Skip to comments.Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?
Posted on 11/12/2012 9:39:59 AM PST by Seizethecarp
I can only imagine three possible explanations, all of which should be taken with many grains of salt:
1. Intelligence from faraway conflict areas can be hazy, and the story got honestly confused. Who knows how long or convoluted the chain of information was from Benghazi to Broadwell, whether or not it went through Petraeus, and its not hard to imagine a misstatement or mistake getting amplified.
2. She made it up or exaggerated some other piece of information, possibly including the name-dropping implication of Petraeuss knowledge, either deliberately or mistakenly.
3. The story is true, and she let slip what had otherwise remained a remarkably well-kept secret from the Benghazi incident, which has been characterized by weeks of leaks. If true, it would raise further questions about the CIAs efforts to maintain necessary levels of security.
I could be missing other possible scenarios, but all of these further raise the concern that, even if Petraeus did not allow classified intelligence to be compromised, his relationship with Broadwell may have heightened that very serious risk.
The full story of Broadwells access to Petraeuss world at the CIA is still not clear, but it appears to have been intimate, perhaps problematically so. The Wall Street Journal now reports that FBI investigators found classified documents on her computer. That Petraeuss relationship may have jeopardized sensitive intelligence would seem to remain the strongest case for his resignation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
CONFIRMED: US Was Holding Prisoners at Benghazi Annex (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, November 12, 2012, 11:24 AM
#3 has to be broken into at least two possible scenarios
A) they had two prisioners before 9/11
B) they captured two enemy who became prisoners during the battle
I view those as very different situations.
Obama CIA Prison? Now THAT fact would have depressed the turnout of the DUmpster dim voters. LOL.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
I think I remember reading an article from the Libyan side of things that said that they had taken prisoners, but were forced to release them before they could escape to the airport.
I don’t think we should think of this as a “prison”. It’s more likely to be an interrogation center....like all the others that the CIA managed after 9/11 (remember, Poland and the other twenty-odd countries that we used for such actions). Libya is one of the few countries left that wouldn’t care if we ran an interrogation center on their soil.
This is likely the reason why everyone refused to talk more on the death of the ambassador...there’s a flood-gate of things that they’d have to admit to in public....unrelated to the killing of the ambassador. I would suggest we are all thinking small and in a vastly different direction from what actually was going on there.
I haven’t stopped for hours and I still can’t keep up. Whew.
Yes. 2. They turned them over to the Libyan ‘government’.
ROTFLMAO. To listen to the news today you can see the Dems throwing
their own under the bus .
Sit back, git the popcorn, and enjoy.
Because she read about it in Al Jazeera?
Does she have a security clearance? Is it her assigned computer?
This sentence needs to be parsed carefully.
1. the annex had Libyan militia prisoners
2. the attach on the consulate was an effort to get these prisoners back.
But the initial attack was the attack on the consulate (not the annex where she says the prisoners were held), so the consulate attack would have occurred _before_ any additional prisoner may have been taken in that attack and taken to the annex to be added to the previously held prisoners, if her statement is true.
This would have been known to all those who tried to blame the attack on the video, if true.
Broadwell had a security clearance and knew the rules, so the words “I dont know if a lot of you heard this, but” should never have come out of her mouth unless she was mentally impaired for some reason. She must have had some basis for thinking that this was declassified.
That’s why, when I first saw the video to mark the time for a ping, I said then that she didn’t seem to know what she was talking about. There were TWO separate battles at that compound that night.
My recollection is the same as yours as far as yours goes, the report I read wasn’t a Fox report it was from the Libyans who worked security and they and the US forces that came in from Tripoli captured two of the attackers. The report I read said they later turned over to the Libyan government.
As I recall the Libyans checked them out and found they were not Libyan and deported them to Tunisia or Turkey. These were probably the guys who were associated with Al Qeada in Iraq.
I’ve got the report in here somewhere and will try to find it to see if my recollection is accurate.
The terrorists that very day said the initial attack on the mission, was revenge for al Libbi’s killing.
The us or liyan security probably captured some of their guys in that initial attack and they ended up in the annex when the survivors moved to that, which is why people last night were thinking the entire thing was about a hidden interrogation center or something and these prisoners had been captured long before. Looks more like they were captured in the first firefight, as the Libyans originally said. I think there was a photo of someone with their arms bound behind their back being taken out among all the other tapes that night.
The administration is expanding GITMO.
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.