Obama administration determined to stop Petraeus testimony on Benghazi attack.

[RLENT]

So lets see if we got it right.

LOL ... sadly no, you don't have it right ...

the ONLY rezone they DID attack us is because we support Israel.

Nope - that's a strawman of your own construction - it's a logical fallacy.

I never said it - but the simple fact of the matter is that continuing unconditional support for Israel - as long as it continues to refuse to honestly engage in pursuing a just peace for the Palestinians (one that includes the right of return BTW) - Israel will be a liability (and likely an increasing one)

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

or maybe, just maybe, they attacked us because we are not them.
maybe they attacked us because they are the Enemy ?

No, they attacked us because we meddle in their affairs, in all manner of ways, including support for authoritarian regimes which brutally suppress their own populations ... along with the fact that we support Israel, which often acts unjustly, and in a manner quite similar to some of the aforementioned authoritarian regimes.

The fact is, the State of Israel is, to a large extent, a racist, apartheid state - quite similar to old South Africa.

FWIW, this probably isn't a conversation that you want to have - because it is one that I'm at least well-enough informed on, to have a reasonable discussion about.

Facts are facts ...

maybe we need to defeated them on their home ground, rather then facing them on our way to school?

I'm far less concerned about the threat from Muslim extremists (which is very real), than I am about the State of Israel acting in a manner which ends up involving this country in a catastrophe ... potentially one of world-wide proportions.

point in case we need to be more proactive in supporting our true friends. we need to- or we will face war on our homeland again.

Israel is not a "true friend" - true friends don't undertake espionage against their claimed "friends" ...

They also don't attack US military assets and murder US servicemen with no provocation whatsoever ...

Nor do they involve themselves (both overtly and covertly) in the internal politics of their "friends" ...

Israel is pretty good on fighting our dirty wars.

Really ?

Why don't you give me a holler when any of them IDF'ers makes the trek to Afghanistan and starts fighting over there ...

BTW - how many of them IDF'ers served in Iraq ?

The reality is actually the reverse: Israel seeks to get us to fight their dirty wars.

One only has to look at Bibi Nut-and-Yahoo's most recent nearly unceasing efforts to gin up war between the US and Iran ... and that's to say nothing of past efforts ...

either Israel fight for our way of life, or we will have to do it ourselves.

Sorry, but no - Israel fights for it's own self interest - nothing more.

And the fact of matter is that more and more people in the US are waking up to that fact.

 

[muttly]

Congress has the power to subpoena him to testify ...

Having Petraeus leave his position as DCI does nothing to counter that AFAIK.

Can you address your supposition, in light of the above ?

And remember, if you want to go the EP route, I don't think there is anything in asserting that, that would require Petraeus to resign.

So Petreaus and Broadwell are being investigated during the time he is questioned about Benghazi. He gives an account, the "official" original account, that he believes a flash mob commited the assault. He knows this isn't true but he is under pressure to give this account so to be consistent with the administration's version. He isn't under oath at the time so the story he gives doesn't have to be the truth. He is also given reassurances that the investigation of he and Broadwell doesn't turn up anything that constitues a security breach. He is also led to believe that he will stay on as CIA director and that this whole incident will be kept quiet. Afterall, no reason to make this public since nothing was found other than a affair. After the election they immediately proceed to fire Petreaus and all the sordid details are made public. His reputation is trashed, and he is relieved of testifying under oath at the upcoming hearings.
He will be subpeoned to testify, but like I said his reputation is trashed so if he gives a different account it will be obviously be discredited by the administration. I don't know all the ins and outs of using EP, but Obama used it rediculously with Eric Holder to cover up Fast and Furious so he has a history of using it.
Regarding Petraeus's "official" version: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/...-honest-in-his-benghazi-briefing-to-congress/

 

[muttly]

Without knowing whether the "unidentified senior official" is a political appointee or a career professional, and whether they had any political leanings, it would be hard to say one way or another.


It may be ... neither you or I know what all we don't know ...


It's certainly true that their motivations do matter ... however, others' motivations may matter as well.


An assertion made by someone (you) with an obvious partisan motivation ... and an assertion with no specific evidence to support it.

You opinion of how long something "ought to take" is just an opinion - since you are not aware of what all was involved in the investigation (only that which has been made public) - it's not even close to being a fully informed opinion ... not by a mile.


