The Associated Press reports that intelligence officials are pushing back on the Fox News story from last week, which reported that CIA officials in Washington told its officers in Benghazi to stand down when the attack on the consulate began, and that requests from security officers for military support were rejected:
According to the detailed timeline senior officials laid out Thursday, the first call to the CIA base came in at about 9:40 p.m., and less than 25 minutes later about the team headed to the consulate. En route they tried to get additional assistance, including some heavier weapons, but were unable to get much aid from the Libyan militias.
The team finally got to the consulate, which was engulfed in heavy diesel smoke and flames, and they went in to get the consulate staff out. By 11:30 p.m., all of the U.S. personnel, except Stevens, left and drove back to the annex, with some taking fire from militants along the way.
By that time, one of the Defense Department’s unarmed Predator drones had arrived to provide overhead surveillance. …
The second CIA team headed to the annex, and arrived after 5 a.m., just before the base came under attack again.
That’s not military support; it’s CIA support. We already knew there was a second CIA security team sent in. The question is, who denied military backup? Fox reported that the security officers on the ground were asking for Spectre gunships and air support. The intelligence officers pushing back on the Fox story didn’t deny that these requests were made — in fact, they didn’t even mention them in the AP story at all.
AP also reports that the Pentagon had moved assets into place in Sicily, but couldn’t move them in without a request from the State Department and a green light from the Libyan transitional government:
As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.
The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops.
The timeline provided to the AP doesn’t contradict the crux of the Fox News report. Requests for military backup were made, and they were denied. The question is, who denied it? Did Panetta make the decision or the State Department? Was the Libyan government contacted about this, and did they reject it?
The White House also says President Obama ordered troops into the region in preparation for an intervention shortly after the attack began. Obviously, he would have the final say over the State Department and the Libyan government if he wanted to send them into Benghazi. Was he given updates on the situation, and told about the requests? If not, why not? If so, what was his response?
What urgent mission brought Stevens to that undefended out post in the first place? Negotiations to facilitate the gunwalking of heavy weapons–including, apparently, SAMs capable of knocking down civilian passenger aircraft– from the hands of Libyan terrorists to the hands of Syrian terrorists. n nAnd this is only one rumor in circulation absent forthright information from State or the White House. Here are some more questions: n nWas Stevens lured, Mafia fashion, to a meeting with terrorists and betrayed? n nHow could the Turkish Ambassador and his driver who left the compound a scant half an hour earlier have missed some sign of large numbers of heavily armed men gathering and making preparations for the assault? Were the Turks who were holding a shipload of Gaddafi's heavy weapons bound for Syria and who probably arranged Steven's meeting with the terrorists complicit in the betrayal? Did the Turkish Ambassador give thumbs up to the terrorists gathering not far from the compound to confirm that their target was indeed inside and entirely exposed? n nIn any event, the CIA has a great deal more to explain about its preparedness before it begins to explain its response. When our executive spooks are all done, they can explain intelligence failures before Khobar Towers, the African embassy bombing and a host of other cockups not least their wildly overvalued and over-budgeted agency's failure to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. n nNo one ever gets fired at State or the CIA. A top to bottom shakeup and a mass headrolling at State and CIA is long overdue. n n n nThe big secret State and CIA are keeping from the public isn't one of n n
David, the situation may be worse than you paint. According to at least one news source, the Benghazi consulate was effectively surrounded PRIOR to the time that the Turkish General Consul left (and possibly even before he arrived). Islamist militia (apparently Ansar Al-Sharia) had all roads around the consulate cordoned off. n nSo, how exactly did the Turkish diplomat manage to get through this cordon, particularly since he left so very close to the time of the attack? n nMy speculation is that the Turks want their own cat's paw in Syria and they see Libyan Islamist militia as the key. Sending Libyans to Syria along with the ample leftover munitions and weapons from Qadafi is just the ticket. One news report cited a Libyan vessel, Al Ensar, docking at a Turkish port just 35 miles from Syria and loaded with weapons. n nIt is possible that Stevens met with the Turkish GC in an attempt to stop the flow of militants and arms to Syria (giving him the benefit of the doubt) and when the Turk could not persuade Stevens to go along with the scheme, left the consulate and gave the Ansar Al-Sharia militants the green light on their attack, which occurred very shortly after. n nYes, this is all speculation, but it is not unreasonable, not outside the realm of possibility. And now Turkey has a free hand in Benghazi. Look for increased traffic to Turkish ports.
The big secret State and CIA are keeping from the public is not one of tactics but of strategy and policy. n nThe monstrously arrogant presumption of the self-appointed elites at the State Department is that the American people are reflexively violent and have to be kept from turning their violent rage on Islam. Our diplomats imagine themselves heroes for preventing open confrontation between Chrisandom and the Muslim world. n nExecution of this benighted policy requires that the American public be gulled and lulled into accepting every variety of outrage by Islamists. In the upside-down and around the bend view of our diplomatic corps, State's first priority is to lie to the American people. n nThus, the terrorists who assaulted our embassy in benghazi know exactly what transpired on on the night of the assault on our embassy. It is the American people who must remain in the dark. This to conceal not merely the details of the assault but more importantly, to conceal the details of our Ambassador's mission and the overarching policy that arms our deadly enemies. n nThe State Department has been negotiating away American power since WWII. First they did everything in their power to sell out America to a Soviet Union that State and CIA didn't perceive was long bankrupt and hollow at its core. Now they are selling us out to the Muslims. n nEvery American diplomat should be forced to read Pierre Boullet's The Bridge Over the River Kwai in which a high-minded and patriotic British colonel in a Japanese prison camp organizes British prisoners to demonstrate British superiority by building a superior railroad bridge from local materials for the use of the Japanese military. In the book, unlike the film, the crazy colonel's bridge is so well constructed it survives British attempts to destroy it and serves the Imperial Japanese purpose for which it was designed. n nBoullet's crazy colonel exactly describes our State Department and its nutty agenda.