Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:20 AM

Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline, defends response

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Pentagon leaders knew of the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an hour after it began, but were unable to mobilize reinforcements based in Europe in time to prevent the death of the U.S. ambassador, according to a timeline released on Friday.

Senior defence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected criticism accusing the Pentagon of failing to move quickly to send reinforcements to relieve the consulate or using armed aerial drones to fire on the attackers.

"The Department of Defense acted quickly after learning of the incidents unfolding in Benghazi," said one official, adding that Marines, special forces and other military assets had either been employed or put in motion during the attack.

"Unfortunately, no alternative or additional aircraft options were available within a timeline to be effective," the official added.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/10/uk-usa-libya-pentagon-idUKBRE8A903X20121110

14 replies, 2409 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

14 replies	Author	Time	Post
Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline, defends response (Original post)	dipsydoodle	Nov 2012	OP
The insanity will not stop. It has been shown and said time again what happened, yet they still do	still_one	Nov 2012	#1
My conspiracy theory nut brother-in-law	Sugarcoated	Nov 2012	#2
that stuff doesn't need debunking, it needs a laugh track.	BootinUp	Nov 2012	#3
I heard all of what you just posted last night at a family gathering.	Mojorabbit	Nov 2012	#4
I love that response	Hayabusa	Nov 2012	#14
Looked, walked, talked like an October surprise, then after the election...	Festivito	Nov 2012	#5
I agree	Sugarcoated	Nov 2012	#6
I think that they think they really could get an impeachment out of this.	FVZA_Colonel	Nov 2012	#9
I guess they want to be creamed even worse in the next election	Sugarcoated	Nov 2012	#10
The election is over. Quit coddling the children and let the adults go to work.	PSPS	Nov 2012	#7
This contrived scandal will live and breath on fox	EmeraldCityGrl	Nov 2012	#8
They keep crying wolf	Sugarcoated	Nov 2012	#11
Uh, I'm Not Sure IF/Why the Pentagon is Totally Responsible	Iggy	Nov 2012	#12
PRIVATIZATION OF EMBASSY SECURITY IS BAD FOR AMBASSADORS AND BAD FOR AMERICA	CarmanK	Nov 2012	#13

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:23 AM

still_one (31,098 posts)

1. The insanity will not stop. It has been shown and said time again what happened, yet they still do

not believe. The resignation of petraeus because of an affair they said that wasn't the reason it was because of benghazi

I am convinced the people who watch fox are becoming mentally unstable

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:31 AM

Sugarcoated (4,704 posts)

2. My conspiracy theory nut brother-in-law

insists the President ordered forces to stand down and fired Gen Ham of Africom? He also believes, or thinks is likely, that President Obama used Patreaus affair as blackmail to pressure him to resign so he wouldn't have to testify, 500 retired flag-level generals and admirals are 'very unhappy with the actions of President Obama'.

I don't agree with this stuff, I'm just sharing it to debunk it.

Reply to this post

Response to Sugarcoated (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:38 AM

BootinUp (25,618 posts)

3. that stuff doesn't need debunking, it needs a laugh track.

Reply to this post

Response to Sugarcoated (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:45 AM

Mojorabbit (12,777 posts)

4. I heard all of what you just posted last night at a family gathering.

Plus how we should have killed everyone on the block from above while it was happening.

Reply to this post

Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:12 PM

Hayabusa (1,487 posts)

14. I love that response

I really do. It does seem to be the standard right wing answer to almost anything foreign. Can we bomb it?

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:16 AM

Festivito (12,285 posts)

5. Looked, walked, talked like an October surprise, then after the election...

Surprise! There's no surprise here.

I'm not surprised.

Reply to this post

Response to Festivito (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:21 AM

Sugarcoated (4,704 posts)

6. I agree

but the RW smear machine is revving up on this. I caught the FOX "all stars" and you could see the excitement in their eyes.

Reply to this post

Response to Sugarcoated (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:45 PM

FVZA_Colonel (4,074 posts)

9. I think that they think they really could get an impeachment out of this.

I would not be shocked to see them try.

Reply to this post

Response to FVZA_Colonel (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:15 AM

Sugarcoated (4,704 posts)

10. I guess they want to be creamed even worse in the next election

Do they ever learn?

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:25 PM

PSPS (4,200 posts)

7. The election is over. Quit coddling the children and let the adults go to work.

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:39 PM

EmeraldCityGrl (4,308 posts)

8. This contrived scandal will live and breath on fox

and RW radio. The rest of the MSM will be done with this after the hearings
and whatever investigations are required.

A deeply unfortunate loss of life, of four people that were fully aware of the
risks involved in their professions.

Anne Stevens dignified and thoughtful interview on CNN ( unfortunately with Erin Burnett)
is for me the final words that need to be said about this matter.

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/11/08/exp-erin-ann-stevens-libya.cnn.html

Reply to this post

Response to EmeraldCityGrl (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:17 AM

Sugarcoated (4,704 posts)

11. They keep crying wolf

so, they're losing what little influence they have.

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:08 AM

Iggy (1,418 posts)

12. Uh, I'm Not Sure IF/Why the Pentagon is Totally Responsible

for providing security at our Consulates?

why is the State Dept. off the hook?

IMHO, there's a huge lack of common sense here. if we have a consulate in a screwed up/UNstable nation like Libya, where there are still hundreds of guys walking around with an ax to grind.. and they are armed with military-style weapons--- why not have very beefed up security at our Consulate there??

and sorry, the "the repugs cut funding for security" doesn't supecede the need to protect our people in unstable nations. who's in charge here, anyone?

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:46 AM

CarmanK (648 posts)

13. PRIVATIZATION OF EMBASSY SECURITY IS BAD FOR AMBASSADORS AND BAD FOR AMERICA

The US took the step of privatizing security for Embassies around the world. It was bad judgement to have CIVILIAN personnel involved in a military action. They were unprepared and ill equipped to handle the situation. It was PPP and has to be changed. RISK assessments need to be made for security placement. EMBASSIES in hostile territories need MILITARY RESPONSES to attacks. WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED something from IRAN.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)