Foreign Policy

US officials watched the attack on Benghazi from drones, but chose not to mount a rescue operation.

"The revalations came a day after it emerged that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens repeatedly pleaded with the State Department to ramp up his security team in Libya -- requests that the Pentagon ultimately denied -- in the weeks, days and hours leading up to the terrorist attack that killed him and three other Americans, newly released cables have revealed.
Stevens, who was killed in the 11 September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, warned the State Department of a 'security vacuum' in Libya 'that is being exploited by independent actors' in one cable that described rapidly deteriorating security conditions.
'Islamic extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with impunity,' he wrote. 'What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity but rather targeted discriminate attacks.'"

This is what President Obama has turned Libya into by bombing Qaddafi's government out of power.

"The White House maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was a spontaneous mob upset about an anti-Islam video, even though it has now been revealed that they were informed within 24 hours of the attack that it was planned and carried out by militants."

I wonder why they thought they could get away with a cover-up like that. They knew the mainstream media would support them, but they should have realized Republicans and their media wouldn't, and when the people found out, it would backfire on them. One of the big questions I have about this attack is the time. Apparently over 100 militants attacked. They had mortars and RPGs. But they're were only about 10 guys inside, yet every report claims something like this:

"The compound came under heavy mortar and gunfire during the attack, which lasted several hours"

Why would it have lasted several hours? Maybe the attackers were ultra-conservative, but I'm skeptical.

"The briefing from the station chief was written late Wednesday, 12 September and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
Yet on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said 'demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.' "

So Petraeus intentionally misinformed Congress as part of the cover-up.

"Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
'How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know,'he said. 'That raises suspicions that there was political motivation.'"

I'd say. The article does not tell us why no rescue attempt was mounted. In fact, it never mentions it after the first line. I want to know the answer to that question. If this attack really lasted hours, it might have been successful. Why didn't they at least bomb the attackers? Air support might have repelled them.