Petraeus replacement to testify CIA never requested military assistance in Benghazi

posted at 8:51 am on November 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

So says Eli Lake of The Daily Beast, getting tips from his sources within the intelligence community.  Michael Morell, who became acting Director of Central Intelligence following the surprise resignation of David Petraeus, will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee today to discuss the agency’s response to the attack on the Benghazi consulate.  Morell will testify that no one at the agency requested military assistance during the seven hours of the terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including two CIA operatives:

When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

The disclosure may put an end to one line of inquiry into the Benghazi affair about why reinforcements from the region were not sent on the night of the attack. “Assistance from the U.S. military was critical, and we got what we requested,” the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

According to a Pentagon timeline made public last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta prepared multiple military responses from the region at around midnight Benghazi time, more than two hours after the initial assault began. Those orders included mobilizing two special Marine platoons known as Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) from Rota, Spain, to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also ordered a special operations force, training in central Europe, to deploy at the Signonella Airbase in Italy. Another special operations team based in the United States also prepared to deploy to Libya.

The CIA, however, requested none of that assistance. Neither did the State Department. None of those teams ever arrived in Benghazi.

That differs from what Fox News reported almost three weeks ago, and which has gone virtually unchallenged in the vacuum of official explanations about Benghazi since.  Jennifer Griffin reported on October 26th, citing sources that were actually “on the ground” in Benghazi during the attack, that the CIA contingent repeatedly requested assistance — but were told to “stand down” twice by officials in the CIA chain of command:

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

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

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

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

Morell will testify that the CIA team received two forms of military assistance, apparently on the CIA’s request, although that’s not clear — an unarmed surveillance drone and a medevac team when the CIA squad on the ground was able to extract the remaining Americans to the airport.  It’s certainly possible that this is true, and that Griffin got it wrong, even though Griffin claimed multiple sources who were on the ground during the attack.

But Morell’s explanation, as related by Lake, doesn’t make a lot of sense.  If the consulate and the CIA annex was under heavy and deliberate attack by forces using mortars and RPGs, why wouldn’t they ask for the military assistance that they knew was on standby for just this sort of contingency?  Why just ask for an unarmed surveillance drone rather than something that could potentially offer a diversion for the extraction of personnel from the consulate?  It’s difficult to imagine that the intelligence unit under fire off an on for seven hours would never have requested military assistance to save the lives of the people in the compound — not impossible, perhaps, but certainly implausible.


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

If he actually says this, then either Griffin was wrong or the admin has got all of its tracks covered. Which means the story is dead.

WisCon on November 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

This whole mess has enough stink to fill the Grand Canyon. The regime is going to lie it’s way through hearing after hearing. There will never be a full and complete answer forthcoming. We won’t ever find out the whole truth. No one involved will stand up and tell the truth. This is more of the govt doing what it needs to do to cover it’s tracks, just like F&F, to maintain control over the populace.

Kissmygrits on November 15, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Wait ’til it comes out that the weapons Benghazi ops ran from Libya to Syria are being used against our “ally” Israel.

But then again, will anybody care?

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM

This…plus, just what was that “safe house” actually being used for?

This all will go down the same sink hole as “Fast and Furious”.

tencole on November 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Anyone think about the fact we lost an very high ranking Admiral, and 3, 4 star generals in the past month?

Ever think that this is an Alinsky full frontal attack on our military?

karenhasfreedom on November 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I think the word you are looking for is putsch.

bofh on November 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Deano he’s just another tool

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM

This all will go down the same sink hole as “Fast and Furious”.

tencole on November 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM

cynicism is self-defeating. keep up the pressure on this administration. fight them with everything you got. wherever they go, be there. it’s all we have.

gracie on November 15, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Let’s face it, the voters who showed up at the polls cared more about their free stuff, than the fact that the Commander in Chief left 4 souls twisting in the wind while they were slaughtered by islamic terrorists.

And the press in this country helped to keep this story buried so baracka claus could be re-elected.

karenhasfreedom on November 15, 2012 at 9:25 AM

And Romney cared more about attacking Obama on that 4 letter word J.O.B.S…..then about all the illegal, unconstitutional and impeachable activities our President was doing.

tencole on November 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM

This whole mess has enough stink to fill the Grand Canyon. The regime is going to lie it’s way through hearing after hearing. There will never be a full and complete answer forthcoming. We won’t ever find out the whole truth. No one involved will stand up and tell the truth. This is more of the govt doing what it needs to do to cover it’s tracks, just like F&F, to maintain control over the populace.

Kissmygrits on November 15, 2012 at 10:14 AM

cynicism is self-defeating. keep up the pressure on this administration. fight them with everything you got. wherever they go, be there. it’s all we have.

gracie on November 15, 2012 at 10:19 AM

make obama wish he had not been re-elected.

gracie on November 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Ed, as the string of non-disclosures and CYA come out, you should be able to piece together what happened by ‘what was not said’. Each word they speak has been carefully wordsmithed.

As in above, the CIA didn’t ask for help. Well, if someone who was watching the video in live time, say maybe the CIC, and told CIA not to help, well, of course, the CIA wouldn’t then ask for help.

It is a duh.

So many questions and so call to ask the right question to the right person.

bumsteaddithers on November 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

But Morell’s explanation, as related by Lake, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Because Morell’s job counts on him towing the administration line.

GarandFan on November 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Will he or won’t he…

SWalker on November 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

This paragraph seems rather odd too me. First, it is strangely specific about what wasn’t requested. Second, do all requests for military assistance from field agents come through the agency? Please note that the above says agency and not agents. This looks too cute by half. Instead of this avoidance driven parsing let’s see the record of actual communication from the annex.

NotCoach on November 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Breaking: Hillary will testify in open hearing in December…

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Will he or won’t he…

SWalker on November 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

He won’t. The game is rigged and we are the pawns. We need to start over.

VegasRick on November 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM

And Romney cared more about attacking Obama on that 4 letter word J.O.B.S…..then about all the illegal, unconstitutional and impeachable activities our President was doing.

tencole on November 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM

I’ve seen this thought before and I don’t entirely agree.

Clearly, the strategy was to focus on the economy and not this other stuff. But how is Romney supposed to run a campaign based on undefined charges of illegal, unconstitutional and impeachable activities? The rat-eared wonder ran out the clock before that could happen.

But, let’s remember, Nixon won after Watergate too.

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Fox News(Catherine Herridge) is reporting the release of the CIA response timeline may have been released without the approval of the White House…triggering DP’s eventual resignation…

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Here’s an analogy.

A house on the same block as a fire station catches on fire. The firefighters sit in their building, watching it burn. Their excuse? “The homeowners didn’t call 911.”

This is complete and utter bs. And yet, the administration will probably get away with it.

byepartisan on November 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Turn off Fox for a minute and read some news

plewis on November 15, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Ok, raise your hands if this ignorant f*#K pisses you off.

BigWyo on November 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The two accounts can be reconciled. Morelll may testify that a request for military assistance was not relayed to the Pentagon through the CIA chain of command. Nevertheless, assistance may have been requested by those on the ground in Benghazi. That just means that their request for military assistance was denied by someone in the CIA.

John E. on November 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Neither Petraeus nor Morell has been shown to have done anything improper in their public lives. It comes together at the next level, head of national intelligence, Donnelly (?).

burt on November 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

This makes it even more confusing. The CIA guy is going to say that his field people never asked for help and the agency folks didn’t either? Have to wonder if he’s going to explain why the agency just left them to die.

Didn’t the State Dept care enough about the Ambassador to ask for military help? Will Hillary be explaining why she didn’t call for support ?

katiejane on November 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Who the hell made the decision Not to lockdown the consulate or annex after the attacks?

At a minimum I would have expected them to be turned into parking lots by now.

can_con on November 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Obama’s re-elect means all career at the CIA go through protecting him.

Are any of us going to trust these people? I don’t. Seems they treat our population the same way they treat our enemies. Just a group to be manipulated and lied to to maintain control or power over.

I am ashamed this is what it has come to. The CIA part of a cover-up. Bet they get something in return though not that any of us will benefit from it.

Conan on November 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Have to wonder if he’s going to explain why the agency just left them to die.

katiejane on November 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Let’s say you are watching an attack in real time and the phone doesn’t ring like the CIA says. You just assume they don’t need any military help as you watch explosions on your video feed?

So you are just telling yourself watching the burning consulate. “These guys would tell us if they needed help. We’ll wait till the phone rings”

That’s just ridiculous to me on its face.

Did everyone in the NYPD and NYFD wait till they got a call from the Twin Towers before they decided to render aid?

Seems you can use you brains to see their is a problem where you are needed does it not?

Conan on November 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

So we’re supposed to believe that a small group, possibly ony 4 guys, facing a very large mob, didn’t ask for assistance. Got it. /s

Deanna on November 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Fall on a Sword, get a promotion.

The Chicago Way.

Hari Kiry is yelling ….. “Barack Wins, Barack Wins”

FlaMurph on November 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

What incentive does anyone in Government have to tell the truth? Everyone who follows the news knows that the Obama Administration has been a lie factory from day one, yet he was re-elected. The American people don’t care enough to hold Obama and his crew to any standard, and they know it.
Why would a career officer play Don Quixote for an ignorant and delusional country?

Kenz on November 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

The disclosure may put an end to one line of inquiry into the Benghazi affair

Really ? So what. This is irrelavent.
Obama is on record saying he gave a direct order to help and protect those folks. Whether they asked for help has NO baring on the subject. If the CIA, or the military for that matter, did not provide that aid they were in direct contradiction of the President’s orders.

Quite frankly, if this Morell guy makes the claim of no aid requested, the Benghazi inquiry will only get more intense, not fade away.

Jabberwock on November 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

We know congress won’t impeach but can a military tribunal remove the c in c for refusal to provide cross border authority?

can_con on November 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Ok, raise your hands if this ignorant f*#K pisses you off.

BigWyo on November 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Raises hand

katy the mean old lady on November 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Quite frankly, if this Morell guy makes the claim of no aid requested, the Benghazi inquiry will only get more intense, not fade away.

Jabberwock on November 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Yup. So far, not one of them can get a story straight.

katy the mean old lady on November 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Is this the same CIA that never questioned the current president’s trip/residence in 1980 to a country an American was not allowed to visit at the time?

shar61 on November 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Treasonous.

Mr. Arrogant on November 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Strip the statement down. Possibly Morell’s statement means that the CIA, which ‘never requested assistance’, was told by the WH NOT to request assistance.

That is, the Benghazi requests for assistance, which cannot be denied, were passed through, not the CIA chain of command, but the White House chain of command, and it was the WH that refused assistance and told the Benghazi CIA to ‘stand down’. After all, Panetta may have ‘prepared’ multiple potential responses to the attack. But, did he actually make them operational? No.

Was the CIA, under WH orders, running guns and equipment to Syria? Or/and, is Obama, a purely political animal, uninterested in America and Americans, refusing to acknowledge that Al Qaeda is not, ‘dead as Bin Laden’ but is expanding and exploding in the MENA? Obama didn’t want this to affect his re-election.

I also think that Obama, and his sidekicks the FBI, are engaged in a deep war against the military. And the CIA. It’s well known that the military loathe Obama, and Obama can’t, as a narcissist, permit anyone to have power that he doesn’t control. He’s out to destroy the military. It’s unbelievable how many four star generals have been turfed by Obama, primarily for not kowtowingn to Him. He reminds me of a certain ‘leader’ of the Third Reich, and I don’t use that comparison lightly.

Notice also that Obama is always taking ‘the Fifth’ when asked questions. His response is always: ‘I can’t answer that as it’s under investigation’. Heh. Sure. And that will always be his only response.

Notice also how, if you do criticize Obama or any of his minions, he becomes instantly confrontative and abusive. For example, when the press questioned by he had permitted Susan Rice to repeat what were obviously false stories, abouto the video, on national TV? What did Obama do? He attacked the questions and questioner! But who told Ms Rice what to say? And why? Obama won’t permit such questions – and answers are always: ‘It’s being investigated’. Sure.

Obama is out to destroy the military and the CIA.

ETAB on November 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Yup. So far, not one of them can get a story straight.

katy the mean old lady on November 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I’m listening to the hearing live right now and it is the classic “what your definition of is is”.
No What? When? Why? Who? Where? How?
NONE!

VegasRick on November 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM

We have been subjected to so many lies by this administration that they are now beginning to blend into an amorphous mass of confusion and uncertainty.

rplat on November 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Well then…it looks as though their plans are working out just fine.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

The two accounts can be reconciled. Morelll may testify that a request for military assistance was not relayed to the Pentagon through the CIA chain of command. Nevertheless, assistance may have been requested by those on the ground in Benghazi. That just means that their request for military assistance was denied by someone in the CIA.

John E. on November 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I found Lake’s report confusing on this issue. The sub-headline refers to CIA agents on the ground never having made a request for military assistance, but the body of the report speaks only of the agency’s not having made any of several specific requests of named military assets. So the begged question remains: did anyone on the ground make a request for military assistance?

