Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 11/12/2012 3:44:06 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2958447/posts



Skip to comments.

Did Petraeus mistress reveal new Benghazi details?
Foreign Policy ^

Posted on 11/11/2012 9:30:46 PM PST by Arthurio

Did Petraeus mistress reveal new Benghazi details?

Posted By Blake Hounshell Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 9:56 PM Share So here is a bizarre twist in the David Petraeus resignation saga.

Paula Broadwell, the biographer revealed as the woman having a secret affair with the now-former CIA director, gave a talk at the University of Denver on Oct. 26 in which she appeared to reveal sensitive, maybe even classified, information about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The most interesting revelation is her claim that the CIA was holding several Libyan militia members prisoner, which may have prompted the attack. (Though she also sought to explain the Obama administration's initial view that the attack was linked to the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Islam polemic that sparked riots across the Muslim world.)

[UPDATE: The CIA has denied holding prisoners at the annex, according to the DailyBeast's Eli Lake.]

She also said flatly that forces at the CIA annex had requested backup from a special Delta Force group she called the CINC's in extremis force. It was not clear whether she was basing her comments on an Oct. 26 Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, or whether her information came from elsewhere. (Griffin refers to it as "Commanders [sic] in Extremis Force," but does not mention Delta Force or any Libyan prisoners.)

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: petraeus

1 posted on 11/11/2012 9:30:48 PM PST by Arthurio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

Interesting!


2 posted on 11/11/2012 9:32:37 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio
The most interesting revelation is her claim that the CIA was holding several Libyan militia members prisoner, which may have prompted the attack.

Hardly a revelation. There were numerous press accounts of it several weeks ago.

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack October 26, 2012

According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.


3 posted on 11/11/2012 9:36:58 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Wow... What if she was Fox News’ original source?


4 posted on 11/11/2012 9:38:50 PM PST by Arthurio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio
[UPDATE: The CIA has denied holding prisoners at the annex, according to the DailyBeast's Eli Lake.]

Other than the fact that the CIA can be counted on to lie in any case, they have only denied holding prisoners at the annex. Which leaves a lot of the rest of the Earth un-denied as possible locations for these alleged prisoners. Maybe it was across the street from the annex. Maybe it was one block over. Maybe it was in the secret bunker underneath the annex, which, technically, is not "at the annex".

5 posted on 11/11/2012 9:40:56 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

Fox News?


6 posted on 11/11/2012 9:43:38 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I was under the impression from various accounts that the three Libyans were captured DURING the attack, and were turned over afterwards, then ended up in Turkey or Tunisia because they were’t Libyan.


7 posted on 11/11/2012 10:14:12 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: piasa

The only part of that that I know anything about is that they were captured during the attack. By necessity they were turned over during, or at the very end of, the attack because all of our surviving personnel left. I was under the impression they were turned over to the Feb. 17th Martyr’s Brigade and then released by them.


8 posted on 11/11/2012 10:18:56 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

If Petraeus is any kind of a man and has any decency left, he will go to that hearing and spill his guts on Benghazi. If he can’t do that for those men who lost their lives and for their families—then Petraeus is a worthless coward parasite.


9 posted on 11/11/2012 10:23:34 PM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

It used to be that West Point valued honor.


10 posted on 11/11/2012 10:58:08 PM PST by Best and Brightest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

Sounds like the general has been talking too much.


11 posted on 11/11/2012 11:26:13 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Gen. P. saga ping.


12 posted on 11/11/2012 11:38:38 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
. . .the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Read that; 'then' but did not think to wonder; at that point; 'who' forced the 'handover'. The Libyans; or our CIA?

13 posted on 11/11/2012 11:48:37 PM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cricket

I didn’t think about it. I figured circumstances forced them to. Too few hands to fight too many attackers. Preparing to evacuate at their first opportunity. How did they get away after Doherty and Woods were killed anyway? Seems like the attackers were gaining the advantage at that point.


14 posted on 11/11/2012 11:52:32 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Do you think the only ex Special Forces guys at Benghazi were Woods and Doherty? I don’t think so.

As for kidnapping some Libyans or whatever they were, I don’t think so either. If Obama refused to send in air support, do you think he would approve of taking prisoners out of Libya?

I wonder if the people who attacked us were being trained by us similar to what is happening in Afghanistan.


15 posted on 11/12/2012 12:00:15 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
Do you think the only ex Special Forces guys at Benghazi were Woods and Doherty? I don’t think so.

I don't think so either but when two are killed you have two less.

As for kidnapping some Libyans or whatever they were, ...

I wouldn't call taking prisoners in a firefight 'kidnapping.'

Obama refused to send in air support, do you think he would approve of taking prisoners out of Libya?

No. That's why I cited their evacuation as a reason to turn them over to the Feb. 17th Brigade. I don't think 0coward had anything to do with the decision. I don't think he bothered to watch or listen to what was happening.

16 posted on 11/12/2012 12:11:05 AM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Personally, I don’t know why you wouldn’t just kill them, but we don’t know who they were. Some might consider taking citizens of another country prisoner when you aren’t really supposed to be there kidnapping. But I really don’t know what I’m talking about. Hah


17 posted on 11/12/2012 12:15:49 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

she spills the beans on Benghazi, not just that they were holding terrorists but that they weren’t sent help. Sounds like she was angry that the Obama administration was trying to have Petreus take the blame for the failure to rescue the guys (and indeed, his “resignation” is timed to suggest they want to keep him from talking). so she spilled the beans...

call it a preemptive strike. Too bad no one noticed her speech on youtube before the election.


18 posted on 11/12/2012 1:05:03 AM PST by LadyDoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio
Too Bad ZERO ain't a Republican. That would be the only way we would get any answers.
Any answers on Fast & furious?
19 posted on 11/12/2012 1:21:28 AM PST by DeaconRed ("Don't Dream, It's Over" - Crowded House - Best describes current situation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

It’s actually called the Combatant Commander In Extremis force. The CI is a direct action counterterrorist group made up of specops guys; the unit is attached to every Special Forces group. When the call went out from Benghazi, it would have been picked up by Tripoli and sent to the White House Situation Room, Langley, and to AFRICOM (CENTCOM Africa).

That distress call should have triggered the AUTOMATIC deployment of the CI unit, as they are not only REQUIRED to respond but also to maintain a “hot ready” status - planes fueled and on the tarmac, gear ready to go - so that they can respond immediately... meaning 25 minutes until they are in the air and en route.

The CI assets are about a 2-hr flight from Benghazi, but we could have had close air support on station within about 45 minutes.

The only reason that the CI force would not have deployed, and that the air assets were not ordered in (or were recalled) would be if they got an order from the WH or State (which would have originated from the WH due to cross-border authority) to do so... which is why the CIA has already said they gave no such order.


20 posted on 11/12/2012 3:09:20 AM PST by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

The Broadhead video on Brietbart tells it all. When the $hit hit the fan, the White House was frozen with fear because multiple demonstrations were occuring and the White House was afraid that a military response to Benghazi would result in additional deterioration at other embassies.

In 1985 the SPETNAZ reacted forcibly to the killing of a Soviet Diplomat in Lebanon. One can only hope that we are doing something about Ambassador Stevens that will provide an appropriate message.


21 posted on 11/12/2012 3:34:59 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine's brother (CBC, just another bunch of jive a$$ street corner hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson