Answer the Questions

Tampa, FL -- This is the hometown of U.S. Special Operations Command -- at nearby MacDill Air Force Base. This headquarters dispatches our military's special operators -- Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines -- on missions in the most difficult and dangerous places on earth. It's also the place where "action officers" are burning the midnight oil -- but not necessarily planning new targets for our Navy SEALs. Apparently, a "good number" of SOCOM's staff are busy preparing responses to the batches of inquiries about what really happened in Benghazi, Libya -- before, during and after the terror attack on the night of September 11-12 that resulted in four dead Americans. Answers have been slow in coming.

Three days after the assault, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the FBI would investigate the attack as a criminal matter, not as an act of war. For reasons left to our imagination, the FBI didn't move fast enough, so the Obama administration appointed a special review board to develop a "full picture" of all that transpired at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

This accountability review board is being co-chaired by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and retired Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Investigating the murder of a U.S. diplomat is an assignment for which Ambassador Pickering is uniquely suited. When he was President Ronald Reagan's ambassador to El Salvador in the 1980s, Pickering was targeted for assassination. As a consequence of the threat, enhanced security measures were put in place to protect him. Apparently, no such steps were taken to safeguard Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his fellow diplomats in Libya. In the absence of answers, one can only wonder why.

The Pickering-Mullen panel supposedly will aggregate information received from SOCOM, European Command, Africa Command, the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, the CIA, other intelligence organizations and the State Department. If the White House is to be believed, the review board will produce a "rigorous" report when its "investigation is complete" and "hold accountable" anyone who "didn't do their job."

At the glacial rate things are moving, we may not know what really happened that terrible night in Benghazi until well after Mr. Obama's second inauguration. Maybe that's the idea. But if members of the O-Team believes the questions are going to go away just because he won re-election, they're wrong.

On election eve, the president claimed, "Four years after I took office, America's respect and resolve around the world is unquestioned." Yet,just hours later, Osama bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a propaganda broadcast to radical Islamists in Somalia, said, "(The United States is) defeated in Iraq and they are withdrawing from Afghanistan, and their ambassador in Benghazi was killed, and the flags of their embassies were lowered in Cairo and Sanaa." Now Fox News journalists Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge and a handful of others have uncovered facts that point to a possible cover-up.

Thanks to their intrepid digging for the truth, we now know that a classified cable from August 16 detailed vulnerabilities at the Benghazi facility that were identified by the State Department's regional security officer -- the official responsible for protecting diplomatic posts in North Africa. We also know that six weeks before the attack, Ambassador Stevens requested additional host-nation security protection from Libya's Foreign Ministry. And we know for certain that on the night of the attack, U.S. diplomats and CIA personnel in Benghazi begged for help that never came.

What we don't know is what -- if anything -- officials in Washington did about any of these and a host of other problems leading up to and during this debacle. Why, for example, was our ambassador in Benghazi -- without a security detail -- on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?

During a series of military assaults over more than seven hours against the consulate compound and a CIA facility about a mile away, at least two unarmed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and other sensors broadcast live imagery of the attacks to command centers in Washington. According to unnamed administration officials, there were no U.S. military forces or assets available to respond to pleas for help from the Americans fighting for their lives. But there are other reports of U.S. aircraft -- and armed UAVs -- that could have been dispatched to the scene. What's the truth?

The so-called mainstream media all but ignored the disaster in Benghazi in the weeks leading up to the November 6 election. Our enemies now gloat that America's "awe is lost" and our "might is gone." Members of both parties in Congress are finally demanding answers. They are right to do so.

The urgency to find out what happened in Benghazi is neither prurient nor political. An officer assigned here at SOCOM told me this week, "Everything that could go wrong in Benghazi did." That may be just one officer's opinion, but if it's even half-right, the facts need to be known now so steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood of it ever happening again.

Oliver North | November 09, 2012

"Oliver North"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......What does Rush say? How about Hannity?
You twits will never learn.

You mean, for those with their heads up their ass don't you?

North violated his commissioned oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That makes him a total traitor and a scumbag, so who gives a flying fuk what he thinks?
That lying SOB should be some bad man's boy friend.

While the rest of the world is going to work on jobs, the economy, and national security concerns...the right wing squawk box will continue to waste all its time and energy talking to itself about Benghazi.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, totally.

You, and those who think like you, are why Obama got re-elected.

Fish on...

Todd

No dumb ass, it's called being a traitor, which is a nonpartisan label we put on those that turn against our country.
Your a copy and paste expert, show where a Dem American traitor is now being quoted as an expert about anything?