Barnestormer on November 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Why would the CIA have to approve a military rescue of our Ambassador?

This too stinks of more nonsensical disinformation trix.

profitsbeard on November 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

The CIA sometimes has to do dirty things. Those “rough men in the night” you hear about.

Does everything have to be a big conspiracy? Is truth your goal or politics? A question I feel should be asked more often.

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 9:30 AM

In other words…just shut up and accept what the administration tells you. In the interest of ‘national security’.

Don’t “politicize” what happened.

What next? Do it for the children?

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

The question answers itself. If you had been there and knew that military assistance could be made available would you have asked for it?

Mason on November 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Anyone think about the fact we lost an very high ranking Admiral, and 3, 4 star generals in the past month?

Ever think that this is an Alinsky full frontal attack on our military?

karenhasfreedom on November 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM
I think the word you are looking for is putsch.

bofh on November 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM

As a retired Navy guy, I respectfully disagree with the ‘putsch’ aspect…

A putsch to me would be removing the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs, etcetera all at the same time…

I just think it is a situation of the three x 4-stars behaving (VERY) badly, which is something they hardly ever do… It is magnified by the fact that it is all culminating around the same time and sounds louder in the echo chamber, especially with two of them interrelated down in Tampa via USCENTCOM…

Regarding the “high ranking Admiral”, I guess by definition as a Carrier Strike Group Commander he is high ranking, but he is still pretty low on the Admiral list… and doubtful if he ever goes any higher… he may end up retiring with the same rank as me, and for him, that would be a “bad thing”…

Khun Joe on November 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM

If he actually says this, then either Griffin was wrong or the admin has got all of its tracks covered. Which means the story is dead.

WisCon on November 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

How do you figure that?

Griffin reported what she reported based on what she heard from multiple sources. Some individuals on the ground and in the know were willing to go off the record in order to relate what happened that night. Why wouldn’t they be willing to do so again with additional evidence as a basis for their claims?

Gee, who do you suppose Lake’s “senior U.S. intelligence official” source might be? James Clapper? Tom Donlon? Both are highly political Obama appointees whose credibility has become suspect during the course of this incident. And, they have every reason in the world to cover up their knowledge of denials (out of Washington) for requests of assistance that night.

Or, could it be Morrell himself? We’ll see!

David Petraeus has already specifically said that neither he nor the CIA issued the denials of assistance that night.

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

Why in the world would David Petraeus have said that if there were no requests for military assistance? Why wouldn’t he have just said there were no requests for assistance that were not met?

The denial of assistance would logically have come from Panetta, after conferring with Clinton (by law she is in charge of military presence at diplomatic locations), and ultimately via the President himself.

The claim that it took them two hours to conclude that they should consider putting two Marine FAST teams in the air is just incredible!

Any military man worth his salt (where the hell was Gen’l Martin E. Dempsey during all of this?) would have strenuously advised to put the teams in the air, and on the way, and that decisions about where and when (or if) to deploy could be made and wired to them as they approached the target areas (Benghazi and Tripoli).

Same thing with a C-130, perhaps one with a mini-gun side door mounted — a “spooky” that could have quickly take out the terrorist mortar attackers in Benghazi with a short burst.

So, they now ALL have to claim that there were no requests for additional assistance. It is the ONLY way they can cover up for their misfeasance — their mendacious failure to act — that night.

Lying about it now is a case of malversation by all top level people involved.

And so the ONLY way out is very likely a big fat lie that is intended to protect Panetta, Clinton and the President.

Trochilus on November 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Anyone think about the fact we lost an very high ranking Admiral, and 3, 4 star generals in the past month?

Ever think that this is an Alinsky full frontal attack on our military?

karenhasfreedom on November 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM

It’s been going on for a few years, now. Look at all of the officers who recognize the threat of islam and speak out about it – and who have seen their careers stalled (if not ended).
Then look at the ‘high commands’ of the services, as well as the joint chiefs, and note that every one of them is “culturally sensitive” toward our islamic “allies”…and our islamic enemies.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Anyone think about the fact we lost an very high ranking Admiral, and 3, 4 star generals in the past month?

Ever think that this is an Alinsky full frontal attack on our military?

karenhasfreedom on November 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM

It’s been going on for a few years, now. Look at all of the officers who recognize the threat of islam and speak out about it – and who have seen their careers stalled (if not ended).
Then look at the ‘high commands’ of the services, as well as the joint chiefs, and note that every one of them is “culturally sensitive” toward our islamic “allies”…and our islamic enemies.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Don’t know why the strike-through. Morning fingers, I guess.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM

ETAB on November 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM;Jabberwock on November 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM;
bumsteaddithers on November 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

All so true. There is one thing the libs are repeatedly if not consistently failing to mention. Kindly blast it everywhere at every chance you get.

Why? Americans have a a real problem connecting the dots and finding motives in our administration these days.

That it is a certainty that President Obama and his diplomatic corps (pronounced corpse) did not want this conflict to become any larger.

Our administration would enjoy far less media time if a few white American guys get whacked quickly than having a coordinated air/ground operation. Any attack would make a real opening for finding a pulse in the radicals, looking for progress reports, fright spreading the inevitable blowback from our good friends in the Muslim Brotherhood, and the worst, a look at the cause and rationale for the whole thing.

The best part was Dada Milbank of the Wa Po on MSNBC talking about how these issues are “CIA” connected and therefore don’t belong in that foul, lying rag he works for or being presented in the “heading” of the show he was shilling in.

An “old centrist” liberal I was with got sick, apparently because the media has spent 60 years lauding the placement of secrets in the media. She later agreed that Val Plume (even with her worst assumptions) was nothing compared to this and Fox should get some awards.

IlikedAUH2O on November 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Mossad to cancel all vacations indefinitely….

can_con on November 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM

karenhasfreedom on November 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Perhaps just an indcation that military men make BO uncomfortable. If he can push out the old school ones there will be more billets available for filling with “diversity” candidates. /s

katiejane on November 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM

t8stlikchkn on November 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM

The problem of the “two or three prisoners” being held at the annex could have been solved by a bullet to the head of each. And then call them part of the attacking force.
This is the CIA. They’re supposed to be able to solve these problems.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I would like to hold out hope that Petraeus will tell the truth and expose the lies of Obama and his administration. Petraeus set himself of when he took the CIA position, knowing the Obama administration knew then of his affair, they only blackmail going is the Obama blackmail. I believe if Petraeus says anything other that what Obama tells him to say, he’ll find himself accused and tried for passing “classified information.” Regardless, i hope he comes clean with the truth!

Zcat on November 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Mossad to cancel all vacations indefinitely….

can_con on November 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Uh oh.

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Where is this administration’s John Dean?

My hope is that someone, somewhere in this den of thieves will get a dose of morality before this group takes this nation into the abyss

ironbill on November 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM

There were things going on at that compund which could not be revealed. Every action taken, or not taken, was to prevent these things from being found out.
Occam’s razor.
Bat Chain Puller on November 15, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Yep. Methinks this consulate wasn’t really a consulate. It was a cloak and dagger CIA operation, running guns to Syrian “rebels”, detaining prisoners, and who knows what else. As Debra Burlingame pointed out recently on a much under-appreciated appearance on Fox & Friends, consulates are places you go to get papers. There was no American flag flying, nothing of the sort. Read this via Family Security Matters for clues. Some snips:

President Barack Obama signed an intelligence finding sometime in early 2012 that authorized U.S. support for the Syrian rebels and by mid-June 2012, CIA operatives reportedly were on the Turkish-Syrian border helping to steer weapons deliveries to selected Syrian rebel groups. According to an Oct. 14, 2012 New York Times article, most of those arms were going to “hard-line Islamic jihadists.”

One of those jihadis may well be Abdelhakim Belhadj, former leader of the Al-Qa’eda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and head of the Tripoli Military Council after Qaddafi’s ouster. During the 2011 revolt in Libya, Belhadj was almost certainly a key contact of the U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition, Christopher Stevens…

Stevens’ last meeting in Benghazi the night he was killed was with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who is variously reported to have been there to discuss a weapons transfer or a warning about the possible compromise of the Libyan weapons pipeline to Syria. Whatever the topic of Ambassador Stevens’ discussion with Akin, he clearly and knowingly put himself in harm’s way to be there, in Benghazi, on the night of September 11.

Buy Danish on November 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I wonder what the Administration has on Morell to get him to play ball? Cheating on his wife? A gay relationship? Just another useful tool.

Deano1952 on November 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Maybe he’s just a “True Believer”.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Turn off Fox for a minute and read some news

plewis on November 15, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Ok, raise your hands if this ignorant f*#K pisses you off.

BigWyo on November 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Nah. He’s too stupid to get pissed at. After all, he believes that AP actually reports ‘news’.

