More breaking news on Libya, about how help was denied

[Jim in CT]

God Bless Foxnews, the only network willing to do their jobs on this story.

Unfreakinbelievable.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News

WHY ISN'T THIS A BIGGER STORY.

Stevens and others ask for more security, and they are denied. When it turns out thet were justified in asking for more security, their pleas for help go unanswered?

Unfreakinbelievable.

"A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli"

Spence?

How does this not impact the election? When the f*ck is Obama going to explain his side of the story?

[PRBuzz]

Hillary did it!

[Jim in CT]

"Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty...were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe..."

Spence?

[Bronko]

Getting uglier by the hour.

[Jackbass]

WTF if it were my kid on the ground requesting support. Being destroyed by these militants. I would want criminal charges brought up. We have the most powerful military on the planet with the ability to put a missile in a bedroom window and we allow this to happen.

I understand there are ramifications to engaging in a foreign country. But Libya really? We have zero problem targeting locations in Syria with drones (killing plenty of innocents) yet when a target is painted that poses a threat to citizens in hostile territory light it up! If that mortar location had been blown to smithereens do you think that would have shown the militants we were serious about protecting out people. Instead we stand down and allow our people to die with out help. And they watched it happen. This is criminal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Like I've said multiple times, to think that the military wasn't calculating our options is pretty silly.

Here's more information on the SecDef discussion from yesterday's NYTimes. The Fox story only pasted one snippet.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly” that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

“There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here,” Mr. Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

As a result, Mr. Panetta said, he and two top commanders “felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” The commanders are Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Carter F. Ham of Africa Command, which oversees American military operations in Africa, including Libya.

Mr. Panetta was at the White House for a regular meeting on the afternoon of Sept. 11 as the first reports of the attack unfolded, an American official said. By that evening Mr. Panetta had consulted with General Dempsey and General Ham and had ordered a number of American military forces in the region to move closer to Libya.

Defense officials say they did not receive a request for military support from the State Department as the attack unfolded.

In response to Mr. Panetta’s decision, a small Special Operations “strike force” team moved from Central Europe to the Sigonella Air Base in Sicily while two Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean were moved off the Libyan coast. A rapid-reaction team of elite Marines left Rota, Spain, and arrived to protect the American Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, the next day.

But a senior military official said that uncertainty about what was happening on the ground in Libya delayed the decision about where to send the Special Operations forces until about 9 p.m. in Washington, or 3 a.m. on Sept. 12, in Libya.

Ultimately, the decision relayed from the military’s Joint Staff in Washington was “to get close but not into Libya,” the official said. The task force then deployed over the next 24 hours to Sigonella, which is about an hour by plane from Benghazi. But by that time the shooting was over and the Americans were eventually evacuated.

As Mr. Panetta told reporters on Thursday, “This happened within a few hours, and it was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

Republicans, in the meantime, continue to question the Obama administration about its handling of an event that has become a source of sharp debate in the presidential campaign.

On Thursday, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio released a letter asking the president to answer a number of questions about Libya publicly, including what military options he had been offered or had considered during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

Mr. Boehner also said in his letter that “information now in the public domain contradicts how you and senior administration officials consistently described the cause and nature of the terrorist attack in the day and weeks immediately following.”

Why, Mr. Boehner asked, “did the administration fail to account for facts that were known at the time?”

Mr. Boehner sent his letter after a series of three leaked e-mails sent by State Department officials shortly after the attack began — including one that alerted the White House Situation Room that a militant group had claimed responsibility for it — stirred new debate on Wednesday about the Obama administration’s shifting accounts.

The first e-mail, sent about a half-hour after the assault began, said the State Department’s regional security officer in Tripoli had reported that the mission in Benghazi was under attack, and that “20 armed people fired shots.” A second said the firing at the mission had stopped. In the third, the embassy in Tripoli reported that a local militant group, Ansar al-Shariah, had claimed responsibility through postings on Facebook and Twitter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/wo...-benghazi.html

We're not sure if Obama even had to make a call here, but if your Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs Chairman and head of Africa Command all think it's too risky based on available information what would you do?

Most of the information around the attack appears to have been very cloudy and the situation quite confusing. If anything has come to light recently it's that a lot of thinking and action was going on while the attack unfolded. Nobody was sitting on their hands.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When the f*ck is Obama going to explain his side of the story?

Won't be answered until after Nov 7th for sure.

Nothing holding him back from coming out today and explaining his role in
it, if he chose.

[RIJIMMY]

Spence, do you have to read farther than the first sentence?

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly” that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

Christ, an embassy is our territory? These were our people!
Isnt it ALWAYS risky to deploy troops??????????????????????????????????

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Christ, an embassy is our territory? These were our people!
Isnt it ALWAYS risky to deploy troops??????????????????????????????????

Jimmy, the attack didn't happen at the embassy (Tripoli) it was a Consulate (i.e. branch office) in Benghazi.

I also don't believe US Embassy's or Consulates are legally considered US soil unless specifically designated by a treaty.

I'm sure there's always risk of deploying troops -- hell there's risk to run a drill -- but that doesn't mean there's an acceptable risk. Top military brass have the leadership experience of Fortune 100 CEO's, in fact probably better.

This event played out very fast and with little good information. Poor judgement could have cost many more US lives.

-spence

[buckman]

I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants
If we can't send in a drone we don't go
We have an administration that can't think on its feet and has to way the personal political fallout in every move.
Obama first,,,,everything else after.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Bronko]

We've come a loooooooooooooong way from a spontaneous reaction to a Muslim parody haven't we? What are some of the disqualifiers we have heard as the truth started to leak out?

Lack of information as to what was going on real time?
Military help unable to reach the area in time?
Not a clear picture as to the events transpiring?

What we now know:

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

This be gettin' messy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

We've come a loooooooooooooong way from a spontaneous reaction to a Muslim parody haven't we? What are some of the disqualifiers we have heard as the truth started to leak out?

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

I wish our response could have been as organized
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants
If we can't send in a drone we don't go
We have an administration that can't think on its feet and has to way the personal political fallout in every move.
Obama first,,,,everything else after.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants"

You said it before i could.

The drones over the compound showed approximately TWENTY attackers. Twenty. This was not the Battle Of Thermopayle.

Spence, if Obama's military advisors need 2 weeks to figure out how to defeat 20 barbarians, then I think they need to be replaced.

2 Navy SEALS survived the attack for 7 hours, for Christ's sakes. 15 or 20 more special forces soldiers, and it's a turkey shoot.

Spence, you don't put people in harm's way and refuse to help them. You just don't, not if you have any honor. Panetta says you don't send soldiers in until you know exactly what's going on? Bullsh*t. Tell that to the families of the heroic former SEALs who ignored orders to stand down, and instead ran one mile to the consulate that was being attacked.

The Obama administration stood their with their hands in their pockets, because of 20 barbarians who probably couldn't scratch their names in the dirt with a stick. Even Jimmy Carter wasn't that impotent. Obama was probably looking on the Harvard Law Review for the appropriate response, while those guys were literally fighting for their lives.

UNFREKINBELIEVABLE.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

OK. Have you seen any evidence that it was in response to a video? Other than the word of your man-crush?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This event played out very fast and with little good information. -spence

8+ hours, with drones providing real-time info, and reports from our guys on the ground reporting real-time info.

Spence, 4 Americans were slaughtered.

Have you no shame, when it comes to defending Obama? Have you no shame? You're not better than that? Are you that infatuated?

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

Ok so Ansar Al Sharia just happened to be driving by the Consulate saw a protest about a YouTube video and said hey " We have a bunch of Guns Mortars and stuff" lets blow the place up and kill the Americans inside. Cripes what the hell else do militant Jihadists do for fun on a Tuesday Night?

There is a ton of rationalizing going on trying to support Obamas position on this no matter how you slice it. Hiding the nature of the attack for two weeks is crap! Leaving those guys out there to die is crap!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

if your Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs Chairman and head of Africa Command all think it's too risky based on available information what would you do?

-spence

The guys on the ground, the guys literally on the ground, asked for permission to go in and help, and were told to 'stand down'.

If Americans are under fire, and guys RIGHT THERE are asking to go help, and the SecDef (5 thousand miles away) says 'no', you want to know what I do? I fire Panetta, and look into bringing charges against him.

This was a group of 20 attackers. TWENTY.

[Jim in CT]

This gets better and better...

Atthe funeral for one of the killed former SEALS...according to the kid's father, Biden came up to him and said "'did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'"

Nice.

[spence]

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons.

They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo. There still to my knowledge is no evidence the attack was planned in advance.

As for the CIA, we really don't know the full transcript of what went on. The CIA dispatcher could have felt there was significant risk and they were walking into a trap.

Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons.

They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo. There still to my knowledge is no evidence the attack was planned in advance.

As for the CIA, we really don't know the full transcript of what went on. The CIA dispatcher could have felt there was significant risk and they were walking into a trap.

Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...

-spence

"They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo."

Based on WHAT? Please share this evidence.

"Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...'

Kind of like Obama loking into charges against CIA officers for waterboarding, even though they had letters from the Justice Dept saying that waterboarding was legal?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Based on WHAT? Please share this evidence.

The interviews with attackers saying they saw the protests in Cairo and decided to attack the consulate. Read up Jim.

Kind of like Obama loking into charges against CIA officers for waterboarding, even though they had letters from the Justice Dept saying that waterboarding was legal?

Hey bizzaro world alternate history guy...

1) Obama stated clearly there would be no charges against CIA officers for torture and none have been brought

2) The authors of the letters from DOJ (advising the technique was legal) were found by the DOJ's own internal review board of professional misconduct in their actions.

-spence

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by spence

The interviews with attackers saying they saw the protests in Cairo and decided to attack the consulate. Read up Jim

-spence

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Spence has reached an all time low. Now he is taking the word of "interviews with attackers" over the words and emails of americans staring imminent death in the face as the savages surrounded the compound.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

I think Spence has reached an all time low. Now he is taking the word of "interviews with attackers" over the words and emails of americans staring imminent death in the face as the savages surrounded the compound.

No, I'm simply assessing the information available. There doesn't appear to be evidence of advance planning, I've read there was no intel an attack was imminent and it was certainly reported that the video was cited as a motivator. If the Cairo protests didn't trigger the attack, where was the advanced planning?

An attempt to conflate this with reports that violence was occurring just to insult me is pretty pathetic.

If you're going to be an ass at least please make some sense.

-spence

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I'm simply assessing the information available. There doesn't appear to be evidence of advance planning, I've read there was no intel an attack was imminent and it was certainly reported that the video was cited as a motivator. If the Cairo protests didn't trigger the attack, where was the advanced planning?

An attempt to conflate this with reports that violence was occurring just to insult me is pretty pathetic.

If you're going to be an ass at least please make some sense.

-spence

My point is crystal clear. You just don't like what it infers. And it's telling how touchy this subject is. BTW after all the years in this forum you call me an ass. You are better than that.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Bronko

My point is crystal clear. You just don't like what it infers. And it's telling how touchy this subject is. BTW after all the years in this forum you call me an ass. You are better than that.

after all these years in the forum you actually think he is better than that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

My point is crystal clear. You just don't like what it infers. And it's telling how touchy this subject is. BTW after all the years in this forum you call me an ass. You are better than that.

Considering you inferred I'd take the word of a terrorist over that of dedicated Americans I could have chosen much more appropriate words than ass.

Out of respect for the years in this forum I was trying to be a gentleman.

You still didn't make any sense BTW.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Considering you inferred I'd take the word of a terrorist over that of dedicated Americans I could have chosen much more appropriate words than ass.

Out of respect for the years in this forum I was trying to be a gentleman.

You still didn't make any sense BTW.

-spence

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?

I'm citing what's been reported and what the CIA has referenced in their findings.

Were there emails as the attack was unfolding that reveal the motivation of the attackers? You guys are clinging to a simplistic narrative that assumes evidence which doesn't appear to exist.

-spence