Gen. David Petraeus’ mistress, Paula Broadwell, disclosed a peculiar twist in the Benghazi assault on October 26: That the United States of Obama was holding captured Libyan terrorists prisoners at the consulate compound in Benghazi. Broadwell further alleged that the assault on 9-11-12 may have been an effort to free those prisoners.
The CIA denied Broadwell’s claim.
But Fox’s Jennifer Griffin confirmed Broadwell’s tale. Yes, the United States was holding prisoners at the consulate in Benghazi.
GRIFFIN: We have now learned those three prisoners had been held for a few days at the annex. And more than just Libyan militia members were held there. There may have been prisoners from other African countries, maybe even the Middle East, they were allegedly interrogated by CIA contractors. The CIA denies this saying the CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009. That’s when the president signed Executive Order 13491. The CIA claims any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is quote “uninformed and baseless.” But a separate well-placed source confirms to Fox News that the Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi may be a possible motive for the staged attack…
Well, what did the general’s mistress know and when did she know it? What else did Petraeus’ pillow talk reveal to the woman whose alleged stalkerish threats took him down?
If true, all of this adds to the reasons that Barack Obama would have been motivated to cover up the attack. He ran on closing Gitmo and undoing the CIA’s wartime powers, but in Libya — a quasi-state whose revolution he had overseen — his CIA was using those wartime powers he had cynically run against and even written an executive order to do away with.
In addition to this, the attack on the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt on 9-11-12 was not a protest, but an effort to get a big terrorist kahuna freed from US prison. If that attack and the Benghazi attack had similar goals and happened on the same day, it’s not unreasonable to believe that they were coordinated al Qaeda trikes.
But, but…”al Qaeda is on the run…”
It’s also possible that Petraeus had the CIA holding prisoners outside his stated authority from the president. For that to be true, though, Petraeus would have had to worked with Stevens, and both would have known that they were breaking the president’s directive. It seems more likely that Obama knew and authorized holding prisoners at Benghazi.
This just keeps getting gooder and gooder.
This is less an impeachable offense and more of a treasonous event if they left Stevens and the others to die.
If true, you can see why they wanted to keep a lid on it until after the election. Not that it would have changed anything. The media would have still ran cover and the takers still would have voted for Santa Clause.
Good luck getting a Democratic Senate to convict, or the Department of Justice to prosecute.
Obama could set fire to a bus full of pregnant women on live television and there’d be no move to impeach him. Democrats consider any action by their politicians as right and necessary, and no Republican is going to be the first to vote to impeach the first black president. ‘Cause it’s racist to hold him to the same standards we would anyone else.
Top Secret “Finding” signed by Obama authorizing detention…in contravention of his own Executive Order.
Righto.
But is that suborning perjury, or just being cool, being the boss, being the decider?
If this is true…and I suggest waiting…then it puts the “hateful movie” thing into much different perspective, yes? A perspective much less flattering to the President, yes? One would think.
We should be patient on this issue. The media demands we be patient, so let us be patient–and see all that we see.
“It seems more likely that Obama knew and authorized holding prisoners at Benghazi.”
Dear Liar campaigns against black prisons, gets in power and finds out he likes it. Which makes it even more strange why you’d hold prisoners, even for just a few days, without adequate security.
POTUS suborning perjury by the DCI before Congress strikes me as an impeachable offense.
Since when is perjury or suborning perjury an impeachable offense? That was settled in the Clinton impeachment.
There is no coverup, no crime, no scandal involving the Obama administration. Period. Get over it.
Sincerely,
The Media
Obama’s last election is over. They will now turn on him like a pack of hyenas if it gets them a ratings bump.
No, these MSM types really dislike being called racists.
To them they showed the parolee’s anti-Islamist video, protesters raged and killed the ambassador, the parolee spends his Thanksgiving and Christsmas in jail, and will not be allowed to make another video to incite the incitable next 9-11. America loves its 1st Amendment, America loves its leads nobody from nowhere leadership in the Middle East.
Anything can be an impeachable offense. An impeachable offense is whatever the House of Reps says it is. And it is the House that impeaches, not the Senate. The Senate is the jury for the impeachment trial. The Senate can convict, or not. But whatever they do, Bathhouse Barry will have been impeached, should the House draw up the articles. Talking of “treason” just sounds over the top. More on point is “criminally negligent homicide”, along with lying to Congress and the American people, potentially suborning perjury, conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc.
The CIA is a huge mess just like anything else within the government today. They should have NEVER been granted law enforcement, military or para-military type roles in combat missions or in nation building. Heck nowadays, we even have the FBI the DEA and who know what other ‘domestic’ agencies involved in our on-the-ground combat missions. Everybody’s authorities and missions have become blurred and cross all lines. What a mess!
Lets get one thing right, the CIA is doing a bunch of dirty stuff and they should be doing a bunch of dirty stuff. The CIA is there to do a bunch of dirty stuff in foreign countries. They were fighting on the ground in Libya along with the British SAS this has become uncommon knowledge, in other words its not on CNN but it still happened. Once again its really all about the cover up (stupid) that is the issue. The key for me is the prisoner issue where there prisoners people being detained in any of the facilities being attacked? Obviously this is what they wanted covering up but the weird thing for me is the FBI investigating the CIA, this could be the real scandal?