Poor little leftist.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Fox News(Catherine Herridge) is reporting the release of the CIA response timeline may have been released without the approval of the White House…triggering DP’s eventual resignation…

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM

That he released his timeline without WH approval might be a sign that Petraeus is trying to get his story out?

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

This paragraph seems rather odd too me. First, it is strangely specific about what wasn’t requested. Second, do all requests for military assistance from field agents come through the agency? Please note that the above says agency and not agents. This looks too cute by half. Instead of this avoidance driven parsing let’s see the record of actual communication from the annex.

NotCoach on November 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Bingo!

elfman on November 15, 2012 at 11:58 AM

That he released his timeline without WH approval might be a sign that Petraeus is trying to get his story out?

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Do you think he’s been using Paula Broadwell to get his story out too or was she just Ms. Loose Lips Who Sinks Ships?

Buy Danish on November 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Yup. So far, not one of them can get a story straight.

katy the mean old lady on November 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

That’s why sec state can’t testify until ” sometime ” in Dec. .
Maybe they’ll have concocted one by then .

Lucano on November 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM

This makes it even more confusing. The CIA guy is going to say that his field people never asked for help and the agency folks didn’t either? Have to wonder if he’s going to explain why the agency just left them to die.

Didn’t the State Dept care enough about the Ambassador to ask for military help? Will Hillary be explaining why she didn’t call for support ?

katiejane on November 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

It’s not confusing at all- He’s lying, they are all lying!

Of course the Ambassador and the CIA operatives on the ground asked for military assistance during the attack, and of course everyone on the ground in Libya, the Libyan government, and the CIA and White House watching in real time back in the U.S. knew this was a terrorist attack.

Petraeus got thrown under Obama’s bus. . . This has nothing to do with who ppl were sleeping with.

cmsciulli on November 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

That he released his timeline without WH approval might be a sign that Petraeus is trying to get his story out?

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Do you think he’s been using Paula Broadwell to get his story out too or was she just Ms. Loose Lips Who Sinks Ships?

Buy Danish on November 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I think it triggered the FBI meeting with DP to let him know of the investigation results..?

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Can we get (an) Oliver North to testify ?

williampeck1958 on November 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Maybe he’s just a “True Believer”.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Morell has not done anything wrong as of now. Wait for his testimony before you condem him.

burt on November 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM

War in the Middle East. A soap opera of political and sexual manipulation among our leadership. I hope everyone’s all prayed up.

kingsjester on November 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM

The problem of the “two or three prisoners” being held at the annex could have been solved by a bullet to the head of each. And then call them part of the attacking force.
This is the CIA. They’re supposed to be able to solve these problems.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM

It just realized that perhaps this all happened when an attempt to break out the prisoners failed when the CIA simply executed them, and then in a rage the al Qaeda attackers decided to respond by killing all the CIA personnel in the ‘consulate’.

I just pulled that out of my butt and it’s just as credible as any other theory I’ve heard from ‘official sources’.

slickwillie2001 on November 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Who has the drone surveillance? Did obama watch it like the ones he views of those on his kill list?

Key West Reader on November 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Broncobama just has this aversion to telling the truth. Pathologic liars like him simply cannot utter a first thought without automatically disguising the true facts in some fantasy that courses through their defective brains.

I think the GOP ought to push for a psychiatric evaluation of this constantly exposed liar.

It is a mental problem.

dockywocky on November 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I found Lake’s report confusing on this issue.

In fairness to Lake he probably didn’t write the headline, which is really completely at odds with the content. It’s doesn’t say that the agency never requested military assistance, just that they never requested a few specific items. It never says that they didn’t request C-130′s or non-Europe-based special ops teams.

castle on November 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Even if the CIA didn’t order military action….who the he!! is the commander and chief.He stated he ordered the “necessary action to protect Americans” to be taken (what ever the he!! that means…let’s see what Obama ordered exactly…come on Mr. Transparency),did Obama do everything in his power to protect them or not?????

…Sgt. Barack loves to talk about how he “killed Osama”…but with Bengahzi…..it’s everybody’s fault but his.

Still need to know why the Obama administration did not provide the necessary security for a Consultant that was right dead in the middle of al-qaeda training camps…..had been attacked previously….intelligence fielded many serious terrorist threats….and more security had been requested by the personnel there.

The failures by the Obama administration started with the incompetence of not securing the Consultant in the first place and have only grown in scope as Obama lied about “Video’s” and refuses to release exactly what was done by him and the department heads he is responsible for.

Baxter Greene on November 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM

David Petraeus is to the U.S. Military what Tiger Woods is to Professional Golf.

Tripwhipper on November 15, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Pres. MP

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I am listening to Rush. He also mentioned that Jake Tapper was asked why the media didn’t cover Benghazi and he basically said because it is just a Republican lie.

They aren’t just circling the wagons they are saying you can’t prove anything if we all agree that you guys are liars. Interesting world we now live in and not a nice one if you are on the right. The new rule is that NOTHING will be the fault of democrats under even the most obvious conditions.

Conan on November 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

So, Obama declares that HE ordered all immediate help to the Benghazi people. Hmm.

But to whom did he give this order?After all, the CIA is now saying that they weren’t asked to provide any assistance and, themselves, did not deny any assistance. So- the CIA are effectively saying that they were removed from any control over what was going on in Benghazi.

Remember, Petraeus at first tried to go along with the WH narrative of ‘it’s all the fault of an American video’. Then, when the WH tried to blame the CIA for non-response, he refused to go along with this, and put out a memo that the CIA had no refused assistance. That means – the WH and State Department and Secretary of Defense were the ones who refused.

Panetta ‘prepared multipe military responses’. Who told him to do this? And why were none of these responses actually provided?

So, if Obama insists that he ‘told someone’ to provide all assistance, then, why was no assistance provided? Or is Obama, heh, as usual, lying? And since he’s the King, no-one dares to contradict him. Look what happened to Petraeus for doing so.

ETAB on November 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I am listening to Rush. He also mentioned that Jake Tapper was asked why the media didn’t cover Benghazi and he basically said because it is just a Republican lie.

They aren’t just circling the wagons they are saying you can’t prove anything if we all agree that you guys are liars. Interesting world we now live in and not a nice one if you are on the right. The new rule is that NOTHING will be the fault of democrats under even the most obvious conditions.

Conan on November 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Let’s remember that the next time anyone claims that Tapper might have a shred of journalistic ethics in him.

slickwillie2001 on November 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM

The one that they need to testify is General Ham, I’m sure he knows all the dirty little secrets!

Pomai on November 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Obama has all of these dolts wrapped around his little finger . . . and probably has a lot of dirt on each one. At any rate this scurvy, lying, obstructing administration has got all of them on a short leash. The Republicans need to crack just one and the dam will break.

rplat on November 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Turn off Fox for a minute and read some news

plewis on November 15, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Tell you what, when the msm starts acting like real news outlets then I’ll take you on that, but until then I’ll stick to Fox…

ThinkingForMyself on November 15, 2012 at 1:07 PM

oh yeah sure. so they’re getting attacked for hours, people are being killed, and they shrugged and thought ‘ehhh we got this no big deal we don’t need any help.’ SURE.

btw… where are the survivors? why aren’t they talking? does anyone know??

Sachiko on November 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM

The one that they need to testify is General Ham, I’m sure he knows all the dirty little secrets!

Pomai on November 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I agree, but, anyone still on active duty is going to be held hostage to pension and retirement benefits. They have him pretty well muzzled.

a capella on November 15, 2012 at 1:22 PM

So all those “cables” etc. asking for security BEFORE the attack on the consulate must be a figment of our imagination too, eh? This thing stinks more by the day and yet these marxists are getting away with this, just like they did fast and furious. We need to start calling Obama the new “Teflon Don”…..

MaggieMae on November 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I assume by now there will be enough documents on the Bimbo PC’s to sink a battleship

Meanwhile, I am still trying to figure out how an honorary consul of a foreign country becomes the honorary social liason for a military base, catering as it were to the biggest brass around

Honorary consuls are designated by foreign nations to represent that foreign nation in the US. They are not the same as consuls, or ambassadors who are foreign nationals. Honorary consuls serve as brokers/contacts for foreign citizens inside the US, and theoretically for American citizens inside a foreign nation. They are there to serve foreign interests. It is legal, but it stinks to high heaven in this case. Honorary bimbo consul is, from what I can see, a lobbyist for a foreign nation. a carpetbagger

People misunderstand her status. She was not appointed by the US. She was made honorary consul by S Korea

entagor on November 15, 2012 at 1:46 PM

btw… where are the survivors? why aren’t they talking? does anyone know??

Sachiko on November 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I posed this question here weeks ago, and the best reply I recall was that “the survivors” are all CIA employees, have been strategically scattered around the world with reassignments, and warned/ordered to disappear (or else).

bofh on November 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM

err…what?

ted c on November 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

One point that maybe has been made already, but I haven’t read every comment in this thread this morning:

“The CIA” and persons working for the CIA, are two different things. You’ve got to parse for it to even make sense. Higher ups who speak for the CIA and make the decisions on the ground have very little to do with what help the people there were asking for.

SarahW on November 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM

What’s the matter with those CIA guys – I would gladly share any secret with Catherine Herridge. Okay, she might have to water-board bed me.

drunyan8315 on November 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

One point that maybe has been made already, but I haven’t read every comment in this thread this morning:

“The CIA” and persons working for the CIA, are two different things. You’ve got to parse for it to even make sense. Higher ups who speak for the CIA and make the decisions on the ground have very little to do with what help the people there were asking for.

SarahW on November 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM

My thoughts exactly. Griffin’s report that people on the ground were begging for help can be true even if the CIA officials never requested support for them. There seems to be little doubt that the people on the ground asked for help, there are audio recordings of them. It all depends on the definition of “the agency”.

Could Petraeus really ignore requests for help from his people? Seems unlikely but who knows anymore. Maybe now that he retired he’ll find the intestinal fortitude to tell the truth.

Maybe I’m just more suspicious now because I’m just finishing up a book about Pat Tillman and the horrendous cover up of his fratricide. Since everyone in the Federal government has lied about Benghazi so far, my first thought is that everything yet to come is a lie as well.

They all just make me sick.

Common Sense on November 15, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Just think, at least one of these individuals knows enough to bring down this Administration.

claudius on November 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Do you think he’s been using Paula Broadwell to get his story out too or was she just Ms. Loose Lips Who Sinks Ships?

Buy Danish on November 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM

As someone posted earlier, I think he might have put some documents in her care for insurance, but I don’t see how she otherwise might be helping him get his story out. Reports are that his relations with the WH grew contentious during his last several weeks, notably over his Benghazi timeline, so I’d expect it was during that time that he might have set up some kind of insurance.

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 5:51 PM

SarahW on November 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM

My thoughts exactly. Griffin’s report that people on the ground were begging for help can be true even if the CIA officials never requested support for them. There seems to be little doubt that the people on the ground asked for help, there are audio recordings of them. It all depends on the definition of “the agency”.

Common Sense on November 15, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Thanks. I was wondering about that this morning. Glad to see I’m not the only one.

The stuff looks so wild nowadays that it makes me question my own judgment.

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM

This paragraph seems rather odd too me. First, it is strangely specific about what wasn’t requested. Second, do all requests for military assistance from field agents come through the agency? Please note that the above says agency and not agents. This looks too cute by half. Instead of this avoidance driven parsing let’s see the record of actual communication from the annex.

NotCoach on November 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM

+100

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Breaking: Hillary will testify in open hearing in December…

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

2012 or 2013?

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Will you folks ever stop pretending that you’re looking for “the truth of what happened” in this incident? The mindset of the HA commenting community is utterly predictable: You will support any narrative that reflects poorly on the Administration. You will reject any narrative that does not. The truth has nothing to do with it. Your minds are already made up.

Drew Lowell on November 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM

James Clapper is emerging as one of the evil players in all of this.

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 6:36 PM

CNN reports DP wants to tell Congress that he knew immediately terrorists were responsible for Benghazi…

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

So why didn’t he?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/petraeus-mistress-may-have-revealed-classified-information-at-denver-speech/

Petraeus testified in a closed session to Congress that the attack was due in large part to an anti-Islam video and a spontaneous uprising, according to reports from the hearing.

Congressional leaders say privately they believe they were lied to by Petraeus when he testified shortly after the attack.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

? Click through to the CNN article…confusing but he says that Susan Rice’s talking points came from somewhere else in the administration…who knows?

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM

CNN reports DP wants to tell Congress that he knew immediately terrorists were responsible for Benghazi…

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Awwright! The clue he wanted to get his message out over the heads of the WH, IMO, was releasing his timeline without WH approval after a period of controversy over it.

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

he says that Susan Rice’s talking points came from somewhere else in the administration…who knows?

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Oh, I think that’s an easy one. From the WH, of course. Probably either Jarrett or Axelrod.

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

So why didn’t he?

obama told him to say what Rice was gonna say….bo had the goods on Petraeus already and P knew it.

maybe P’s admission will come out in the closed door sesson tomorrow.

gracie on November 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3