The investigation into Petraeus may well be over ...


See above.


Again, that's an assumption - and one based largely on ignorance.

The motivations of the FBI are what matter because they are the ones doing the investigation was my point. What some "rogue" agent's motivation are is irrelevant because he can be removed and was ,from the investigation. Yes I haven't worked for the FBI so I don't know all the issues of an investigation,but common sense tells me that you start an investigation back in June and conclude it on the day of the election is fishy timing.
Notice how the FBI kept the Petreaus investigation quiet ALL these months,but start an investigation of General Allen and it is made public?
Some should take the partison, see nothing blinders off. I guess some will sign up and vote for four more years of this corruption, but at least they should be honest with themselves and call out the government when they screw up. For those who refuse to do that, too bad, it's the government you voted for though. Own It.

 

[RLENT]

So Petreaus and Broadwell are being investigated during the time he is questioned about Benghazi.

Petraeus wasn't even approached by the FBI until a few weeks ago.

Word has it (from friends in low places ) that the method that Petraeus and Broadwell used may have been the same method that A-Q has used successfully - a single web-based email account where the password was shared. Emails were composed and saved as drafts, and could be read by anyone who had the password ... but never actually "sent".

He gives an account, the "official" original account, that he believes a flash mob commited the assault. He knows this isn't true but he is under pressure to give this account so to be consistent with the administration's version.

I've referred to this before - there were reports by media (some foreign) based on "man on the street" interviews done on the ground (as early 9/12 ... and later) that there actually was a "mob" ...

That doesn't necessarily mean that the "mob" was responsible for the attack ... it may only mean that there were some useful idiots that were taken advantage of to portray an image of popular resentment against the USG (where, by many accounts it did not exist) ... or in a lame attempt to divert attention away from those who were actually responsible.

He isn't under oath at the time so the story he gives doesn't have to be the truth. He is also given reassurances that the investigation of he and Broadwell doesn't turn up anything that constitues a security breach. He is also led to believe that he will stay on as CIA director and that this whole incident will be kept quiet. Afterall, no reason to make this public since nothing was found other than a affair. After the election they immediately proceed to fire Petreaus and all the sordid details are made public.

You would do very well at this point to remember that the individual who made it public (by going first to Reichart and then to Cantor) is apparently a rogue (right) wing-nut, of dubious intelligence, with apparent political motivations, and who is currently under investigation himself.

My guess is he's done ... toast ... his career at the Bureau is over.

There is a very good likelihood, the entire matter (barring any further developments), save for his efforts, as it concerns Petraeus, might never have seen the light of day:

MATTHEW MILLER, former Department of Justice official: I think everything about this case is unusual.

There's not a lot of precedent to look at with a case like this. It really does seem to be an unprecedented case. But you look at the principles that the department follows when they conduct these types of investigations.

And one of the principles that they follow is that they don't share information about ongoing criminal investigations with people outside law enforcement while those investigations are being conducted. And they do that for a couple of reasons.

One, quite frankly, is to protect the reputation of people who may have committed no crime, but would see their reputations unfairly maligned. The second is to insulate their investigations from any political pressure.

And so, particularly when it's a member of the administration being investigated, it's dangerous. If you brief other people in the administration, if you brief other people in Congress, you could potentially see those investigations politicized.

GWEN IFILL: Jane Harman, how does that strike you? Is that in keeping with the way you have seen these kinds of cases handled?

JANE HARMAN, former U.S. representative, D-Calif.: Well, I was the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee for four years. I served on the committee for eight years.

And in my ranking member position, I and the chairman were briefed regularly by the FBI on pending high-level cases. But those cases involved counterintelligence or counterterrorism. I don't think that was this case.

I do think there are bizarre issues here. It started out, so far as I can tell -- and I'm not sure I have got it all down here -- as an investigation into alleged cyber-stalking by Paula Broadwell. And that led to the rest of this material.

As Matthew Miller just said, if a crime was being -- an alleged crime was being investigated, it would be improper to tell anybody about it. And that could blow the investigation.

There also wasn't so far as anyone has said any counterterrorism or counterintelligence charge against David Petraeus. So, at that point, I see no reason why Congress should have been told about it.

However, at some point, the FBI not only told a couple members of Congress, including Eric Cantor, but then told the director of national intelligence, Jim Clapper, about Petraeus' involvement.

And I think Congress has every right to understand what this process was, who this perhaps rogue agent who -- and I just learned from your broadcast was friendly with the other woman involved here.

Congress has every right to get to the bottom. And I think that closed hearings, which Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member -- bipartisan closed hearings are the way to go.

And when there is more information, hopefully, this feeding frenzy about material that at least I would hope would take up less time on our airwaves very soon will end.

GWEN IFILL: So, Matthew Miller, are you saying that the circumstances under which Congress would be notified would be that there had to be proof, some conclusion that there was criminality involved?

MATTHEW MILLER: I think if there had been -- if they had developed information that there was an active national security threat, they likely would have briefed the Intelligence Committee, as they're required to under law.

But they -- this started, as the congresswoman said, as a cyber-stalking investigation. They then moved to look and see whether any classified information had been improperly disclosed.

GWEN IFILL: Would a cyber-stalking investigation be treated differently than a national -- potential national security breach?

MATTHEW MILLER: Sure, of course. When they started this, they thought this was a complaint from one woman not really connected to the government about anonymous harassment e-mails. They only later learned of General Petraeus' involvement, and it was even later than that they learned of the affair, and actually not until late October that the general confirmed that he had had an affair, at which time I think they faced the choice.

It seemed like they were sure by then they weren't going to charge anyone with a crime. And they had to decide what to do with the information about the general's affair. And they eventually notified the director of national intelligence.

His reputation is trashed, and he is relieved of testifying under oath at the upcoming hearings.

He isn't relieved of testifying ... Congress has the power to subpoena him ... and, in fact, they have it within their power to compel his testimony by offering him immunity. At the point, where immunity is offered, were he continue to refuse to testify, he could be held in contempt ... with all the potential penalties that could attach ...

He will be subpeoned to testify, but like I said his reputation is trashed so if he gives a different account it will be obviously be discredited by the administration.

A subpoena may not be required at all ... as for his reputation being trashed, thank your right wing-nut buddy in the FBI for that.

I don't know all the ins and outs of using EP, but Obama used it rediculously with Eric Holder to cover up Fast and Furious so he has a history of using it.

That's simply politically-motivated partisan spin - which by the way is fairly hilarious in and of itself, in that you admittedly don't know the "ins and outs of using EP" ... but yet feel that you're qualified to offer an opinion that it's use was somehow "ridiculous" ...

Given the GOP's hyper-partisan efforts to damage the President, I think it can be safely said that the motivation was not engage in legitimate oversight, but was something else entirely.

According to the Obama White House, President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege six times during his two terms, and President Bill Clinton 14 times during his eight years in Washington.

"In fact," said Eric Schultz, an Obama White House spokesman, "dating back to President Reagan, presidents have asserted executive privilege 24 times. President Obama has gone longer without asserting the privilege in a congressional dispute than any president in the last three decades."

Regarding Petraeus's "official" version:

I think the last comment on that HotAir (likely an accurate description BTW) sums up the wise course of action:

"Even if Petraeus lied, it would be foolish to put any trust in Bill Kristol and his alleged inside sources."

David Blue on November 14, 2012 at 12:16 AM

BTW, in regards to the point you raised earlier about the FBI investigation "being over" ... but that conflicting with the fact that there was a continuing investigation into General Allen and Boradwell, a couple of points:

1. As I pointed out earlier, the FBI investigation into Petraeus, probably is over.

2. The investigation into Broadwell however, beyond Petraeus, may not be. Supposedly she was in possession of classified info that she shouldn't have been in possession of - but the Febbies did not feel that Petraeus was the source.

3. Should new, relevant information come onto the FBI's radar screen, one would certainly hope that they would pursue it.

4. The investigation of General Allen is not being done by the FBI, but by the DoD IG.

Point is, try not to be so literal - the USG, being composed of many disparate parts, often does not speak with a single voice - to believe that the FBI is going to speak for the DoD is naive and simplistic at best. It isn't some monolithic "they" ...

 

[RLENT]

The motivations of the FBI are what matter because they are the ones doing the investigation was my point. What some "rogue" agent's motivation are is irrelevant because he can be removed and was ,from the investigation.

