In a speech, Paula Broadwell raised Benghazi details in this youtube video

2012 Paula Broadwell, Did she spills the beans In a speech, Paula Broadwell raised Benghazi details ?

The comments are near the end of the video.

youtu.be...

“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 challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus,” she stated, “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 Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

she had said the military could have sent reinforcements.
.
“They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex.”

The words in the video speak for them-self,

reply to post by Stormdancer777

“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.”

Now knowing that Petraeus is not allowed to speak to the press when he was with the CIA, did he have her out this information.

Isn't this information she should not have access to?

The best point to start is at 30 minutes.

I also want to point out the date of this speaking engagement, October 26th.

Broadwell and Petraeus were interviewed by the FBI and admitted their affair on October 21st.

On October 26th this is what Petraeus was doing:

From The Weekly Standard:

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

source

Now I want to remind you what Paula said in her speech:
“The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus,” she stated, “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 Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

So here we have a coordinated effort to protect CIA and implicate the White House.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
The best point to start is at 30 minutes.

I also want to point out the date of this speaking engagement, October 26th.

Broadwell and Petraeus were interviewed by the FBI and admitted their affair on October 21st.

On October 26th this is what Petraeus was doing:

From The Weekly Standard:

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

source

Now I want to remind you what Paula said in her speech:
“The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus,” she stated, “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 Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

So here we have a coordinated effort to protect CIA and implicate the White House.

Thank you for adding that, MsA,

Oh that timeline!!!!!, thanks, can I post it on the other topic?

Actually the whole tiff about Benghazi is being blown out of proportion.

The FBI wants control over America and will do anything to make the CIA look bad because of sever blunder of the FBI that allowed terrorists to hijack four planes and crash then into the WTC's on 9.11.01.

The reason that the four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi was due in part to incomplete intelligence of the area.

Does everyone remember Black Hawk Down? The same scenario could have happened in Benghazi if support had been called in.

But in this day and age of mass medi and cell phones a much larger terrorist force could have been called to attack the support units going in after the embassy staff. Such an attack would have created a very large conflict in the area as more and more U.S. troops would had to have been called in to rescue the rescuers as more and more terrorists and those with anti-American sentiments would have joined the frey creating a media frenzy.

The decision to not send in support was a good call because thats exactly what the terrorists wanted to happen.

They wanted a large problem to happen in the Middle East during the elections that could have sent the American voters to Romney's side.

As infectual as a leader that Romney is being a puppet himself those who control Romney would have called for the immediate attack and deployment of troops to Middle East in order to continue to build their wealth and power upon the back of war and for no other reason other than war itself.

This was noted by a few TV reporters with the laxity to go into the ramifications
of Obama's orders not to take prisoners. So just like with JFK people are doing
things contrary to presidential orders. Did this happen under Truman and
Eisenhower and others, perhaps.

ED: the video is no longer linked, try one of these:
www.youtube.com...