Fox News source: Yes, the CIA was holding prisoners at the Benghazi annex

posted at 5:11 pm on November 12, 2012 by Allahpundit

Just a single source, but this does jibe with what Broadwell said in her Denver speech.

In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIA’s 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.

Two separate questions here. One: Is the CIA still operating secret prisons and, if so, how are they questioning their prisoners? Enhanced interrogation is the only part of the Bush counterterror playbook that O hasn’t adopted, or so we’ve assumed. We’ll see. Two: Did Ansar al-Sharia and its partners in jihad find out about the prisoners and attack the annex on 9/11 to try to free them? I’m thinking … probably not, for the reasons Ed gave this morning. If they thought there were prisoners at the annex, why’d they attack the consulate first and give up the advantage of surprise? The attack on the consulate wasn’t a diversion, either: According to the CIA’s timeline, the first attack at the annex didn’t happen until 11:56 p.m., more than two hours after the consulate attack had begun and after the CIA security team had already returned from the consulate to the annex. That makes it sound like the jihadis tailed the CIA’s people back to the annex; if they were planning an ambush to free prisoners, they should have had people pre-positioned there to move in as soon as they saw the CIA security team leave for the consulate earlier in the evening. And again, per Ed, if you were going to hold prisoners somewhere in the Middle East, why on earth would you choose a city as unstable as Benghazi?

Besides, the timeline of the Petraeus/Broadwell affair is hard to square with the idea of her being privy to secret info about Benghazi. Quote:

The affair between Gen. Petraeus and Broadwell, both of whom are married, began several months after his retirement from the army in August 2011 and ended four months ago, retired U.S. Army Col. Steve Boylan, who is a former Petraeus spokesperson, told ABC News…

Petraeus is said to have been the one to have broken off the extramarital affair.

If — if — all of that is accurate, then it sounds like Petraeus dumped Broadwell sometime in July and, given what we now know about those threatening e-mails that she sent to another woman, she probably didn’t take the news all that well. In which case, why would he still be sharing secrets with her two months later, after the Benghazi attack? Was Broadwell really revealing classified info in her Denver speech or was she just misremembering a report from earlier that day on Fox News? She did, reportedly, have classified documents on her computer, but both she and Petraeus claimed they didn’t come from him. And in fact, because of her background in the military, Broadwell allegedly had “a top secret/SCI clearance and then some.” She might have had access to info about Benghazi, and classified documents about whatever, from her contacts in the national security bureaucracy, entirely independent of Petraeus.

But maybe that timeline isn’t accurate. Petraeus’s allies might be keen to claim that the affair didn’t start until after he’d left the military because adultery is an infraction of the UCMJ. If the affair began while he was still in uniform, it’s not only a moral failing but potentially a legal issue.

Now, help me answer three questions. First, why did the FBI pursue its investigation of the cyber-harassment of Jill Kelley all the way back to Petraeus? My understanding from reading a bunch of stories this morning is that Kelley reported the harassment, the FBI quickly launched an investigation (no one’s sure why it was such a priority for them but maybe it has to do with Kelley’s JSOC connection), and they traced the harassing e-mails back to Broadwell. But they didn’t stop there; evidently they started digging around to see who was e-mailing Broadwell too, and they traced that back to a pseudonymous Gmail account operated by Petraeus. Er … why did they do that? Once they knew who the cyber-harasser was, why was it necessary to keep digging and piece out the entire love triangle? They’d found their suspect.

Second, why is Jill Kelley suddenly hiring some very expensive attorneys? Not only hasn’t she been accused of anything — not even an affair with Petraeus — but Petraeus and Broadwell aren’t being charged with any crimes either. Second look at what Broadwell’s father told the Daily News this morning?

