…and that is a legitimate ‘if:’ anyway, if it turns out that Broadwell’s revelation last month is correct and that Benghazi was hosting a secret jail* for the purpose of extraordinary rendition then I hope that people will find the following posts to be useful.
And you can tell just how bad all of this is from this sardonic comment: “No wonder Defense Secy. Leon Panetta is out of the country and the president will be too this weekend. It all makes tomorrow’s scheduled White House news conference seem more like an episode of Generals’ Hospital.”
Anyway, short version: adultery adultery adultery (Mrs. Petraeus so far seems to be mercifully absent from all the bed-jumping), with a side order of obsessive behavior and piss-poor documents security for dessert. That last bit is possibly the most worrisome; I don’t like to think that actual espionage may rear its head here, but at the moment you legitimately can’t rule it out. It’s been a while since the last spy sex scandal; we’re probably overdue.
Via Hot Air. Summary: the consulate warned their higher ups of the imminent attack, noted that their own Libyan security detachment was acting questionably, and reported that militia forces would likely be involved. And, relatedly, military intelligence was reporting that this was an organized terrorist attack within hours of the attack. So why the delay in the government admitting it? Fox News didn’t say why here, but I will: it’s because if the government admitted that it was Islamist terrorism, it would have stepped on their narrative that Islamist terrorism was in full retreat ever since Osama bin Laden was killed. So the government did nothing.
I’ll save you time: when directly and explicitly asked Were [our targeted personnel in Benghazi] denied requests for help during the attack? the President refused to answer no. The CIA’s already said no, in that special way that Beltway types have to tacitly point to who might have said ‘yes’: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” Which is why The Weekly Standard titled their post “Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus.” Because Petraeus did.
Kinda-sorta via AoSHQ. Ingraham is not particularly on my radar – honestly, I don’t really watch or listen to many television/radio pundits, except as necessary to do the blogs – but she was kind of ruthless, here. For those without video, she pointed out to the NYT guy’s face that his paper was a hypocrite for not covering the Benghazi lying/incompetence/whatever with nearly the same recklessly fevered enthusiasm that the Media did over, say, Plamegate. Good stuff, and nicely concentrated down into a reasonably pure form.
The wheels on the bus go round round round, round round round, round round rouBHWUDDUAH BHWUSDDUAH GREEEIIIIIICCCCHHHHH ERRNNNNNIIAANNCH HEUGUNNCH… [PAUSE] WHOOOSH.
The UK Telegraph sums up what happened yesterday with remarkable terseness: “The US state department has released a full account of what happened the night its ambassador to Libya was killed, rejecting its own earlier claims that the attack was a protest that had got out of hand. ” Short version: what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack; there was never any real question that it was a terrorist attack; there were no protests at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack; and UN Ambassador Susan Rice* either didn’t know what she was talking about when she was blaming the whole thing on a video trailer, or else she lied through her teeth. In other words, forget about the Obama administration’s version of events being coherent. It’s barely recognizable as being in English.
Witnesses say supporters of Ansar al-Sharia lined up outside its headquarters, in front of the crowd, waving black and white banners.
They fired into the air to try to disperse the protesters, but fled with their weapons after the base was surrounded by waves of people shouting “no to militias”.
(Via World Affairs, via Instapundit) Three people were killed elsewhere: this seems to be also tied up with a general desire of Libyans to get rid of the militia groups in general. The military itself seems to be kind of split, with some elements of it assisting the mobs and some elements protecting select militia groups. And that’s about all that I really know about the situation itself. Not that I’m unhappy to see an Islamist terrorist group cut and run, of course. Continue reading Angry Libyan mobs assault… Islamist militia bases in Benghazi.