While I understand your point (and am not inclined to discount it entirely), I can't quite get there as a conclusion with any high degree of certainty, because I understand that I am not in possession of all the facts.

In fact, if I wanted to take really conspiratorial view of matters - one of which would be along your lines of thinking - I could posit that the "rogue" agent's motivations could be entirely relevant - either from standpoint I mentioned previously (rightwing partisanship) ... or the opposite: he was actually working for Obama to intentionally out the Petraeus.

I'm good with it either way - because what I'm interested in is the truth, not partisan advantage.

Yes I haven't worked for the FBI so I don't know all the issues of an investigation, but common sense tells me that you start an investigation back in June and conclude it on the day of the election is fishy timing.

Sometimes co-incidences happen - that's why they are called co-incidences.

Notice how the FBI kept the Petreaus investigation quiet ALL these months,

You should refer to your previous comment above:

"Yes I haven't worked for the FBI so I don't know all the issues of an investigation"

If that doesn't turn on the light bulb for ya, try referring to the comments of the former DOJ official from the NPR program I quoted.

but start an investigation of General Allen and it is made public?

You are corn-fused - the FBI isn't investigating Allen - the DoD IG is ...

Some should take the partison, see nothing blinders off.

Some of us might actually see the possibilities that you raise ... but the difference might be that we're not guzzling the partisan kool-aid ... therefore, we retain some degree of skepticism on all the wild conspiracy theories ...

I guess some will sign up and vote for four more years of this corruption, but at least they should be honest with themselves and call out the government when they screw up. For those who refuse to do that, too bad, it's the government you voted for though. Own It.

Personally, I think you should take heed of the words of David Frum - a neocon - and give them very careful consideration. Now, I'm not a real big fan of the neoconmunists as you well know, but I am willing to acknowledge that they are not always lying.

In fact, they often are quite politically astute and very savvy ... and in this case, Mr. Frum appears to "get it" in terms of the blowback being engendered by the rank and file listening to and operating off the idiocy of right-wing political whack-a-doodles, who are operating in their own self-interest ...

Frum understands that this blowback poses a threat to the survival of the larger political movement of which he is a part, something you yourself would do well to consider.

The most relevant point occurs at 11:45 in video - it is sufficiently important enough that Scarborough asks Frum to repeat it.

It is an incredible 15 minutes of television, partly due to the indictment Frum offers of the very people he's sitting with (to which, none of them utters a peep in reply):

 

[RLENT]

A commenter elsewhere posts:

That poor Kelley woman. First she causes a woman (through no fault of her own) to send her incriminating emails from Petraus' account.

THEN she causes and FBI agent she befriended to become obsessed with her and send her shirtless pics and leak everything to a congressman even though his superiors told him to back off.

THEN (through no fault of her own) she got ou(r) supreme military leader in Afghanistan to become obsessed with her and send her emails that will probably bring he(r) down.

Interesting that her parents are Lebanese Christian nationals of the same ilk as the Phalangists who slaughtered all those refugees at (Ariel) Sharon's behest.

Someone ought to tell her about the Mossad Honeypot program. She's a natural!

 

[RLENT]

Now here's a very interesting thing ... kinda odd actually, when ya think about it:

Obama news conference: Why didn’t Fox News cite its Benghazi exclusives?

Today’s news conference with President Obama offered Fox News a prime opportunity. Here was the president, standing before reporters and the entire country, waiting to wrestle with tough questions regarding the Benghazi tragedy.

In the session, he called on Ed Henry, the guy who represents Fox News at the White House. Perfect. Henry’s colleagues in recent weeks have been dredging up some damaging details about the administration’s response to Benghazi, most notably an Oct. 26 bombshell that the CIA told security officials to "stand down" instead of moving quickly to protect embattled U.S. personnel at a Benghazi diplomatic installation on Sept. 11 — not to mention that the CIA turned down requests to get military backup on that tragic night.

So the questions for Henry write themselves: Why did the CIA chain of command fail so miserably in protecting U.S. personnel? Why did the CIA order people to "stand down" instead of running to the defense of our people? Are you satisfied with the military response to the attack?

Instead of springboarding directly from Fox exclusives in his line of questioning, however, Henry asked the president a two-pronged question about Benghazi:

HENRY:...I know you’ve said you grieve for these four Americans, that it’s being investigated. But the families have been waiting for more than two months. So I would like to - for you to address the families, if you can: On 9/11, as commander in chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Ed, you know, I’ll address the families not through the press. I’ll address the families directly, as I already have. And we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day. That’s what the investigation is for. But as I said repeatedly, if people don’t think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there, and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don’t know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks. Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives. That’s what our job is.... I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my National Security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe.

The president’s response generally squared with the official Benghazi storyline. Last Friday, senior Defense officials reported that they’d huddled with the president less than 90 minutes after the Benghazi attacks, at 5 p.m. on Sept. 11, as part of an already scheduled meeting. Not long thereafter, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued verbal orders for an array of actions designed to assist those under siege in Benghazi.

Henry by no means whiffed on his question. If other reporters had been as aggressive on Benghazi, perhaps the news conference would have produced some honest-to-goodness news on the entire affair. Yet Fox News itself has issued exclusive after exclusive on Benghazi, including the allegation that the CIA was holding prisoners at its annex. Why not stand by those stories and ask the president directly about them? Is Fox losing confidence in its own scoops?

Obama news conference: Why didn’t Fox News cite its Benghazi exclusives?

 

[Moot]

Rep Anthony Weiner, Governor Elliot Spitzer, US Rep David Wu, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Senator John Edwards, - and President Bill Clinton, all of whom blew their political career for sex related offenses.

I think with Clinton it was the other way around.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

Petraeus resigns and becomes fall guy thus open shot for Hillery Clintons Presidential run in 2016.

Have a nice day.

 

[aristotle]

Until this story broke, I assumed David Petraeus was pretty much a straight arrow. Now, any testimony he might give comes under a cloud of controversy. We can't be sure he will testify truthfully or fully. Nearly every aspect of the Benghazi terrorist attack and the subsequent stonewalling by the Obama administration leaves observers with an increasing cynicism toward American government. Must everyone in government be tainted by scandal or unscrupulous motives?

At this point, I doubt the American people will get truthful answers from their government concerning Benghazi or any other incident which reflects negatively on Barack Obama. The president shrouds himself in 16 layers of plausible deniability, then holds phony news conferences where no pertinent questions are answered. The press has no intention of demanding transparency from Barack Obama. He must be protected at all costs. The press have too much of themselves personally invested in Barack Obama's success. Watching Obama interact with a loving press is an embarrassing sham.

 

[muttly]

Petraeus wasn't even approached by the FBI until a few weeks ago.

Word has it (from friends in low places ) that the method that Petraeus and Broadwell used may have been the same method that A-Q has used successfully - a single web-based email account where the password was shared. Emails were composed and saved as drafts, and could be read by anyone who had the password ... but never actually "sent".


I've referred to this before - there were reports by media (some foreign) based on "man on the street" interviews done on the ground (as early 9/12 ... and later) that there actually was a "mob" ...

That doesn't necessarily mean that the "mob" was responsible for the attack ... it may only mean that there were some useful idiots that were taken advantage of to portray an image of popular resentment against the USG (where, by many accounts it did not exist) ... or in a lame attempt to divert attention away from those who were actually responsible.


You would do very well at this point to remember that the individual who made it public (by going first to Reichart and then to Cantor) is apparently a rogue (right) wing-nut, of dubious intelligence, with apparent political motivations, and who is currently under investigation himself.

My guess is he's done ... toast ... his career at the Bureau is over.

There is a very good likelihood, the entire matter (barring any further developments), save for his efforts, as it concerns Petraeus, might never have seen the light of day:




He isn't relieved of testifying ... Congress has the power to subpoena him ... and, in fact, they have it within their power to compel his testimony by offering him immunity. At the point, where immunity is offered, were he continue to refuse to testify, he could be held in contempt ... with all the potential penalties that could attach ...


A subpoena may not be required at all ... as for his reputation being trashed, thank your right wing-nut buddy in the FBI for that.


That's simply politically-motivated partisan spin - which by the way is fairly hilarious in and of itself, in that you admittedly don't know the "ins and outs of using EP" ... but yet feel that you're qualified to offer an opinion that it's use was somehow "ridiculous" ...

Given the GOP's hyper-partisan efforts to damage the President, I think it can be safely said that the motivation was not engage in legitimate oversight, but was something else entirely.




I think the last comment on that HotAir (likely an accurate description BTW) sums up the wise course of action:


BTW, in regards to the point you raised earlier about the FBI investigation "being over" ... but that conflicting with the fact that there was a continuing investigation into General Allen and Boradwell, a couple of points:

1. As I pointed out earlier, the FBI investigation into Petraeus, probably is over.

2. The investigation into Broadwell however, beyond Petraeus, may not be. Supposedly she was in possession of classified info that she shouldn't have been in possession of - but the Febbies did not feel that Petraeus was the source.

3. Should new, relevant information come onto the FBI's radar screen, one would certainly hope that they would pursue it.

4. The investigation of General Allen is not being done by the FBI, but by the DoD IG.

Point is, try not to be so literal - the USG, being composed of many disparate parts, often does not speak with a single voice - to believe that the FBI is going to speak for the DoD is naive and simplistic at best. It isn't some monolithic "they" ...

A few points: It's been reported the investigation of Petreaus and Broadwell was finished. The FBI then raid her home over the weekend after the investigation is supposed to be over. Any guess why? I'll answer it for you. The investigation was kept on the hush hush as to not make it public before the election. Broadwell was a somewhat public figure so a raid at her house would have garnered enough commotion and publicity to expose the investigation before the election. This is an example of why they were dragging their feet with the investigation.

Petreaus was reportedly approached by the FBI back in mid Sept.

About Petreaus. His investigation was kept quiet for a few months while there were possibilities of a security breaches and reportedly kept quiet from the whitehouse. (which I don't believe) Then when they determine that no laws and security breaches take place, they tell Obama and make it public. That's backwards.

Yes, one would hope that relevant information would come onto the FBI radar screen. How is that investigation in Benghazi coming along?

My point on the GEN Allen investigation is that they are just NOW starting the investigation of him? They had these e-mails for months. They waited until after the election to make public the investigation. Seems like a pattern to me.

Regarding Fast and Furious. Obama was supposedly not involved with it and hence "out of the loop". He then claims E.P. to keep the documents secret so he is now"'in the loop" Sneaky sneaky. I stand by my description ridiculous.

The fact that Obama held out for three long long years before using a ridiculous E.P. earns him a cookie.

 

[muttly]

An article that explains why Obama should have been notified about the Petreaus investigation early on. He actually was ,but the administration's lame story is that he wasn't told.
The Petraeus Affair: Why Was Obama Kept in the Dark? | TIME.com

 

[muttly]

Now here's a very interesting thing ... kinda odd actually, when ya think about it:



Obama news conference: Why didn’t Fox News cite its Benghazi exclusives?

Not too odd. Ed Henry got to ask ONE question, albeit a two pronged question. It's probably his call to ask what question. It was a pretty good question,which Obama really did not answer specifically. It's not like Ed Henry had a hour long Robert Frost like interview with him. It was a press conference where you get one question so that is probaly why he wasn't able to ask all the "exclusive Benghazi questions". The article is disengenous. Nice try though.

 

[RLENT]

More detailing of the ***-clownery of Focks Nooz:

Fox News and those Benghazi detainees

Fox News’s now-famous Oct. 26 story on the tragedy of Benghazi carried this headline: EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say.

Reaction to the story skewed toward the monster revelations in its first paragraph: namely, that the CIA chain of command had told security officials to stand down instead of jumping immediately to the assistance of a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11. The CIA, too, denied requests for military backup, according to the Fox News story.

Far, far less attention attached to a contention deep down in the Fox story:

According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

So the CIA had taken a few detainees. No big deal, right?

Right, until biographer Paula Broadwell came along. As news of her affair with CIA Director David Petraeus emerged, folks started mining the Broadwell public record. As first reported by IsraelNationalNews.com, Broadwell had given some remarks at the University of Denver on Oct. 26, the same day of the Fox News piece that frames this sprawling series of posts. And Broadwell was up on the news; she took a question about Petraeus’s handling of Benghazi and steered her audience to Fox!

So the most recent news that came out was a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin. I got it on a distribution list I’m on, and it has some pretty insightful stuff in it, if you want to look for it.

Among the folks pouncing on Broadwell’s Denver remarks were Fox News’s Griffin and Adam Housley. They published a story on Monday highlighting that Broadwell had repeated in Denver the fundamentals of the Oct. 26 piece:

Broadwell quoted the Fox News report when she said: "The facts that came out today were that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements."

Talk about a Benghazi echo chamber!

Anyhow, the Griffin-Housley piece carefully pointed out the sensitive terrain on which Broadwell went beyond the Fox News Oct. 26 story:

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."

It’s unclear just where Broadwell had fetched the notion that prisoners had motivated the attackers. Add that speculation to the log of existing possible motivations, including protests over an anti-Muslim video and a simple terrorist assault.

Griffin and Housley then take the story yet further, asserting that “other prisoners” from Africa and the Middle East were also held at the Benghazi CIA facility.

In the CIA’s version of events, there’s absolutely no way that any prisoners could have prompted the attack on the U.S. diplomatic installation in Benghazi. Here’s the statement that the CIA gave to Fox:

The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.

The flimsiness of that denial is apparent to anyone who’s ever snooped around a scandal. Fox News, after all, never charged that the CIA was definitively in the "detention business", just that there were some prisoners milling about in Benghazi. The Erik Wemple Blog asked the about the permeability of that statement and received this upgraded denial from a senior intelligence official: "These detention claims are categorically not true. Nobody was ever held at the annex before, during, or after the attacks."

The rebuttal of the CIA-annex-prisoners strain of reporting gained a bit of strength yesterday, as Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told NPR’s Steve Inskeep that he didn’t think Broadwell’s claims about the prisoners were "true."

When asked whether the Fox-Broadwell contentions on CIA prisoners carried any merit, an attendee at a closed-door Senate briefing responded, "None. It’s completely fabricated. Senators were told that in no uncertain terms yesterday in closed session."

Now for some rank speculation. The Fox News Oct. 26 piece notes that the CIA security officials “captured three Libyan attackers” in the course of the hostilities. Timelines issued by government officials don’t feature any such event. However, a senior intelligence official has indeed revealed that the CIA forces got assistance from three Libyan volunteer combatants who helped to repel the attackers that night. Could these be the same people?

In a press conference today on Capitol Hill, Sen. John McCain cited the static over CIA prisoners in Benghazi as grounds for further digging: "All these things are flying around," he said. "That’s why we need an investigation."

This series agrees, at least on the need to further investigate the Fox News Oct. 26 story. The hubbub surrounding the allegation on prisoners, after all, is just one data point on which Fox News is fighting with the CIA and other federal agencies. Others:

* Fox insists that the CIA told people to “stand down”; the CIA denies that.

* Fox insists that the CIA turned down requests for military assistance; government agencies deny that, saying they mobilized.

* Fox insists that CIA security operators had “lasered” the mortar positions of the Libyan enemy; intelligence officials deny that.

Yeah ... investigate Focks Nooz ... I'm really liking the sound of that ...

 

[davekc]

More detailing of the ***-clownery of Focks Nooz:


Yeah ... investigate Focks Nooz ... I'm really liking the sound of that ...

Where is this story from? If one is going to put a hit piece out, then for it to have value or credibility, the source should be revealed.

 

[RLENT]

Where is this story from?

Not familiar with using Google eh ?

Well ... let me Google that for you:

Where is this story from?

It's part of multi-part series (up to 12 now ?) on the "issues" with Focks Nooz's "reporting"

 

[Turtle]

Erik Wemple's Blog at the Washington Post

 

[RLENT]

If one is going to put a hit piece out, then for it to have value or credibility, the source should be revealed.

BWHA-HA-HA-HA ...

Tell it to Focks Nooz ...

 

[davekc]

Erik Wemple's Blog at the Washington Post

That is all I needed. I could have googled it but figured there was a reason that was omitted.
Thanks.

 

[RLENT]

That is all I needed. I could have googled it but ...

... why do that when you can just get someone else to do it for you ?

figured there was a reason that was omitted.

Yup ... laziness ...

I've posted and linked Wemple's series before in this thread ... figured anyone that was actually paying attention to the thread could probably have figured it out ...