Panetta: We didn’t defend consulate under attack because of a lack of intel

posted at 8:41 am on October 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

One of the unanswered questions about the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi is why the US military didn’t intervene.  Rumors had swirled that the US asked the Libyan government in Tripoli for permission to fly into Benghazi to break up the attack but had been refused, although no one has claimed that on the record.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta put that rumor to rest yesterday by telling reporters that the US never planned to intervene at all, thanks to a lack of intel on the ground:

US military leaders ruled out sending in forces during the attack on an American consulate in Libya last month because of a lack of reliable intelligence, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.

Although forces were on alert and ready to launch an operation if needed, the US military commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and Panetta all decided against any intervention as they had no clear picture of events unfolding in Benghazi, he said.

“There’s a basic principle here, and 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,” Panetta told a news conference.

“And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who’s …in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

I agree with Panetta that onebasic principle in military operations is not to jump into a situation without having real-time data.  However, we discovered in the House Oversight hearings two weeks ago that we did have that kind of data; the State Department has 50 minutes of video of the attack from surveillance feeds that their command center watched in real time as the attack unfolded.  Surely State could have had the Pentagon watch the same feed for the “real-time information” that we otherwise lacked.

Second, it’s difficult to believe that we weren’t collecting this kind of intel prior to the attack.  There had been a number of attack attempts in the city on our assets.  The New York Times reported that the CIA “got our eyes poked out” by the loss of the consulate.  There may have been a lack of intel on the attack itself, but not on the threat.  Ambassador Chris Stevens had warned State repeatedly of the security dangers before the terrorist attack that took his life — and let’s not forget that the attack took place on the anniversary of 9/11.

Finally, isn’t there a more basic principle at stake?  Consulates and embassies are considered American territory.  When they are under attack, the US is under attack in a very real way.  When we are under attack, do we not defend ourselves and our people from attack, or do we only do that when the intel is solid?


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 4 5 7

Can we be confident that this is the final version of how events unfolded. My take is No.

Bmore on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

So, the host country owns the land, but the embassy is treated as a sovereign state.

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

It’s called “selective editing.” Didn’ they teach that to you in your Occupy Wall Street class at your favorite liberal university?

Turtle317 on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

We didn’t defend consulate under attack because of a lack of intel

Really? There has never been a more complete case of intel…

- live video feed from the consulate
- live video from drone
- live audio from cell phones
- live discussions from people under attack
- it was on 9-11
- AQ in Iraq had already warned us 2 days earlier (via video)
- IT WAS OUR FREAKING AMBASSADOR

faraway on October 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I whole-heartedly agree. And, there’s the little matter of the president and his Administration lying about the whole ugly tragedy, when they could have done something about it.

However, as I have experienced, all challenging the Paulnut, Dante, does, is get one involved in a circular argument, amounting to nothing more than a Rhetorical Game which he plays for his own amusement.

kingsjester on October 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Dante, do you care to reassert that the President of the United States is only the command-in-chief during times of war, and that the President of the United States needs to get approval from Congress in order to give the military any orders?

blink on October 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Not any military orders. He does have the authority to repel invasions and attacks without Congressional approval. But in all non-defensive matters, yes, he must have Congressional approval. And yes, he is only the Commander in Chief during wartime, and he is only the Commander in Chief of active-duty military. He is not my Commander in Chief.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

So what has your knickers in a twist?

It sounds like you’re assigning the word “sovereign” to Libya, not the US. Are you?

mrsknightley on October 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

So basically what Panetta is telling terrorists is that if they can surprise us, we won’t fight back. Awesome. /sarc

Murf76 on October 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM

So, the host country owns the land, but the embassy is treated as a sovereign state.

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Correct. The embassy is a representation of the guest state.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

So you call me an idiot, but then proceed to agree with what I’ve stated.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I think you better re-read what I wrote, you seem to be not to acute at understanding what is posted…the “technical term” of sovereign is in questions, but the actual laws pertaining to sovereignty is in effect within an embassy…that is not your stupid argument.

You are unequivocally stating it is not sovereign territory, and it is treated as that…the only place that word would not be used is in a legal international description.

It like saying a dog is not a canine because they are different words…a technical book would use the word canine, but in all purposes, most of us would recognize the term dog to mean canine’s…but a true technical legal description would be “canine” not “dog”…even with that simple explanation, you won’t get it because every time you dig your self a hole, like you have done, you get more insane with your defense of your yourself, rather than saying “ooops, I get it, I was wrong”…

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The real reason that no forces or airstrikes were sent in was strictly a political decision. The White House was afraid that there would be colateral damage and pictures of bodies of young men, women and children would make the President look bad.

So they voted ‘Present’.

Uniblogger on October 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Obama like Carter is impotent

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Black Hawk down was a trap. Are they arguing a spontaneous mob was now organizing a trap?

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Well, yeah that’s just it. The decision was made to let those folks who were already there just fend for themselves.

There was no way BO & Co were going to send more people in there and RISK another Black Hawk down event. Remember, the intel that they DID have from prior to the event was that alot of weapons – including shoulder fired anti-air missiles – were in the hands of the “extremists” in that area general area. Trying to collect at least some of those weapons was the mission behind the two ex SEALs being there.

So in essense, the powers that be made the decision to let the folks already on ground to be sacrificed. They hoped that if it was just a few people, then they could just explain it away and try to sweep the whole thing under the rug – which is exactly what they have done.

climbnjump on October 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM

We didn’t defend consulate under attack because of a lack of intel

IOW: We didn’t know the Ambassador had been killed, so we thought we could cover it up.

faraway on October 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM

blink on October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

If they had any intelligence on the ground or if the attack was contained in one general area, then it would be a different situation. This attack was on the consulate and the safe house. There were reports that streets were blocked off blocks away from the building. Without having good intelligence, a risk of slaughter becomes much greater. And I seriously doubt Panetta made the ultimate decision. Rather Gen. Ham the AFRICOM Commander probably made the decision and was backed up by both Gen. Dempsey and Panetta.

Bravesbill on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

However, as I have experienced, all challenging the Paulnut, Dante, does, is get one involved in a circular argument, amounting to nothing more than a Rhetorical Game which he plays for his own amusement.

kingsjester on October 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

One small area of disagreement…it’s not for his “amusement” I actually think he is that stupid…honestly, hard to imagine anyone like that, I don’t have anyone in my circle quite as dense…but I actually think he believes what he posts, amazing, but I think he does…he is just too stupid to realize what he is posting…I find it intriguing, as I stated, I don’t run into this in my life, so it’s a real anomaly to read his posts, it’s just bizarre.

Other than that, I totally agree with you.

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I’m certainly glad Ike didn’t have this mindset when he sent the 82nd Airborne into Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.

“Sir, we’re not sure whats really going on but it appears the Nazis have launched a major offensive in the Ardennes”

“Well, lets wait a week until enough intelligence comes in that we know the situation on the ground. By the way, it that Monte Carlo trip still on for tonight?”

tommyboy on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

The real reason that no forces or airstrikes were sent in was strictly a political decision. The White House was afraid that there would be colateral damage and pictures of bodies of young men, women and children would make the President look bad.

So they voted ‘Present’.

Uniblogger on October 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I agree, I stated the same thing above, I think that is the logical explanation…our people bodies were less important than the political fallout potential. Which is why a political hack in charge of military operations never works out for the goo.

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Well, yeah that’s just it. The decision was made to let those folks who were already there just fend for themselves.

There was no way BO & Co were going to send more people in there and RISK another Black Hawk down event. Remember, the intel that they DID have from prior to the event was that alot of weapons – including shoulder fired anti-air missiles – were in the hands of the “extremists” in that area general area. Trying to collect at least some of those weapons was the mission behind the two ex SEALs being there.

So in essense, the powers that be made the decision to let the folks already on ground to be sacrificed. They hoped that if it was just a few people, then they could just explain it away and try to sweep the whole thing under the rug – which is exactly what they have done.

climbnjump on October 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Interesting thought, especially given that Panetta joined the Clinton administration around that time. He was probably advising against it based on past experience.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I’m certainly glad Ike didn’t have this mindset when he sent the 82nd Airborne into Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.

“Sir, we’re not sure whats really going on but it appears the Nazis have launched a major offensive in the Ardennes”

“Well, lets wait a week until enough intelligence comes in that we know the situation on the ground. By the way, it that Monte Carlo trip still on for tonight?”

tommyboy on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

That’s exactly what has been going through my thoughts the last few weeks…good post.