Third, I have a post up in the Greenroom noting that Petraeus and Broadwell seemed conspicuously “together” as early as 2010, with even Mrs. Petraeus likely becoming aware of it before last Friday. John Brennan, Obama’s White House counterterror czar, allegedly learned of the affair in summer 2011 — before Petraeus was named the new CIA chief. That being so, how were Obama and James Clapper supposedly kept in the dark until last week? The One should be spitting mad that he wasn’t kept fully informed about potential liabilities of one of the most sensitive hires he’ll make as president. In theory, Petraeus could have been blackmailed or hacked or otherwise compromised, with catastrophic consequences for national security and O’s presidential legacy — and yet the FBI kept things hush-hush, even from their boss, until just a few days ago. Why? Here’s Scarborough and Peter King wondering. Key bit at 4:00.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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

Hope and Change and Secret Prisons.

Get on this, Code Pinko and MorOn.org…there are innocent terrorists little brown people being victimized!

Bishop on November 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Bush: Secret CIA prisons
Obama: Fun zones

Bush: Enhanced interrogation
Obama: Bro-outs

Chuck Schick on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

so what?? Terrorist need to be in a prison

Bullhead on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) confirmed Sunday he first learned of the affair several months ago from a friend who knows Kelley. Reichert told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who put Kelley in touch with FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Cantor’s staff didn’t immediately tell the House Intelligence Committee or other House leaders because they didn’t know whether the information was credible, Fox News reported.

Cover up, from the right.

The election is over.

Muller, Cantor, Reichert, Petraeus, Holder, Obama are all culprits/destroyers.

So are the media.

Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Most transparent administration, like EVAH!!!

NapaConservative on November 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM

One: Is the CIA still operating secret prisons and, if so, how are they questioning their prisoners?

and how does it square with Obama’s Executive Order effective Jan/Feb 2009 that mandated the closure of those prisons???

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Petraeus is a leftist, with muzzie affinities, incl. the two women.

Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM

If they told me I voted for McCain we would get secret CIA prisons in newly conquered Muslim countries.

rob verdi on November 12, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The affair between Gen. Petraeus and Broadwell, both of whom are married, began several months after his retirement from the army in August 2011 and ended four months ago, retired U.S. Army Col. Steve Boylan, who is a former Petraeus spokesperson, told ABC News…

doesn’t square with

Third, I have a post up in the Greenroom noting that Petraeus and Broadwell seemed conspicuously “together” as early as 2010, with even Mrs. Petraeus likely becoming aware of it before last Friday

The more we learn about this the less we know.

rbj on November 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Second, why is Jill Kelley suddenly hiring some very expensive attorneys?

The only one I can take a guess at….book deals require lots of attorney.

Limerick on November 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM

It’s becoming clearer and clearer why the regime went with that ridiculous video story from the get go to distract away from the real cesspool.

Moist assuredly, Benghazi Barack and his bros. though it would be better to be thought of as liars than what’s behind door #2.

Chip on November 12, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Welcome to your USSA.

Keep telling yourselves they hate us because we’re free, while denying or defending our wonderful values of secret prisons, rendition, and torture. Yeah, that’s a free country does, alright.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Hope Issa’s getting the impeachment ready. Get the corrupt lot outta there. Boehner, anyone, can be in charge.

sauldalinsky on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.

Ooops! over to you MSNBC

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

so what?? Terrorist need to be in a prison

Bullhead on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Wow.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

The only thing I’m certain of in this fiasco, is that most of the people involved are lying.

Curtiss on November 12, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) confirmed Sunday he first learned of the affair several months ago from a friend who knows Kelley. Reichert told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who put Kelley in touch with FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Cantor’s staff didn’t immediately tell the House Intelligence Committee or other House leaders because they didn’t know whether the information was credible, Fox News reported.

Cover up, from the right.

The election is over.

Muller, Cantor, Reichert, Petraeus, Holder, Obama are all culprits/destroyers.

So are the media.

Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Leave it to the BSM to cover up for the Left – if this had been a Republican admin…

Just like if we had a Republican administration screwing up the response to Sandy…

Chip on November 12, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The more details come out, the more confused I am. At this point I’m willing to believe this is just a massive cluster from everyone involved.

John_Locke on November 12, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If — if — all of that is accurate

You answered it here

Third, I have a post up in the Greenroom noting that Petraeus and Broadwell seemed conspicuously “together” as early as 2010, with even Mrs. Petraeus likely becoming aware of it before last Friday.

Plus, Obama has known since Holder has. All else are lies.

Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 5:25 PM

what’s the “and then some” atop a TS security clearance? Is she a double top secret agent or something? Why the qualifier, tootsie?

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:25 PM

And again, per Ed, if you were going to hold prisoners somewhere in the Middle East, why on earth would you choose a city as unstable as Benghazi?

ground zero for jihadis? No one would ever think to look there?…maybe they gots great BBQ like Charlotte/??

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM

It’s telling that of the two questions Allah has, neither one are, “What the you-know-what are we doing operating secret prisons?”

This is your government, people. This is your War Party Establishment that wouldn’t have changed with a Romney presidency.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Fox News source: Yes, the CIA was holding prisoners at the Benghazi annex

Shocka!

Elephants have long memories – all the way back to 2002, I’ll bet.

“Gonna have fun, fun, fun until daddy takes the t-bird away…”

Bruno Strozek on November 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM

let me guess, this isn’t rendition rendition, right whoopie???

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:25 PM

With that, Ted, is that every private is told to not do this crapola for security reasons. It gets drilled in from day one, PV1 to Four Star, it is the no-no known but all as “you-f-up-man-if-you-do-this”. I guess the gander knew better than the goose. Absolute power and all that……

Limerick on November 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Perhaps they wanted to capture Stevens and trade him for the militia members?

Helen A Handbasquet on November 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM

so what?? Terrorist need to be in a prison

Bullhead on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Wow.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Agreed – they should be dead!

OldEnglish on November 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM

why is Jill Kelley suddenly hiring some very expensive attorneys? Not only hasn’t she been accused of anything — not even an affair with Petraeus — but Petraeus and Broadwell aren’t being charged with any crimes either.

who knows, except that the Obama administration is involved and if her character starts getting smeared, then somebody *gonna get paaaaaid yo*

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Watch…get ready for the NYT love fest for secrete CIA prisons. This proves my point Obama could nuke a hapless 3rd world country and the MSM and the Obama groupies would say it is wonderful.

William Eaton on November 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM

how are they questioning their prisoners?

The comfy chair.

The Rogue Tomato on November 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Primary Eric Cantor.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

That being so, how were Obama and James Clapper supposedly kept in the dark until last week? If that’s true, The One should be spitting mad that he wasn’t kept fully informed about potential liabilities of one of the most sensitive hires he’ll make as president. In theory, Petraeus could have been blackmailed or hacked or otherwise compromised, with catastrophic consequences for national security — and yet the FBI kept things hush-hush, even from their boss, until just a few days ago. Why?

Because it’s not true and nobody thinks it is.

Fezzik on November 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

One: Is the CIA still operating secret prisons and, if so, how are they questioning their prisoners? Enhanced interrogation is the only part of the Bush counterterror playbook that O hasn’t adopted, or so we’ve assumed.

The left is only against torture enhanced interrogation when they can get political leverage for being against it. The MSM will report on enhanced interrogation torture when it will harm political adversaries.

First, why did the FBI pursue its investigation of the cyber-harassment of Jill Kelley all the way back to Petraeus?

Speculating that they smelled more than one rat. I wouldn’t be surprised if they considered General Petraeus a political adversary, the CIA and FBI have been squabbling since the CIA was established, kind of an oversize turf war. That doesn’t mean they did anything wrong, on the contrary they discovered that the director of the CIA allowed himself to be compromised by a gold digging rat. They just followed their noses to where the smell led them. And if the affair was an “open secret”, perhaps they were looking for a way to kill two birds with one stone.

Rode Werk on November 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Where is the next “Shiny Object” ?

Look LSM a Puppy!

Maybe now that the erection election is over and seeing how this story contains the irresistable “Sex” angle might we see some reporter trying to lock-up a pulitzer.

Inquiring minds.

D-fusit on November 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Maybe the jihadis thought they could capture the ambassador and free the prisoners. And if they took the ambassador first, they might have leverage to force surrender of the annex.

NCC on November 12, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Keep telling yourselves they hate us because we’re free, while denying or defending our wonderful values of secret prisons, rendition, and torture. Yeah, that’s a free country does, alright.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yep. Big bad America. So tired of this argument, and so tired of the big influx of trolls lately. It’s like we got rid of a good deal of them after the election and a new batch popped up.

John_Locke on November 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM

So this means Obama gave a very public order to halt such detentions and a private one to continue. It also means that in addition to lying, Obama wanted these guys dead to cover it up.

pat on November 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM

“Enhanced interrogation is the only part of the Bush counterterror playbook that O hasn’t adopted, or so we’ve assumed.”

Only the ones people consider torture.

Zaggs on November 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Most uninformed POTUS ever…hey, it might be true. Fore!

d1carter on November 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Secret prisons, eh?

Now we’re starting to get to the reasons the Obama administration kept this hush-hush until after the election.

catmman on November 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM

see drudge….

cop flashing light…

all that.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Can the House committee subpoena Valerie Jarrett..?

d1carter on November 12, 2012 at 5:39 PM

I still don’t understand why Betrayus is being allowed to opt out of testifying for personal reasons.

What did I miss?

Amjean on November 12, 2012 at 5:39 PM

“If Only Stalin Obama knew!”

aquaviva on November 12, 2012 at 5:40 PM

So, it looks like we’re finally getting an idea of why obama wanted Ambassador Stevens dead.

Pork-Chop on November 12, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Keep telling yourselves they hate us because we’re free, while denying or defending our wonderful values of secret prisons, rendition, and torture. Yeah, that’s a free country does, alright.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Don’t like it here? Leave, no one is stopping you.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I wonder if the democrats still want to join the world court? The republicans should propose doing so on a trial basis for the next 4 years.

meci on November 12, 2012 at 5:42 PM

The One should be spitting mad that he wasn’t kept fully informed about potential liabilities of one of the most sensitive hires he’ll make as president. In theory, Petraeus could have been blackmailed or hacked or otherwise compromised, with catastrophic consequences for national security

It’s the Chicago way , all the way. Puppet mastery.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Dante, here is a yellow daisy now kindly GFY. We live in a dangerous world where people actually hate us for no other reason than our freedoms. Secret Prisons, Renditions, Enhanced Interagations didn’t magically end when Barky took office nor should they have. He lied and the looney lefties (and appearantly many others) bought it hook line and sinker. I can’t wait until code pink starts protesting outside the White House tomorrow. Wait, what. They don’t have plans to do that, whodathunk. Cindy & Media where have all the flowers gone?

Pardon my spelling I’m on the tablet right now.

D-fusit on November 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I don’t think Patraeus is in trouble. You don’t go to jail for committing adultery and giving someone your gmail account. Even if he botched the Benghazi attack, that is not a legal issue but professional incompetence. Testifying will just show him to be an idiot at worst, and more likely following the orders of one.

Broadwell, on the other hand, best get a good attorney. Sounds like they have her making threats and public statements potentially releasing classified information.

STL_Vet on November 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Obama’s own personal Abu Ghraib. You don’t suppose that anyone was using enhanced interrogation techniques, do you? Where were the prisoners transported? I mean, we know they wouldn’t have been moved to GITMO, because Obama closed it down /sarc.

HarryBackside on November 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Maybe the jihadis thought they could capture the ambassador and free the prisoners. And if they took the ambassador first, they might have leverage to force surrender of the annex.

NCC on November 12, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Maybe they didn’t know the location where they were holding the prisoners and thought they could sack the consulate and find out.

After all, apparently no one in the entire Obama Administration or the MSM knew that we were operating the secret prison…since you know, Obama said we weren’t doing that any more. How would the terrorists know if we didn’t even know?

Is the CIA still going with the whole “There were no prisoners being held” thing? Will we find out in the Senate hearings?

If the prison did in fact exist and the location was not compromised until the sacking of the consulate, does that not give more credence to the Iranians and others when they claim that our diplomats are operating as spies or intelligence officials?

We are losing a whole lot more as this story continues to snowball down the hill.

weaselyone on November 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I think that the WH is trying to scare the shiite out of Petraeus from testifying against their bungled Libya fiasco…..

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Club Gitmo: Benghazi Edition?

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I don’t think Patraeus is in trouble. You don’t go to jail for committing adultery and giving someone your gmail account.

STL_Vet on November 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Go and tell that to Drudge. You can also tell him to turn off that stupid siren.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Botched prisoner for hostage deal?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

The media better get out there quick and say Patraeus is a Republican. Not that I think he is but…

sandee on November 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Raze Them Down!

nitzsche on November 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

This whole thing is a mother of all disasters. We not only have an administration we can’t trust, but a State Department we can’t trust, a Defense Department we can’t trust and a CIA we can’t trust. All of them together aren’t worth a warm bucket of spit. All are run by incompetents and pathological liars.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

why am I thinking that the last thing that the O admin wants to see happen is to have Petraeus testify????

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Is the CIA still going with the whole “There were no prisoners being held” thing? Will we find out in the Senate hearings? [snip]

weaselyone on November 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM

The Senate hearings will be run by Jawn F’n Kerry (who served in Viet Nam). Nothing other than more Obama-fawning will emerge.

bofh on November 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

The media better get out there quick and say Patraeus is a Republican. Not that I think he is but…

sandee on November 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

90% of Muslims voted for Obama, so Petraeus very likely did too.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM

they traced that back to a pseudonymous Gmail account operated by Petraeus. Er … why did they do that? Once they knew who the cyber-harasser was, why was it necessary to keep digging and piece out the entire love triangle? They’d found their suspect.

I assume that’s a rhetorical question.

BocaJuniors on November 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

It also means that in addition to lying, Obama wanted these guys dead to cover it up.

pat on November 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Yup.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM

O.K. Allahpundit, just for fun, why don’t you go back and rewrite that post and put in what YOU think happened- you could probably get as outrageous as possible, and it will STILL get more bizarre by tomorrow morning!

The best part of all this is knowing that the freaks at MSNBC are likely wringing their hands, hoping their hero doesn’t get tainted by the scandal. heh.

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM

VorDaj, I must say that you have been all over Petraeus from the get go.

D-fusit on November 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I want to know what really happened but Im content with waiting for all the facts to be known and all evidence to be fully vetted and reported. I dont see what posting everyone’s opinion and he said/she said statement really does.

I dont even understand the argument people are making anymore. First it was Obama was blackmailing the General to get him to quit and not testify. Then it was Obama didnt know about it but yet its still his fault that the General had an affair. Then it was the Republican heads knew about this as well but didnt report it because ???, Now its there was a secret prison there.

I’m getting dizzy keeping up with the shifting narrative.

I’m not naive enough to NOT know that there certain operations that our Government takes part in thats not meant for the general public. I dont see what comes from rushing for an explanation. How about let it come out when all those involved and in the know have a chance to actually discover and report FACTS instead of inuendo.

I get it, its not as fun….but still

Politricks on November 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Yes, yes… Obama is a “war criminal” just like Bush.

Move on, move on.

The Media stopped caring in November 2008.

