This is what a retired Lt. Col. said on Rush Limbaugh's show last Friday. The Lt. Col. was highly informed of protocol in this region of the world. Rush asked what the directive is in the event that the POTUS or SecDef cannot be reached. The Lt. Col. said that the standing orders are to protect American lives. Rush then asked the clarifying question: if a rescue mission didn't take place, then someone had to give the order to stand down. The Lt. Col. said "yes" and clarified that that authority rests with the CinC or SecDef.
But you raise a good point. The details of the standing orders were not presented. Crossing into a foreign country would seemingly be above what a regional General is authorized to do; this would also seemingly be above the authority of the SecDef. This would come from the POTUS only, but only with the consulation of the SoS.
Logically, Obama would have to give the authority for a rescue mission. But the authority to stand down and not offer assistance could come from Panetta.
Which is how the statement is parsed. Obama and the White House didn't refuse a request for assistance. Just as the statement says. However, Obama didn't authorize a rescue mission. Which is what is missing from the statement.
“The details of the standing orders were not presented. Crossing into a foreign country would seemingly be above what a regional General is authorized to do; this would also seemingly be above the authority of the SecDef.”
That was kind of my thinking. All the President has to do is nothing. And the rescue mission is impossible. So, if you parse it carefully, he did not “refuse” a request. That would take some action. He just did nothing. In a very narrow sense, that statement is true. And, he can order US troops to save lives (per his earlier claim). But without the cross-border authorization, the former order is meaningless.
That still doesn’t explain the “stand down” orders the Seals got.
A lot of this is still speculation.