I think Goldberg has it about right:
It seems obvious that Panetta is trying protect Obama from responsibility for the administration’s Benghazi response. I don’t think that works. The decision to outsource the call is still a presidential decision.
But there are two problems bigger problems with the Panetta doctrine. First, Panetta says they didn’t have real-time information. Uh, if having a live video feed and real-time reports from assets on the ground for hours doesn’t count as real-time information, what does? And if, as rumors suggest, the drones monitoring the situation were armed, the idea that the administration was trying to avoid some kind of “black hawk down” situation seems incomprehensible.
Which brings us to the second, I think bigger, problem with the Panetta doctrine…
…The “Panetta Doctrine” doesn’t pass the smell test and would appear to be a transparent attempt to excuse administration inaction in trying to rescue our diplomats.
The complete article is at American Thinker.
Perhaps no more glaring example of today’s media blackout is when NBC’s David Gregory cut off a guest who attempted to raise the Benghazi issue by promising to “get to that later” and then ignoring the issue for the rest of his Sunday morning news show. More important than even that though was a question raised during Fox News Sunday to Democrat Senator Tom Udall on whether or not the drones that flew over the compound in Benghazi during the attack were armed. Senator Udall refused to answer that question…