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

so what?? Terrorist need to be in a prison

Bullhead on November 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Well, their being in prison makes the drone targeting that much easier.

socalcon on November 12, 2012 at 6:54 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.

Proof that government propaganda works.

Secret Prisons, Renditions, Enhanced Interagations didn’t magically end when Barky took office nor should they have.

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

You’re such a freedom-loving American. Good ol’ American values. You are a defender and enabler of tyranny.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Conspiracy Theory Generation Rate: 3 per second

Keep it coming. You might make it to Guinness.

lester on November 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM

You’re such a freedom-loving American. Good ol’ American values. You are a defender and enabler of tyranny.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Selective moral outrage. You’re a simple-minded thief.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 6:56 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

The GOP has betrayed you.

If these guys had spoken up the election would have swung the other way.

They didn’t speak up and Petraeus remained silent until Obama’s reelection was secured. Only now the story comes out.

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

This alone would have lost Obama the election.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 6:57 PM

The democrats were torturing prisoners so the rag heads started an insurgency. They are just insurgents fighting for the right to stone women which is just part of their culture.

SparkPlug on November 12, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Conspiracy Theory Generation Rate: 3 per second

Keep it coming. You might make it to Guinness.

lester on November 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Keep it coming. Excuses for a inept and corrupt administration keeping pace to do the same!

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM

“an” inept …

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Allahpundit,

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 Benghazi is a port city, busy, and already filled with guys with guns. You don’t stand out. It’s easy to “sneak into the country in a cargo ship” as Stevens famously bragged, not realizing people wouldn’t know he was on a ship filled with weapons for taking down Gaddafi. And it’s just as easy to move prisoners in and out. The meetings at the mission compound were not just planning meetings for hospital openings and gun-running. My guess is that it was guns for guys. You get your guy back if you do this and such. Then you get the guns.

Griffin on Fox on Saturday night or Sunday (I had it on when I was studying, so I can’t remember) broke in saying that it was an open secret in Iraq that Petreaus had a relationship with her.

winoceros on November 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Obama was in on it since jet fuel can’t melt steel.

SparkPlug on November 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

You’re such a freedom-loving American. Good ol’ American values. You are a defender and enabler of tyranny.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Terrorists are NOT trying to liberate you Dante. They are NOT trying to bring freedom and Democracy to you.

They really aren’t.

You are a defender and enabler of tyranny, because that is what the terrorist agenda is.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

This chain of events, these lies and coverups and timelines and unanswered questions…all I can think of is this word for the administration… FUBAR.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Conspiracy Theory Generation Rate: 3 per second

Keep it coming. You might make it to Guinness.

lester on November 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM

They lied about the video didn’t they…

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I wish Obama would stop theses war crimes and human right violations against the peace loving Muslims.

SparkPlug on November 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I’m listening for the outrage from the Left…

But it is crickets I hear.

And for ‘terrorists’?

They qualify as Spies and Saboteurs under the Geneva Conventions.

No uniform, no army, no accountable structure… simple trial. Summary execution. That would clear out Gitmo in next to no time. Perfectly acceptable.

They are waging Private War and the consequences for that are ancient and work well. We stopped doing it, and this is what we got.

ajacksonian on November 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Its obvious these democrats are bigots who hate peace loving Muslims who did nothing wrong.

SparkPlug on November 12, 2012 at 7:04 PM

The democrats love war. Kennedy and LBJ with Vietnam; the democrats even loved Iraq until they didn’t, and the beat goes on, now with democrat Obama.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 7:07 PM

I am starting to wonder not how far up the food chain this goes; but how far down. This is all starting to feel like misdirection.

Fast and Furious taken to the extreme:

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20121024/176877741.html

“NBC news reported in August the rebels had been supplied with unspecified MANPADS, possibly initiated by Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Qatar which have repeatedly called for lending military support to the Syrian opposition.

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said she could not confirm whether the rebels had been supplied with such missiles, and maintained the United States was against the uncontrolled spread of MANPADS.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-syria-crisis-centre-idUSBRE86Q0JM20120727

“It’s the Turks who are militarily controlling it. Turkey is the main co-ordinator/facilitator. Think of a triangle, with Turkey at the top and Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the bottom,” said a Doha-based source.

“The Americans are very hands-off on this. U.S. intel(ligence) are working through middlemen. Middlemen are controlling access to weapons and routes.”

can_con on November 12, 2012 at 7:10 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. 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?

My guess, this whole thing is dirt held back to make Patraeus go along with the lies being told by State, Defense, and that worthless whore Susan Rice. This resignation days after the election smacks of several things- not one of them good governance.

