CIA denies Broadwell claim of “secret prison” in Benghazi annex

posted at 9:41 am on November 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

This seems like a pretty good reason to push the David Petraeus-Paula Broadwell affair from a boys-club peccadillo into a resignation-worthy event.  According to a transcript of a speech by Broadwell at the University of Denver the week before the election, Broadwell told an audience that the reason for the September 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate was neither a YouTube video nor a celebration of the anniversary of 9/11, but a prison escape for jihadis secretly held by the CIA in its nearby annex.

Late last night, the CIA denied this report of a secret prison in its now-abandoned Benghazi facility:

The Central Intelligence Agency denied charges Sunday that its annex in Benghazi, Libya secretly held a few jihadi prisoners until it was destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack. Paula Broadwell, the girlfriend then-CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus, made that claim during an Oct. 26 speech in Denver, Colo.

“I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually 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,” Broadwell declared during the speech, at the University of Denver.

“That’s still being vetted,” she added.

The CIA’s denial came just hours after Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news outlet, first published a partial transcript of Broadwell’s speech. By midnight Sunday, intelligence reporters with both The Daily Beast and The Washington Post were reporting and tweeting, respectively, that the CIA said her claim was false.

If it was still being vetted, as Broadwell claims, then how did she know about it?  Sources, apparently, and that certainly raises the question of whether her paramour either communicated or confirmed that to her.  Remember that, in the WSJ piece I linked earlier, the FBI conducted a second interview with Broadwell on November 2nd, the Thursday before the election, and seven days after that speech in Denver.

Broadwell’s allegation doesn’t make a lot of sense, though.  First, the terrorists knew where the CIA annex was; they attacked it with what appears to be a well-planned assault after they sacked the consulate.  Why not attack the annex first if that’s where the secret prison was, especially since the terrorists must have expected the consulate to get significant military support from the annex?  And why would the CIA hold anyone in Benghazi, where security had rapidly deteriorated over the preceding months?  Better to transport any detainees to Tripoli or out of the country entirely.  Of course, why would we have kept our consulate in Benghazi open under those circumstances, too, without enhancing security?

Either way, the speech might have forced the FBI and the DoJ into taking some action on Petraeus if they became aware of these allegations, and might have prompted a new investigation into Broadwell’s proximity to classified material.  If so, then the need for Petraeus to resign when he did becomes more clear.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Broadwell’s father, Paul Kranz, said that he is standing by his daughter ’100 per cent’ – and expects more details into the affair will emerge, suggesting it was part of some cover up.

‘This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out,’ Kranz told the New York Daily News outside his home in Bismarck, North Dakota.

‘There is a lot more that is going to come out. You wait and see. There’s a lot more here than meets the eye.’ Source

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Not to worry, I’m sure the most transparent administration evah will be forthcoming with the details so we can move on to more important matters…

Rufus on November 12, 2012 at 9:45 AM

And why would the CIA hold anyone in Benghazi, where security had rapidly deteriorated over the preceding months? Better to transport any detainees to Tripoli or out of the country entirely. Of course, why would we have kept our consulate in Benghazi open under those circumstances, too, without enhancing security?

Ed, you’re giving our government a little too much credit here. It’s pretty obvious at this point, CIA secret prison or not, that at minimum there was gross negligence and incompetence running rampant through this administration. Why anyone is surprised given the SCOAMF who’s at the top of the food chain is beyond me.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Does anyone think the CIA would own up to it?

This whole Benghazi affair, not only the death of 4 people, but also the Petraeus mess, will come to nothing. Why, because what would have been outrageous only five or six year earlier, will be met with the same apathetic reaction by the clueless voters who voted for more lies, corruption, racial divide, and vitriolic name calling. These people just aren’t interested. The 47% only want to keep the current and/or potential benefits coming their way at no expense to themselves. Yes, there is a 47% that exists and Obama is trying to make sure it becomes at least 51%.

iamsaved on November 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM

What this further illuminates is that we really need to get to the bottom of Broadwell…er…Benghazi and find out exactly what happened. I mean, if this broad is leaking this kind of stuff, that’s bad, I mean, really bad. That’s the kind of leak that people end up dead for saying.

BTW, I saw that video and took from it that there were 2 waves of attackers and that a few jihadis from the 1st wave may have been captured and the 2nd wave was launched to free them??? I don’t know. Either way, we need to get to the bottom of this and Petraeus’ testimony is vital to that end.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:48 AM

in the WSJ piece I linked earlier

As posted in a headline thread, that piece also said this.

On her computer, investigators found classified documents, the U.S. officials said

Who knows what information that woman actually “knows.”

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Good thing all this incompetence was kept from voters prior to the election…

changer1701 on November 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

37+ years of marriage. Countless deployments, training rotations, long nights etc…. I mean, Mrs. Petraeus has got to be furious at this. For pete’s sake, she stood by him for a long time–he had previously been shot –twice IIRC by his own men– during night training exercises. He also broke his pelvis in a parachuting accident in Laurenberg, NC back in 1999 or 2000. This lady has had a long hard road as an Army wife and this is how he thanks her????

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:52 AM

If only Killary didn’t have an important meeting with the prime minister of Fiji, she could testify before the investigative committee.

Bishop on November 12, 2012 at 9:53 AM

That’s still being vetted,” she added.

who the heck does she think that she is??? the State Dept spokesperson???

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:55 AM

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 categorically denied these allegations in response to a query by reporter Eli Lake: “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.” Source

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Why don’t we stop playing the political parlor games, and Congress just subpoena the whole lot of them, from the top on down, drag them all in before the committee, sit them all down together, and not one of them gets up for even a bathroom break until some very serious questions are answered?

pilamaye on November 12, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I think this woman has delusions of grandeur. She appears to be thirsty to be near the seat of power and uses all of her hotness to get there then brags about her insider access. This is very dangerous, a comment like that could get her thrown off a bridge either by our own government, or by the muslims.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:57 AM

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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/petraeus-mistress-may-have-revealed-classified-information-at-denver-speech/#ixzz2C1L9bPay

DEFCON Two….

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

… I mean, Mrs. Petraeus has got to be furious at this…This lady has had a long hard road as an Army wife and this is how he thanks her????

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:52 AM

She must know how Kristin Armstrong felt.

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I am reminded of in Iraq soon after Saddam lost power people where look in the storm drains for Saddam secret prisons. They would yell in the drain and hear someone yell back but that was just someone else looking and they then try to fit in the drain to find them. Saddam had secret prison everywhere and the so does the CIA or something.

tjexcite on November 12, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Anyone notice how the focus is no longer on Obama?

Night Owl on November 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM

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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/petraeus-mistress-may-have-revealed-classified-information-at-denver-speech/#ixzz2C1LTgAVz

scratch that …..set to DEFCON ONE.

Mr. Obama, please tell us what you know about the secret prison of Benghazi that you said you weren’t supposed to have…….

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM

She must know how Kristin Armstrong felt.

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 9:59 AM

yeah really.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM

If the security was too sparse for the average diplomatic corp, who was enough for someplace prisoners are being held? This is meant to be solved, it’s just meant to be so confusing that people stop trying to figure it out. Everyone will be sign on to the story that gels with their partisan views.

Cindy Munford on November 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM

What this further illuminates is that we really need to get to the bottom of Broadwell…er…Benghazi and find out exactly what happened. I mean, if this broad is leaking this kind of stuff, that’s bad, I mean, really bad. That’s the kind of leak that people end up dead for saying.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Too late to ‘suicide’ anybody now :)…

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Why should we believe them , they told us that it was a video.

Loose hips sinks ships.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Night Owl on November 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM

It is, if you connect the dots.

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM

This Broadwell lady sounds like a real nut.

Ward Cleaver on November 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

‘There is a lot more that is going to come out. You wait and see. There’s a lot more here than meets the eye.’ Source

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM

They’re out to discredit Petraeus. They’re worried. Petraeus knows something they don’t want exposed.

What kind of operation was it, actually, that was being run out of Banghazi? Gun-running… or something more?

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Oh yeah night owl

Just saw on newsbusters morning Joe calling andrea out that there is no way dear leader didn’t know about all of this post election

cmsinaz on November 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM

This is insane.

And “Broadwell”? C’mon, that sounds like a villainess name from a Bond movie c. 1963. I’m not buying it. I hear Geraldo is investigation a charge that she’s really Casey Anthony’s twin sister.

My alarm clock should be waking me from this nightmare at any moment now.

forest on November 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Why not attack the annex first if that’s where the secret prison was, especially since the terrorists must have expected the consulate to get significant military support from the annex?

Diversion and probing. They saw no reaction to their first move so the towelheads went all in an kicked CIAs but.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

This is insane.

And “Broadwell”? C’mon, that sounds like a villainess name from a Bond movie c. 1963. I’m not buying it.

forest on November 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Bond joked with Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale that her undercover name was Stephanie Bro@dchest, so you’re not far off.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I still believe that Obama was watching the taking of the Consulate transpire in real time, in the situation room.

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM

They’re out to discredit Petraeus. They’re worried. Petraeus knows something they don’t want exposed.

What kind of operation was it, actually, that was being run out of Banghazi? Gun-running… or something more?

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Gun running is almost confirmed I think. But a secret prison, interrogation and rendition facility, well…

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:13 AM

This Broadwell lady sounds like a real nut.

Ward Cleaver on November 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

That’s what I was thinking. And since she was in the military can’t she be court-martialed for blurting out military/CIA sensitive information? These people are making a mockery of our military.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I still believe that Obama was watching the taking of the Consulate transpire in real time, in the situation room.

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Yup , the event continued for 7 hours.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM

If there WAS/IS a secret CIA prison in Benghazi the liberals who just re-elected the president are going to go ape s#$t.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Gun running is almost confirmed I think. But a secret prison, interrogation and rendition facility, well…

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:13 AM

So what, such actions are good and proper these days, necessary even.

Maybe 1% of the leftists would take offense if this is revealed to be the case, the rest are too busy cooing over their new BarkPhone while standing by the mailbox waiting for their government check.

Bishop on November 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM

This lady has had a long hard road as an Army wife and this is how he thanks her????

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:52 AM

While I appreciate your empathy on the personal level, this is way bigger than Holly Petraeus. A LOT bigger! Like you said earlier, this is the kind of stuff that gets people killed.

texgal on November 12, 2012 at 10:20 AM

If there WAS/IS a secret CIA prison in Benghazi the liberals who just re-elected the president are going to go ape s#$t.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You mean like how they go ape sh!t over drone strikes, Gitmo, and air raidin’ villages and killin’ civilians???
/

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Before the Washington media destroy Broadwell. I want to know what she has to say, afterall, she HAD access to the most senitive info;

*Was their a secret CIA prison
*Why didn’t the CIA/military try to save our 4 dead people
*In realtime Obama/Miltary knew what was going on, Why did they say it was the video but a spontenous group that was the reason for the deaths

Broadwell will be destroyed, BUT SHE HAS THE ANSWERS TO ALL THE QUESTIONS. WE NEED HER TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS ON WHAT SHE KNOWS!

Danielvito on November 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I read the news and forgot all about my Vince Flynn novel….

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Is it my imagination, or is it awfully quiet around here?

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 10:25 AM

This Broadwell broad is, I read somewhere, a graduate of West Point. Duty, Honor, Country! The new model soldier. And the $300,000 or so we taxpayers spent on her education was pretty much flushed down the old toilet, wasn’t it.

Scriptor on November 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM

If this had broken before the election is there anyone who really thinks the news media wouldn’t have prefaced the story with “Petraeus, a long time favorite of GOP faithful and sometimes mentioned as possible nominee….”

Petraeus and Broadwell are West Point grads. They dishonored army traditions and lied to elected officials. Apply the same standard to them that an enlisted person would have applied. Pretty equation actually but for goodness sakes don’t make excuses for these two.

