesses who are still alive and can testify. It will be after the election but this whole story will come out.

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Those on the ground in Benghazi received denials for help from CIA, no? Did anyone on the ground in Benghazi receive those denials with “this came from above” note? Not in any reports that I have seen so far, all I see is “CIA told us to sand down”. CIA.

So, let’s see. Shillary’s employees request more security for months and are denied. They then die, in HER employ. But its not her fault that AMERICANS died.

CIA now allows 2 of their men die, after 3 requests to help and for help, and all 3 requests are denied. But its not CIA’s fault that 2 AMERICANS under its empoly died.

Panetta, same thing, although HIS employees did not die. Or rather, died later while rescuing 30 or so people stuck in the place. Also, not his fault that AMERICANS dies.

OK, then. Only Idiot in Chief is at fault, all other America loving department heads did nothing wrong. And should be commended for their service.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Nah. He was probably just bored and decided to play with the laser. Probably just teasing a cat (you know how they love to chase the dot). /S/

Solaratov on October 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM

“No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

To me that means they didn’t even relay orders from POTUS or anyone else to stand down. Who else could tell them to stand down beside their superiors?

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Nah. He was probably just bored and decided to play with the laser. Probably just teasing a cat (you know how they love to chase the dot). /S/

Solaratov on October 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Yep, just passing time during the attack, standard operating procedure.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:56 PM

ronco on October 26, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Maybe Team Romney will remake the 3:00 AM call ad. This time when the call came in, nobody answered. Obama, even knowing of the explosive crisis, had instructed his staff to allow him to remain undisturbed in sleep in prep for a fund raiser.

Unserious. Unserious president. Barack Kardashinan Obama.

petefrt on October 26, 2012 at 7:56 PM

The 3:00 call came and Barky took a message.

tommyboy on October 26, 2012 at 7:58 PM

“No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

To me that means they didn’t even relay orders from POTUS or anyone else to stand down. Who else could tell them to stand down beside their superiors?

Rancher on October 26, 2012 at 7:55 PM

This statement means absolutely nothing. In real terms. What “claims”? What does “to those in need” mean?

Karl Marx used the term “to those in need” in Das Kapital. What does this mean with Benghazi? And CIA? In need of what?

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The 3:00 call came and Barky took a message.

tommyboy on October 26, 2012 at 7:58 PM

You guys are giving these idiots way too much credit.

The 3:00AM call went straight to voice mail.

Romney should use this line all next week.

riddick on October 26, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9