FOR WANT OF A NAIL

The proverb, “For Want of a Nail” has been around for a long time.  Some people associate this with Waterloo, but it may date back to the 14th century.  It is still true today.

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

We may be seeing the modern version of this proverb in the bizarre story of General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell.

The whole situation in Libya never made sense.  Regardless of how anyone feels about President Obama, it is hard to imagine any White House reluctant to send in a military response to protect a U.S. Consulate under siege.  Then, after reviewing the timelines   I realized that by the time the White House was up to speed, there was no one left alive at the Consulate.  The CIA team from the Annex had rescued all the survivors and had brought them back to the Annex.  All of the fighting, from that time on, was at the CIA Annex.

So then I asked why the White House might be reluctant to send in our military to “save” the CIA Annex.  It turns out they may have had two very good reasons for that decision.  For one thing, it appears as though we didn’t exactly have permission from the Libyan Government to be there.  It would be easy for President Obama to justify sending in troops to save a U.S. Consulate.  It would not be easy to explain sending them in to save a secret, possibly illegal, CIA complex.  But what if this was a secret detention center, run by the CIA.  President Obama made a big show in 2009 of issuing an executive order forbidding these type of operations.  Perhaps they didn’t want to send in the Special Forces because they didn’t want them to know what was there.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.  Paula Broadwell, the woman who allegedly had the affair with General Petraeus, made some remarkable comments about Libya during an October 26 speech to the University of Denver.   It is clear that while General Petraeus was not talking to the press, he may have been talking to her.  This is beyond staggering:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/12/paula-broadwell-benghazi-attack-petraeus/1699207/

Following is a transcript of the remarks by Paula Broadwell about Libya contained in this video:

“But the challenge has been the fog of war. And the greater challenge is that it’s political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will.

But 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.

They were requesting the, what’s called the CINC’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 that were under attack.

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.”

She drops three major bombs:

First, she says that the CIA personnel at the annex requested reinforcements from the “CINC’s In Extremis Force.”  She describes this unit as being composed of Delta Force personnel.  She said they could have come in and reinforced the Consulate and the CIA Annex.

Second, she asks the audience if a lot of them know about the Libya Militia prisoners being held at the CIA Annex.

Third, she says General Petraeus knew all this, but he was not allowed to talk to the press because of his new position as Director of the CIA.

It has been obvious from day one that the Obama administration was covering up something.  The Obama administration’s narrative on Libya didn’t even pass the snicker test.  It is one thing to lie.  It is another thing to tell such an obvious and stupid lie.  One had to ask why?

I went back and looked at the broadcast by Jennifer Griffin, October 26, 2012 on Fox News.  Jennifer Griffin said that during the attack the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers but were forced to hand them over to the Libyans.  Jennifer Griffin also brought up the Commanders In Extremis force.  Perhaps Ms. Broadwell had listened to Jennifer Griffin’s broadcast and she was just confused.  But, she seemed very clear in her comments that the prisoners in question were the motive for the attack, not just people who had been captured during the attack.

There are other, unconfirmed, reports indicating that this might have been a secret CIA prison:

Note the following excerpt from this article at Breitbart.com:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/12/New-Report-CIA-s-Benghazi-Annex-Was-a-Detention-and-Interrogation-Site

Unnamed sources tell Fox News that the CIA Annex in Benghazi held three Libyan militia members for days and that retrieving these detainees may have been a motive for the September 11th attack on the nearby US consulate.

Speaking on Fox News Monday, Griffin indicated new sources suggest the CIA annex may have been a detention site for local militia forces and even for some prisoners from other parts of Africa.

There are also reports that the CIA was preparing to shut this facility down.  That would make sense, because the situation in Libya was rapidly deteriorating.

Jennifer Griffin is a brilliant investigative reporter and even the main stream media pays close attention to her.  This is starting to make sense.  Why would you send in the “Calvary” to rescue a secret CIA station you were preparing to shut down?  It would hardly be the first time a U.S. Government abandoned CIA operatives to fend for themselves.

The problem here is that the Director of the CIA made a huge mistake with regard to his personal life and his out of control mistress may have spilled the beans.  The question is whether or not the real story will ever be told, at least in public.  There is already a bi-partisan demand for answers.  At a minimum, people like Senator Diane Feinstein are not amused at being kept out of the loop.  The next battle will be a desperate attempt by the Obama administration to have closed door hearings.  If they succeed, it may be a long time before the American public learns the truth.

It is impossible to predict all of the potential developments with regard to this story.  Who among us would have anticipated the resignation of General Petraeus within hours after Obama was re-elected.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if the entire Libyan narrative unraveled because the mistress of the CIA Director couldn’t resist sending e-mails to a woman she viewed as a rival for the attention of the man she loved?  “For Want of a Nail.”

TDM