(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk'

CNN ^ | October 26, 2012 | Chris Lawrence

[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).

[NonValueAdded]

Compare what Panetta is saying with that Ollie North is saying, keeping in mind what Panetta said about not having enough information: Then and Now (North on Benghazi). Fair warning: you will get angry.

[motor_racer]

When it comes to the Congress, “Republican Leaders” is an oxymoron.

[silverleaf]

I am not privy to what is happening in the Community

Questions are whether the drone was a strategic or tactical asset, whose tasking was it operating under (there probably is enormous competition among US agencies for these assets so target priorities and operating parameters have to be established by a committee)

Who and where was monitoring its feed? My understanding is that these are CIA assets unless in direct tactical battle support- and maybe even then. It is plausible that Panetta was not involved. After all, Gates possibly was in on the cabal of agency planners that blindsided the WH back when osama was taken out, so keeping the DoD out of this operation, if directed by the WHY, would have been tit for tat.

We have no ongoing hostilities involving DoD battle support in Libya that I am aware of. DoD people were pulled out.

Presumably it was intel collecting - against who and for what?

The inexplicable lying and cover up suggests this operation was all directed from the WH itself. A strategic covert military operation being run by arrogant ardent islamists, such as John Brennan (just sayin’)

I know nothing, only speculating. Nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express recently.

[w1andsodidwe]

Two observations:

1. What is the purpose of our military, if we won’t use it if there is a risk?

2. Why would anyone ever agree to represent our country abroad in an embassy, if the US will not protect you.

[maggief]

The more I think about it this makes sense. Perhaps that’s the “bad intelligence” and why Petraeus is MIA.

“A CIA covert operation gone wrong, so-called militia “allies” gone over to the dark side in an al Qaeda directed revenge attack”

[Pollster1]

I remember that during my time in the service, I never wanted to be “put at risk”. I was willing, and from time to time it happened, but it wasn’t my first choice. However, given a choice of Americans being raped and murdered by foreign terrorists while I sit safe and far away, or being put at risk with my men, I’m with just about all of our military - ready to go. We’ve got a whole lot more Captain John Paul Jones, Admiral David Farragut, General George Patton, and Private Mike Clark in us than we have of that sissy, Panetta. Our military exists to protect the country and its citizens from this sort of situation, and if we’re just there to hold paperwork drills and uniform inspections safely at sea or in a well-protected base far from danger, there is no point in having a military at all.

“I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm’s way.”
- John Paul Jones

“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”
- Admiral David Farragut

“Better to fight for something than live for nothing.”
- General George Patton

“We signed up knowing the risk. Those innocent people in New York didn’t go to work thinking there was any kind of risk.”
- Pvt. Mike Armendariz-Clark, USMC (in Afghanistan, September 20, 2001)

[xrmusn]

When it comes to the Congress, “Republican Leaders” is an oxymoron.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Absolutely....notice where the ‘question mark’ is.

Like them or not, Pelosi and crowd at least stick up for their own and each other.

We have people get their shorts in an uproar over Bidens ‘cue ball’ remark (Which, is actually a compliment, just not the right remark at the right time, then again Biden will be Biden).

This whole administration is a real life version of Capt Queeq.

“Steaming in circles, running over the tow line, while Queeg is berating a sailor over a shirt tail or lack of hat”.

[varon]

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.

What did you think it was, you dumb a**? A weenie roast???

[JediJones]

So he says he knew the security forces were in a firefight. That leaves only two possibilities. A. They’re losing the firefight and need reinforcements. B. They’re winning the firefight so whatever reinforcements are sent will be unnecessary and can return home upon arrival.

So where’s the excuse for not sending reinforcements?

[SampleMan]

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

I'd say that all the calculated riske was political.

Obama sees Libya as his great accomplishment. In his mind it was better to have a few Americans killed (and explained away) than to go in and kill a dozen Libyans. Especially without asking pretty-please first.

[Ax]

Anybody that steps off that bus at basic training, whether they realize it or not, are already marching toward the sound of gunfire. If you aren’t willing to put yourself in harm’s way, then stay home and get a job at the doily factory. This from a veteran who never saw combat.

[maggief]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-seeks-to-expand-drone-fleet-officials-say/2012/10/18/01149a8c-1949-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html?hpid=z1

(October 18, 2012)

The CIA is urging the White House to approve a significant expansion of the agency’s fleet of armed drones, a move that would extend the spy service’s decade-long transformation into a paramilitary force, U.S. officials said.

The proposal by CIA Director David H. Petraeus would bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and enable it, if directed, to shift aircraft to emerging al-Qaeda threats in North Africa or other trouble spots, officials said.

(snip)

The CIA’s proposal would have to be evaluated by a group led by President Obama’s counter­terrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, officials said.

(snip)

The administration has touted the collaboration between the CIA and the military in counterterrorism operations, contributing to a blurring of their traditional roles. In Yemen, the CIA routinely “borrows” the aircraft of the military’s Joint Special Operations Command to carry out strikes. The JSOC is increasingly engaged in activities that resemble espionage.

(snip)

[InvisibleChurch]

Just why is there a drone floating around over Libya for no apparent reason? Aren’t drones at a premium and take maybe a week or so to be assigned to a particular area?

[Josephat]

This may provide some insight into Panetta.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/democrats/leon-panettas-communist-ties/

[silverleaf]

and why so many agency heads can claim they never got the intelligence confirming this being a terror attack

Either they didn't get it and could therefore be used as spin doctors using what was provided them through the WH(Susan Rice)

or it was washed to all the analysts privy to the initial message traffic as coming from an unreliable or unproven or extremely sensitive source, not authorized by the WH to be used or rebroadcast in their agency analysis
pending further source confirmation (ha)

Or in the case of Hillary, she didn't want to hear it..... hear no evil see no evil....again, plausible deniability for her role in letting Stevens be actively involved and jeopardize diplomatic immunity of this and other ambassadors

[uncbob]

Hey Panetta was Obama informed while all this was taking place so he could act like he did for Bin Laden

[Sir Napsalot]

I wish the whole Obama admin is a satire.

Lookie here: Obama: "When Four Americans Are Killed, You Have To Do Some Soul-Searching" WTF?

[LoveUSA]

(......*.......*.......*.......)

That's cricket noise. I'm absolutely speechless.

[silverleaf]

well well well, there ya go

Looks like I don’t need to book a room at the Holiday Inn Express after all ...

John Brennan, passport raider and possible cleaner, is one of the most dangerous men serving obama (if that is who he really serves)

Mitt needs to get rid of him asap

[tflabo]

Yeh, that’s right Panetta—let the Ambassador and team fend for themselves. Jerkwad.
Where was their beefed-up protection on anniversary of 9/11? In a terrorist hotbed like Benghazi no less? And the stupid lie about the video? Got some ‘splaining to do Mr.sourpuss face.