Risk aversion has been the singular characteristic of military policy since at least Mogadishu and arguably since our withdrawal from Vietnam.This is the argument Panetta is hoping everyone will have, though. He is hoping that his comments will now get everyone on the conservative side up in a tizzy saying "Damn the risk, we should have done something!" and the liberal side in a counter argument consistent with their historical dove-like posture. But this argument is a distraction. Panetta has admitted that either they knew it was a sophisticated attack or they were not sure that it was not a sophisticated attack. If that is the case, then they CANNOT come out three days later and say for the next two weeks that they know what caused it and it is a video that sparked a spontaneous demonstration!
Of course they can, and they did. It's all lies of course, but governance by lying has been the hallmark of this Administration. In this case, they don't care if the truth comes out so long as it occurs after Election Day. The walls are crumbling, but they still have Hurricane Sandy. At least they have that going for them.
Panetta’s actions can always be understood in light of his history in the Senate of being an anti-military democrat hack. Since Obamuzzie’s goal is reduction of the military Panetta is an appropriate choice. What’s disgusting is watching him try to “talk a good game “ of defense.