Skip to main content

While viewers are plugged into "Generals Gone Wild," the Washington Post soberly asks an important question, Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?

Paula Broadwell, speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, October 26, 2012:

Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.

Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack

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, 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.”

McCain is asking for an investigation into the Benghazi attack to score political points against Obama, which outrages many here rightfully so, but for the sake of truth and justice, there should be an investigation into whether the CIA ignored Executive Order 13491 by running a secret prison in the Benghazi annex.

Questions:

1. Were there any Libya Militia prisoners held in the Benghazi CIA annex at the time of the attack?

2. Who were the CIA contractors performing the interrogations and what were their nationalities?

3. Were any of the attackers ever held at the CIA annex in Benghazi?

4. Where did they transfer prisoners from the CIA annex in Benghazi?

5. How many prisoners did the facility hold?

If there was a CIA secret prison in the Benghazi Consulate Annex contravening Executive Order 13491, why aren't they investigating and prosecuting this serious crime which may have motivated an attack that killed our ambassador and three other American officials with the same vigor they went after John Kiriakou, a conscientious and brave CIA agent, who is now serving time for blowing the whistle on CIA torture?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good diary. This is an incredibly important (28+ / 0-)

    set of questions.

    The video of that Broadwell statement was played on CNN.COM last week, and that very night the FBI spent four hours searching Broadwell's house in North Carolina.

    If she didn't get this idea from Petraeus, then from where?

    Occam's Razor certainly points at Petraeus.

    •  She may have heard it in the general scuttlebutt (5+ / 0-)

      as opposed to the General scuttlebutt.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:49:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe. (5+ / 0-)

        But in your quote from her speech she specifically says that Petraeus knew, and we know she was having an affair with him and writing his biography.

        •  This speech was after the affair ended, I think (7+ / 0-)

          Or it was after they told us the affair had ended.

          We need to look closer at the timeline to understand what's happened.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:11:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's been reported that the affair ended (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cliss

            "by mutual agreement" after Petraeus learned of her stalking emails.

            She was stalking Petraeus, Allen, and Kelley.

            •  Recent reports look like it wasn't stalking (4+ / 0-)

              She said nothing particularly crazy of threatening from what I've seen. I would bet there's cover up of something else and she's the bright shiny diversion.

              Were there really 20,000 pages of e-mail between the other general and Kelley? WTF?

              look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

              by FishOutofWater on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:18:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't say threatening - the issue was that (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                whizdom, Cliss, FishOutofWater, Timaeus

                she knew the schedules of Petraeus, Allen, Kelley, and when they were meeting each other in Washington.

                Perhaps, tracking is a better word.

                The FBI had a reason to be concerned that someone was tracking the social engagements of the CIA director and the top General In Afganistan.

              •  Sending anonymous emails is not cool (4+ / 0-)

                It may not constitute "stalking" in the legal sense, but it is definitely creepy. My understanding is that her anonymous emails to Kelley were threatening, or sufficiently so that Kelley reported them.

                The emails between General Allen and Kelley are, I think, going to turn out to be a big nothing. From what I have read it sounds like the number ranges up to 30,000 but as low as 2,000, over 4 or 5 years; that includes situations where Gen. Allen's wife wrote to invite Kelley and her husband over to supper and cc'd the general, and may well include Kelley (given her brass-obsession) sending the General little tidbits of stuff that he deleted without reading.

                As of this morning, the investigators had winnowed all that down to 5 that they felt had "questionable" or "suspicious" wording. And they don't say which direction those were sent in.

            •  source? (0+ / 0-)

              eom

              mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

              by wewantthetruth on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:14:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Army Col. Steve Boylan, a former Petraeus aide who (0+ / 0-)

                is acting as his unofficial spokesman.

                http://www.charlotteobserver.com/...

                Petraeus, 60, and Broadwell, 40, began their affair about two months after he became CIA director in September 2011, and they had agreed to end it about four months ago, said retired Army Col. Steve Boylan, a former Petraeus aide who is acting as his unofficial spokesman.

                “There weren’t a lot of meetings,” Boylan told McClatchy. “Based on what I understand, it was a mutually agreed upon realization that this was something they shouldn’t be doing.”

              •  I hate "it's been reported" (0+ / 0-)

                there should be an investigation of who reported it and when.......LOL!

                mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

                by wewantthetruth on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:26:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  No, the affair supposedly "ended" when ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, Cliss, FishOutofWater

              Petraeus learned of the investigation(s), which arose out of Broadwell sending threatening emails to Kelley.

              The irony of Broadwell being half the cause of the exposure of her affair, and the end of her career, is surely not lost on her.  But I'm betting the story will get even more salacious, that it'll turn out that Kelley first complained to Patraeus, who probably told her to simmer down, he'd talk to Broadwell, etc.  If he told Broadwell to knock it off, it probably just tweaked her jealousy further.  So much for his ability to "lead", eh?

              There's also the irony of Kelley's arrogance in complaining to her FBI buddy, which led to her own humiliation and loss of status.  But given how she's apparently been helping potential U.S. enemies gain access to powerful people, we should be glad this has all come out and their efforts thwarted.  The results of any investigation on that issue alone are sure to be stunning.

              And there's no doubt that there is MUCH more to the story; we haven't heard the whole thing yet by far.

              Whoever makes a movie telling the story of this mess is sure to make a mint!  We should start a contest of best proposed movie title.  Didn't someone already do a book or movie titled "The Mouth That Roared"?  If so, too bad, it would have been a good candidate here.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:34:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  DONT LISTEN (0+ / 0-)

              FUCKING LIE. DONT LISTEN TO THE BIGOTS. LAY OFF, SHE WAS stalking, those are rw talking points to avoid, use common sense and decency.

    •  I've seen no evidence except her speech (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yella dawg, wewantthetruth

      The CIA denies it completely and no credible source has come to light. That makes the questions the diarist poses more like "when did you quit beating your wife?" than substantive inquiries.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:41:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thinking exactly what you are? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        no credible sources so post questions to stir up another controversy.

        I vote to let them do the jobs and report when they have all the information. in the interim, lots of important work that this country and government need to be doing.

        susan rice is not going to get fired and O is not going to be impeached.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:28:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Susan Rice has a problem. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cliss

          Patraeus says the talking points memo was clear that AQ terrorists were believed to be involved.  The White House denied it removed that reference.  That leaves Rice holding the bag.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:37:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Petraeus also testified that the talking points (5+ / 0-)

            memo given to Ambassador Rice also went through various other intelligence agencies before being finally signed off.  He further stated that the memo which Ambassador Rice used on the Sunday talk shows was the EXACT SAME memo given to congressional committee members the preceding Saturday night.

            Susan Rice does NOT have a problem because she did not deviate from the memo supplied to her by the intelligence agencies.

          •  Rice has no problem and she holds no bag (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            Patreaus and all other parties involved agree the reference was removed with the assent of all concerned to protect intelligence sources. Rice was given the redacted version with the agreement of the CIA, the WH, and others involved. Rice used that version in her testimony.

            General Patreaus totally exonerated Rice in his testimony as did Obama in his press conference. The only reason people are bringing her up is because the nutbags are lying.

            Amb. Rice holds no bag except what the wingnuts are making up in trying to get at Obama.

            They are making shit up again.

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:59:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm calling bullshit (0+ / 0-)

            it's over and done with but thanks for playing the game.

            mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

            by wewantthetruth on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:14:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  She got it from Fox News (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yella dawg, leonard145b
      Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?
  •  Well, What Happened To The Prisoners? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    No group has claimed they attacked to free their prisoners, Petraeus has claimed he didn't reveal classified information, the CIA has denied Broadwell's claim, and most telling, John McCain has brought it up, LOL.  

    Also, what's the relation of Benghazi, Petraeus, Broadwell, etc., to Mr. Kiriakou?

    •  Oops, Sorry, Should Be John McCain Hasn't Brought: (0+ / 0-)

      it up.

    •  Good grief. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cliss, notagain, judyms9, chuckvw, CIndyCasella

      1. Diary doesn't claim there were prisoners.

      2. Silence from the terrorists proves nothing.

      3. Petraeus is obviously not to be trusted.

      4. The CIA is obviously not to be trusted.

      5. And McCain's views on everything are irrelevant.

      6. The connection to Kirakou is crystal clear in the diary.

      Hence your LOL is rude and unfounded.

      •  Don't think commenter was criticizing the diarist (9+ / 0-)

        at all, and the LOL was about his own mention of McCain.  

        •  Emptywheel called the CIA denial a (11+ / 0-)

          non-denial denial .  

          They’re not saying prisoners weren’t there, only that they weren’t technically CIA prisoners. Doesn’t rule out contractors holding prisoners, and we know there were South African contractors tied to the annex in some way.

          Or JSOC prisoners.

          That was her response to the Guardian UK:
          “In an answer to a question reading the CIA chief’s handling of the incident, the biographer said: “Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”
          She added: “The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

          “Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless,” agency spokesman Preston Golson said.

          McCain was probably right in suspecting dark was going on in Benghazi  (not a cover up by the White House) , but we are never going to find out exactly what.      

          "It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." -- Thomas Paine

          by sailmaker on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:48:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Translation of Broadwell's remarks - Oct at DU (7+ / 0-)
            “In an answer to a question reading the CIA chief’s handling of the incident, the biographer said: “Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”
            She was a military officer, with extensive training in military intelligence. She knew not to reveal classified information. She thought she was repeating something that had already been leaked/reported by Fox News. Elsewhere in her remarks she twice referred to a Fox News story earlier that day.

            Simplest explanation:

            1. She thought she was supporting an important "leak" of something, making sure it got wider play, possibly to  embarrass the president before the election. She was supporting the Benghazi cover-up meme.

            2. She was trying to appear relevant, as if she was really in the loop. She was trying to market herself as a counter-terrorism expert, when we now know her CIA director boyfriend had already dumped her.

            She added: “The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”
            Translation:

            Petreaus tells me everything. I'm so important that the director of the CIA can legally tell me important secrets, and I can tell them to you.

            That is total BS.

            She was Petraeus' publicist, not a biographer.

            This is Petreaus' former lover who lost her power over America's top spy and was trying to launch the next phase of her career by dropping his name wherever she went.

            She was trying to position herself to be an insider in the brewing "scandal" and what she presumes will be the ascendent GOP administration.

            Petraeus had been using her all along to market the myth of the warrior hero who would go on to become POTUS.

      •  Okay, Just Asking For Evidence - Ms Broadwell's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CIndyCasella

        assertions, notwithstanding...  And the LOL is to John McCain.

    •  Kiriakou - (12+ / 0-)

      The diarist is saying that if we vigorously prosecute someone who blows the whistle on illegal CIA activity, then we should also vigorously investigate illegal CIA activity.  

    •  Kiriakou was a CIA agent persecuted for exposing (11+ / 0-)

      torture of prisoners by CIA agents.  

      The Benghazi CIA Annex may have been a CIA secret prison holding Libya Militia members, which may have been the real reason behind the attack.

      If this is so, the CIA disobeyed Obama's executive order and put the Libyan Consulate personnel at considerable risk.

      The reason I brought up Kiriakou is that he conscientiously blew the whistle on CIA torture, and if there was a CIA secret prison in the Benghazi consulate annex which caused our Ambassador and 3 government officials to be killed, it would prove that Kiriakou was right to blow the whistle on a practice that clearly compromises our national security, let alone our international stature.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:59:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There may have been a classified exception (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KateCrashes, kurious, LilithGardener

        to the executive order specially for Libya. We should not make assumptions.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:06:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The trouble with that is, then any public position (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          newore, LilithGardener, kurt, chuckvw, Cliss

          … taken by a U.S. administration and implemented via an executive order could be completely turned into its opposite in any given case by some "classified exception."

          Then the only assumption you can validly make besides "I just trust them," is that all bets are off, no matter what officials say.

          The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

          by lotlizard on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:28:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We, unfortunately, are still at war. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            whizdom, a2nite, Cliss

            The support for a Libyan government includes getting a large amount of armaments out of the wrong hands and disposed of.

            Disarming the various militia in collaboration with the Libyan government is something I would be willing to give the CIA and POTUS some leeway on.

            For awhile.

            Do I trust them? No, not really.

            Is it imperative that there be secrets about operational aspects at the moment? Absolutely

            Let's not demand that we do what Isreal just did and broadcast our security missions on twitter and Facebook.  

            •  That is one thing about (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, Cliss

              the whole Fox news Lindsay McCain poutrage about "lying and incompetence", that we didn't immediately disclose all our classified assessments of the bad guys and their capabilities, and operational impact of their actions.  That would have been giving material aid to terrorists, if they knew the effect of their actions, tactics, and procedures, it would be a gift to them.  There is a reason for classifying information.  

              Really pisses me off when classification is misused, but pisses me off even more when critics seeking political advantage demand a standard of disclosure that would aid the adversary.

              •  I'm convinced that Broadwell thought she (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cliss

                was helping to keep Obama from getting elected.

                She may have been tipped to support the Fox story.

                She may have been grasping at straws and exaggerating to keep positioning herself "in the loop."

                Or she may have been used and hung out to dry.

                He statements accuse the CIA of breaking the law, and accuse Petraeus of telling her classified information which he can't speak to the press about, and indirectly accuse the CIA of lying to the White House.

                The simplest explanation? She was full of BS, or she was a republican operative amplifying the "Benghazi cover-up meme."

                •  I don't see that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener, Cliss

                  the republican operative thing.  Broadwell was about Broadwell.   Ambitious beyond her capabilities, and therefore dangerous.

                  Now shirtless target boy FBI guy was definitely on a mission to unseat Obama.  

                  •  Yes, Broadwell was full of BS, and full of (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cliss

                    herself. I only invoke "operative" because if she was convinced that the GOP were going to win the WH, she would have willingly helped power players toward that end.

                    She was essentially auditioning for her next job appointment somewhere in the next GOP administration or as a counter-terrorism expert on Fox News.

                    •  she doesn't strike me as an idealogical (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      true believer, but yes, she was likely to seek to re-enter government at the political appointee level.  perhaps better chances in a repug administration, but a Dem admin would be fine.  Her mentor did it, crossed  the party lines.  But I don't think she would be a pure partisan politics player, especially if it involved risk to herself.  

              •  The CIA may question prisoners (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cliss

                detained by the Libyan government. They don't have to tell us all about that right now.

                An ironic benefit of Broadwell's obsessiveness and her tracking/stalking emails is that Petraeus, we can hope, will never get anywhere near the white house. For that fact, I am grateful to the whole lot of them for stirring up such a hornet's nest.

            •  Not being snarky, but at war with whom (in the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cliss

              … context of this specific comment)?

              At war with remnants of Qaddafi forces in Libya?
              At war with shadowy elements, we don't know who, in Libya?
              Or simply "at war" in the sense that the Global War on Terrorism is still going on?

              Who exactly is the enemy or adversary in Libya that we are at war with? Do we (the voting public) even know? Is it "better" for us not to know?

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

              by lotlizard on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:25:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We are war in Afganistan against the Taliban (0+ / 0-)

                And we are engaged in shadow wars against terrorists and militia various places.

                Libya has no national security force, yet, and we have a national security interest in helping them avoid becoming another Somalia,

                by supporting their efforts to locate, collect and secure all the arms that are currently held by various groups.

                Who exactly is the enemy or adversary in Libya that we are at war with?
                    I don't know.
                Do we (the voting public) even know? Is it "better" for us not to know?
                     I think our children and grandchildren might get to know, but not likely us in the next 4 years.
      •  Please clarify... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        judyms9, yella dawg, LilithGardener

        By "Lybia Milita" do you mean Assad's government thugs/military or the anti-Assad 'insurgents' in this civil war? I ask because it was my understanding that the U.S. has sided with the 'insurgents' and Ambassador Stevens was working closely with them. I'm having some trouble imagining why the CIA would have insurgent prisoners in Benghazi.

        Thanks.

        •  Wrong continent - Libya is northern Africa (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yella dawg, tampaedski

          and is west of Egypt. The Libyan people overthrew their former dictator, Kadafi, and held their first democratic elections in September, 2012.

          Libya
          https://www.google.com/...

          Assad is the president and dictator of Syria, which is south of Turkey, east of Isreal, and shares its southern border with Iraq.

          Syria
          https://www.google.com/...

          •  Right. So CIA was (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Garrett

            [supposedly] holding Libyan prisoners in Benghazi. Were these anti-Kadafi 'insurgents' we were supposely supporting during THAT civil war, or Kadafi thugs/military, or just Libyans who joined Al Qaeda?

            Which faction attacked the consulate and killed Stevens, et al.? Kadafi henchmen who escaped to Syria after Kadafi died wanting to liberate their captured fellows? Syrian pro-Assad henchmen wanting to liberate captured Kadafi henchmen? Al Qaida wanting to liberate captured Kadafi henchmen? Al Qaida working for Assad to liberate captured Kadafi henchmen? Al Qaida terrorists wanting to liberate Al Qaida terrorists? 'Insurgents' we're supposedly supporting against Assad who are actually Al Qaida terrorists in league with Libyan Al Qaida terrorists?

            Can anybody keep the good guys and bad guys straight in all this? My head is spinning...

            •  Hell if I know - but our children and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau

              grandchildren might get to know.

              Recall the republican primary?

              That's what Libya is like right now, except that each of the desperate and delusional presidential contenders, and each of those superPac billionaires, had their own militia and private stash of heavy weapons.

              It will be awhile before we get to know what's really happening there.

              •  Man. Sort of looks to me like (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                there's a barbarian problem in that corner of the world. Where even if the current 'strongman' dictator disappears or gets killed, the factions that may unite against the doomed despot then turn on each other to try and become the next ruling junta, or spread trouble next door. And they've got so many names and outside backers that nobody's quite clear on who's who.

                I hope Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria (and anybody else who joins in) somehow ends up with something resembling real representative government. But that's not something they're used to, and as you pointed out, the wannabes all have their own well-equipped and well-blooded armies. Hell, sometimes it's hard not to wonder if maybe even factions amongst the various outside 'backing' factions have different pet warlords/militias so as to occasionally stab each other in the back...

        •  Go to Mauretania (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cliss, LilithGardener

          turn right, cross over a big ditch, keep a salty lake on your right, and the sea on your left, and when you see the cliffs, you are there .  

      •  I've often wondered of late (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluedust, Cliss, LilithGardener

        what became of the archives - probably millions of documents - of the spy/security services of the former Libyan regime.

        It seems to be that countless governments and politicians would be most anxious to obtain same to protect themselves and to blackmail others...

        Now that Libya is a playground for spies, spooks, gun runners, "contractors", and tourist warriors we'll likely not find out for a very long time.



        Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

        by chuckvw on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:00:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The fact that Petraeus denies he made yet another (6+ / 0-)

      major fuckup isn't a reason to quash that line of inquiry.

      Otoh, I read somewhere that her allegation about prisoners in that speech was already being aired in a blog somewhere and that she could have gleaned it from there (just as she could have supplied the scoop to such a blog and then been able to say "Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this..." in her speech, so as not to sound like she was the source).

      This speech has been in the background of this story and needs to be thoroughly examined due to its potential security and chain of command issues (ie, the question of whether there were prisoners there in breach of a Presidential directive,  and if so, who authorized that?).

      Also note that she, in the second paragraph of the blockquote above, drops other (I assume) classified shoe, informing her audience about the time frame of Petraeus' correspondence with his Libyan station chief.  The same goes for her comment, also in that blockquote, that the prisoner thing "(is) still being vetted."  How the hell would she know about CIA internal shit like that?  Those would both seem to be very small revelatory potatoes compared to the prisoner allegation, but you can see her glee in being able to drop these little insider's tidbits to her alma materr, as if to say "I made the really big time, Denver!"  Her need for adulation seems to have overcome a need to keep the level of her access to Petraeus secret.  

      If indeed there were prisoners there, it also raises the question of whether that was the reason behind the Ambassador's trip, ie, that he was investigating that rumor and intending to deal with it if he discovered it was true.  Keep in mind that Hillary C, the Ambassador's boss, is the most likely Dem POTUS candidate next cycle, and that David Petraeus was, at that point, the best hope the GOP had to run against her (check out the photo in this unrelated article about Karl Rove).  If the Ambassador had discovered that the prisoner thing was true, it would have put her in a politically dominant position over him going forward, and she could have even delt with it quietly and have still had him hemmed in politically.

      Taking that a step further, following the disaster at the outpost, the whole picture became irretrievably muddled.  But Petraeus had to step down in any event because of his affair with the woman who publicized the Benghazi prisoner breach of authority, so that raises the question of whether his outing and resignation was the outcome of a backup plan to deal with his insubordination and security lapses without the political insanity of making the most formidable GOP POTUS candidate in '16 the focus of a major power struggle between him and Hillary and Obama.

      That's all assuming the prisoner thing was true, which we may never know for sure.  But the dynamic I describe above would neatly answer the diarist's final question at the bottom of the diary:

      If there was a CIA secret prison in the Benghazi Consulate Annex contravening Executive Order 13491, why aren't they investigating and prosecuting this serious crime which may have motivated an attack that killed our ambassador and three other American officials with the same vigor they went after John Kiriakou, a conscientious and brave CIA agent, who is now serving time for blowing the whistle on CIA torture?
      Answer: Because it's neater this way, and you get Petraeus on your side going forward (as we have already seen in the committee hearings of the last few days).

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

      by nailbender on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:43:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This could've been the trigger for the FBI to (10+ / 0-)

    search Paula Broadwell's computers for classified intelligence which she should not have had access. This had the potential to put CIA officials out of their jobs. Of course with the current Attorney General not a chance of that. Still they can not allow the truth about illegal CIA prisons etc to be told. After all it's only because of Issa's bumbling that the presence of the CIA compound was even made public.

    I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

    by OHdog on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:45:29 AM PST

  •  Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi? (5+ / 0-)

    I'm not trying to sound sinister; I honestly don't know the explanation of what he was doing there at that time.

    A new birth of freedom..

    by docterry on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:46:11 AM PST

    •  Pretty common for an Ambassador (6+ / 0-)

      to visit consulates under his command. This would be especially true in the case of Benghazi, which was the home base of many of the rebel groups that overthrew Khaddafi .

      Stevens was based in Benghazi when he was acting as the liaison between the rebels and NATO.

      Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

      by OIL GUY on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:15:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Opening a cultural center and meeting with (5+ / 0-)

      local leaders.  The point was to establish a diplomatic presence in the area that was the heart of the rebellion against Gaddafi.  

      "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

      by KateCrashes on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:24:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One report said he was meeting with an oil co. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cliss

      I have no idea how much credence to give to this.

      Libya Herald - 14 September

      Stevens was in Benghazi for a 10 a.m. meeting on Wednesday with AGOCO, an oil company. His visit was supposed to be secret, but it is being reported that the details of his visit were passed on to the extremists. Sensitive documents are said to be missing from the representative office.

      "And if you come down with a case of Romnesia, and you can’t seem to remember the policies that are still on your website, ..., here’s the good news: Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions." -- President Obama, 10/19/2012, George Mason University

      by rja on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:16:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm surprised how tired I've grown of Paula (14+ / 0-)

    Broadwell in just a few days.  

    If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

    by livjack on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:51:23 AM PST

    •  i second that emotion! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cliss, LilithGardener, yella dawg

      November 6, 2012: United citizens = 1, Citizens United = 0 (-9.75 / -9.05)

      by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:22:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am tired of this whole story (0+ / 0-)

      "questions need to be answered"....they do? why?

      conspiracy theorists can always connect dots, even ones that aren't there.

      no one other than the HO and Fox ever said anything about prisoners being held in benghazi yet speculation is rampant.

      not sure why there is a push for immediate answers when gathering info takes time and after all the bullshit on this subject, if I were the CIA or FBI I sure as hell would rather take the time to get it right than to fuel even more rampant speculation.

      sometimes I think people come here to post to just to plant information or stories.

      have fun, y'all. hope beating it to death keeps you happy.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:22:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Broadwell is a Republican. So much for CT. (5+ / 0-)

    It appears that she was trying to defend Petraeus from attacks by Republicans who were going after Obama.

    We can reasonably conclude that the CIA was present in Libya during the Libyan revolution and that they would have been very interested in capturing and interrogating suspected members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups targeting U.S. citizens.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:02:55 AM PST

  •  Why wasn't Petraeus asked these questions (9+ / 0-)

    at the congressional hearings? Why? because the CIA and the government are still controlling the message.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:05:00 AM PST

  •  Purloined Petreus? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cliss

    /nt

  •  "Stevens was in Bengazhi to negotiate weapons... (4+ / 0-)

    ...transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists."

    "...WSJ reports that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the previously hidden CIA mission, which involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals. These weapons are presumably from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles...

    Could prisoners have been taken to prevent them from exposing the CIA mission to repurchase the SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles?

  •  The whole story is incredibly strange. (0+ / 0-)

    OK if I try to distill everything I've read the past week or so about the Petraeus story.  

    Just ignoring the kooky side stories about the "Women", it's enough to make the soap operas envious.  And wouldn't you know it, The Enquirer got in the act, just yesterday at the check out counter, on the front page was a story about Jill Kelley in Florida "I'm getting death threats".  

    It's pretty clear that US policy is in a state of total confusion, lack of leadership.  No one seems to be in charge.  How the hell else could this leech wannabe get up in front of a crowd in Colorado and spout issues of national security.  Why didn't they shut her up at that moment.

    What could be causing this?  I know that after the Wiki Leaks revelations, they had to make some quick changes to the embassies around the world, maybe they haven't had enough time to set up new ways of communicating.

    It could also be that the State Department is a log riddled with worms.  I heard a while back, on PBS radio.  It was an interview about the State Department.  One of the directors, she was going to quit.  She had only "glowing" things to say, but when the question came to why she was leaving, she said "Oh I want to spend more time with my family".  Uh huh.  And so were several other directors, according to her.

    From the general in Afghanistan sending 20,000 love emails, to Petraeus running amok at the CIA, one thing is clear:  everything is in a state of disarray.

    Thanks for this very important diary.

     

  •  It is a mess (5+ / 0-)

    Increasingly, in these trouble spots, there is an inversion of the traditional structural relationships between State and CIA.  State used to be able to call the shots, but that is gone post Bush.  2/3 of the personnel evacuated from Benghazi were CIA, not State personnel.  

    The two big shoes nobody in the administration wants us to hear drop is the claim of detainees under CIA control in Benghazi, and the possible links between government contracting, lobbying and the Wisteria Lane girls.  

    •  "claim of detainees"?? (0+ / 0-)

      yeah, from Fox News...a very credible source. and don't tell me it was paula broadwell as she was specifically referencing Fox News when she was talking about prisoners in benghazi.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:22:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site