PDA

View Full Version : Could this be the real reason there's been a Benghazi coverup?



Little-Acorn
11-13-2012, 02:11 PM
You've heard all the usual stories: A video, a planned terrorist attack, Petraeus' affair with a reporter.

One of these might contain a clue about what the coverup was really about:

Libyan terrorists had been captured by the CIA and held for months at the CIA compound near the consulate in Benghazi. And when terrorists attacked the consulate on Sept. 11, it was an attempt to get those prisoners back. Likewise, earlier attacks for the last year, were also about getting the prisoners back.

Secretly capturing and holding such prisoners, is a violation of U.S. law. Did President Obama know about it? Did he authorize it? Is this why he insisted for so long, that the attack was the result of a video and not a planned terrorist attack?

If true, then CIA Director Petraeus certainly knew about it. Cold this be why Democrats were so eager to announce he would not be testifying before Congress this week, about the Benghazi attack? And why they are so reluctantly changing their tune in the face of a storm of inquiry?

The coming testimony, especially if Petraeus participates, should be very interesting.

---------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/13/sex_scandal_reveals_why_there_is_a_benghazi_coveru p

Sex Scandal Reveals Why There is a Benghazi Coverup

Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

Nov 13, 2012 11:57 AM EST

Since the 9/11 attack on the U.S consulate in Benghazi, we've been told an anti-Islam YouTube video was to blame. We know the consulate was attacked multiple times throughout 2012 and U.S Ambassador Chris Stevens had received multiple threats from al Qaeda before being killed on 9/11 with three other Americans. From the beginning the story never added up and the YouTube video excuse has been proven a complete lie, but the recent revelations of an affair between General David Petraeus and biographer Paula Broadwell may have given us the missing link to this whole thing.

It isn't the affair itself that gives us more information, but the affair bringing attention to words spoken by Broadwell in Denver on October 26. She said the CIA was holding prisoners at the annex in Benghazi and Fox News has confirmed with another source this was the case.

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

[Paula] Broadwell went on to explain more sensitive details from the Benghazi attacks, particularly concerning what the real cause might have been.

“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.”

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.

This explains two things. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi was being repeatedly attacked because prisoners were being held and because President Obama signed an executive order in 2009 banning secret CIA prisons, they had to find an alternative story to cover-up what really happened, hence the YouTube video.

Although the media has paid much more attention to this sex scandal than what actually happened in Benghazi on 9/11, the scandal is finally giving us the details we've been searching for to fill in the gaps.

Little-Acorn
11-13-2012, 02:37 PM
In the Oct. 26 report by Fox News mentioned by Paula Broadwell, there is a reference to the CIA compound capturing three Libyan prisoners, which they were forced to turn over to the Libyans during the attack.

Was the CIA compound under attack from the terrorists on Sept. 11, 2012? I thought it was the consulate that got attacked. The two buildings are more than a mile apart. As I recall, the CIA personnel at the compound, kept asking permission to go over to the consulate to help fight off the attackers, but were repeatedly refused permission to help, and so they stood down. Finally they disobeyed orders, and went to the consulate anyway to help rescue the American personnel there.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

aboutime
11-13-2012, 03:24 PM
NOBODY, but nobody should put anything past the present Obama administration.

If there is any reason to hide, cover-up, or lie about ANYTHING.

Expect that to be the reason for just about anything we have, or will soon hear.

Nixon had nothing on OBAMA.

mundame
11-13-2012, 03:41 PM
the CIA personnel at the compound, kept asking permission to go over to the consulate to help fight off the attackers, but were repeatedly refused permission to help, and so they stood down. Finally they disobeyed orders, and went to the consulate anyway to help rescue the American personnel there.



I think this is so sad. I think it's all pretty awful, that they had to disobey orders to help.

I would like to see consequences from these bad decisions. There sure is a lot of moral turpitude floating around in high places these days.