Panetta: Unclear early info slowed Benghazi response

WASHINGTONDefense Secretary Leon Panetta says the U.S. military did not intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because it was over before the U.S. has sufficient information on which to act.

At a news conference, Panetta lamented second-guessing about how the U.S. handled the attack in Benghazi on Sept. 11, which saw the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. He said the U.S. military was prepared to respond but did not do so because it lacked what he called "real-time information."

"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."

When pressed about the drone that had been diverted to the consulate that could have provided real-time information, Panetta said: "There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here."

Panetta also said he and senior U.S. military commanders felt strongly about being cautious, adding: "It was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was happening."

When CBS News correspondent David Martin asked whether they had forces on any heightened alert in that area because of the approaching anniversary, Panetta said they did.

Gen. Dempsey added: "And let me point out, it was 9/11 everywhere in the world."

Defense officials say a general alert had been issued to U.S. forces worldwide, but no special alert had been ordered for Libya because there was no intelligence predicting an attack.

• U.S. military poised for rescue in Benghazi
• Clinton urges caution on newly released emails detailing Libya attack
• Egypt identifies Benghazi attack suspect killed in Cairo

Play Video

U.S. military prepared for rescue in Benghazi

On the night of the attack, a team of American military commandos were sent from Europe to an airfield at Sigonella, in Sicily, Italy, putting them at least an hour's flight away from Benghazi.

The team, known as the Commander's In-extremis Force, was designed specifically for quick reaction to unforeseen emergencies. But U.S. officials say it did not arrive in Sicily until after the attack was over.

Even if the team had been ready in time, confusion about what was happening on the ground in Benghazi -- and State Department concerns about violating Libyan sovereignty -- made a military rescue mission impractical, officials say.

The confusion over the response to the raid, both militarily and with public statements from the Obama administration about it, has led the event to become an issue for the GOP in the run-up to November elections.

In addition to a House panel inquiry led by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, House Speaker John Boehner is pressing President Barack Obama for answers about the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Libya that killed four Americans.

Boehner sent a letter to Obama on Thursday asking whether he or senior administration officials had been personally briefed about security at the consulate in Benghazi by Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in the attack. The Ohio Republican also asked if military options were considered by the White House during or immediately after the attack.

Boehner insisted in the letter that the national debate over the incident shows that Americans are concerned and frustrated about the administration's response to the attack.

[wfw3536]

CBS please let folks know the truth about this situation, that the CIA in Libya requested military help 3 times and were denied 3 times while the several hour battle continued. The White House and State Dept were in contact real time with a drone overhead. The interview today of Trone Woods father on Fox News just makes a person sick to think that the military could have helped, but were denied by the Obama administration. The incompetence of this administration and the fact that 4 Americans did not need to die is incredible.

[rudolph32]

Really Mr. Panneta? A laser on the target and Americans pleading for help is not enough for you?

[Alliston1]

Mr. Panetta you are embarrassing yourself and doing a disservice to the military.
Unlike Chris Matthews I get a tingle up my leg not for Obama but for our brave men and women in the service of our country. Why? because they put their lives on the line on my (our) behalf. It is not my place but I am going to say this anyway. I do not think Panetta and the administration were speaking on behalf of our brave men and women when they decided not to come to the aide of our Patriots on the lame excuse that we don't send troops into harms way until blah blah blah. I bet our people would have answered the call without hesitation. Its who they are. Its what they do. Its Panetta and the administration who wanted to sit and watch. If there are service men and women out there who agree please reply. If I am wrong please also reply and I will shut up.

[gekkobear]

So the State Department WATCHES THE ATTACK WITH A LIVE VIDEO FEED FROM A DRONE FOR HOURS... but Panetta requires MORE intel than that in order to attempt to save Americans?

Ok, if LIVE VIDEO OF YOUR OPPOSITION FOR HOURS still isn't enough, under what hypothetical situation COULD our military have done something useful?

And if they're that useless, why are they overseas anywhere?

[whyisitclose]

Mr. Panetta, I know you're in a difficult position, but do you expect us to believe the greatest, most powerful country in the world doesn't have a SOP any better than that, when our credo is to NEVER leave anyone behind?

[-EmpireGeorge________-]

This is enough to make any true American sick to their stomach


Father of slain Navy SEAL, "Obama couldn't even look me in the eye, shaking his hand was like a dead fish"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-not-save-my-son_657782.html

[Real_Knowledge]

You've got to be kidding. Is it not the responsibility of the military to put themselves in harm's way to protect US citizens? There is no life and death situation where you will have all the facts in advance. That is what the military is for; to put themselves between us and them.
Can you imagine if the local police--who's responsibility it is to protect us locally--came out and said such a thing? Can you imagine them saying we didn't even come to the shopping mall even though there was a shooter because we didn't have enough information and we didn't want to put one of our local cops in harm's way? What a bunch of BALONEY.

[Moe1138]

As I have been saying for years, Panetta is as red as the blood flowing through my American veins. D-Bag as a U.S. Senator and is still a D-BAG to this very day. What do you expect? A loser in a losers "regime". Win-win.

[Nmarcus]

There are 4 issues that are significant: (a) Why did not the Administration provide adequate security for the Ambassador after it was requested by the Ambassador and his security staff? (b) Why did not the Administration send in the military to rescue the Ambassador after it was notified of the attack? (c) Why did the Administration falsely represent to the people that the attack was not a terrorist attack? (d) Why did the President falsely represent to the people that he had given all the facts to the people as soon as his administration became aware of the facts surrounding the attack? It seems pretty clear that the Administration engaged in wilfull misrepresentation and gross incompetence in its handling of the attack and death of the Ambassador and fellow Americans. It also seems apparent that the majority of news networks have chosen not to report on this matter in order to protect the President and his staff. In so doing, they have persuaded me that their coverage of this election is biased.

[VapeGirl]

Never have I seen so much BS anger regarding a terrorist attack. Want to discuss terrorist attacks. Let's go back to when Bush was president 9/11 or how about Reagan when we lost all the Marines in Lebanon 1983? Why didn't Reagan know that the attack was coming? You know what is worse. The fact that nobody says a damn word about the fact that Bush knew in Feb of 2001 that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US. He was given a report that said that an attack on the US was in the works. He sat on it. He was warned again in May of 2001. Again he sat on it. Then just a couple of weeks before 9/11, August of 2001 he was given another report that an attack was imminent and again he did absolutely nothing. Where is your anger for Bush's handling of 9/11? 3000+ Americans died that day. You should be demanding that Bush be investigated and brought up on charges for negligence. He was the man responsible for allowing the largest single attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Where is your anger for that?

[whyisitclose]

We are just a few days before an election that could saddle us with this incompetent regime for 4 more years. This Bengahzi matter will absolutely dwarf Watergate, and on top of dealing with the coming 4-year agenda Obama plans, we will have to be involved in an impeachment process, because this President will not do us the favor Nixon did, resigning to spare us the diversion. I won't even address all your Bush bashings, because you have provided no cites to back them up.

[Funemone]

After 9/11 if George Bush and his administration had spent two weeks on talk shows stating that the destruction of the Twin Towers was some sort of "Navigational Error" we can imagine the reaction.

This administration is incompetent.Period! They can't even get their stories straight.

The shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to save the one doesn't seem to mean much to this crew. If you are the lost sheep... they're not coming. You are doomed!