Bradky on November 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You mean like how they go ape sh!t over drone strikes, Gitmo, and air raidin’ villages and killin’ civilians???
/

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:22 AM

If true, it would explain the lies and cover-up wouldn’t it? Couldn’t have information like that coming out before the election.

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM

When Red cross runs out of a place, that is a pretty good sign situation is terrible. We still remained there without protection for personnel. And then with all over military prowess, we failed to respond even when state was watching the assault in real time. That is what needs to be investigated.

antisocial on November 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM

While I appreciate your empathy on the personal level, this is way bigger than Holly Petraeus. A LOT bigger! Like you said earlier, this is the kind of stuff that gets people killed.

texgal on November 12, 2012 at 10:20 AM

The damage to Holly is already done.
Her wellbeing now is no vaild excuse for king david to stay silent about benhazi.
He owes a lot of people to come clean.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:29 AM

There are reports that Kaddafi’s weapons were being funneled to the AQ rebels in Syria.

If true, might not the locals have wanted them to stay in Libya and attacked to procure them?

So the CIA was running guns to AQ, and the BATF was running guns to Mexican narco-terrorists.

Also read recently, probably in HA comments, that the State Dept never claimed to have a consulate in Benghazi. I mean, why would we? There’s no govt in Benghazi, it’s basically a breakaway province. That would be an ideal location however, for not being seen (by anyone who matters) transporting weapons out of the country.

Akzed on November 12, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Broadwell’s father, Paul Kranz, said that he is standing by his daughter ’100 per cent’ – and expects more details into the affair will emerge, suggesting it was part of some cover up.

‘This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out,’ Kranz told the New York Daily News outside his home in Bismarck, North Dakota.

‘There is a lot more that is going to come out. You wait and see. There’s a lot more here than meets the eye.’ Source
Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Nice that Daddy is standing by his little girl. Will he stand by her when she is charged with releasing classified information.?

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Nice that Daddy is standing by his little girl. Will he stand by her when she is charged with releasing classified information.?

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM

If she’s exposing a bigger scandal than sex, I think he’s right.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I still believe that Obama was watching the taking of the Consulate transpire in real time, in the situation room.

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Chooming with Snoop Doggy Dog and pointing at the screen saying “See that? That’s my boys – OGs for real.”

CorporatePiggy on November 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

“That’s still being vetted,” she added.

who the heck does she think that she is??? the State Dept spokesperson???

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Who knows what information that woman actually “knows.”

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

A former intelligence officer we must keep in mind that she probably has (had?) numerous sources and contacts that trusted her in addition to David.

They must feel awful right now too.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM

* As a

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Who knows what information that woman actually “knows.”

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

The real question is what information did she have a need to know and proper security clearance for.

Being an intelligence officer and “friend of David” does not entitle anyone to all information.

Bradky on November 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

If she’s exposing a bigger scandal than sex, I think he’s right.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

If I had been blathering classified info, my father would have turned me in.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Good thing all this incompetence was kept from voters prior to the election…

changer1701 on November 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Media did the right thing to not politicize Obamas horrid leadership failures…

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

If I had been blathering classified info, my father would have turned me in.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM

To the Obama regime?

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Media did the right thing to not politicize Obamas horrid leadership failures…

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

If you are referring to Petraeus don’t forget that even at HA his name was often brought up as a VP/POTUS pick for the GOP. Obama certainly has been inept but the selection of Petraeus was not a bad choice — the lying and deceit of Petraeus is the issue in this particular instance.

Bradky on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

To the Obama regime?

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

True patriotism is truly non-partisan.

Bradky on November 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Ed, you are forgetting your Saturday morning cowboy shows.

They attacked the consulate first to draw out the CIA guys from the annex, making the annex an easier target. You know, you men blast away and draw their fire while I sneak around behind them.

huckleberryfriend on November 12, 2012 at 10:46 AM

You mean like how they go ape sh!t over drone strikes, Gitmo, and air raidin’ villages and killin’ civilians???
/

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:22 AM

You’re right, what was I thinking. I recall too that when the president was elected they even stopped calling Patraeus Betrayus and Cindy Sheehan hasn’t been heard from in about 4 years either. Hypocrats.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM

And why would the CIA hold anyone in Benghazi, where security had rapidly deteriorated over the preceding months? Better to transport any detainees to Tripoli or out of the country entirely.

