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

Theory two: Scandalmania actually makes compromise more likely because it gives congressional Republicans all sorts of exciting new ways to seem tough on Obama while they’re busy making policy deals with him.

If some in the GOP are that eager to make deals on making illegal immigration legal then Scandalmania doesn’t matter one way or another. Nor do elections.

farsighted on May 17, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Does Rubio have any idea how evil Schumer is?

Dasher on May 17, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Congress should not pass any new immigration laws until it learns to enforce the immigration laws we already have.

ENFORCE CURRENT IMMIGRATION LAWS NOW!

wren on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Does Rubio have any idea how evil Schumer is?

Dasher on May 17, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Nope. He’s like the new guy in a factory assembly line that always gets sent to the boss to ask for a left-hand screwdriver.

slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2013 at 10:16 PM

I just don’t see how theory 2 works. How is a Republican supposed to get so much “extra credit” from criticizing Obama to counter the negative of an amnesty? It should be expected that Republicans criticize Obama for obvious administration blunders!

netster007x on May 17, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Remember, Reichert is the person that caught the Green River Killer mass murderer. I gotta believe this weasel, Miller, isn’t going to be able to get away with lying to him

Fed45 on May 17, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Look at the photo.

Schumer stares fixedly at Rubio, and thinks… “I’m so proud. If I had a son, he’d look like Marco.”

There’s real parental love there. Think about it. When was the last time you saw Schumer not snatching the microphone, but instead, willing to bask in the reflected glow? Rubio is Chuckie’s new Gillibrand.

And then there’s Juan McLame at the left side of the picture, apparently trying to remember why he’s there, and whether he’s moved his bowels yet today…

bofh on May 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Weird. I am reading the amnesty comments underneath the Lanny Davis post. With this and the time travel, HotAir is spooky these days.

Missy on May 17, 2013 at 10:35 PM

How much longer will we have to deal with these RINOs and sleazy Dems in this gang of 8? Obama has been coming to Texas a lot lately. Every time he does a new challenge happens down here. The legislature just held a vote sponsored by the Dems to try and pass a term limit law. Why? To oust Perry, of course. We have a HUGE illegals problem here in Texas. I GUARANTEE that if amnesty goes through Obama will get his wis and my Texas wil be blue. The illegals will vote in huge numbers for Dems. I just have to wonder. Do you suppose that the IRS gave info to the DNC on these RINOs? Have they been coerced? Rubio is Hispanic but I find it hard to believe he would jeopardize his political aspirations so stupidly. This makes zero sense. The Dems are playing these idiots for fools. I dont care what they are saying amnesty will finish this country. We cannot add countless millions of new people on the welfare rolls. NO AMNESTY!

neyney on May 17, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Congress should not pass any new immigration laws until it learns to enforce the immigration laws we already have.

ENFORCE CURRENT IMMIGRATION LAWS NOW!

wren on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 PM

We all know what repeating the same actions while expecting different results means. Until the Repubs own up to this, they are still the other side of the same coin.

ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Amnesty is dead… However in the meanwhile you can create all scary scenarios that would not happen…

mnjg on May 17, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Rubio followed up his demand Monday morning with a bill that would make it a crime for IRS employees to target political groups, 

Classic politician, ain’t no problem that more laws won’t fix,eh Rubio? Stupid. It’s a scandal because the letter and spirit of the law was being violated. you want to preempt rogue agents? Remove their immunity. Just as “ignorance/mistake is no excuse for the taxpayer” so should it be for the agents. if the agent is wrong then the IRS is liable for triple damages; with 1/6 coming directly out of the agent’s paycheck and another 1/6 out of the supervisor. A few losses in court will force the bad apples out of the business out of self preservation. Simple. but where are our representatives getting out there pushing a Bill of Rights for taxpayers? If a law is unclear then judgement must default to taxpayer advantage until changed. Better yet eliminate the IRS and the 16th. But barring that then definitely give the taxpayers tools to fight back, fight being the operative word.

AH_C on May 17, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Immigration is way down the list of concerns for Americans. This IRS thing is HUGE. It virtually guarantees picking up seats in the midterms. The LAST thing the GOP should do is go on a James Sensenbrenner, JD Hayworth, Tom Tancredo Anti Illegal moron fest for the next few months.

AYNBLAND

Speaking of moron fests….

Interesting. Thought the biggest scandal was Benghazi. You all don’t have the patience to ride a “scandal” to fruition do you?

HotAirLib

Reading comprehension not your strong suit I see.

By the way, for folks who haven’t been paying attention, the amnesty gang in the House has put together their plan.

xblade on May 18, 2013 at 12:15 AM

President Barry is a multi tasker, he can handle another mess along with taking away our guns. Just think, he’ll be giving us another radical Supreme Court judge before he skips town.

RdLake on May 18, 2013 at 12:59 AM

It’s a wonder no one has slipped & fell on the slime trails Schumer & Durbin leaves behind.

RdLake on May 18, 2013 at 1:01 AM

You can see the Socialists plan here. A tyrannical Socialist government regime that targets the political opposition, wanting to open the gates for a bunch of third worlders that are use to tyrannical Socialist government regimes who will vote for them in exchange for welfare and handouts.

Rockshine on May 18, 2013 at 1:33 AM

Pundits these days speculate on every damn thing-no matter how baseless or ridiculous the topic or reasoning. So much time to use up-so much space to fill.

Goodale on May 18, 2013 at 2:21 AM

Have you noticed that Marco Rubio’s been very eager this week to throw roundhouses at Obama and the IRS? There’s a reason for that:

And it’s the same reason Grahamnesty overplays Benghazi and every other national security issue he can posture in front of cameras…namely that he’s a douchebag liberal on amnesty and needs any issue he can find to pander to conservatives and pretend he are one.

Same with Rubio. This is a head fake…don’t buy it.

Jaibones on May 18, 2013 at 7:44 AM

As for amnesty, if this was such a great move for conservatives and will buy us so many illegal alien votes … why isn’t the GOP get them now? Reagan’s amnesty in 1986 didn’t come with all this alleged penalty baggage … it was a clear amnesty, and it was ours.

So why are the vermin invaders and “natural conservative constituency” voting 80% pro-abortion, open borders, pro-gay marriage, welfare for everyone, $100 billion in food stamps? Hmmm?

Jaibones on May 18, 2013 at 7:47 AM

Let’s face it, it’s the huge IRS code that makes scandals like this possible. It’s also 800 page bills, that slip in pork and language that make enforcement difficult, we need to guard against.

It’s about time for the gang of 8 to be forced to answer questions about what is really in the bill. If they’re not willing to be specific, just don’t pass it. It’s about time we become more pro-active on these issues and write our Congressmen, Democrat or Republican, and let them know how we feel.

bflat879 on May 18, 2013 at 8:19 AM

Have you noticed that Marco Rubio’s been very eager this week to throw roundhouses at Obama and the IRS?

It doesn’t take the slightest bit of courage to throw punches at Obama and the IRS after this week. He11, even Tingles and Piers Morgan jumped on that train.
Since Rubio now seems like some sort of de facto face of the Rep. party, it could be viewed as suspicious if Rubio didn’t come out with some criticisms. Just more butt covering on his part. Rubio earns no points now, nor will he ever. One giant stab in the back is enough to know that he can not be trusted. His support for amnesty -and his deceptive ways of trying to sell the idea – is not a minor transgression that can be overlooked.

lynncgb on May 18, 2013 at 8:30 AM

I’ve spent the last four years arguing that we need to stick together and avoid third party candidates. It’s not just Ron Paul libertarians leaving the GOP. There’s also quite a number of “a pox on both their houses” conservatives and moderates. This amnesty bill will split those people off irrevocably, IMO. It’s a LIE from start to finish, with every aspect that one might have used as a selling point, undone somewhere else in the bill.

Marco Rubio can shoot his mouth off all he wants at Barack Obama. His leadership on this particular bill has proved that he’s either just another “identity” politician… or a well-named RUBE. Neither qualifies him for higher office. That is, unless he wants to run as a Democrat.

Murf76 on May 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM

This whole analysis assumes we’re just a bunch of idiots, mushrooms in a dark room waiting to be fed lies. So epic fail on this analysis.

WordsMatter on May 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM

There is no upside to amnesty. Rewarding lawbreakers encourages more people to break our laws. Amnesty leads to amnesty leads to amnesty leads eventually to complete disrepect of all of our laws and there will only be anarchy.

Oracleforhire on May 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Well, Mickey Kaus certainly got the fiend part right. Rush still calls MR a conservative but I think this is the 1% of the time that he’s wrong. I don’t trust MR and haven’t from the get go. He sounded good at first but politicians always tell you what you want to hear then do what they want when they get elected.

Kissmygrits on May 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM

These Obama scandals have given the Republicans a chance for a very good election night in 2014 maybe even extending into 2016.

Hopefully they won’t repeat their mistake of the 2012 elections when they decided to move hard left running a liberal Massachusetts Governor as President and then watching four million of their base voters stay home on election night 2012.

RJL on May 18, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2