Many battle are marched into the unknown…

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Correct. The embassy is a representation of the guest state.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

No, you are wrong. The embassy is a guest of the host state, representing a sovereign nation and is treated as one. The distinction you are making such a big deal about is only related to the land. There is a misconception that the Embassy is sovereign soil. This is incorrect. The host nation retains ownership of the actual land, but it is also inconsequential as the embassy itself retains status as a sovereign state.

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

faraway on October 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Nope, he was in bed, asleep, and Shillary’s phone was off the hook, so she couldn’t get the call. Panetta and General Betrayus were in the bathroom, shaving their b@lls!

lovingmyUSA on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Operative words from Liar Pinthetailonthedonkey “We did not know what was going on”.

Then, prior, now.

If they knew what was going on it would then be even more a danger to our fighting men as they would rat the deal out.

Ask John F. Kerry Democrat, Traitor.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM

How can Panetta speak with his 3ft long nose hanging out there?

avagreen on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM

No, you are wrong. The embassy is a guest of the host state, representing a sovereign nation and is treated as one. The distinction you are making such a big deal about is only related to the land. There is a misconception that the Embassy is sovereign soil. This is incorrect. The host nation retains ownership of the actual land, but it is also inconsequential as the embassy itself retains status as a sovereign state.

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Exactly, the physical building may not be “sovereign”, but everything within the walls are…when we leave we take our “sovereign” territory with us, and of course we can’t take the land…it’s a very subtle, technical distinction, far beyond dante’s ability to comprehend…

Thanks,

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM

No, you are wrong. The embassy is a guest of the host state, representing a sovereign nation and is treated as one. The distinction you are making such a big deal about is only related to the land. There is a misconception that the Embassy is sovereign soil. This is incorrect. The host nation retains ownership of the actual land, but it is also inconsequential as the embassy itself retains status as a sovereign state.

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Yes, embassies and diplomatic missions represent a sovereign nation and are treated as sovereign. That doesn’t make them sovereign. They aren’t sovereign.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Yes, embassies and diplomatic missions represent a sovereign nation and are treated as sovereign. That doesn’t make them sovereign. They aren’t sovereign.

Kind of a distinction without a difference in this case, don’t’cha think?

mrsknightley on October 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Any one who attempts to enable these low life commie traitor Democrats is with them.

Quit trying to make excuses for traitors.

You are with our fighting men or your aginst them.

Keep it simple.

But for the grace of God go any one of U.S..

Clear and Present and growing danger.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Lying scumbag. We citizens need to make it loud and clear to the political class: we will not tolerate your brazen lying. How? Absolutely humiliate them at the polls. Never reward bad behavior.

shaken on October 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

How many fleas can dance on the head of a pin.

If there had been 20 American say nurses there to help the sick and wounded woment these islamic thugs had raped ect. same thing would have gone down, cut and run and hide is all these scum sucking pig Democrat Commies have in them.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM

“Former Assistant Defense Secretary Bing West told America Live:

For the United States military to say that they were 480 miles away and they couldn’t do anything, and they couldn’t move one aircraft in 8 hours? I’d say it’s time to relieve a lot of people in the chain of command… If your ambassador has been either killed or captured, and is missing at the hands of terrorists, you do not ask any country for “Mother may I?” before you come across the border to save your own…

Bing West has more to say, on the pages of National Review:

At 5 p.m., President Obama met with Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta in the Oval Office. The U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, was 480 miles away from Benghazi. Stationed at Sigonella were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft – a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy….

Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours. If the attackers were a mob, as intelligence reported, then an F18 in afterburner, roaring like a lion, would unnerve them. This procedure was applied often in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Conversely, if the attackers were terrorists, then the U.S. commandos would eliminate them. But no forces were dispatched from Sigonella.

By about two in the morning, the American embassy received word that the ambassador was dead….The fight began at 10 p.m. and petered out at dawn when the Libyan militia came to the aid of the Americans.

Bing West concludes: “It is bewildering that no U.S. aircraft ever came to the aid of the defenders. If even one F18 had been on station, it would have detected the location of hostiles firing at night and deterred and attacked the mortar sites. For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve.”

At some point, President Obama went to bed. Whether it was before or after the last men died, we don’t know. He had a fundraising trip to Las Vegas to get up for the next morning…

Former CIA agent Claire Lopez told Glenn Beck, “They saw it in live time. They knew what was happening…Only local assets …were sent to help them.”

Based on her twenty-year career as an operations officer, Lopez believes James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and General David Petraeus are all aware of what really happened in Libya.

Lopez told Glenn that she had seen agents come under heavy fire in the past, but there were always people and assets who assembled to come to their aid. “I have never seen a situation where a facility was under attack like that and nothing happens.”

Congressman Issa believes that Clinton and Obama were directly involved in operations in Libya. ‘These critical foreign policy decisions are not made by low or mid-level career officials — they are typically made through a structured and well-reasoned process that includes the National Security Council and the White House,’ Issa wrote in a letter to Obama.

The letter claims that Obama had a political motivation in rejecting Stevens’ security requests, since the president was eager to show improving conditions in Libya after the U.S.-led international operation that toppled Libya dictator Moamar Gadhafi…”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/they_fought_for_their_lives.html#ixzz2APmyLwmF

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Dante: If it is treated as sovereign, would you then agree that an attack on an embassy should be treated as an attack on the embassy’s country territory, and thus under international law constitutes a casus belli for the embassy’s country upon the attacker?

Scott H on October 26, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Dante: If it is treated as sovereign, would you then agree that an attack on an embassy should be treated as an attack on the embassy’s country territory, and thus under international law constitutes a casus belli for the embassy’s country upon the attacker?

Scott H on October 26, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Of course. That isn’t the issue. Someone incorrectly stated that the embassy was sovereign territory. I was trying to clear up that misconception, and people then got in a snit about it.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I don’t believe they lacked enough intel to make an informed decision.

Mitsouko on October 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Excellent find. Obama and Clinton have no excuse for not releasing those assets when they were only 480 miles away.

Blood is on their hands.

Turtle317 on October 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Of course. That isn’t the issue. Someone incorrectly stated that the embassy was sovereign territory. I was trying to clear up that misconception, and people then got in a snit about it.

Here’s a tip: Focus on the dead guys. If you can do that, you’ll be light years ahead of the Obama admin.

mrsknightley on October 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Dante: Well, you may be technically correct, but I agree with the post that says this is a distinction without a difference.

If we have all the rights under international law regarding our embassies that we do regarding our own soil, does it matter whether it’s actually sovereign or not?

Scott H on October 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

One more time.

RECON Team, cut off, 12 guys, 200 NVA,

“Call the fire on our cordinates, any thing you have, we will hunker down.”

OVER.

aOK,

“hold on to your ass’s hell comes now..”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

EXACTLY! Funny how we have to keep changing with the changing lame excuses. THEY KNEW (e-mails prove it) and THEY DIDN’T WANT to defend or protect and save the lives of Americans. This should be the single biggest factor in Obama’s defeat. HE REFUSES TO PROTECT Americans and that means you and me from terrorists. A few armed services people —throw them under the bus.

In the entire history of the United States have we ever had a president refuse to protect Americans while peddling contraception to young women?

It is right out of 1984.

If Americans vote for this loathsome cheap Chicago politician they are voting for national suicide.

AgentRose on October 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

But half a handful Marines had been sent from Tripoli and did make it to the compound. Why did they do that if it was too risky?

Again, I don’t think it was too risky. I think Panetta’s answer was stupid, or it’s possible that the upper echelons simply didn’t give the matter the attention that it deserved at the time.

blink on October 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM

The Marines didn’t go to the compound until the Ambassador was already dead, the attack had petered out, and the Libyan militia came to the consulate’s aid. At that time, the risk wasn’t nearly as high.

Bravesbill on October 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Panetta has part of it right … Not a good idea to charge into a situation blind.

Whether that principal was properly applied is the question.

We knew our people were under attack.

We knew the location of the fight.

We knew they weren’t going to win if left to their own devices.

We had a very good idea that, while our people were facing an overwhelming force, they were NOT facing a “large” force …. it wouldn’t take “much” from us to give our people a chance.

SOMETIMES … all the “intel” you need is “our people are in trouble.”

IMO, this was one of those times.

BD57 on October 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

blink on October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

If they had any intelligence on the ground or if the attack was contained in one general area, then it would be a different situation. This attack was on the consulate and the safe house. There were reports that streets were blocked off blocks away from the building. Without having good intelligence, a risk of slaughter becomes much greater. And I seriously doubt Panetta made the ultimate decision. Rather Gen. Ham the AFRICOM Commander probably made the decision and was backed up by both Gen. Dempsey and Panetta.

Bravesbill on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Your attempts to help the HA community are falling on deef ears- it’s too rewarding to politicize events and pretend that the only actor as events unfolded was the White House.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM

These no good commie Democrats, these shit words now.

When they wanted to run guns to Mexico,
“Screw the lasw of the U.S.A. and Mexico.. walk the f’n guns.”

Crime Family is what they are.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Yes, embassies and diplomatic missions represent a sovereign nation and are treated as sovereign. That doesn’t make them sovereign. They aren’t sovereign.

Brass tack time here.

Dante, frankly SCREW the effin definition of “Embassy” “Mission” Etc.

Come to Jesus time: We had a real time update that the “Building” that 4 American citizens was under attack and may be overrun by hostile forces.

The President knew, the NSC knew, the Presidents Cabinet (relevant) knew.

Tell me, WHY weren’t US Military forces, BEFORE, DURING or AFTER the attack not dispatched immediately.

Because, to use your logic, the President should have been Impeached over the OBL raid because he didn’t get Congressional Approval…just like that evil Boooosh.

Stop trying to split hairs with a butter knife. This issue is about how the Administration basically abandoned 4 men to be brutally murdered for no other reason than being from the land of the Great Satan.

If you can’t see that, well, I’m sure there’s room for you in the Administration somewhere…

But you better act fast because We The People change the locks and clean house on Nov 6th.

BlaxPac on October 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

blink on October 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

blink, dead horse, bayonet?

Bmore on October 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

There certainly was a lack of intelligence. Unfortunately, it was in Washington DC.

JP Mewley on October 26, 2012 at 10:35 AM

bayam,

If you need some one like me to come rescue your ass, bet me, you would be on your knees begging my unit to disobey the Gen.’s orders and save your ass.

Same with Pinnethead, Obuthead and the rest.

When its your ass on the line, laws, rules, all that shit goes out the window when the blood is in your eyes.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Maybe at the first hint of an attack, they could have scrambled some troops / aircraft and head out in the direction of the attack. You know, like fireman when they see a fire, they get in their truck and head in the direction.

But, like fireman, stay at a safe distance until you assess the situation, and then go in.

Just sayin’, but then again, I’m not the SecDef. He must be really smart.

williampeck1958 on October 26, 2012 at 10:35 AM

they had more intel on the composition of forces and they way they were arrayed than ike had the morning of the d-day landing.

chasdal on October 26, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Because, to use your logic, the President should have been Impeached over the OBL raid because he didn’t get Congressional Approval…just like that evil Boooosh.

BlaxPac on October 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Actually, that isn’t true. Congress did authorize it back in 2001.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:38 AM

blink some more

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The problem is not that they are liars—but they are BAD LIARS. Come on boys!

AgentRose on October 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

If only HILLARY for once in her life chose to uphold the constitution and release documents that basically CREAM OBAMA. But doubt she has the COURAGE. She is the one who holds all the cards.

PS Who is leaking all the information?

AgentRose on October 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Well it is obvious that they can deploy Civilians without knowing what the hell is going on.

It is also obvious that they can deploy Gun-Runners without knowing what the hell is going on.

ashiya on October 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

To stupid to waste fingers typing.

Dumb ass commie Democrats, haul ass into a gun and knife bar full of Hells Angles who killed children to get in the club, then wise off and piss on the floor and expet the locals to kiss their ass and play nice.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM

That comment is just plain ignorance. When was the last time the military conducted any operation without planning and rehearsing it a hundred times over?

Every ‘downed flier rescue’ in history? Every casevac under fire? Every reaction force deployment to go reinforce a unit suffering a surprise attack?

Notice a common theme here?

Chuckg on October 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

You seem to have missed the meme here over the last few weeks- everyone knows there was a massive cover-up because Obama personally decided to let the ambassador die.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Liar.

farsighted on October 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Back up.
We are looking after the fact!
Point is, on 9-11, no embassy or consulate in that part of the world where Muslims reign supreme, should have been left without major beef ups in security! Period!
Obama could care less and they have proved it over and over again!
I hope he rots!

Delsa on October 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

You know, normally I keep a certain level of clinical detachment when it comes to politics and current events in general. This, however, just ticks me off, royally!

WolvenOne on October 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I get that there is risk, I just don’t see how making up stories and excuses as they drag your ambassador through the streets is optimum.

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Panetta needs to resign as he has proven to be incompetent.

Clinton needs to resign for incompetence & lying.

Obama should be impeached.

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 10:44 AM

blink on October 26, 2012 at 10:35 AM

If the attack had petered out and most combatants went home, obviously the risk of ambush would be lessened. It’s common sense. Granted, things like IEDs would have remained in place (if there were any), but snipers, and most of the heavy weaponry wouldn’t be there anymore. Also, by that time, the Libyan militia had come to the aid of the Americans. The risk of an ambush of military reinforcements would be much higher during the actual ambush of the consulate when all these factors were present (snipers, heavy weaponry, etc.). And the other question is how did these Marines get from the airport to the consulate? Considering the dearth amount of security and weapons in Libya at the time, I highly doubt they were transported in a convoy of armored vehicles.

Bravesbill on October 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Bravesbill on October 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM</blockquote

My point is Panetta’s statement is absurd.
There is no way that there was not intel about the event and circumstances. If he wants to say he was concerned about the strength of the “mob demonstrating over a video”, than he should say that. The fact is, his words and actions demonstrate HE KNEW THEN the US military would be responding to an organized, hostile military attack that the administration did not expect, nor anticipate, and not the acts of an angry mob, contrary to the public statements by Obama, Clinton, Rice and the rest of the administration.
Panetta has demonstrated that there was a high level, deliberate decision not to assist because it was quickly politically determined that the assets in Benghazi were expendable. Unfortunately, the asset roll included 4 now dead Americans.
BTW, our military doesn’t just sit around and wait for some situation to expose itself to train and prepare. Contingencies are always being posed to commanders, and assets and personnel are prepped and trained for the best likely response. If we are not training for the improbable, any action is impossible.

gonnjos on October 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You seem to have missed the meme here over the last few weeks- everyone knows there was a massive cover-up because Obama personally decided to let the ambassador die. You forget to blame Obama or effectively politicize the deaths of 4 Americans.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Snark is always an expression of emotional maturity, isn’t it?

4 questions for you, and answer them only if you intend to so honestly, openly, and directly, without sarcasm:
1) do you believe the public deserves to have full disclosure about why multiple requests for adequate security measures in Benghazi were denied by Obama’s administration?
2) do you believe Obama’s administration is acting like it’s concerned with giving the public full disclosure? If so, what evidence can you provide to support your belief?
3) do you believe Obama’s administration wants to give the general public full disclosure on this matter? If so, what evidence can you provide to support your belief?
4) if you believe that Obama’s administration is resisting giving the public full disclosure, would you then accept that it’s fair to say that he is guilty of playing politics over Benghazi? If not, why would you say that it wouldn’t be fair?

Anti-Control on October 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

AgentRose on October 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Hillary HAS to know Obama is gonna go down in flames on Nov 6th. what the hell is her problem? or am is my thivk skull not getting that she is truly all party over country? DAMN THIS MEDIA TO HELL.

GhoulAid on October 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM

If only HILLARY for once in her life chose to uphold the constitution and release documents that basically CREAM OBAMA. But doubt she has the COURAGE. She is the one who holds all the cards.

PS Who is leaking all the information?

AgentRose on October 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Hillary has lawyered up & said she might stay at State after Obama wins re-election.

They expect this will all blow over cause Americans don’t care about it…according to our Pravda Media

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

What kind of President goes to sleep while this is actually happening? And then goes off to a fund raiser in Vegas.

What kind of man does that?

justltl on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

“There’s a basic principle here, and 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,”

He’s right here you know … it’s possible we’d have shown up and found ourselves to be outnumbered by a larger, better equipped, better trained and all-around more capable force of sand monkeys.

/s

HondaV65 on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

And by no means am I attempting to defend the administration with regards to the lack of security and its subsequent coverups. This is the only aspect which I will defend. Like I said earlier, this decision was most likely made by Gen. Ham who knew what assets and personnel were available and made a const-benefit analysis whether to intervene with a lack of information or not.

Bravesbill on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Actually, that isn’t true. Congress did authorize it back in 2001.

Dante on October 26, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Yeah I know…that was me being a smart ass.

However, its telling you didn’t address the REST of the post…hence the reason i buried that line about the raid in the MIDDLE of my post.

So again, tell me WHY those men were left to fight and die alone. Also explain why those in charge aren’t being hauled before Congress NOW.

There’s a time for classroom Poly-Sci lectures, and there’s a time for real world lessons…this is one of them.

Lesson #1 – We (Americans) don’t leave our people behind.

Lesson #2 – We get payback.

Lesson #3 – Be ready to Exercise #1 & #2 or you are not a leader.

BlaxPac on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

crickets

lame stream media

crickets

one of the pacs needs to run something primetime in Ohio

first fast and furious then this

no wonder there was a cover up
they ran interference and swept things under the rug on F&F
got caught, but only a mild hand slap this time

if Obama gets elected he will be indited and have to resign
welcome to you mister president 55, sir biden

heaven help us Romney wins in a landslide

audiotom on October 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours. If the attackers were a mob, as intelligence reported, then an F18 in afterburner, roaring like a lion, would unnerve them.

No way they were going to send any jet on afterburner over that crowd. Shoulder fired AA missiles, remember? BO & Co were NOT going to risk that some of those missiles might have been there.

climbnjump on October 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The real reason that no forces or airstrikes were sent in was strictly a political decision. The White House was afraid that there would be colateral damage and pictures of bodies of young men, women and children would make the President look bad.

So they voted ‘Present’.

Uniblogger on October 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Bingo.

gatsbysgirlontheside on October 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Typical candy azz Lib response.
There’s never an occasion to protect yourself or your country.

Typicalwhitewoman on October 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

If we don’t send in personnel without knowing what is going on, why were there consulate staff there?

ronsfi on October 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

They expect this will all blow over cause Americans don’t care about it…according to our Pravda Media

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Media’s not responsible for impeachment – the GOP house is. They could do it in a single day for all the constitutional violations Obama has committed. They are too cowardly to do so.

HondaV65 on October 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

They are all lying. There, wasn’t that easy? Soon there will be a real American President.

BetseyRoss on October 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM

One other point…besides the obvious and overriding concern for life…there were secret documents, documents vital to our security that needed to be protected…so even 10/12/24 hours after the attack, it was important for our boots to be in that compound…and it took them what, 3 weeks??
CNN had reporters picking up valuable documents…good grief…

right2bright on October 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.

rwven on October 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM

No way they were going to send any jet on afterburner over that crowd. Shoulder fired AA missiles, remember? BO & Co were NOT going to risk that some of those missiles might have been there.

climbnjump on October 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Against a helo a SSAM is effective. F18 not so much. I haven’t found a recorded instance anywhere of an F18 being brought down by shoulder-fired weapons anywhere at anytime.

Can anyone repute this? I know I’m not perfect and I have been, on occasion, terribly wrong….

Turtle317 on October 26, 2012 at 10:54 AM

No way they were going to send any jet on afterburner over that crowd. Shoulder fired AA missiles, remember? BO & Co were NOT going to risk that some of those missiles might have been there.

climbnjump on October 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

It fits so well with their story line. On their way to the protest, demonstrators just happen to grab shoulder launched SAMs and mortars along with their “Down with U.S.” signs.
/

STL_Vet on October 26, 2012 at 10:55 AM

What kind of President goes to sleep while this is actually happening? And then goes off to a fund raiser in Vegas.

What kind of man does that?

justltl on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

A Coward who can’t look the father of a fallen hero in the eye and mumbles “sorry”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/dead-seals-father-hillary-told-me-at-funeral-were-going-to-arrest-an

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Nonsense on stilts.

That’s a pretty big bus to throw that many people under.

The Buck Stops Here. Remember that quaint saying?

ConservativeLA on October 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Media’s not responsible for impeachment – the GOP house is. They could do it in a single day for all the constitutional violations Obama has committed. They are too cowardly to do so.

The House can only start the impeachment process, the equivalent of a criminal indictment. To actually finish it and convict the SCOAMF, you’d also need the Senate.

*looks at Harry Reid and pals*

So, its not really a mystery why they aren’t even trying. So long as the Dems have the Senate, its hopeless, and the bastard would just ride the sympathy vote of having been accused but acquitted right into term 2.

Chuckg on October 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

repute refute… like I said before, I’m not perfect.

Turtle317 on October 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

My point is Panetta’s statement is absurd.
There is no way that there was not intel about the event and circumstances. If he wants to say he was concerned about the strength of the “mob demonstrating over a video”, than he should say that. The fact is, his words and actions demonstrate HE KNEW THEN the US military would be responding to an organized, hostile military attack that the administration did not expect, nor anticipate, and not the acts of an angry mob, contrary to the public statements by Obama, Clinton, Rice and the rest of the administration.
Panetta has demonstrated that there was a high level, deliberate decision not to assist because it was quickly politically determined that the assets in Benghazi were expendable. Unfortunately, the asset roll included 4 now dead Americans.
BTW, our military doesn’t just sit around and wait for some situation to expose itself to train and prepare. Contingencies are always being posed to commanders, and assets and personnel are prepped and trained for the best likely response. If we are not training for the improbable, any action is impossible.

gonnjos on October 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

There was one drone over the consulate which isn’t nearly enough to give adequate information for a military intervention, esp. since both the consulate and safehouse were attacked and road blocks were spread throughout the vicinity of those buildings. The drone isn’t going to be able to capture a fraction of what is happening in the area surrounding the consulate. Yes, the military has plans and contingency plans and has been training for situations like these. However, without knowing the scope of the attack, the amount of attackers involved, their weapons capabilities, etc., the risk of disaster occurring is exponentially greater. You’re basically flying into a battle blind. If there was any sort of trap set up via IED, RPGs, snipers, etc., there would have been a large number of American military casualties in addition to the 4 in the consulate.

And yes, this all does fly in the face of the initial reports that this was a mob gone unruly.

Bravesbill on October 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Panetta: We didn’t defend consulate under attack because of a lack of intel

Yeah, we know that. Nobody believes that you nor the President had a lack of immediate and accurate intel on the attack.

Question is why didn’t you do something about it? Is it because there was no political gain in making such a risky decision without first consulting your political campaign advisors?

You really don’t seem all that sorry our Ambassador was murdered. Just, Meh, it’s all part of the job. A valiant sacrifice, sorry we didn’t try to save you. Everyone move along now.

… and we wonder why people don’t trust politicians?

Lawrence on October 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Ed, can you also add this in somewhere, it’s a place where people can donate to funds for the families of the 4 Americans killed. Tyrone Woods left behind a wife and infant son. I put in a grand, anyone want to best me on that amount?

http://www.afsa.org/libyasupport.aspx

Bishop on October 26, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Thanks Bishop for posting this. Perhaps any that are registered at other sites, as rightscoop etc could post this also. Maybe Drudge would post it. I’m sure your generosity is so appreciated and conveys the message that many Americans care, even tho the government didn’t.

bluefox on October 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

What kind of President goes to sleep while this is actually happening? And then goes off to a fund raiser in Vegas.

What kind of man does that?

justltl on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I think that is missing the point. The reason BO flew off to Vegas the next day wasn’t because he’s just a callous person. It was, in fact, part of the cover up – part of their cover story that nothing big has really happened.

If BO had cancelled his plans, that would be an indication that the attack WAS a big deal. That in turn would have resulted in more press coverage and more people paying attention.

climbnjump on October 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Excuse after excuse has been coming from the Obama administration hench-dudes, but it is apparent that the main reason for their timely failures is that they were all required to be out somewhere politicking for their leader instead of paying attention to their highly paid jobs.

dockywocky on October 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Where would this F-18 have come from?

blink on October 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I don’t know what was a the air station. I do know F-18′s are part of the U.S. Marine arsenal. If marines were stationed at Tripoli, it is possible F-18′s were there. More likely, I would suppose A-V8B’s might have been there.

A good question would be: What assets DID the marines have that could have been deployed when the crap hit the fan?

Turtle317 on October 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7