Sorry, 12 hours later.
Here's the timeline:
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/13 App G Attack Timelines.pdf
Stevens was killed in the initial attack on the Consulate, around 10PM Benghazi time on Sept. 11th (4PM EST).
At 12PM Benghazi time
the next day, the C-17 landed in Rota to pick up the FAST team. It sat on the tarmac until 4PM, when it took off for Benghazi.
Okey dokey. Why did it take so long for any help to be sent? First meeting convened at 7:30 PM? A consulate under enemy fire? And it takes 3 hours for a meeting to happen?
"The attack started at 9.42pm local time - 3.42pm in Washington. It was brutal, and prolonged. Calls for assistance began immediately and the first notice of the attack was distributed in Washinton atr 4.05pm, with the White House situation room among those involved.
But it says, it took hours for the White House to convene a meeting to decide what to do - by which time it was 7.30pm in Washington.
'In the four hours since the initial attack on the Benghazi Mission compound, the Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi, with help from the team from the Annex, survived the initial onslaught, located the remains of their fallen colleague Smith, franticly searched for Stevens, escaped under heavy gunfire from the Mission compound to the Annex, avoided an ambush along the route, and arrived at the Annex only to withstand and repel additional attacks there,' the report says.
'By stark contrast, in those same four hours, principals in Washington had merely managed to identify forces that could potentially deploy to Libya and convened a meeting to discuss those forces.'
The meeting include Hillary Clinton's State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills. It should have included the then vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral James 'Sandy' Winnefeld, but he said he could not attend because there was an official dinner at his residence.
Leon Panetta, the defense secretary, had ordered deployment two hours after the attack began, but the people taking part in the White House meeting 'felt the need to "work through" the assets'.
What happened next, the report, says, depends on whether you believe Panetta - who was adamant he had ordered deployment - or a series of other witness and minutes, who spoke about '"getting forces ready to deploy" in a future tense'.
'Another summary described the deployment of assets in response to Benghazi as "likely" and "possibly" that evening,' the report says.
One senior military official testified that forces had not been ordered to deploy but to prepare to deploy.
The report calls the cause of the failure to get properly-equipped forces to Benghazi in time a 'lingering question' and says the failure '—at best illustrates a rusty bureaucratic process not in keeping with the gravity and urgency of the events happening on the ground'.
Read more:
'Move on': Clinton dismisses damning House report on Benghazi
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter |
DailyMail on Facebook