Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline: took 19 hours to respond

posted at 8:31 am on November 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Ah, the Friday night news dump, a tradition that transcends party in Washington DC.  Is there nothing it can’t underplay?  Yesterday, more than two months after the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi left four Americans dead and the American response a confused mess, the Pentagon finally got around to releasing its version of the timeline of military response to the crisis to the Associated Press — when most newspapers and broadcast networks had closed up shop for the day.  Small wonder, too, because the timeline showed that it took 19 hours for military assistance to arrive (via Twitchy):

New Pentagon details show that the first U.S. military unit arrived in Libya more than 15 hours after the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was over, and four Americans, including the ambassador, were dead.

A Defense Department timeline obtained by The Associated Press underscores how far the military response lagged behind the Sept. 11 attack, due largely to the long distances the commando teams had to travel to get to Libya.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his top military adviser were notified of the attack about 50 minutes after it began and were about to head into a previously scheduled meeting with President Barack Obama. The meeting quickly turned into a discussion of potential responses to the unfolding situation in Benghazi, where militants had surrounded the consulate and set it on fire. The first wave of the attack at the consulate lasted less than two hours. …

But there have been persistent questions about whether the Pentagon should have moved more rapidly to get troops into Libya or had units closer to the area as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America approached. In particular, there was at least a 19-hour gap between the time when Panetta first ordered military units to prepare to deploy – between midnight and 2 a.m. local time in Tripoli – and the time a Marine anti-terrorism team landed in Tripoli, which as just before 9 p.m.

Why so long?  The Pentagon claims that the situation was “murky,” that they didn’t understand whether a hostage situation might develop, and also claimed not to have been aware of any specific threats.  That would be news to anyone following the Benghazi story in some depth.  Ambassador Chris Stevens warned repeatedly of threats to the Benghazi mission for months, requesting more security.  On the day of the attack, three hours before it began and roughly five hours before Stevens was killed, the Benghazi consulate alerted State that radical Islamist terrorists had begun “gathering weapons and gathering steam,” plus a note that their security team of Libyan militia had taken pictures inside the compound for no apparent reason earlier that day.

Put this in the context of the date and place.  The attack took place on the anniversary of 9/11, when we expect terrorist activity to take place in celebration of their biggest victory over the US.  It took place in Benghazi, where the US government and everyone else knew these terrorist groups acted openly, having been freed from the oppression of the Qaddafi regime by Barack Obama and NATO a year earlier.  The Benghazi mission was in the middle of a city that had no effective government control.  And the reason that the Pentagon couldn’t anticipate the attack on Benghazi and have its assets positioned for immediate response, with all of the above intel, would be … ?

Panetta said that based on a continuous evaluation of threats, military forces were spread around Europe and the Middle East to deal with a variety of missions. In the months before the attack, he noted, “several hundred reports were received indicating possible threats to U.S. facilities around the world” and noted that there was no advance notice of imminent threats to U.S. personnel or facilities in Benghazi.

If that’s true, then what did the State Department and Hillary Clinton do with all of those warnings from Stevens about Benghazi, including the one from earlier that day?  Did Clinton and State never bother to inform Panetta?  That seems to be what the Pentagon timeline and the AP’s reporting suggests — that the first time that Panetta thought there was a credible threat against the Benghazi consulate was in the meeting with Obama 50 minutes after the attack started.

John McCain, for one, isn’t buying that explanation:

His explanation, however, did not satisfy McCain. In a statement Friday, McCain said Panetta’s letter, “only confirms what we already knew – that there were no forces at a sufficient alert posture in Europe, Africa or the Middle East to provide timely assistance to our fellow citizens in need in Libya. The letter fails to address the most important question – why not?”

Why not, indeed?  Why did the US get caught with its pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 in what had widely been known as Terrorist Central, a situation directly caused by American and NATO intervention in Libya 17 months earlier?  State is pointing fingers at the CIA and Pentagon, intel is pointing theirs back to State, and now so is the Pentagon.  But this all begins at the White House and an apparent lack of curiosity about the wide-open environment provided to terrorist groups by our decapitation of the Qaddafi regime and the security consequences for American interests.

All of the Friday night document dumps in the world won’t cover for that.  And I can’t help but wonder who’s sex scandal will distract from the next Friday night document dump when it occurs.


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

Feel free to explain the basis of this claim that you’re making.

blink on November 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM

The Underwear Bomber flew commercial and got here in 12 hours.
I flew from Montana to Germany in 14 hours including two layovers.

Are saying the military has no assets in the region where we are fighting terrorists?

Electrongod on November 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Are you saying the military has no assets in the region where we are fighting terrorists?

Electrongod on November 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Fixed.

Electrongod on November 10, 2012 at 12:03 PM

What are we going to learn here?… that Obama and his entire administration are incompetent and unfit for their jobs? Well, some of us already knew that. And the news media did such an excellent job of keeping the rest uninformed that they re-hired the guy anyway. So it’s too late now to do anything about it.

In the end, the take-away is that free elections no longer work in this country due to an ignorant populace, who are DELIBERATELY kept in the dark about the nature of their choices. That, and the in-your-face thuggery of the the evil which has already burrowed in to our nation’s capital. Does anybody think we’ll find out exactly what was going on in Benghazi now that they’ve got Patreaus out of the way?
Didn’t think so.

Murf76 on November 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Okay so the conclustion of all of this is that, yes, the President and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton all lied to us about this being because of a movie. Do I have that right?

hopeful on November 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Okay so the conclustion of all of this is that, yes, the President and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton all lied to us about this being because of a movie. Do I have that right?

hopeful on November 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Yep.

And it is going to happen again..
Our enemy now knows that we will not response.

Electrongod on November 10, 2012 at 12:11 PM

In the end, the take-away is that free elections no longer work in this country due to an ignorant populace, who are DELIBERATELY kept in the dark about the nature of their choices.Murf76 on November 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM

This, in my opinion, was one of Obama’s more brilliant tactics. He got on Fox News early and often. Lefties won’t even take Fox seriously. People are kept in the dark but they also choose not to look any further than the left leaning news sources that support their view. That’s partly because our president told them Fox was bad.

hopeful on November 10, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Message from General David H. Petraeus (US Army Retired)

Statement to Employees from General David H. Petraeus (US Army Retired)

November 9, 2012

Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.

As I depart Langley, I want you to know that it has been the greatest of privileges to have served with you, the officers of our Nation’s Silent Service, a work force that is truly exceptional in every regard. Indeed, you did extraordinary work on a host of critical missions during my time as director, and I am deeply grateful to you for that.

Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life’s greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing. I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end.

Thank you for your extraordinary service to our country, and best wishes for continued success in the important endeavors that lie ahead for our country and our Agency.

With admiration and appreciation,

David H. Petraeus

Posted: Nov 09, 2012 02:50 PM
Last Updated: Nov 09, 2012 02:58 PM
Last Reviewed: Nov 09, 2012 02:50 PM
====================================

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2012-press-releasese-statements/statement-to-employees-from-petraeus.html

canopfor on November 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM

canopfor on November 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM

FTA:

By 11:30 p.m., a CIA team was able to get all the Americans out of the compound.

Inaccurate, and false. The ambassador was not found.

novaculus on November 10, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I think I hear crickets…

bigbeachbird on November 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Exit polls showed less than 10% of the electorate considered Benghazi an important matter.

frank63 on November 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Because less than 10% of Americans had been told about what happened. The Democrat Media wasn’t interested in ruining their election.

Del Dolemonte on November 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

It’s not a question of having “no assets…” It’s a question of having appropriate assets and the readiness of those assets.

blink on November 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM

wow..

I guess we have a military that uses hotair balloons, bayonets and horses.

Electrongod on November 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

SO,AIR ASSETS coulld of been tasked!!!!

Panetta says there were NOT military planes near Libya which could have stopped Benghazi attack as it is revealed troops took 14 hours to reach consulate after raid

PUBLISHED: 23:15 GMT,9 November 2012
UPDATED: 23:23 GMT, 9 November 2012
***********************************

Leon Panetta has denied that military aircraft could have intervened in the Benghazi consulate attack to save the lives of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The Defense Secretary told Congress that there were no planes close enough to defend the diplomatic mission from the terrorist assault on September 11.

His account contradicts conservative claims about the administration’s response to the raid, and adds to the confusion surrounding the controversial episode.

However, it is bolstered by the revelation that it took 14 hours for the military to arrive in Benghazi due to the difficulty of travel from the nearest U.S. base in Italy.

In a letter to senator John McCain on Friday, Panetta specifically addressed the claim that the military could have dispatched armed unmanned aerial vehicles, AC-130 gunships or fighter jets to thwart the attack.

The Pentagon chief said these aircraft were not stationed near Benghazi and they were not an effective option.
(More…)
==========

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230779/Leon-Panetta-says-NOT-military-planes-near-Libya-stopped-Benghazi-attack.html

**MeanWile from John McCian**
*****************************

STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN, GRAHAM, AYOTTE, PORTMAN, CHAMBLISS AND JOHNSON REGARDING LETTER FROM SECRETARY PANETTA ON BENGHAZI

November 9, 2012

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Rob Portman (R-OH), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) today released the following statement in response to a letter they received this afternoon from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012:

“Over the past month, we and our colleagues have sent 13 separate letters to senior Administration officials, including President Obama, seeking an explanation for why no U.S. armed forces were available to go to the aid of the four American citizens who died during the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Today, we finally received from the Secretary of Defense the first response to our many letters. Unfortunately, Secretary Panetta’s letter only confirms what we already knew – that there were no forces at a sufficient alert posture in Europe, Africa or the Middle East to provide timely assistance to our fellow citizens in need in Libya. The letter fails to address the most important question – why not?

“This question is all the more puzzling considering that the attack in Benghazi occurred on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history – a day when we know that our enemies around the world are plotting and planning to hit us again. Furthermore, the attack was only the latest in a series of assaults against Western interests in Benghazi, including an attempted assassination of the British Ambassador and two previous attacks on our consulate in Benghazi this year. It was for this reason that U.S. security professionals on the ground in Libya had made repeated requests for additional personnel and security assistance.

“In short, we knew that our enemies wanted to hit us in Benghazi. They had already tried on at least two occasions. The most glaring example can be found in the August cables from the Embassy in Tripoli to the State Department. Our own people on the ground were concerned about the threat. And yet, on the one day out of the year – September 11 – when the threat level is perhaps the highest, the military was not in a position to come quickly to the aid of Americans under attack in Benghazi.

“We reiterate our requests to the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, to level with the American people and tell us what happened and why these four brave Americans were not better protected.”
=====================================

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=e71e8da8-c276-3abc-3894-71fd45a50863

canopfor on November 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM

the leftist press has MovedOn…brain williams main goal now is to shut down Rush

r keller on November 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Leon Panetta has denied that military aircraft could have intervened in the Benghazi consulate attack to save the lives of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
 
The Defense Secretary told Congress that there were no planes close enough to defend the diplomatic mission from the terrorist assault on September 11.
 
canopfor on November 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM

 
I think it was blink who made the point earlier (days ago) that bears repeating:
 
This couldn’t be discussed because it directly contradicted and would’ve undermined the “horses and bayonets” theme the Obama campaign pushed and, apparently, “won” on in the debate.
 
It would’ve greatly damaged the re-election if people realized that our ambassador died because we, the greatest, most advanced, most non-horse and non-bayonet military in the world, didn’t have resources to send to the rescue.

rogerb on November 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Leon Panetta has denied that military aircraft could have intervened in the Benghazi consulate attack to save the lives of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The Defense Secretary told Congress that there were no planes close enough to defend the diplomatic mission from the terrorist assault on September 11.

canopfor on November 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I think it was blink who made the point earlier (days ago) that bears repeating:

This couldn’t be discussed because it directly contradicted and would’ve undermined the “horses and bayonets” theme the Obama campaign pushed and, apparently, “won” on in the debate.

It would’ve greatly damaged the re-election if people realized that our ambassador died because we, the greatest, most advanced, most non-horse and non-bayonet military in the world, didn’t have resources to send to the rescue.

rogerb on November 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Romney should have pressed him on that. And his idiotic ‘ships tat go underground’. Obviously the ‘ships that go underground’ do not have teleportation capabilities to place the military special units where they are needed on a moment’s notice, but Romney said nothing and let him ‘win’ the moment with idiotic quip.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

why was there no response, especially with the nearby units told to stand down?

simple

this was a covert kidnap mission, where Ambassador Stevens would be exchanged for the ‘harmless” Sheikh Omar abdel-Rahman.

Obama looks like a hero Bin Laden II and he appeases his muslim friends

unfortunately things went wrong and Stevens died of smoke inhalation

it explains the stand down order, the lack of additional response and the fact that there was no swift retaliation by our forces with the best itel and fighting power.

If US forces toook out who did this the Muslims would blow Obamas covert operations cover

this was probably known to ownly a select few
Petraeus, Hillary, Jarrett, Axelrod, Panetta

Petraeus’ previous statements like we ordered no stand down message showed that he need to be silenced

was the affair real? is he and his family being threatened at this moment?

audiotom on November 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Who cares…?

… Obowma was re-elected, the “press” are buying new knee pads and anal lube, Obowmacare and Dodd/Frank are entrenched and will change this Country forever, the Fiscal Cliff fast approaches, our currency is being devalued, illegals are allowed to vote, and Obowma is going to stack the Supreme Court with all the Eric Holders he can find.

No one will be held accountable for the deaths in Libya, or the fact that Obowma armed the terrorist that caused those deaths, and is arming the Islamists in Syria now…

… Even today Obowma golfs as the victims of Sandy suffer in the cold without food, shelter, heat, or clean clothing, and there isn’t even a peep of outrage from the Katrina survivors.

The world has changed my friends…

… and most Americans are too busy watching the X Factor to notice.

In a very short time, we will be approaching $20 Trillion in debt, you will be required to show your medical records to the IRS, the dollar will be worth less than the Mexican peso, you will be paying more in taxes than you take home if you are lucky enough to have a job, and our military will be down to two ships and a crop duster…

Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together…?

Seven Percent Solution on November 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Let me know when you’re ready to discuss this realistically.

I’m sorry to be the one to inform you that military alert capabilities are obviously much less robust than you expected.

America’s ability to wage war is unprecedented, but it takes an immense amount of time and effort to coordinate. We have limited resources to “park” in alert status, and the military isn’t good at ad hoc operations.

blink on November 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Come on blink.
What’s the point in having unmanned surveillance drones flying overhead if all you can do is watch from a thousand miles away?
What’s the point in having laser painting devices if you aren’t going to use them to their completion?
What’s the point in being in Al-Quada’s backyard and not be prepared for the unexpected?

Electrongod on November 10, 2012 at 2:20 PM

blink on November 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

While I think you make a good point that military readiness is more complicated than putting some soldiers on a plane. You also make a good point about have the right resources. I think you miss the point that this is precisely what many think the problem was. Given that it was Libya and given what had been happening before 9/11 and the fact that it was 9/11 and numerous issues about security were brought up weeks before the terrorist attack, our military should have had appropriate forces in place prior to 9/11 to address just such a possibility. The question is why weren’t forces in place? Who didn’t make that call and why not?

hopeful on November 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

While I think you

hopeful on November 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

blink on November 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

While I think you make a good point that military readiness is more complicated than putting some soldiers on a plane. You also make a good point about have the right resources. I think you miss the point that this is precisely what many think the problem was. Given that it was Libya and given what had been happening before 9/11 and the fact that it was 9/11 and numerous issues about security were brought up weeks before the terrorist attack, our military should have had appropriate forces in place prior to 9/11 to address just such a possibility. The question is why weren’t forces in place? Who didn’t make that call and why not?

hopeful on November 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I completely agree with you, it is dumbfounding that they did ‘t have security close by (in Tripoli, in stand-by) or simply in and around the embassy for those particular days of threat. I was at times both in Paris during different 9/11 occasions and in London and the US embassies there turn into fortresses over night as part of the security enhancement in preparation for whatever challenges. they extend the perimeter around the embassies where pedestrians cannot walk, they put literally huge blocks of concrete around it (most of them are not there during normal days of operation ) and they put a lot of security folks (in London, they were obviously English anti-terror police that look like this and not marines) with heavy gear and big automatic weapons in sight all around the embassy (on normal days there are agents in civilian clothes carrying concealed weapon who sort of lurk around the embassy, but easily to spot). So it is uncosnciounable that they didn’t have something like this ready/in stand by for Benghazi, not necessarily in sight and in their face, but a solid security force in waiting somehwere within reach. Say what you want, but this is a huge dereliction of duty on the part of all agencies and linvolved in securing our embassies and a failure of leadership. It’s really the sign of a declining super power and people everywhere see that and rejoice,

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM

When I was in the 1st Ranger Battalion back in the early – mid 1970s we could be anywhere in the world in a maximum of 18 hours. Usually quicker

Have military airplanes gotten slower since then?

LegendHasIt on November 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

When I was in the 1st Ranger Battalion back in the early – mid 1970s we could be anywhere in the world in a maximum of 18 hours. Usually quicker

Have military airplanes gotten slower since then?

LegendHasIt on November 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Leadership has gotten slower and more incompetent.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

If our military teams in Rota had been ordered by Panetta between midnight and 2a.m. to prepare to deploy to Libya…and they “begin moving, just before dawn” as the article states… why didn’t they get to Tripoli until 9:00p.m.? That’s 15 hours later… were our guys travelling by blimp?

lynncgb on November 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Why not, indeed? Why did the US get caught with its pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 in what had widely been known as Terrorist Central

:)

These two leftists, husband/wife, gave you Obama for 4 more.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM

took 19 hours to respond

And this we pay $800 billion a year for???!!! This is far worse than socialized medicine, even ObamaCare, could ever be! It’s like paying a million dollars for a Super Bowl ticket and then having to sit in the parking lot.

VorDaj on November 10, 2012 at 4:19 PM

So the USA didn’t have just one single plane they could have sent that could have made a low altitude extremely fast and noisy pass over the safe house and at least let our guys know that they were not alone and maybe cause the terrorists to think the Great Satan’s Calvary had arrived?

Helen A Handbasquet on November 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM

audiotom on November 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Repeat and Repeat and Repeat.
Obama went to bed and no one responded because the terrorists were never supposed to kill Stevens.
The idiots in the WH that knew never figured that the terrorists would do what they do best. Kill.

ORconservative on November 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Yesterday, more than two months after the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi left four Americans dead and the American response a confused mess, the Pentagon finally got around to releasing its version of the timeline of military response to the crisis to the Associated Press — when most newspapers and broadcast networks had closed up shop for the day.

With the Senate holding hearings next week, this was an attempt to defuse a bombshell when Panetta and the others responsible for the cover-up are under oath. They don’t want to make the mistake of that criminal/liar Susan Rice and allow details like the fact the government was watching real-time to be released when the media is paying attention. It won’t work. The DoD will have to come clean on what was exactly murky about the situation.

Happy Nomad on November 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

So the USA didn’t have just one single plane they could have sent that could have made a low altitude extremely fast and noisy pass over the safe house and at least let our guys know that they were not alone and maybe cause the terrorists to think the Great Satan’s Calvary had arrived?

Helen A Handbasquet on November 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM

blink will tell you that this kinda stuff takes time.
Even may have to sleep on it.

But on 9/11, 2001….we had jet fighters in the air within the hour after the second tower was hit..

And President Bush didn’t have to give the order..

Electrongod on November 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

So the Pentagon took 19 hours to respond to the Benghazi attacks. Panetta said that you don’t knee jerk; you need to have all the facts before sending people in harm’s way. There is still an ‘investigation’ underway to ‘find out what happened’. So why the rush, Pentagon? I mean, it’s not as if people were getting killed, right?

And here all this time I was under the impression that one of the military’s jobs was to send people into harm’s way. My bad. If I didn’t know better, I would think this whole thing was as crooked as a barrel of politicians.

ghostwalker1 on November 10, 2012 at 7:57 PM

blink on November 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Is there some reason that you need to keep making absurd excuses for this administration?
You keep doing all that you can to defend the indefensible.
Assets were available.
Assets could have been deployed in time to effect a rescue. In fact were deployed to Sig in plenty of time – but were told to stand down by someone.
Who? Why?

Unpucker your lips from the administration’s rump.

Solaratov on November 10, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Let me know when you’re ready to discuss this realistically.

I’m sorry to be the one to inform you that military alert capabilities are obviously much less robust than you expected.

America’s ability to wage war is unprecedented, but it takes an immense amount of time and effort to coordinate. We have limited resources to “park” in alert status, and the military isn’t good at ad hoc operations.

blink on November 10, 2012 at 1:22

You don’t know what you’re talking about. You obviously know absolutely nothing about special operations forces or their capabilities.

What you DO seem to know about is trying to defend an administration that is guilty of dereliction of duty, incompetence and allowing good men to die through inaction.

You’re an embarrassment.

Solaratov on November 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM

This tradition of dumping bad news on Friday night is bad, it seems every Friday Obama’s team dump something. At least the General resigned during the day, he must have wanted it covered.

We all knew that they did not respond, but why? September 11 is a terrorist holiday, of course, they would try something else on the anniversary of it. Why weren’t all our embassies, consulates, and the mainland afforded extra security?
I do want an answer to why they refuses Ambassador Stevens request for extra security, I want to know the person’s name. That person should be charged with accessory to murder of four American Citizens!
I have emailed my senators but one is on his way out, Brown and Kerry doesn’t bother to respond, he’s too arrogant to speak with us. I will call his office a few more times.

Please if any of you have dem senators, write and call them and tell them that you want an answer. It doesn’t matter if they have been recently reelected or not. They are supposed to answer their constituents.

carolt2 on November 10, 2012 at 9:13 PM

So the USA didn’t have just one single plane they could have sent that could have made a low altitude extremely fast and noisy pass over the safe house and at least let our guys know that they were not alone and maybe cause the terrorists to think the Great Satan’s Calvary had arrived?

Helen A Handbasquet on November 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I know…right? This whole time line seems pretty lengthy at every stage.
The attack began at 9:40p.m (Libya time) and Panetta is notified about 50 minutes later (about 10:30)…then it took Panetta between 1 1/2 and 3 1/2 hours before he even gave any order to our forces to prepare to deploy (between midnight and 2a.m is when he begins verbal orders). So then it takes between 4 and 6 hours for these special ops teams to “begin moving”… around dawn. Then it takes until 9:00p.m before these teams from Spain get to Tripoli. WTH? I readily admit to not knowing about military capabilities…but that just doesn’t sound right.
And there weren’t any assets in Sigonella that could have been used in an attempt at a more immediate response? If they needed to bring in these forces from further distances…why didn’t Washington order at least a fly-by or two ….like you mention…so that perhaps the attackers would have thought twice about digging in for any length of time… I just don’t get it.

On top of that let’s throw in General Ham’s sudden decision to retire shortly after Sept. 11…and now the resignation of General Patraeus.

The before, during and after of this whole episode is in the realm of the absurd.

The article also states that it was at least 19 hours before a response got to Tripoli…sounds like it could also have been as much as 22-23 if our response units had ever been able to get to Benghazi.

lynncgb on November 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM

So how long before Barry BAMSTAHHHHHHH!!!!! YOU DA MANNNNNNNNNNN BAMMMMMMMY BABYYYY!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLLLLL!!!!!! YAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doughon :37 AM

cableguy615 on November 11, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Why did the US get caught with its pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 in what had widely been known as Terrorist Central, a situation directly caused by American and NATO intervention in Libya 17 months earlier?

Well, it doesn’t help when SOMEBODY who should be minding the store really does have their pants around their ankles.

MissMagnolia on November 11, 2012 at 6:28 AM

Sorry, lynn.

I readily admit to not knowing about military capabilities…but that just doesn’t sound right.

blink on November 11, 2012 at 1:06 AM

blink… don’t throw my lack of military knowledge back in my face. Just because I do not understand how our military needs to do things… does not mean I shouldn’t question the information I am being given by this administration. They lie….remember?

This 19-23 hour window of time that it took our response teams to be able to arrive in Libya…lacks an awful lot of specifics that I would like to understand. What I do know is that it’s approx. the same distance from Rota to Tripoli as it is from Andrews AFB to Dallas, TX. So no, I don’t get it. If Dallas was under attack… our military wouldn’t be able to help for almost a full day? Someone is going to have to explain that one to me.

As for Sigonella…gee, since it’s a Naval air base….I thought it might just have a few of those pretty jets hanging around, that might have been used to go buzz the hair off some terrorists. Silly me.

lynncgb on November 11, 2012 at 9:48 AM

All the neighbors knew an attack was coming, but somehow the geniuses in the Obama administration didn’t.

AZCoyote on November 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM

This. There was sufficient warning.

dogsoldier on November 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Again, if you’re going to be bold enough to assume that someone is lying to you, then you should be bold enough to contemplate these issues for yourself before you make damning implications.

blink on November 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Oh good grief…it is no way being “bold” to think that we may still not be getting to the whole truth. None of these players in Wasington will get any presumption of innocence from me….they blew it with their preposterous story about the youtube video being behind all of this. They are the ones that have given every thinking human being the reason to doubt them.

As I have said, I can not argue any specifics about military capability. I will leave that to others. I don’t know if the timeline from Panetta is reasonable or not…but I find the lack of action before the attack very troubling and I find the shenanigans that were attempted by this administration after the attack very troubling…so why should I possibly be willing to suspend my skepticism about what happened during the attack? It may turn out that you are correct and every bit of evidence will point in favor of your view, but I would like to know with 100% certainty that this administration did not put up any road blocks when American citizens were under assault in Benghazi. Yes, silly me thinks it’s up to Washington now to prove themselves innocent.

It’s certainly silly for you to think that a jet could actually buzz hair off of anyone.

facepalm

lynncgb on November 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Whew! The reporters almost beat them there.

Herb on November 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

blink on November 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM

And honestly….I don’t understand why you are giving the administration the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity, when they have destroyed every bit of their own credibility.

lynncgb on November 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM

They could have been on site in two hours or less.
jpcpt03 on November 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Feel free to explain the basis of this claim that you’re making.
blink on November 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM

OK! BOSS :

First their were CIA assets a mile away———-They were denied the ok.

Their were Drones in the Air————Armed or Unarmed, get buzzed take cover it breaks the momentum of the attack and could have saved lives, it might have bought time for support to arrive, if any was ever sent.

It took the FBI 14 days to get to the sight.

The sight was never secured for classified information.

Additional Drones were sent to replace the existing Drone on Station. This is an action of support but not for the people on the ground.

The embassy had been asking for help for at least 4 months with no support.

OK “blink” what was the REAL time line here for support. Nineteen hours as stated or the 2880 hours that the embassy asked for help + the 7 hours of an attack + 19 hours DOD said + the 336 hours it took the FBI to get there?

This is called redirect, it takes you off the real topic and directs you to an unimportant one of their choosing.

One element of this seems to be holding true. “Some one screwed up bad, and “We The People” need to know who.

OK “blink” your turn.

jpcpt03 on November 11, 2012 at 1:21 PM

While we are at it did you know the President Obama dose not have a security Clarence.
He was denied in his background check on 20 August 2008 due to his radical associations.

He has a “Need to Know” clearance.
Many members of his staff and upper levels of Congress are the same way (need to know clearance) . To get a proper secret Clarence can take up to three years so for the “MORE EQUAL” among us the requirement is set aside.

This works two ways. First he gets to know everything because he is president but has to ask for the information each time or he is told only what people think he and some members of his staff and Congress need to know and keep the rest from them.

jpcpt03 on November 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Trying to fill in the puzzle.

From what I’ve read, everybody in the consulate made it out alive with the exception of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Smith. When will we hear the survivor’s account of the attack along with that of the 30+ annex staff? 

Has anybody heard anything about the jailed Tunisian man who the USA was finally able to interview? 

If the USA had no usable assets nearby did they contact their allies in the area for possible assistance? I read somewhere that the British said they had more assets in Benghazi than the USA did but they never got a call.

Israel isn’t too far from Benghazi is it? Could they have helped if asked? 

Helen A Handbasquet on November 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Through this keep in mind the basic point involved. The administration “lied” “re-lied” “Spin” and “redirect” the things that they have not done is tell the truth.

It dose not mater if the time line is 4 months, 7 hours 12 hours or 19 hours.

The point is 2 men gave their live to by time. They did something.

The President, the Sectary of state, The Secretary of Defense and the Director of the CIA Did nothing.

In 4 months prior—-they did nothing.
In 7 hours of the attack—–they did nothing
In the 19 hours——-They did nothing
In the 2 months since they attack—–They have done nothing.

jpcpt03 on November 11, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Tell it to the Marines.

http://www.marines.com/sixhours

Brendon Carr on November 11, 2012 at 8:15 PM

“FEET DRY OVER LIBYA”

Survivors of the attack at the annex say that they heard over the radio net that night that U.S. military assets were, “feet dry over Libya,” which would refer to assets crossing from sea to land and hovering. The Pentagon denies this.

So who is to be believed? Think I’ll go with those on the ground at the annex. The Pentagon still has waaay too much explaining to do.

And hovering? That could be a possible explanation as to why it took our rescue forces so long to actually arrive in Libya. Could the U.S. response team have been stuck waiting and waiting….trying to land in Libya? Since the CIA team from Tripoli got stuck waiting for three hours before they were allowed to leave the Benghazi airport…then it looks like there is a pattern of delays developing.

lynncgb on November 11, 2012 at 11:43 PM

from the link at my 11:43 post

Military sources familiar with the orders given to the CIF team tell Fox News the CIF plane headed to Libya — not to first stage at Sigonella as the Pentagon timeline suggests. The Pentagon denies this, saying simply that they were ordered to an intermediate staging base.

Hmmm…more conflicting info.

What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon won’t say when they took off from Croatia.

Me thinks the Pentagon needs to answer this question.

Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.

More troubling news….

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 8:01 AM

I’m not. I’m pushing back on people that are making claims or allegations about military capabilities simply because it “doesn’t sound right” to them.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 7:50 AM

I think you’re being a bit disingenuous. In your attempts to point out that military capabilities may not be what we think …you also display a stunning lack of curiosity as to the role of the administration during those crucial hours of the attack…and how they may have impeded our military response. How can all the pieces of this puzzle fit so perfectly together for you, without question…when we don’t even have them all yet?

It has never even crossed my mind that our military failed to do it’s job properly on 9/11/12…but that doesn’t mean that Washington did. The bureaucrats and politicians remain suspect and for good reason…but you do not give the impression that their role in this is of any concern to you.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Well, after a few more months of President Obama, there will be a simpler explanation for future occurrences: there are no assets. This is what you voted for America; enjoy your “free” stuff while it exists.

tngmv on November 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I’ve been discussing the issue of procuring dip clearance for these aircraft at length on the Benghazi threads over the last few weeks. This is certainly nothing new.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I don’t get the chance to read every Benghazi post and every comment on the thread….it sounded new to me.

I’m being realistic.

Okay…but then understand that here at HA there are many different opinions and for those of us without enough knowledge to know who may be right and who may be wrong…discernment becomes difficult.

You do sound like a Truther.

That gave me a chuckle…no, I am not.

I’ve made it clear dozens of times, that I think it’s quite possible that poor decision makers in the chain of command and/or Obama administration may have contributed to a lack of assistance getting to the compounds in Benghazi, and I would like to know the truth about this.

I’m glad then that we are on the same page…again, I don’t read everything that’s out here. And when the discussion gets into the weeds about the military …I am in unchartered territory….and frankly….lost….and that’s when I start skipping over alot of comments. :-)

In my opinion, these are the wrong issues to focus on. I’d like to know why more security wasn’t provided in the first place.

I think it is all equally important.

Are you lumping theater commanders and other 4-stars in with the bureaucrats and politicians with this statement? If not, then why not?

I am not lumping any of our military personnel in with my reference to “bureaucrats and politicians”. I haven’t become that much of a cynic yet to believe our military leadership did not act with complete integrity and honor. If mistakes were possibly made by the military chain of command…my suspicions would not lead me to think those mistakes were at all deliberate….with the administration, I would definitely question the motives behind their choices.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

4-stars very often begin playing politics without regard for doing the right thing, and far too many of them arrived at their current positions by playing that game very well.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Well, aren’t I the naive one. That just burst my bubble. I never wanted to think some of our most decorated and distinguished military leaders would actually choose to relinquish their adherence to principles in favor of politics. Being obligated to support the C-I-C and specific objectives is one thing… but if it involves compromising on what is right and just…then I find myself disappointed.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I’m sorry to disappoint you. I hope it doesn’t make it worse when I tell you that liberal presidents often cause politics to trickle down further into the officer ranks.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Oh what the heck…hit me with it all at once…it’s better to take off the rose colored glasses I suppose. :-) Between the election last week and having my eyes opened a bit more about the electorate, and now getting a glimpse into the unknown regarding the military…I think I may just have to turn into a cynic after all.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Common response: ‘I don’t give a crap’

King Putt – ‘… if the political winds shift, I will side with the Muslims’
Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obamugabe Obowmao – ‘My Muslim faith’
Now I don’t fully believe this line of thought but who else do you know that have voiced these sentiments? Anybody?

Missilengr on November 12, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Okay so the conclustion of all of this is that, yes, the President and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton all lied to us about this being because of a movie. Do I have that right?

Yes you do – and now for probably the first time in your, life try to build upon it to the point where you are no longer a drone who believes what Slimy Brother wants you to.

drunyan8315 on November 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2