HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Why did Paula Broadwell t...

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:02 PM

Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?

Source: Washington Post / blogs / Worldview / Max Fisher

A YouTube video of Paula Broadwell’s speech at the University of Denver, which is now set as “private.” (YouTube)

Paula Broadwell, the former military intelligence officer whose alleged affair with CIA Director David Petraeus culminated in the end of his career, had earlier made some startling, now-revealed claims about the agency’s role in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.

In an Oct. 26 speech at the University of Denver, she said that Libyan militants had attacked the post to retrieve some fellow fighters who’d been taken prisoner at the nearby CIA annex. She also seems to suggest that Petraeus himself knew about it, implying that he may have been her source. Here’s the relevant passage from the speech, transcribed in full here by Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounshell.

"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."

The CIA is flatly denying this...

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/why-did-paula-broadwell-think-the-cia-had-taken-prisoners-in-benghazi/

47 replies, 5726 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi? (Original post)
anobserver2 Nov 2012 OP
Berlum Nov 2012 #1
underthematrix Nov 2012 #5
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #2
sandyshoes17 Nov 2012 #16
underthematrix Nov 2012 #3
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #7
tblue37 Nov 2012 #39
ciking724 Nov 2012 #44
tblue37 Nov 2012 #46
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #4
underthematrix Nov 2012 #11
BVictor1 Nov 2012 #20
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #24
Mme. Defarge Nov 2012 #22
Lint Head Nov 2012 #6
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #12
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #8
tblue37 Nov 2012 #41
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #9
bananas Nov 2012 #10
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #15
bananas Nov 2012 #19
Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #13
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #14
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #32
justiceischeap Nov 2012 #17
tblue37 Nov 2012 #42
underthematrix Nov 2012 #23
Z_I_Peevey Nov 2012 #25
colorado_ufo Nov 2012 #29
yardwork Nov 2012 #31
demhottie Nov 2012 #36
janx Nov 2012 #26
Enrique Nov 2012 #38
Indi Guy Nov 2012 #18
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #47
Wellstone ruled Nov 2012 #21
dvhughes Nov 2012 #27
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #28
Enrique Nov 2012 #30
olddad56 Nov 2012 #33
John2 Nov 2012 #34
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #35
demhottie Nov 2012 #37
DeSwiss Nov 2012 #45
DeSwiss Nov 2012 #40
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #43

Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:03 PM

1. Because she is an occult Black-Ops Republican Sex agent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:06 PM

5. Actually I would question that even thugh I initially thought she fit

that meme extremely well. But she used an expression in one of her statements no self-respecting black ops GOPKKKer ever use "FIRED UP"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:04 PM

2. OK; this to me looks like a real controversy now

The CIA is "flatly denying" something that Paula Broadwell publicly said in a university speech.

I think that disagreement is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:18 PM

16. Could it be Willard

When did he start getting briefings? Not sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:04 PM

3. Yep. Petraeus is going to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:08 PM

7. That's what I am thinking

He did something for which he knows he should go to jail.

So, now: enter the "affair" cover story to get him out of next week's testimony.

And, she, Paula, knows there is no affair.

Something like that may be going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:25 PM

39. No--apparently she had no inside information. She was simply touting info she got from a fake story

offered by FOX News "reporter" Jennifer Griffin. Then the FOX News spokesmodel--err, "reporter"--used Broadwell's comment in turn as evidence to bolster her own story, which was apparently Broadwell's original source. By the time Broadwell was makign these remarks, her connection to Petraus had been broken, so he was not her source for this nonsense.

Shades of Dick Cheney quoting Judith Miller's NYT story (which he originally fed her) as "evidence" for his WMD claims.

These two foolish women simply created a feedback loop of misinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:13 PM

44. I think you nailed it.

But did Jennifer Griffin come up with the story on her own? And if so, why? If not, who then did she get it from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciking724 (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:58 PM

46. Well, the original story was NOT that the consulate or annex was being used as a prison.

It was that some militants were captured during the attack and temporarily held there. Broadwell apparently misunderstood the article and thought that militants were being held there before the attack.