Where would we take them? Not Gitmo… do we have any other “friendly” countries in the area? Probably not, thanks to the Arab Spring.

Hill60 on November 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Broadwell is many things, but dumb isn’t one of them. She knew what she was doing when disclosing these Benghazi details in her Denver speech. Maybe the spurned mistress was sending a little shot over the bow to Petraeus, as in “You know that I know ‘everything’ and I’m willing to tell it all, see transcript of my Denver remarks, attached.”

In other words, she obviously thought P4 was cheating on her with this Jill Kelley, so she wanted him to cut it out. This was her way, perhaps, of forcing him to do so.

It’s one thing to cheat on your wife, but cheating on your mistress is inviting Armageddon. Hell hath no fury …

TXUS on November 12, 2012 at 10:50 AM

To the Obama regime?

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

As a traitor. Doesn’t matter who is in power.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM

If she’s exposing a bigger scandal than sex, I think he’s right.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

If I had been blathering classified info, my father would have turned me in.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM

This woman might be the key to finding out the truth about Benghazi, you can be sure she’s not going to sit back and let them bury her, besides she’s an intel officer, she’s not stupid. Could be that the classified docs were/are her live insurance and a safeguard against them trying to ‘suicide’ her or something…somebody gave her those classified docs for a reason, and it looks like it wasn’t Petraeus. No idea who gave her access to that classified info and why (hopefully we will find out), but as long as this is the only way to find out the truth about what happened in Benghazi, I’m all for her testifying and sure, explaining where did she get the classified docs. This might bring in other players. The plot is only thickening and her father is right about that.

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

If so, then the need for Petraeus to resign when he did becomes more clear.

What are you talking about?

Broadwell could have gotten this information from anyone.

DP could be using her to leak info to the press.

But, hey Ed, it’s a good meme. Character assassination continues apace.

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

To the Obama regime? the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

True patriotism is truly non-partisan. Bradky on November 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Oh then it should be reported to the media? I’m sure all the true patriots like Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell will be all over it. With a corrupt govt who cannot be trusted to investigate itself good thing we still have a free press eh?

Harbingeing on November 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Doesn’t this new info re: prison seem to make the stand down order make sense now. Perhaps they knew the annex was the intended target all along.

can_con on November 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

If Sandra Fluke can “testify”, so can Broadwell…

Khun Joe on November 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM

True patriotism is truly non-partisan.

Bradky on November 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So outing Nixon was wrong?

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

what if Petraeus is laying a trap for the administration to fall into? what if the coverup is the sex scandal and there was no sex to begin with, just the appearance of a sex scandal?

*adjusts tinfoil hat*

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

what if Petraeus is laying a trap for the administration to fall into? what if the coverup is the sex scandal and there was no sex to begin with, just the appearance of a sex scandal?

*adjusts tinfoil hat*

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

If petraeus is spilling the goods on the regime , the sex scandal is a good hook to force media to cover Obamas failures.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Funny, when we heard the description of Stevens’ ‘safe room’ in the compound, it didn’t really sound like much of a ‘safe room’, since it had bars in the window. Odd isn’t it?

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM

So outing Nixon was wrong?

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

? Do expand your thinking.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Bradky on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Are you suggesting there was a consensus on Hot Air about Gen. Petraeus? We just go all weak in the knees over a guy in uniform?

Cindy Munford on November 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM

If petraeus is spilling the goods on the regime , the sex scandal is a good hook to force media to cover Obamas failures.

So one interesting way to check on that is Petraeus’s wife.

If she does the “stand by my man” routine that would be increase the potential that this is a setup.

But…I don’t think so.

I think Petraeus thought he could get away with having a mistress and potentially two…even as the head of the CIA. I think Obama slept through the “3 AM call” with the standing orders of “don’t do ANYTHING” to the American military forces who could have saved the embassy staff since it might have complicated the election.

This is pure, across the board, incompetence and hubris.

18-1 on November 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM

This apparently makes for some big drama, headlines and intrigue but it’s pure speculation with no basis in fact.

You may have missed the FBI found Broadwell in possession of classified documents (on her computer which she voluntarily surrendered).

None of those documents were provided by Petraeus. That’s not me speculating. It’s the FBI’s conclusion. They found no evidence of a crime. By the way, revealing this information on a “prison” would be classified and thus a crime.

So Broadwell was communicating with others that were providing information. Those people are most likely the sources.

But there I go again, proceeding on facts and evidence…

Marcus Traianus on November 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Remember Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? “I won’t be ignored, Dan”

Yup, we’ll be hearing more from Ms. Broadwell. Hide the bunnies!

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Broadwell needs to testify under oath to congress. I want to know everything she knows!!

If those GOP wimps in the house have balls they would call her up.

I’m not expecting it, Media is reporting that Cantor knew about this in August and didn’t do anything.

Danielvito on November 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I’m not expecting it, Media is reporting that Cantor knew about this in August and didn’t do anything.

The spineless GOP is a bigger problem then the State Media.

18-1 on November 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Anyone notice how the focus is no longer on Obama?

Night Owl on November 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Hmmm. Wonder how that happened?

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I still believe that Obama was watching the taking of the Consulate transpire in real time, in the situation room.

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Yup , the event continued for 7 hours.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Well, he watched until he got bored/tired…and went to bed.

He needed to be well-rested for the next day.

Vegas, baby! Vegas!

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM

It’s exactly how the coverup for Benghazi was planned. Put everything off until after the election, don’t make anyone available to testify before Congress, and ship the president off to Asia.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM

You may have missed the FBI found Broadwell in possession of classified documents (on her computer which she voluntarily surrendered).

But there I go again, proceeding on facts and evidence…

Marcus Traianus on November 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

What clearance do you think she would have as a biographer to DP? Do you think she could have been given classified docs?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM

If there WAS/IS a secret CIA prison in Benghazi the liberals who just re-elected the president are going to go ape s#$t.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You mean, like the “anti-war” groups that were crazy against Bush…and dead silent about anything lil barry has done?

That kind of ape s#$t?

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM

If there WAS/IS a secret CIA prison in Benghazi the liberals who just re-elected the president are going to go ape s#$t.

Why do you conservatives hate America and love Jihadis?

/How liberals will respond

18-1 on November 12, 2012 at 11:23 AM

If the media narratives are correct and the affair was off four months ago she would not have had access to DCIA insider goop. Early stories said several prisoners were taken during the event and were being held at the annex but they had to turn them back over to the Libyans upon leaving. That’s probably what Mrs Push Ups was conflating.

A.C. McCloud on November 12, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The spineless GOP is a bigger problem then the State Media.

18-1 on November 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM

The rubber tip of the spear…

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Doesn’t this new info re: prison seem to make the stand down order make sense now. Perhaps they knew the annex was the intended target all along.

can_con on November 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

How would they have known that…unless they had prior knowledge of the intended attack?

[After all, it was just a 'spontaneous uprising' caused by an 'offensive video' -- whose producer/director, btw, has been imprisoned...so everything is all good now.//]

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM

But there I go again, proceeding on facts and evidence…

Marcus Traianus on November 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Try to keep that under control, will you.

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I’m not expecting it, Media is reporting that Cantor knew about this in August and didn’t do anything.

The spineless GOP is a bigger problem then the State Media.

18-1 on November 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Cantor did the right thing, a whistleblower leaked some info to him about Petraeus and a potential affair (actually the whistle blower contacted another R congressman at first,and that congressman tipped Cantor), the details were rather sketchy, according to both Cantor and the other R congressman, Reichert. Cantor does the right thing and calls he FBI and the FBI told him that they would investigate (or that they are already investigating). I mean he couldn’t have just gone out there, called he press and risked sounding like crazy Harry Reid talking crapola about Mitt’s taxes…’a source from FBI told me that Petraeus had or is having an affair, etc’, what if the whole thing was just fluff…I don’t blame Cantor for this in the least…Besides, if it proved to be just an affair, with no natl security implications, why was Cantor’s business to expose it? The CIA members are not bound by the UCMJ code of conduct, and adultery is not a crime or not even an offence over which they can lose their positions, looks like otjers before Petraeus did it and ker their jobs, as long as there were no security risks involved.

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM

‘Others’ and ‘Kept their jobs, that is…

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM

She may have loads of inaccurate information.

And for the Dems, this is not all bad. The General’s credibility is shot and she will be easy to attack.

All the other players are government employees and I doubt that this administration is “a bunch of amateurs” in hiding crimes like the Nixon gang was.

As far as the lady or her father is concerned, guys like the General I have known over the years had a tendency to BS, (even more than I do) and it is worse when you want to impress a lady or just think out loud.

She may have tons of fantasy stories from him but expect that the stock of mirages in her head will increase as she is worked by the pressure to look good in any way.

IlikedAUH2O on November 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

There is more than a bunny being boiled in the kitchen by this woman. I can just imagine the scenario with the sweat beads on Jarretts and Axelrod’s heads as they pace the oval office swearing at each other about what the next plan is to shut the Lybia thing up. Editorial boards are in turmoil wondering how can we cya Barry but not look like idiots (as we always do) doing it?

wepeople on November 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

As far as the lady or her father is concerned, guys like the General I have known over the years had a tendency to BS, (even more than I do) and it is worse when you want to impress a lady or just think out loud.

She may have tons of fantasy stories from him but expect that the stock of mirages in her head will increase as she is worked by the pressure to look good in any way.

IlikedAUH2O on November 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Yeah, but the classified docs found on her computer are not mirages or even traced back to the general. Actually it was determined that the general was not the source of those docs.

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

How would they have known that…unless they had prior knowledge of the intended attack?
[After all, it was just a 'spontaneous uprising' caused by an 'offensive video' -- whose producer/director, btw, has been imprisoned...so everything is all good now.//]
Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Forgot the sarc tag I think.

Since the info suggests mortars were targeting the annex which means prepositioning them, the so called consulate was probably a way to divert forces. Not saying they knew in advance, just think they decided they wanted the annex protected more. Someone needs to find out more about all those people at the annex that were evacuated.

can_con on November 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Why not attack the annex first if that’s where the secret prison was, especially since the terrorists must have expected the consulate to get significant military support from the annex?

As others have said…a diversion. Attacking the consulate first would draw attention away from the annex, where the real attack was to take place. Alas keeping prisoners inside the annex sounds like something stupid the CIA would do. I for one am not enthralled with our intelligence operations in this country considering their past record of idiotic mistakes and plans. They were so wise and connected that they were completely taken by surprise by a Jihadist attack on 9/11 of all days should tell you all you need to know.

I am not saying that any of this is true, but I would not take the CIA’s denials as truth either. I know there are lots of patriotic good Americans who put their lives on the line at the CIA, it’s just some of the ideas they come up with sometimes are real losers.

William Eaton on November 12, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Gun running is almost confirmed I think. But a secret prison, interrogation and rendition facility, well…

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Can’t be. Everyone knows that the New York Times has the exclusive rights to reveal any CIA secret rendition sites. It’s in their contract…

bofh on November 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM

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.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/petraeus-mistress-may-have-revealed-classified-information-at-denver-speech/#ixzz2C1LTgAVz

scratch that …..set to DEFCON ONE.

Mr. Obama, please tell us what you know about the secret prison of Benghazi that you said you weren’t supposed to have…….

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM

This is defcon 1.

First I thought this was yesterdays stuff , but this is one more source about a secret prison and more info.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM

That kind of ape s#$t?

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Yes, I was scolded for that earlier, you’re right too!

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Were I Ms. Broadwell’s father I’d watch my back. He is suggesting he knows things that he shouldn’t. You never know when an “accident” might happen.

Mason on November 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I wonder if they were water boarding them in the annex…now that would be hilarious.

It is time to round up the angry mistresses and get the dirt!!!

William Eaton on November 12, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2