As more details emerge about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, it is increasingly clear that President Barack Obama did nothing to save the lives of the four Americans who were killed that day. New reports indicate that time and military forces were available to launch a rescue or defensive operation. But Obama failed to act.

At approximately 9:40 p.m. local time in Benghazi on September 11, gunfire erupted outside the U.S. consulate. At that moment, Americans at a nearby CIA annex requested military support and approval to go to the consulate to help. Curiously, their requests were denied. According to Fox News sources on the ground in Benghazi, the Americans at the annex were twice told to “stand down.” It is unclear at this point who gave that order, but it was not the CIA, according its spokeswoman.

Shortly thereafter, at 10:05 p.m., an email alert from a State Department official notified the White House, “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email reported that “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.” By this time, the Obama Administration had full knowledge of the assault on the consulate, and an immediate response was needed.

The U.S. military could have provided that response. A Special Forces unit specializing in counterterrorism rescues was reportedly in Sigonella, Italy, at the time (480 miles away or just over an hour away by flight). Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships at three nearby bases also could have assisted in quickly dispersing the terrorists. But none of these assets were mobilized during the attack. The Obama Administration instead stood by and watched on Predator drone video feeds as four Americans died that day.

To be sure, immediate military action may not have saved Ambassador Chris Stevens or Agent Sean Smith—they died in the terrorist attack at the consulate building less than an hour after it began.

But Obama had more than enough time to save the others from any harm. The mortar attack that killed Agents Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty at the CIA annex did not take place until after 4 a.m.—almost 7 full hours after the first shots were fired.

Such inaction is inexcusable.

And just as deplorable is the Obama Administration’s concerted effort to mask the truth about what happened in Benghazi that night. Long after the assault, the Administration persistently characterized the terrorist attack as a spontaneous, violent outburst by an unruly mob protesting a ridiculous anti-Muslim video on Youtube.

For example, on September 16, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, appeared on five Sunday-morning talk shows to reinforce the Administration’s deceitful message. She said, “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States. The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack.”

On September 18, President Obama appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman and maintained that the Youtube video prompted the Benghazi attack. After talking at length about the offensive nature of the video, Obama said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one – the consulate in Libya.”

These repeated statements directly contradict information that the Obama Administration received just two hours after it was first notified of the attack in Benghazi. A State Department email sent at 12:07 a.m. on September 12 reported that a militant Libyan Islamic group in fact took credit for the terrorist attack. The email—titled “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack”—states, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

The violence in Benghazi was very much a premeditated attack that had everything to do with the United States—it was aimed directly at the United States. The members of had this to say about Obama’s spin:

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. . . . But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

Given the totality of the information thus far, the following is apparent: the Obama Administration magnified the anti-Muslim video to distract the American people from its incompetent nonresponse to a terrorist attack on the United States on the anniversary of 9/11. For in the midst of this attack, we can see how Barack Obama reacts under pressure. He dithers. He does not lead.

Visit Brian Vanyo at!

Previous articleJohn Douglass: Embodiment of a ruined election system
Next articleCharlottesville’s Most Wanted Episode 2: The Sign Thrasher
BRIAN VANYO is a political columnist, a board member of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, and the author of “The American Ideology: Taking Back our Country with the Philosophy of our Founding Fathers.” A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Naval War College, and the University of Virginia School of Law, he served in the U.S. Navy and is a veteran of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Visit him at


  1. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has been writing about Benghazi and asking hard questions of the administration. In other words, he been looking for the truth. He writes today that “While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts.” That won’t change the minds of the Schillings and Vanyos of this world, but it will matter to those who look at the facts before forming opinions.

  2. Ken, do you understand the difference between deliberate action and incompetent inaction?

    It’s clear that you read columns on this blog through your distorted lens about what you think “the Schillings and Vanyos of this world” believe, in spite of what we actually say.

  3. Yes, Brian, I noticed how careful you were with your wording, but it comes to the same thing. You accuse Obama of not acting when he should have, and you imply via FOX News, (whose “fair and “balanced” slogan might as well be self-mockery), that Obama is responsible for a supposed order that CIA forces not act. Ignatius, who’s been studying the event and includes the newly released timeline in his column, now says that that is not true.

    The notion that White House itself is responsible for directing the immediate military response to a surprise and unfolding attack, much less that it would intervene on the fly in such a situation, is preposterous on its face anyhow, but I waited until more facts came out before I posted.

    Ignatius doesn’t get the last word, obviously, and the administration does seem to have engaged in the sort of post-event spin all political entities unfortunately engage in. But “totality of the information thus far” indicates that your judgment was premature.

  4. One wastes much time bothering to argue with leftists who blindly vote and support – even defend – Obama. It matters not what facts sneak through the thick filters of the mainstream press and Obama apologists. Four white guys, probably on the conservative side (certainly the SEALs), were probably less important (oh, sorry, does that sound like Obama's race card, turned over? Or perhaps more true than the Obama version of race-baiting?). Perhaps there would have been a more concise description of actual events and questioning of the White House by the press and liberal commentators if the victims had been imagine if the four American killed had been black, female, latino, or asian? Certainly, had they been relatives of the liberal elite, there would have been a different response. We former police, soldiers, and homeland security guys know the truth, regardless of the apologists, like Kenny-boy. The military has been aware for 40 years that the left does not like them any more that it likes law enforcement or traditional/conservative Americans. It is what it is, which is why, in some form, parts of America will be putting daylight between themselves and the federal government, unions, and America-hating lefties. It's inevitable now – we don't need the left, but the left needs those people who will enforce the law and protect the country, and value the traditional America. Unfortunately, conservative and moderate Americans no longer see any need to continue the relationship – no offense, but, as noted, divorce is inevitable. It'll take a couple decades of receding involvement and creation of "zones of common economic activity" (common around the world now), but, eventually, approximately 30 states will separate from the liberal bastion states, and get healthy again. Nothing lasts forever, though the Constitution (uninterpreted) will last a very long time in those 30 or so states.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here