Except for the fact that there were not one, but TWO unarmed drones in the area and neither one was shot at. So the idea that they were afraid of putting an ARMED drone in the air is ludicrous.
It seems like the next question (to Panetta?) might be: Did we have armed drones within 2-3 hours of Benghazi? If not, why not? If yes, why were they not used against the attackers?
If answered that what assets might have been available is still under investigation, ask:
A) How can you possibly not know, this long after the attack?
B) Is this typical of this administration’s competence?
If they were laying in wait for AC130 or helicopters they wouldn't have squandered the prize shot on the two unarmed drones. Getting in an armed drone from Italy might have taken couple hours while not adding enough sustained firepower to turn the tables in the battle. F18s could have arrived in under an hour, but due to unknown SA missile risks they would have had hard time providing close ground support from high up and in an urban environment where they wish to avoid large civilian casualties.
I am not saying that nothing could have or should have been done. But any quick, decisive action would have required entirely different kind of generals and leaders than the risk averse types in the situation room that day. You have seen how long it took them to make up their minds to hit Osama, many months after they knew where he was.