Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk'
CNN ^ | October 26, 2012 | Chris Lawrence

Posted on 10/26/2012 4:20:01 AM PDT by maggief

The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on, even though the U.S. military was prepared to do so.

"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on," Panetta said. "(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the consulate being attacked in Benghazi.

He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

(Excerpt) Read more at security.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhocia; panetta; shadowwars; threatmatrix; unfit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
Interesting...

"He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began."

1 posted on 10/26/2012 4:20:05 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: maggief

Sec. Panetta,

Keep talking, you idiot. Keep contradicting the previous statements from you, your people, and your boss.


2 posted on 10/26/2012 4:24:02 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
General Powell's kinda Leadership

Or did he ride the brains of Gulf War 1 General Norman Schwarzkopf

3 posted on 10/26/2012 4:24:36 AM PDT by scooby321 (AMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; penelopesire; thouworm; Protect the Bill of Rights; LucyT; SE Mom; MestaMachine; ...

“He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as “looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground.””

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For what purpose was a drone aloft nearby, yet security had been scaled back?


4 posted on 10/26/2012 4:26:03 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Translation:

We armed Al Qaeda with such high-tech weapons that a rescue team would have been slaughtered upon arrival.


5 posted on 10/26/2012 4:26:45 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

First of all, the battle lasted for more than 6, 7 hours! And more indications that there would be trouble over the area in the days prior.

Why can’t we deploy a freking drone directly over the area?

Someone(s) should have been watching the drone live feed, but not to Sec. Panetta’s knowledge???!!! Is it even plausible after > 40 days?


6 posted on 10/26/2012 4:29:53 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
...a lot of chaos on the ground.

This could have been the target.

7 posted on 10/26/2012 4:30:28 AM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Good point.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/

Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?

EXCERPT

According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.

“This is the Libyan ship ... which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya,” said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. “So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons.”

The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

The ship’s Libyan captain told the Times of London that “I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid” for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what “between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood.”


8 posted on 10/26/2012 4:31:51 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: maggief

“(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: ‘Could not put forces at risk’”

Yeah, someone might break a nail.


9 posted on 10/26/2012 4:32:54 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

So basically Panetta was saying,

Yeah, we deserted the security forces on the ground.

Nothing can be done for them, cause we don’t have good intel.


10 posted on 10/26/2012 4:32:54 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I had to look twice to ensure this wasn’t satire


11 posted on 10/26/2012 4:36:49 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (We can’t just leave it (food choice) up to the parents. -- moochele obozo 2/12/2012 (cnsnews))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Where are the REPUBLICAN LEADERS(?)

Reverse this situation with an R as Pres and the Dems would be 24/7 hits, especially with an election 2 weeks away.

I don’t expect the R’s to be quite as nasty as the D’s might be - but at least stand up and demand SOMETHING.


12 posted on 10/26/2012 4:37:04 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 "even a garden gnome casts a long shadow at sunset".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

“”You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on,” Panetta said”

If this is your thinking Panetta then BRING back ALL of our men and women overseas that are serving!


13 posted on 10/26/2012 4:38:25 AM PDT by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Hmmmm

Was Panetta locked out of a secret CIA/WH (and State Dept? was HRC part of it or kept out of direct channels to ensure she had plasuible deniability) operation to provide arms to Syrian jihadists via the US Ambassador to Libya, via an innocuous undefended operation site in Benghazi?

Of all the scenarios to try to account fof the WH puzzling cover up, this one is starting to make sense.

A CIA covert operation gone wrong, so-called militia “allies” gone over to the dark side in an al Qaeda directed revenge attack, and a WH-directed cover up using a video as mob incitement excuse

Of course B. Hussein Obama can’t come clean-
endrunning Congress and pissing off the Russians and maybe NATO too is real bad ju-ju

Curious silence by Petraeus, eh


14 posted on 10/26/2012 4:44:03 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

“(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: ‘Could not put forces at risk’”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
This is the kind of idiotic mindset that ‘allows’ a single gunman to shoot up a school/mall/..whatever..
Hundreds of cops outside, swat team in place while shooter operates freely, excuse being “We didn’t know how many gunmen were involved”, “Had a bead on “A” shooter but didn’t know if he had allies” etc .

Right, wrong or indifferent, cops in ‘my day’ would not just stand by - waiting. Some fool or two would rush the building.

The same mindset that allows a lone person ‘threatening to jump off a bridge’ hours while shutting down a busy highway.

Humanitarianism is one thing, sheer stupidity another.


15 posted on 10/26/2012 4:45:05 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 "even a garden gnome casts a long shadow at sunset".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Sending in helicopters and jets would make them easy targets for the anti-aircraft weapons we gave to Al Qaeda.

The rescue mission could have resulted in many more American deaths.


16 posted on 10/26/2012 4:47:43 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Is that why the drone was in the area, watching the movement of weapons to Syria?

Odd this all took place on 9/11, isn’t it?


17 posted on 10/26/2012 4:53:23 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: maggief

al Qaeda B O M B E D the Pentagon and America.

But Panetta DEFENDS them?

This is simple treason, but for who?
and for how much?


18 posted on 10/26/2012 4:54:44 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

This confirms my initial reaction:

Obama pounded the table and declared:
“We will NOT inject American forces into another mid-East country and create the impression we’re involved in a civil war!”

From there, the team set about inventing excuses.


19 posted on 10/26/2012 4:56:42 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

This says it all to me. The U.S. forces there say they are in the middle of a firefight, but that is not good enough for Panetta. He needs a full sitrep from a disinterested party to evaluate what is going on.

20 posted on 10/26/2012 4:57:03 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson