It’s unclear(to me) whether Doherty was there originally as part of security for the CIA annex or came later as you indicated from Tripoli. Regardless, who told Woods and others to stand down when they wanted to go to the consular base to rescue the inhabitants?
Petraeus claimed it wasn’t him, but who was responsible for the CIA? Wouldn’t it have been Petraeus? I get the “feeling” that whoever told them to stand down did not want the terrorists making it back to the CIA annex. Their cover would have been blown at that point. The fact that a few did ignore an order(s) is what led the terrorists back to their annex, and indeed, their cover WAS blown. So whoever knew this would happen, why didn’t they also make sure they would survive the eventual attack with manned drones, with a quicker QRF from Tripoli? If Petraeus is clueless about what went down that night...WHY is he clueless?
His involvement or lack of involvement makes no sense.
A couple of notes IMHO might be worthy consideration:
A) Is the publicly recognizable CIA chain of command actually the intel chain used by the NCA?
1) Obama attends very few of his intel briefings.
2) Dir of the CIA is politically appointed and might routinely be a 1-3 yr post.
3) Intel ops by their nature must endure with wherewithal for periods longer than their adversaries, say 4-40 yr periods.
4) Since Clintons have been involved at national level politics, has the CIA leadership controlling the processing of intel been controlled now at a lower level by liberal leaning analysts having ulterior motives?
5) If so, this might nicely explain why Obama doesn’t pay much attention to either his intel briefings and why Petraeus was allowed to be the Director,...a figurehead which was disposable, when convenient, without threatening their intel resources upon which they actually relied.
B) POTUS doesn’t think like a Christian
1) His interpretation of justice is confused with vengeance without due process.
2) He will have an anti-Israeli leaning.
3) He already has won the 2nd term, though not yet inaugurated.
4) Throughout his life, he has been given all his worldly success with minimal effort or competition. When he has competed, he has done so as an accusatorial adversary. He tends to associate his victories with that expression of his volition.
5) Whenever he has won a position he has sought, he never seems to advance society in that position, but meanders towards something else to satiate his lust for power.
6) He likely will not be satiated by US level political achievement. He will seek more power on the world stage.
7) If Egypt and Libya were being attacked on 9/11/12, why would his response to a briefing of that situation lead to him not taking active measures on either situation, but calling Nethanyahu for an impromptu discussion?
C) Regarding CIA Annexes
1) Watching public perceptions of the CIA underworld, a movie called Safehouse was recently released.
2) The movie portrays CIA BlackOps, where one side of the CIA will kill another side, and neither know whats going on except by that which is provided them by others, or their own selfish interests.
3) What evidence do we have Benghazi wasn’t a BlackOp gone bad?
4) What do we know that indicates Benghazi may have been intended to appear like a BlackOp gone bad?
5) If wasn’t a BlackOp, why hasn’t every foreign Tom, Dick and Harry attacked other CIA networks?