Pentagon Responds To Questions On Benghazi Attacks

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brief the media at the Pentagon, Oct. 25, 2012. DOD photo by Glenn Fawcett

U.S. Knew Too Little To Deploy Troops To Benghazi: Pentagon -- Reuters

(Reuters) - The Pentagon defended its decision not to deploy forces to Benghazi, Libya, as soon as the U.S. mission came under attack on September 11th, saying it would have been irresponsible to put forces in harm's way without better information.

President Barack Obama's response to the attacks in Libya has been a contentious issue in the hard-fought U.S. presidential race, with Republican opponents raising questions about his administration's truthfulness and competence.

Obama supporters have in turn accused Republicans of making unfounded accusations in an effort to score political points from the death of a U.S. ambassador and the three others killed in the Benghazi attack.

Read more ....

More News On The Pentagon's Response To Questions On Why Did They Not Intervene When The US Consulate Attack Was Underway In Libya

Secretary, Chairman Respond to Reporters on Benghazi Attack -- US Department of Defense
Panetta: US lacked early info on Benghazi attack -- AP
Panetta: Fuzzy intel slowed Libya response after attack -- Stars and Stripes
Panetta Says Poor Intelligence Barred Forces to Benghazi -- Bloomberg Businessweek
Panetta: Benghazi attack occurred too fast for U.S. military intervention -- Washington Times
Pentagon: Benghazi attack too fast, too murky, too risky for U.S. military -- E-Ring/Foreign Policy
Poor Intel Held Military Out of Benghazi -- Military.com
Panetta: Too little information, too much risk to send military into Benghazi during attack -- Calgary Herald/AP
No reliable intelligence during Benghazi attack: US -- AFP
Military response to Benghazi attack questioned -- CBS
Panetta criticizes ‘Monday-morning quarterbacking’ on Libya attack -- The Hill

My Comment: I am disappointed with these answers .... I expected more. A drone was in the air watching the attack in real time. Specialists were in situation rooms in the U.S. watching the attack in real time. U.S. troops were 1-2 hours away. But even with all of these assets .... and the attack lasted for 7 hours .... no decision was made to even respond tells me that the rules of engagement are clearly not in place to respond to such events. The intel was not murky .... what was murky was that no one had the authority and responsibility to respond when the full dimensions of the attack were becoming known.