Looks like he's marching a locked step with the rest of the Fox Fux. Just in case you missed my post in one of your previous threads, here's my opinion of the lowlife:

"As a Vet, I believe North would suck anyone's d!ck to get a 'click' on his website or a write anything to get his name in the news. He lied in hearings and will lie again. He's a media whore. It's all about the Benjamin's now. And that's all I've got to say.

No, what I'm saying is that Ollie should shut up. I'm also repeating my prediction from last week that while everyone else tries to solve this country's problems the right wing media, a handful of right wing idiot politicians, and a whole plethora of right wing moronic InterWebz copy and pasters will go after Benghaz instead.

Next they'll hire Kenneth Starr to go after the President about it.

Yes, they are that stupid. Yes, they would rather go on wild goose chases rather than work on problems that are affecting milliions of Americans.

Yes, they will.

Hopefully they'll keep it up for another 22 months or so and then another whole raft of them can be voted out of office for wasting our time. Again.

Fish on...

Todd

The problem with "looking for who fukked up" is that the right wing dimwits, including you and Ollie, don't care who fukked up...they want it to be the President's fault, and they want to use it to disrupt his Cabinet nominations.

They don't care one whit for the truth.

Fish on...

Todd

Traitor worshiping speaks volumes.

Who's quoting what she thinks?
And for that matter where is she now?
She had the good sense to just STFU.
The other glaring difference is she never lied to Congress about being a traitor.

"The other glaring difference is she never lied to Congress about being a traitor".

Okay, so I just want to understand IF my head is in the sand, or not:

Benghazi "issue" is two things:
A) Security requests came in, were ignored/lost/denied and later 4 people died -- maybe those security requests could have prevented it.

B) There may have been an attempt to minimize the Benghazi situation by reporting it as "spontaneous" (related to dimwit film) vs. pre-meditated.

If that's really the issues then

A) I'm fairly certain that every "disaster" story has this narrative. How is this unique? This was -- as disasters go -- on the small side. There's *always* monday morning quarterbacking on disasters... The bridge/levee that wasn't maintained. The dots that were not connected. But it's hardly surprising at all is it? Is our strategy to increase security everywhere that people ask for it? If that's the case, we'd never get in to see a seahawks game, or fly a plane. The realities of limited budgets collide with uncertain intelligence and general fears that the sky is perpetually falling. The result are some fine monday morning quarterbacking opportunities. Since Benghazi we've had HUNDREDS of homicides stateside, and those fired up about Benghazi -- if they were HALF as interested in what "security" requests people have made to address those -- would be more credible.

B) What am I missing on the spin here? This was some combination of uncertainty and spin in the early going. I guess what gets people fired up was its proximity to the election? But *IF* there were flat out coverup/lies told here -- how is this even remotely different than the flat out lies told on the campaign trail? If you view this through a political lens, do you hold your own candidate (and self) to the standard you're after here? We're in a twist about what was said for a week? Good god, Mitt and Barack campaigned for MONTHS.

Why this is the #1 story on Fox News, while Israel and Gaza are shelling each other, is beyond comprehension.

Not only did North disgrace the uniform of the US military, to this day he doesn't think he did anything wrong, please take note of those who agree with him .
Jane on the other had has admitted her mistake, in 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions.

Keerist, talk about dumbchits, Chuck E, Todd, and Illahee you are all full of chit. As a vet I believe that Ollie performed his role in the Iran/Contra affair and gave the Cinc a "plausible denial" window to allow him an out.
If you want to talk about traitors, let us not forget John Kerry, a
Democratic Presidential candidate. In 1972, in the face of the government's ruling he became an agent of North VietNam and was run by the Dragon Lady, one of the North
Viet Namese negotiators at the Paris peace talks.
He offered aid and assistance to the enemy.
Treason.

who's posting c&p's from jane fonda?

if the wackadoodles on the right want to see what a real national security f'up really is, google ollie north.

"Keerist, talk about dumbchits, Chuck E, you are all full of chit."

So now, since I thnk North is just another Fox douche, you attack me personally. We live in a classless society and for you to personally attack me for my opinion shows me how classless you are. Fvck you.

You're right Chuck E, you have no class. And the same to you.

Don't sweat, Illy, Chuck.

He gargles donkey balls. And North's balls too.

But I repeat myself.

Go kill yourself, Illy.

Chuck E said, "So now, since I thnk North is just another Fox douche, you attack me personally. We live in a classless society and for you to personally attack me for my opinion shows me how classless you are. Fvck you."

Chuck E, I thought that you might appreciate what a proper attack looks like.