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?