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 6:04 PM

This whole thing is a mother of all disasters. We not only have an administration we can’t trust, but a State Department we can’t trust, a Defense Department we can’t trust and a CIA we can’t trust. All of them together aren’t worth a warm bucket of spit. All are run by incompetents and pathological liars.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

And don’t think Putin and Ahkmadinnerjacket aren’t enjoying the hell out of it all.

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM

It also means that in addition to lying, Obama wanted these guys dead to cover it up.

pat on November 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Yup.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM

One of the joys of HA is reading posts from people more cynical than one’s self.

Bruno Strozek on November 12, 2012 at 6:08 PM

what’s the “and then some” atop a TS security clearance? Is she a double top secret agent or something? Why the qualifier, tootsie?

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Is she a spy?

freedomfirst on November 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Allahpundit’s questions are both ignorant and idiotic, showing an odd naïveté about how the world works.
The investigation kicked off because the JSOC social liaison had a friend in the FBI and the threats were directly related to Petraeus. Cybercrimes are FBI’s purview. Involving a 4-star general and current head of the CIA makes it of vital national importance.
Once engaged, the FBI runs EVERYTHING to ground, follows every trail and back trail, to uncover everyone involved or even peripherally connected. They already had Petraeus’ connection via the original threat complaint. Busting the email of the ‘anonymous’ attacker would have shown the past bidirectional communications with the general. Then it becomes necessary to bust his email acct to see the full scope of the problem and the nature of his involvement. At which point the affair and thus the compromised position of the general becomes obvious.

Frankly I expect him to have a gun-cleaning accident before he is dragged in to testify about Benghazi. 40yr career and marriage flushed down the crapper, the future bleak with more embarrassing revelations to come.

rayra on November 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I’m getting dizzy keeping up with the shifting narrative.

Politricks on November 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Well this is what you voted for, the most transparent administration ever. Four more years of this crap, own it. In the meantime…..

Let. It. Burn.

#Revenge

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM

why am I thinking that the last thing that the O admin wants to see happen is to have Petraeus testify????

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Obama is probably afraid that Petraeus just might tell the truth, but I doubt he really has much to worry about.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The plot thickens… I smell a rat…

Khun Joe on November 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM

That ABC article that Drudge has up is full of very convenient answers to most of these questions. Benghazi? Timing? Angry wife who will “work it out” with bad husband? I hope Catherine Herridge and Bret Bair get their teeth into this and shake it like a dog.

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Primary Eric Cantor.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

We need to primary them all with just a few exceptions. No wonder Pence so wanted out of the House, I am sure he couldn’t stand the idiots.

riddick on November 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

It also means that in addition to lying, Obama wanted these guys dead to cover it up.

pat on November 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Yup.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Been said here on HA since 9/11. A number of times.

Too bad that so called “independent” Fox News can’t utter the words and make Hussein’s admin to react.

riddick on November 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

That ABC article that Drudge has up is full of very convenient answers to most of these questions. Benghazi? Timing? Angry wife who will “work it out” with bad husband? I hope Catherine Herridge and Bret Bair get their teeth into this and shake it like a dog.

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

And we have a MSM which has been infuse with DNA from Joseph Goebbels.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

How about let it come out when all those involved and in the know have a chance to actually discover and report FACTS instead of inuendo.

I get it, its not as fun….but still
Politricks on November 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

…when Obama leaves office.

Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Been said here on HA since 9/11. A number of times.

Too bad that so called “independent” Fox News can’t utter the words and make Hussein’s admin to react.

riddick on November 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

They need to build up the case.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

A fraud wrapped in a hundred fabrications inside a thousand lies.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM

In theory, Petraeus could have been blackmailed or hacked or otherwise compromised, with catastrophic consequences for national security and O’s presidential legacy

Or maybe Obama knew about the affair and let Petraeus know that he was now owned by Obama and someday he’d be tapped to take one for “The One”.

I seem to recall Petraeus already testified that the CIA believed the attack was caused by the video, and no stand down order was issued by the CIA. Now he has thrown himself under the bus and will develop a serious case of amnesia when it comes to Benghazi.

in_awe on November 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM

From the libtard media, we get, “We hammered Bush for doing this, but since Bush did it it’s OK if Obama does it.”

Crickets…

WestTexasBirdDog on November 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM

This is your War Party Establishment that wouldn’t have changed with a Romney presidency.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM

And it wouldn’t have changed under ronpaul or gary johnson, either.

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

I get it, its not as fun….but still

Politricks on November 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Can you please repost what you say in this post? Only this time in the English language?

Thanks.

Del Dolemonte on November 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Don’t feed it.

Del Dolemonte on November 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I want to know what really happened but Im content with waiting for all the facts to be known and all evidence to be fully vetted and reported.

You mean professor, you want to be fed the administration or liberal media narrative so you know what you’re supposed to believe and say.

I dont see what posting everyone’s opinion and he said/she said statement really does.

Then why did you even come here?

I dont even understand the argument people are making anymore. First it was Obama was blackmailing the General to get him to quit and not testify. Then it was Obama didnt know about it but yet its still his fault that the General had an affair. Then it was the Republican heads knew about this as well but didnt report it because ???, Now its there was a secret prison there.

You really are stupid for a school guy aren’t you. You read opinions here and think folks get together to voice them or we’re monolithic in what we think. We’re not libs, we have a free will.

I’m getting dizzy keeping up with the shifting narrative.

Get your heroes to come up with the one true story and the narrative end at the ttruth.

I’m not naive enough to NOT know that there certain operations that our Government takes part in thats not meant for the general public. I dont see what comes from rushing for an explanation. How about let it come out when all those involved and in the know have a chance to actually discover and report FACTS instead of inuendo.

I speak liberal. Allow me to translate. If Bush had done this, I’d have taken to the streets with a protest sign. It’s my guy now and although I want to project disdain, I won’t lift a single finger to protest.

I get it, its not as fun….but still

Politricks on November 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I get it, admitting you’re a gutless hypocrite is not fun at all, but still.

Pathetic. Just frigging pathetic.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Ambassador Stevens obviously knew too much about obama’s secret torture facility prison and became a liability for the administration – a problem that was conveniently “solved” for obama by a “spontaneous attack” on the Benghazi compound. And now, Petraeus, who has been working in cahoots with obama in the Benghazi cover-up, is conveniently hit by a scandal which leads him to resign, just one week before he was to testify about Benghazi. So, will Petraeus be the next problem to be conveniently “solved”, or will he simply vanish with his golden parachute and never be heard from again? Regardless of what happens to Petraeus going forward, we can be sure that he will never testify.

Pork-Chop on November 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM

so what?? Terrorist need to be in a prison Bullhead on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Wow. Dante on November 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You’re right Dante, what they need is some one-way helo rides.

Akzed on November 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

And again, per Ed, if you were going to hold prisoners somewhere in the Middle East, why on earth would you choose a city as unstable as Benghazi?

Because it’s been in operation since Quadaffi flipped back to us in ’05/’06.

Holy Crap. Come on.

Quadaffi become another fortifier in the region, like Mubarak.

The article says they were clearing detainees, from across the region out.

When Mubarak and Quadaffi fell, so went the state-military shield!

Muslim Brotherhood fired hundreds of Mubarak military loyalists, so they have access to that info now.

Notice how no one asks about the rendition sites of Egypt?

Because they move the detainees to Lybia.

Now, more then likely, those people are floating in an empty oil tanker in the ghost yards.

This way, Obama doesn’t have to add people to Gitmo.

budfox on November 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Obama must be going through pack after pack of covert Menthol Kools

Damn, I thought I just won! WTF?!”

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM

What difference does it make? You know where all of our outrageous outrage goes – out into the universe with Al Franken’s Air America and Rush and Hannity, into eternity. Meanwhile Obama and his folks do whatever they want and it’s Bush’s fault.

disa on November 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2