Happy Nomad on November 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

This alone would have lost Obama the election.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I don’t think so – most of the people who voted for him found whichever reason they wanted to use.

disa on November 12, 2012 at 7:12 PM

It would be refreshing if Petraeus would just tell the truth and to hell with the administration.

I’m not holding my breath.

disa on November 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I wish Obama would stop theses war crimes and human right violations against the peace loving Muslims.

SparkPlug on November 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Peace-lovers do not attack, sodomize, and kill a United States ambassador in the name of whoever they call their god. Fricking backward animals. The crusaders had the right idea how to deal with these people. They will never be a tolerant faith we should be welcoming into our nation. And if you think I am being harsh look at Europe and the number of terrorists are being bred in those mosques. Religion of peace MY EYE!

Happy Nomad on November 12, 2012 at 7:15 PM

It would be refreshing if Petraeus would just tell the truth and to hell with the administration.

I’m not holding my breath.

disa on November 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I don’t think he could tarnish his reputation any more than he already has. What does he have to lose? Unless like some speculate, he’s trying to protect the administration.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I don’t think so – most of the people who voted for him found whichever reason they wanted to use.

disa on November 12, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Most would have, but it only takes a fraction to stay home on the left, and a fraction on the right (Libertarians) to be outraged and turn out to swing it.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Mika is always so visibly uncomfortable when JS gets on a roll saying bad things about Barry. Actually, its where the line “getting your panties in a bunch” originated.

sbvft contributor on November 12, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Is Moochelle still proud of her country?

Now that her Immaculate husband is Bush Jr., War Criminal In Chief?

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 7:17 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

How about Cloak and Shag her?

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

You need to be more specific. Which scandal are you talking about?

The cover-up by the administration that had Susan Rice lying her ass off on Sunday talk shows because Hillary Clinton wouldn’t?

The fact it took over a month for the DoD to release its timeline of events which showed that they were being led by a bunch of cowards and politicians but I repeat myself.

Whatever the CIA was doing in Benghazi which has never been explained or why Ambassador Stevens was there on 9/11/12.

Who gave the call to stand down and let those Americans die?

More questions than versions of the truth by Obama.

Happy Nomad on November 12, 2012 at 7:20 PM

It would be refreshing if Petraeus would just tell the truth and to hell with the administration.

I’m not holding my breath.

disa on November 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

As I see it, that would be, assuming he would tell the complete truth, his best shot at redemption. I would take it if I were in his shoes.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Mika is always so visibly uncomfortable when JS gets on a roll saying bad things about Barry. Actually, its where the line “getting your panties in a bunch” originated.

sbvft contributor on November 12, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Actually I think it comes from mockery of Michael Kinsley on the original Crossfire show with Pat Buchanan.

Showing my age,

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 7:24 PM

All in Like Flint?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:25 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Benghazi-gate covers a host of sins.

And HOPEfully jails a pack of rats.

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 7:26 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Obama Scandal number 128.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Is Paula Broadwell really Lara Croft?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:30 PM

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Obama‘s First Visible Scandal number 128.

VorDaj on November 12, 2012 at 7:28 PM

FIFY

May it boil his sorry, treacherous behind.

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

How about Cloak and Shag her?

Bwahahahahaha!!! I haven’t laughed so hard in days!!

Awesome!

WisconsinJewels on November 12, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!! I haven’t laughed so hard in days!!

Awesome!

WisconsinJewels on November 12, 2012 at 7:33 PM

I just don’t think we can beat their name for whatever this is.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Kitchen sink-gate because just about everything is going all-in this scandal.

Rockygold on November 12, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Paula Croft, Tome Raider

/its a stretch, I know

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Bunny Boiler, the Benghazi Edition.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM

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.

Why I am pretty sure Obama et al. knew this long before last week: Because Petraeus promoted the idea that the YouTube video was behind it all (even, apparently, to the House Intelligence Committee (old story from Sept.–just backing up what I’m saying here): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/lawmakers-uspicious-administration-trying-to-hide-libya-attack-details/#ixzz27iM0Us8s )).

How the heck do you convince a CIA director to back such a ridiculous (and–to a guy with the inside scoop–obviously false) claim? And why wouldn’t a man with Petraeus’s experience in spycraft say, “Look, if we’re going to lie about this thing, we need a better story”? (Mostly joking about the better story–but seriously…as far as lies go, it was pretty pathetic. And short-lived.)

So I suspect pressure was applied from the only people who had an interest in portraying the event as a YouTube phenomenon–the people at the top. And I suspect the pressure had to be pretty strong for Petraeus to make such bizarre claims to the House Intelligence Committee.

butterflies and puppies on November 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Blackhawk Stand Down

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

butterflies and puppies on November 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Yep; believing that Bammie didn’t know about this the same day that Holder did is just nuts. I expect Holder went through Jarrett, because everyone does, but Bammie knew same day.

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 7:54 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Cover Obama’s Assgate?

Bruno Strozek on November 12, 2012 at 8:34 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

The trouble with coming up with one name for the whole mess is that we don’t yet know what the whole mess is about.

But if we’re talking about the weapons-to-terrorists angle, I like Fast and Furious: Middle East.

And if we’re talking about the crazy affair angle, I like Fatal Distraction.

butterflies and puppies on November 12, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Brass Embed

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 8:56 PM

We need a good name for this scandal. What’s wrong with you people?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Cover Obama’s Assgate?

Bruno Strozek on November 12, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Dead Ambassador-Gate?

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 9:01 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.

Proof that government propaganda works.

Secret Prisons, Renditions, Enhanced Interagations didn’t magically end when Barky took office nor should they have.

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

You’re such a freedom-loving American. Good ol’ American values. You are a defender and enabler of tyranny.

Dante on November 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Dante, I had to go for a little while I hope you come back to read this. You missed it by this much; You’re such a freedom-loving American. Good ol’ American values. You are a defender and enabler of tyranny. of my right to say stupid sh¡t. See you were that close. You can still GFY though.

D-fusit on November 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM

I think they pursued the inquiry into the emails all the way back to Petraeus because they were trying to figure out the why. Kelley was apparently told that it was Broadwell sending them and told the FBI she didn’t know this person. So if you’re the FBI at this point, and you’ve already made the decision to launch an investigation on pretty flimsy grounds to begin with, you try to figure out why is Broadwell sending nasty emails to a woman who doesn’t know her. Broadwell doesn’t profile as just some crazy b*tch so they must have been wondering what was behind it.

As to why is Kelley hiring an expensive attorney, why not? The Kelleys have money, they’ve got some kind of social standing, they didn’t ask to get dragged into this mess and now they’ve got media camped out on their front lawn, it makes sense that they want representation and advice on how to handle this fiasco. Who knows how something like this ultimately plays out.

Bennett on November 12, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Primary Eric Cantor.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Yup. We should primary the one guy who did exactly the correct thing.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Pure genius on the part of that Mohummer You Tube video guy to know that Benghazi would be holding prisoners just in tIme for his movie to get the publicity he could never dream of.

This guy is a MARKETING WUNDERKIND !

FlaMurph on November 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

All in Like Flint?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 7:25 PM

No no. Flynn, Flynn. Who’s Flint?

winoceros on November 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM

wino, James Coburn is my hero

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 10:22 PM

The timeframe when the CIA annex functioned as a prison (if it did) is never mentioned.

It would have been psychotically stupid to use the annex as a true “prison,” for more than, say, 4-5 detainees — without better fortification — once the justifiable complaints started in-country about security in Benghazi. The complaints started a good six months before 9/11/12.

Before that time is also when Broadwell had her routine access to Petraeus. She doesn’t necessarily know anything about what was going on in Benghazi through the summer or fall of 2012. I doubt that the CIA annex in Benghazi was operating as a “secret CIA prison” in September of this year.

Our posture in Libya has been changing with the circumstances since March of 2011. Plenty of things people talk about may have been in place at one time, but were not on 9/11/12.

J.E. Dyer on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM

I’ll bet they were water boarding them, aftervall according to the left this is worse than death. Oh the horrors Barky involved in toture.

stormridercx4 on November 13, 2012 at 3:47 AM

The timeframe when the CIA annex functioned as a prison (if it did) is never mentioned.

It would have been psychotically stupid to use the annex as a true “prison,” for more than, say, 4-5 detainees — without better fortification — once the justifiable complaints started in-country about security in Benghazi. The complaints started a good six months before 9/11/12.

Before that time is also when Broadwell had her routine access to Petraeus. She doesn’t necessarily know anything about what was going on in Benghazi through the summer or fall of 2012. I doubt that the CIA annex in Benghazi was operating as a “secret CIA prison” in September of this year.

Our posture in Libya has been changing with the circumstances since March of 2011. Plenty of things people talk about may have been in place at one time, but were not on 9/11/12.

J.E. Dyer on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Wow.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Terrorists are NOT trying to liberate you Dante. They are NOT trying to bring freedom and Democracy to you.

They really aren’t.

You are a defender and enabler of tyranny, because that is what the terrorist agenda is.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I’m well aware of the agenda. I see it everytime I fly.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2