On edit--I can no longer locate the article I read earlier this evening that mentioned the Griffin-Broadwell feedback loop of misinformation. When I try to Google it, all I get is an endless stream of links to articles citing Broadwell's comments as "confirmation" of "multiple" prisoners "held" and "interrogated" perhaps "for several days." It sounds as though all the RW blogs are taking that thin stuff created by Griffin and Broadwell and spinning, spinning, spinning a gigantic web with it. Soon they will have created entire prison camps filled with thousands of prisoners!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:06 PM

4. Because Patreaus embedded her?

Or maybe he was embedded?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:10 PM

11. Nah to that both

figuratively and actually. He's going to jail because of his loose lips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:33 PM

20. Embedded her...

 

Or bedded her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BVictor1 (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:23 PM

24. I think the way to say it would be .... "He ... emmmm ... bedded her."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:53 PM

22. Embeddedness happens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Lint Head (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:10 PM

12. Who knows...

I just think the fact the CIA is denying something Paula publicly said may indeed be important.
Because now, there is a real issue, beyond any alleged "affair."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:08 PM

8. She said it because its true? If so, it means a US consulate is a secret detention facility

That would get some knickers in a twist internationally. If one consulate or embassy is a secret detention facility (rendition even?) then how many others are operating the same way?

Regardless, this sounds like really confidential information. Broadwell is most likely in a shitload of trouble - beyond the adultery (another no-no in the military).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:38 PM

41. See my reply #39 above. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:09 PM

9. I don't know but Senator Feinstein is asking the same question.

and she has subpoena power

They need to clean up the jail cell in the basement of the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:09 PM

10. Now the video has been removed completely - no longer just "private".

Hope someone uploads a copy of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:16 PM

15. Wasted effort

Its currently on TV news here in the UK and doubtless elsewhere too.

Still here anyway :



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #15)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:30 PM

19. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:12 PM

13. People..it is great to blog about this stuff but........

There is so much that we don't know. We should not come to conclusions or even speculate until more is known.

If the story is true - that is that Paula knew the CIA had taken several people into custody, that suggests that Petraeus either told her or she learned it by having unauthorized access to his e-mail or other information.

For now I would believe what the President has said both about Benghazi and also the Petraeus affair. Until we know more we are just hand-wringing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:15 PM

14. That's true - keep an open mind

I think you're right; at this moment, we don't know much.

And, we don't even know if there was an affair. Or what else did or didn't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:54 PM

32. But I am wondering: Where would this all go if certain matters were true?

What if Paula is the only one telling the truth, and the CIA was doing exactly what she said in her speech?
What if she saw that? And told her father?

What if there was no affair at all?

What would you do if you saw that, and how would you tell someone if you thought it was wrong to do that (detain people in an embassy)?
How do you report it, other than going public?

What if the general was doing a lot of illegal things, and
knew he might someday need a cover story like an "affair" and so encouraged the attention of Paula, a first time author,
to hang around him and write this book on him?

And what would it look like to the rest of the world if this particular general did in fact do illegal things and got sent to jail?

Finally, if Romney had won: no affair cover story needed. The general could just lie his head off in the upcoming hearing.
But, since Obama won: exist strategy needed; so, affair/cover up, and general who did illegal things out.

I am hoping both Paula and her father testify in the upcoming hearings.

I am thinking the truth is out there but we haven't heard everything yet. And I am thinking an "affair" may be a total fabrication.

But -- again -- I am keeping an open mind.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:23 PM

17. The thing I find troublesome about what we know thus far is

The FBI has cleared both Patraeus and Broadwell of any wrongdoing in regards to leaking/releasing confidential info... so the question now is, why is she making this up about the prisoners? What's the point, other than to somehow use it against President Obama in some way or she's telling the truth and there's a big huge, cover-up going on within the FBI which reflects poorly on the President and his staff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:49 PM

42. It looks like she isn't "making stuff up" and doesn't have inside info.

It seems that she just misunderstood a story by FOX News reporter Jennifer Griffin, and then spouted off about it, puffing it up a bit by name-dropping her honey's name to make herself seem more important. Then Griffin used Broadwell's remarks as "evidence" to bolster her own story, wich was apparently the original source for Broadwell's remarks.

Same thing happened with Dick Cheney and Judith Miller--though on purpose then. He fed her false info, she wrote a NYT story abut it, then he cited the NYT story as evidence to bolster his claims abotu WMDs in Iraq, not mentioning that he was the original source for the NYT story. In tha case, of coruse, they were doing it on purpsoe.. In this case, it just seems Broadwell spouted off abotu info she just misunderstood.

