Did Paula Broadwell intentionally reveal a secret CIA prison at Benghazi compound?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 



I hate to ask the obvious, but if it was a secret prison

Wouldnt there have been more security?


It was not the CIA annex that was attacked, but another diplomatic outpost. The officers at the CIA annex were allegedly ordered not to respond to the situation. One of the ironies of this situation is that ultimately, it was more about public perceptions than safeguarding American diplomatic personnel.


Sorry, but your response makes not too much sense relative to the content of this thread. Please read the OP and you might better understand GeneralMishka's comment.......that way you will be able to respond in a more informed manner. Read especially the title of the thread OK? Did Paula Broadwell intentionally reveal a secret CIA prison at Benghazi compound? Thank you........
edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 



Please read the OP and you might better understand GeneralMishka's comment.......that way you will be able to respond in a more informed manner. Read especially the title of the thread OK? Did Paula Broadwell intentionally reveal a secret CIA prison at Benghazi compound? Thank you........


On the contrary, you need to read it more carefully. Here is the statement in question:


She stated: “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya 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 CIA annex allegedly had prisoners. The militia attacked the consulate. See the distinction? She did not say that the consulate was a second CIA annex. She did not say that prisoners were being held in the consulate. She said that the militia attacked the consulate because prisoners were being kept at the CIA annex. Either the militia was misinformed as to the location of the prisoners or, more likely, they were attempting to kidnap the Ambassador in order to effect a prisoner exchange. That would explain why the situation went on as long as it did. They were trying to take the poorly defended Ambassador alive. They failed.

Edit to add: So, no, Broadwell did not reveal the presence of a secret CIA prison at Benghazi, deliberately or otherwise.
edit on 12-11-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Despite your arguing to the contrary my initial criticism still holds..............Ambassador Stevens was attacked at the primary compound of the U.S. Consulate (mission actually) in Benghazi, Libya. At this time, former SEAL's Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, both working under the State Department (on contract to the CIA), were at the CIA "annex," a second compound about a mile away. It was to this that she was referring. She stated:

“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya 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 operative term here that you seem to be having trouble with is "compound."


On this you are dead wrong.---->..........

Edit to add: So, no, Broadwell did not reveal the presence of a secret CIA prison at Benghazi, deliberately or otherwise.
edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 


It wasn't a secret prison, it was a safe house...and team guys are always taking prisoners and then handing them over to the CIA , intel, or whomever, ...that's nothing new.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmonundercover
reply to post by DJW001
 


Despite your arguing to the contrary my initial criticism still holds..............Ambassador Stevens was attacked at the primary compound of the U.S. Consulate (mission actually) in Benghazi, Libya. At this time, former SEAL's Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, both working under the State Department (on contract to the CIA), were at the CIA "annex," a second compound about a mile away. It was to this that she was referring. She stated:

“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya 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 operative term here that you seem to be having trouble with is "compound."


On this you are dead wrong.---->..........

Edit to add: So, no, Broadwell did not reveal the presence of a secret CIA prison at Benghazi, deliberately or otherwise.
edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)


You have just proven my point. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
That sounds like the most likely scenario I've heard so far. Terrorists being held in a "unknown" safehouse,and kidnap the ambassador for a trade. Or another option, the consulate was attacked as a diversion to pull the annex guards away making a rescue attempt more likely to succed.

Either way, the main goal of White House denials were/are to keep the fact that the is US detaining and transferring prisoners out of the country. It would also explain why extra forces were not moved from the annex to the cosulate. There may have been a high ranking Al-Queda offical awaiting a one way plane ride to Gimo that was considered to valuable to lose.

Us mushrooms will never know the real truth or the reasons why descions were made the way the were.

YOU CAN't HANDLE THE THRUTH!!!




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
This article covers the Arthur Kade interview (video) made while Paula Broadwell was on a publicity tour last February wherein she made a rather strange but revealing comment that some might refer to as a Freudian slip: "I'm not in love with David Petraeus, but I think he does present a terrific role model for young people, for executives, for men and women. No matter what, there's a great role model there." But its best to just watch the video below.

The telling comment is at about the halfway point - 10:10 to be exact. It seems to have been made "in passing" but its revealing nonetheless. Very interesting interview for a true(er) impression of what she is really like - her intellect and her abilities. She seems a very good and likable person.


edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jacksmoke
 



Either way, the main goal of White House denials were/are to keep the fact that the is US detaining and transferring prisoners out of the country. It would also explain why extra forces were not moved from the annex to the cosulate.


Exactly. It also explains why the Administration has been hesitant to refer to it as an act of "terrorism." If the goal had simply been to kill Americans to generate fear, it would be terrorism. If the objective were a para-military operation to obtain prisoners to exchange, it would be a "negotiating tactic." The planners knew that between the anniversary of 9/11 and the widespread protests over that ridiculous movie, there would be a great deal of "fog" to cover their operation.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 



On this you are dead wrong.---->..........


Edit to add: So, no, Broadwell did not reveal the presence of a secret CIA prison at Benghazi, deliberately or otherwise.


Where does she say that the CIA compound was in Benghazi?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by jacksmoke
 

Either way, the main goal of White House denials were/are to keep the fact that the is US detaining and transferring prisoners out of the country. It would also explain why extra forces were not moved from the annex to the cosulate.


Exactly. It also explains why the Administration has been hesitant to refer to it as an act of "terrorism." If the goal had simply been to kill Americans to generate fear, it would be terrorism. If the objective were a para-military operation to obtain prisoners to exchange, it would be a "negotiating tactic." The planners knew that between the anniversary of 9/11 and the widespread protests over that ridiculous movie, there would be a great deal of "fog" to cover their operation.


jacksmoke quote in its proper context......

Originally posted by jacksmoke
That sounds like the most likely scenario I've heard so far. Terrorists being held in a "unknown" safehouse,and kidnap the ambassador for a trade. Or another option, the consulate was attacked as a diversion to pull the annex guards away making a rescue attempt more likely to succed.

Either way, the main goal of White House denials were/are to keep the fact that the is US detaining and transferring prisoners out of the country. It would also explain why extra forces were not moved from the annex to the consulate There may have been a high ranking Al-Queda offical awaiting a one way plane ride to Gimo that was considered to valuable to lose.
Us mushrooms will never know the real truth or the reasons why descions were made the way the were.
YOU CAN't HANDLE THE THRUTH!!!
edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 


Why do you choose to re-post that but not answer my direct question? Where did Broadwell say that the CIA annex was in Benghazi? Isn't that the crux of the thread?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 



This article covers the Arthur Kade interview (video) made while Paula Broadwell was on a publicity tour last February wherein she made a rather strange but revealing comment that some might refer to as a Freudian slip: "I'm not in love with David Petraeus, but I think he does present a terrific role model for young people, for executives, for men and women. No matter what, there's a great role model there." But its best to just watch the video below.


Yes, that is an interesting Freudian slip, but we all know about the affair now. The topic of this thread is: "Did Paula Broadwell intentionally reveal a secret CIA prison at Benghazi compound?" You have yet to show that she said that prisoners were being held in Benghazi. What's more, your title is framed in such a way that it has misled at least one reader into thinking that the compound you are referring to is the consulate, not the CIA annex. I trust this obfuscation was not intentional.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by gmonundercover
 


Why do you choose to re-post that but not answer my direct question? Where did Broadwell say that the CIA annex was in Benghazi? Isn't that the crux of the thread?


This is one of the main points of the thread: She stated: “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya 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.”

It is possible that Broadwell was confusing details of a news item that day same that claimed that three of the Libyan attackers were briefly held at a CIA annex in Benghazi, not the consulate, before being turned over to the local militia.

Notwithstanding that - the CIA would have a vested interest in denying the claim that prisoners were held at the annex, which had subsequently been withheld by the mainstream press and so had not been reported elsewhere. Its fairly well know that prisoners were held at Benghazi often to be then transported elsewhere as in 'rendition.'



Why does it bother you so much that it has now been confirmed that the U.S. was holding prisoners at the Benghazi Annex and that was likely a motive for the attack.
Prisoners being held at the annex (aka CIA Black Site) would definitely make a lot of sense here. Given the size, scope, and coordination of that attack, it does seem likely that this was the actual motive for the attack.
edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 



This is one of the main points of the thread: She stated: “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya 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.”


Exactly. She said "the CIA annex." She did not say either "the CIA annex in Benghazi" or even just "Benghazi."


It is possible that Broadwell was confusing details of a news item that day same that claimed that three of the Libyan attackers were briefly held at a CIA annex in Benghazi, not the consulate, before being turned over to the local militia.


Correct. Either way, she probably shouldn't have said anything.


Notwithstanding that - the CIA on would have a vested interest in denying the claim that prisoners were held at the annex, which subsequently been withheld by the mainstream press and so had not been reported elsewhere.


Agreed, and that need for discretion colored the entire response on the ground. So what's your point?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 



Why does it bother you so much that it has now been confirmed that the U.S. was holding prisoners at the Benghazi Annex and that was likely a motive for the attack.


Has that been confirmed? The point is, Paula Broadwell did not leak that the US was holding prisoners in Benghazi.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
[more


I wonder if when paula was talking about being the sounding board for her buddiies and commander who needed to confide in her, that she was talking about Petraus? ...hmmmmmmmm......its at the very end of the video. ...at least her fake boobs aren't obnoxious.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
This article indeed represents the CRUX of the matter - the CIA is in 'deny mode' here in a big way and is pulling out all stops on information damage control. The agency as a whole is extremely upset about Paula Broadwell's comments, and not in an incidental way, and the mainstream press is all over this story - big time. Sorry - But I refuse to argue with anyone who has troublesome intentions regarding the main content of this thread. Let the evidence speak for itself. Please go here - CIA Disputes Broadwell's Benghazi Comment

Opening paragraph(s)

By SIOBHAN GORMAN

WASHINGTON—The Central Intelligence Agency disputes a theory advanced by author Paula Broadwell that insurgents may have attacked the U.S. consulate and a CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 in bid to free militants being held there by the agency.

Ms. Broadwell, the woman with whom former Army Gen. David Petraeus is said to have had an extramarital affair that led to his resignation as CIA director on Friday, suggested the rationale for the consulate attack in an address at the University of Denver on Oct. 26.

"I don't know if a lot of you had heard this, but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get these prisoners back," she said then. "It's still being vetted."

But a CIA spokesman said there were no militant prisoners there, noting that President Barack Obama ended CIA authority to hold detainees in 2009. "Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless," said the spokesperson.

Some critics pointed to Ms. Broadwell's remarks in Denver as an indication that she may have been passing on classified information, leading to speculation that Mr. Petraeus may have been the source.

edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 



Sorry - But I refuse to argue with anyone who has troublesome intentions regarding the main content of this thread.


In other words, you hate it when people point out that your premise makes no sense.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join