SALACIOUS details are emerging of the circumstances that led to the resignation of David Petraeus as CIA director and about the two women at the center of the story — Paula Broadwell, former US Army officer and Petraeus' biographer and Jill Kelley, the Tampa socialite and military liaison. Let reporters and TV talk show hosts go lyrical about Jill Kelley's bright yellow dress with diamond earrings and a “stratospherically expensive” handbag. Let them argue about whether or not Broadwell can run a half-marathon in seven-minute splits and thus prove equal to her lover in physical prowess. These are all trivial matters people will forget in no time. But there are certain other things the human rights activists can't just dismiss as unnecessary gossip of no consequence. The most important is Broadwell's claim that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, was not directed at the US Consulate but at CIA's safe house that, according to her, was housing detainees. And the detainees included non-Libyans too. Was not the mob attack a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube clip that insulted the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? This is what the initial reports said, based on White House briefings. Petraeus even referred to that assault as a “flash mob.” But on Friday, the former CIA chief told Congress that the Benghazi attack was clearly an “act of terrorism”. This contradicts his earlier testimony given three days after the incident. Even the identity of the Americans killed in the assault has changed. We were told all were diplomats. Two of them turn out to be CIA security contractors. If Broadwell's claims about the CIA holding detainees in Benghazi prove to be true, the whole picture changes. If there was really a cover-up about the attack, the obvious conclusion is that the Obama administration was continuing the use of CIA black sites, contrary to its public declarations. It did not want the people to know that CIA operations in Benghazi dwarfed those of the small and thinly protected consulate and the Libyans turned against their “liberators” because what they saw were not the visages of the Statue of Liberty but the frightening face of Abu Ghraib. Broadwell may have been a little indiscreet over the inappropriately named safe house, as she was over so many others, but there is no reason to disbelieve her, given the classified documents on her personal computer and her inside access on the CIA's info on the attack. In short, this confirms our worst fears about the Obama administration being the extension of the Bush legacy by other means. No wonder, neocons and Bush supporters argue that the anti-terror measures they created after Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have stood the test of time. The continued use of Special Operations forces, drone strikes and targeted assassinations, Terrorist Surveillance Program, Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, military commissions, renditions, indefinite detention — all prove that Obama is relying on counterterrorism tools devised by his Republican predecessor. Sen. Obama, along with human rights activists, was among the harshest critics of some of President Bush's “war on terror” policies. Are we to suppose that not only has he embraced such policies but widened their scope to include new countries including Libya?