The original story was apparently about militants who had been captured and detained during the atatck, not militants that were being detained there before the attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:17 PM

23. Oh I don't think this is about what the President knew. I think

this is about Pretaeus did. However, the President and his executive team have to evaluate the Petraeus/Broadwell/Kelley/Benghazi/CIA issue in the larger context of their other programs in the Middle East. What is likely to be jeopardized by pursuing this? Don't know/ But it is strange that Paula talks about CIA and military operations like she was hanging out with her besties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:23 PM

25. Yes, she was strangely casual in her now-infamous U. of Denver speech.

The mercenary security forces "were CIA," she said with a smile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:44 PM

29. Yes - what/who authorizes her to speak for the CIA and the military?

And Petraeus?

And another reference to Fox News . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colorado_ufo (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:51 PM

31. Maybe revenge from a woman scorned?

This afternoon's news reports are saying that Petraeus knew about her emailing Kelly last summer, and told her to stop the harassment. At about the same time their relationship ended. So by late October, if any of this is true, she had been rejected by Petraeus and could have been out for revenge. Also, she seems to have been or become close to Rove and others close to the Romney election effort. For either of those reasons, she could have had a motive for making Petraeus look bad in the wake of the murders in Benghazi.

Whether she was telling the truth or not is also unknown. She could have just made it up to make Petraeus look bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colorado_ufo (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:38 PM

36. There are clips of her speaking when she seems to think she is his



official spokesperson- even going so far as to describe "tensions" between him and Obama.

It's extraordinary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:32 PM

26. Agreed.

My guesses and conclusion are the same as yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:55 PM

38. we will find out what really happened

when Wikileaks posts the documents maybe 5 years from now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:29 PM

18. All I know is that...

...any statement by the CIA should be taken with a pound of salt. These people have raised subterfuge to the level of fine art.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:43 AM

47. I agree with your statement...

and the way the media is behaving, this story is quickly turning into tabloid fodder while the underlying Benghazi theme takes a back seat. The truth could be stunningly simple: Paula Broadwell disclosed something the CIA didn't want disclosed and that's what prompted action against Petraeus and led to his ultimate resignation. All the complication involving details of the affair, and the FBI agent emailing naked pics of himself,etc.....classic subterfuge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:36 PM

21. Obama issued a

Executive Order preventing the CIA from taking prisoners or running prisons. Was this a end run to cover Izza's ass and keep a false Impeachment claim alive? Lot's of moving parts and this story DOES have legs. Don't count on the Corporate Media pursuing this much past Wednesday. Smells like a Watergate type thingy going down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:40 PM

27. Video still up here:

Story on Crooks and Liars

And video still available here courtesy of The Daily Beast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:42 PM

28. Maybe she's fucking multiple sources?



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:46 PM

30. that was a pretty big development

that got totally ignored. Until now, that is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:28 PM

33. I hope that noboby gets 'suicided' for knowing too much in this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:46 PM

34. Maybe

 

she is lying and just one of these women that likes to be around powerful men like Petraeus for excitement. You do have women out there that like to do this. You ever read about Lies, sex and spies. It makes for a good spy novel. Her status has now been elevated into a celebrity. She will now get lucrative offers. Her Father will too, now everybody wants the scoop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 06:36 PM

35. I don't know that she had an affair

No one has heard from her. It sounds like the CIA took down her Facebook page and web site.

Maybe she will say there was no affair. Who knows? So far we are only hearing from 2nd and 3rd sources on the general's side. But look below for what
someone else says: She had no time for an affair. And she was not the type to have an affair.

Until she comes out and says she did have an affair, I am not going to jump on the media's conclusion that she had an affair.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/paula-broadwell-type-affair/story?id=17692585#.UKGG5hiU7dB


Veteran: Paula Broadwell 'Not the Type' to Have Affair


By REENA NINAN (@reenaninan) and ALYSSA NEWCOMB (@alyssanewcomb)
Nov. 11, 2012

As a military expert with ties around the world, Paula Broadwell kept a busy schedule packed with writing, teaching and helping wounded soldiers, leaving little time for the married mother to commit "indiscretions," a friend told ABC News.

"I have some serious questions about who is connecting these dots and how. ... Paula Broadwell is not the type ... she isn't," said David Bixler, an active duty double amputee who met Broadwell though a charity foundation in 2010...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:40 PM

37. There is no chance that she was NOT sleeping w Petreaus



I mean the pictures make it almost comically clear that something was up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:17 PM

45. Not the type???

- I would hazard to say that whenever and where ever there are functioning genitalia involved, everybody's the type (potentially).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:34 PM

40. K&R

- Because LIES are usually intertwined with truth in order to give them the appearance of solidity, when a thread of lies begin to unravel there's no telling where it will end up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread