Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've heard all the usual stories: A video, a planned terrorist attack, Petraeus' affair with a reporter.
One of these might contain a clue about what the coverup was really about:
Libyan terrorists had been captured by the CIA and held for months at the CIA compound near the consulate in Benghazi. And when terrorists attacked the consulate on Sept. 11, it was an attempt to get those prisoners back. Likewise, earlier attacks for the last year, were also about getting the prisoners back.
Secretly capturing and holding such prisoners, is a violation of U.S. law. Did President Obama know about it? Did he authorize it? Is this why he insisted for so long, that the attack was the result of a video and not a planned terrorist attack?
If true, then CIA Director Petraeus certainly knew about it. Cold this be why Democrats were so eager to announce he would not be testifying before Congress this week, about the Benghazi attack? And why they are so reluctantly changing their tune in the face of a storm of inquiry?
The coming testimony, especially if Petraeus participates, should be very interesting.
Sex Scandal Reveals Why There is a Benghazi Coverup
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall
Nov 13, 2012 11:57 AM EST
It isn't the affair itself that gives us more information, but the affair bringing attention to words spoken by Broadwell in Denver on October 26. She said the CIA was holding prisoners at the annex in Benghazi and Fox News has confirmed with another source this was the case.
[Paula] 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.”
This explains two things. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi was being repeatedly attacked because prisoners were being held and because President Obama signed an executive order in 2009 banning secret CIA prisons, they had to find an alternative story to cover-up what really happened, hence the YouTube video.
(Full text of the articles can be read at the above URLs)
In the Oct. 26 report by Fox News mentioned by Paula Broadwell, there is a reference to the CIA compound capturing three Libyan prisoners, which they were forced to turn over to the Libyans during the attack.
Was the CIA compound under attack from the terrorists on Sept. 11, 2012? I thought it was the consulate that got attacked. The two buildings are more than a mile apart. As I recall, the CIA personnel at the compound, kept asking permission to go over to the consulate to help fight off the attackers, but were repeatedly refused permission to help, and so they stood down. Finally they disobeyed orders, and went to the consulate anyway to help rescue the American personnel there.
Were the three Libyan prisoners they turned over, captured on Sept. 11 during the attack? Or were they captured at an earlier date? When? And Where?
As I recall, the CIA personnel at the compound, kept asking permission to go over to the consulate to help fight off the attackers, but were repeatedly refused permission to help, and so they stood down.
Well you recall wrong since the two CIA contractors and former Navy Seals came from the CIA "compound" and others.
U.S. officials are using the details to rebut some news reports that said the CIA told its personnel to "stand down" rather than go to the consulate to help repel the attackers. Fox News reported that when CIA officers at the annex called higher-ups to tell them the consulate was under fire, they were twice told to "stand down." The CIA publicly denied the report, laying out a timeline that showed CIA security officers left their annex and headed to the consulate less than 25 minutes after receiving the first call for help
As for "cover up" yeah it is freaking brilliant to go on TV and announce to the world that those guys at the building across town are a bunch of CIA contractors who were seeing rushing off to the Benghazi consulate. Now everyone in town might have assumed that they were, but ain't the same as having official confirmation.
Why should I read page after page of irrelevant fluff, hoping somebody eventually hijacks the thread onto a subject I like?
Start a new thread ON the subject instead, is better, n'est-ce pas?
It's all intertwined, that's why it was posted there two days ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
