Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has offered up two contradictory explanations why there was no military operation to rescue U.S. officials who were under attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
During an October 2012 press briefing, Panetta claimed he was lacking real-time information at the time, and as a result of not having this information, he felt he couldn't send the FAST platoons, and other forces that were deployed in the region, into "harm's way" in "that situation". Hence, he made the decision not to send the forces to Benghazi.
However, during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2013, Panetta offered up a different excuse [prevarication]: There was no conscious decision, on his part, not to send forces to Benghazi into "harm's way". But rather, the reason why U.S. forces did not head out to Benghazi was because the attack at the U.S. consulate had ended before they could get off the ground. And, Panetta added, there was no reason to assume that the CIA annex would later come under attack - despite the fact that there were two attacks on the annex, more than four hours apart.
Two different, contradictory, explanations; par for the course, for this administration...
See the video below: