Skip to comments.Suddenly There's Talk Of A New Motive For The Benghazi Attack
Posted on 11/19/2012 1:32:03 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
As the spotlight shines on ex-CIA Director David Petraeus' biographer-turned-mistress Paula Broadwell, journalists have uncovered a speech in which she may have revealed classified information about the attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Broadwell told a Denver audience in October: "Now I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex [to the consulate] had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back."
The CIA adamantly denied her the claim, which would have been a violation of laws prohibiting CIA detention. It has also been suggested that Broadwell was confused when she made that statement.
A source of Fox News, however, corroborated Broadwell's claim today.
If there were ever a motive to attack Americans, it would be the disappearance of friends.
But it's important to note that the CIA operation was unknown to anyone else until it was exposed on the night of the attack and publicly acknowledged in congressional hearings on October 10. The consulate, on the other hand, was the official front for local CIA operations. If there were an original target to strike Americans, it would be the consulate, rather than the safe house.
Broadwell also said in her speech that intelligence shows "the militia members in Libya were watching the demonstration in Cairo and it did sort of galvanize their effort."
The following timeline is according to the CIA:
Once the fired up Libyans attacked the consulate at 9:40 p.m., the lives of Stevens and his colleagues were in immediate danger because the ostensibly pro-American police force, the February 17th Brigade militia, disappeared during the attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Was that the militia’s motives in attacking the British Ambassador and the Red Cross as well?
Ho Hum...so what else is new?
By all means! Lets find something else to distract from the only issue that matters to me.
WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE HELP???
Trying to make the attack sound spontaneous and connected in some way with the video.
She fails to reconcile a member of the consulate security seen photographing the facility with her spontaneous attack narrative.
This is from a week ago. ??
I’m here. :)
Well, I simply don’t think she just made that story up(about the CIA taking a couple militants into custody). She had been palling around with some pretty high level people to risk the consequences of fabricating such a thing. I believe she did become aware of some information to that effect.
I’m actually glad she said it, because there does need to be oversight of the Obama administration, including intelligence agencies.
Clearly they need to clear up that MISUNDERSTANDING.....
...the rats need a new red herring.
WHO gave the order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?
WHY were they left to DIE?
WHY were we LIED to?
"...if he ever finds out about the arms smuggling, he'll go over the edge"
like a car named Nova?
I think they were trading terrorists for anti-aircraft weapons.
Al Qaeda figured it could get both since there was no security.
Hell, I like the old motive. The video. You know... the excuse Obama and Rice kept repeating ad nauseum for days after the attack.
It must have been that video that sparked the rape and murder of our Ambassador and killed 3 other Americans. That’s what our leaders said, right? Again and again.
And, surely they wouldn’t lie, right?
That is the key question, for sure.
But how come we are learning more from the General’s ho than we are from the White Hut?
How come Broadwell had more classified top secret intel than the Freaking Pentagon?
If you then ask why might that be interesting then i would point to several threads ...(If I can find them all again).
There is another one ....but I need to find it.
Americans were under attack, for whatever reason, for more than 7 hours. They resisted and called for help. For some reason, help was denied and they were left to die. WHY was help denied and WHO denied it?
Why the CIA explanation of a terrorist attack was changed to a "spontaneous demonstration", and why there was an attack at all are questions to be answered for the record, but they are diversions to muddy the water and protect the guilty.
Obviously, they all had this information. It was simply that they didn’t get the cover-up memo out to her in time.
But I am slow ...so I pnged you before I knew you were here...oh rats...I am such a pest ...with all this pinging stuff.
First this block buster tid bit out of the report below, which has flying under the radar:
"According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier."
Now back to the Fox news story:
Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack
By Jennifer Griffin, Adam Housley
Published November 12, 2012
Biographer Paula Broadwell could be facing questions about whether she revealed classified information about the Libya attack that she was privy to due to her relationship with then-CIA Director David Petraeus.
At an Oct. 26 speech at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on the same day that Fox News reported that the rescue team at the CIA annex had been denied help, Broadwell was asked about Petraeus handling of the Benghazi situation.
Her response was reported originally by Israels Arutz Sheva and Foreign Policys Blake Hounshell.
Broadwell quoted the Fox News report when she said: The facts that came out today were that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements."
Broadwell went on to explain more sensitive details from the Benghazi attacks, particularly concerning what the real cause might have been.
Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted.
In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIAs Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.
A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.
Broadwells affair with Petraeus was likely known to Holly Petraeus, according to family friends. The FBI reportedly knew about it months beforehand and White House Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan reportedly was aware that there was a relationship as early as the summer of 2011.
The White House strongly denied that Brennan was aware so early.
It is irresponsible and flat out wrong for Fox News to run an anonymous, unsubstantiated, and blatantly false accusation, as Mr. Brennan was first made aware of the issue last Wednesday," spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Broadwell, whose affair with Petraeus reportedly ended earlier this year, continued to serve as an informal spokesman for the CIA director. She suggests in her Denver speech that Petraeus knew almost immediately that the attack was a terror attack -- possibly to free militia members.
Still looking for other threads.
“militia members in Libya were watching”
Where? In a movie house? The mayor’s office? Down by the port? Next door to the embassy?
More smoke and mirrors, as if Broadwell wasn't capable of covering for Petreaus running a gun-running operation. She's an innocent victim caught in a crossfire you know ;-)
I thought this at first, and it is a possibility, but I think it’s too complex.
THE TESTS OF TRUTH
1. Logical consistency.
2. Agreement with experience.
3. Economy of explanation.
The Russian/Syrian angle takes a lot of time to explain. Look at what Erik Latani (sp?) wrote above. That is a simpler explanation.
Thanks Ernest. Anything to shift blame from the darling of the Partisan Media Shills.
There has been nothing “new” reveled that has not been brought out weeks ago. The rags all take a shot at how they want to present things. Same goes for the idiot box goons.
Now that makes sense....had not seen that thought before....