New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Response to the most recent leak

Rather tHan responding to he 60 Minutes show directly, it appears that the State Department decided to selectively leak a document to the press. We all know that the show featured a witness who used a pseudonym, but the leaked document did not redact his real name. (This conduct is consistent with the selective leak of one email as part of the administrations talking points memo fiasco, which led to the release of many more emails a few days later)

The witness whose name we all know has now publically denied that he is the author of he document, and further stated that the information therein is not accurate because he did not wish to disclose the fact that he disobeyed his boss's order not to travel to the facility.

Here is the link.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/02/exclusive-benghazi-whistleblower-says-he-was-smeared.html

What is particularly frightening is the administration or its allies have no qualms about leaking documents when it serves their interests.
 
16.5;9599053What is particularly frightening is the administration or its allies have no qualms about leaking documents when it serves their interests.[/QUOTE said:
Sounds like pretty much the same old thing in politics. Why is it different in this case?
Click to expand...
 
16.5 said:
Rather tHan responding to he 60 Minutes show directly, it appears that the State Department decided to selectively leak a document to the press.
Click to expand...

[citation needed]

From the article: "Davies said he did not know who leaked the report to the Post but said he suspected it was the State Department, an allegation that could not be independently corroborated."

Posting deliberate lies is typical for partisan witchhunts though. Regardless, the credibility of this witness was already permanently tarnished by his clear efforts to gain money for his "story", which appears was in fact now only a story... as in fable.
 
16.5 said:
Rather tHan responding to he 60 Minutes show directly, it appears that the State Department decided to selectively leak a document to the press. We all know that the show featured a witness who used a pseudonym, but the leaked document did not redact his real name. (This conduct is consistent with the selective leak of one email as part of the administrations talking points memo fiasco, which led to the release of many more emails a few days later)

The witness whose name we all know has now publically denied that he is the author of he document, and further stated that the information therein is not accurate because he did not wish to disclose the fact that he disobeyed his boss's order not to travel to the facility.

Here is the link.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/02/exclusive-benghazi-whistleblower-says-he-was-smeared.html

What is particularly frightening is the administration or its allies have no qualms about leaking documents when it serves their interests.
Click to expand...

Well while The Administration and its lackeys have done an admirable job of confusing the issues with a curiously unredacted, and unsigned internal memo, released just in time to discredit one aspect of the report (but not of course the other documents from that same time frame). We of course saw the same questionable conduct when they leaked one of the Talking Points memo emails to discredit ABC.

I can see why they would be desperate to discredit the story, given segments like this:

Andy Wood: I made it known in a country team meeting, “You are gonna get attacked. You are gonna get attacked in Benghazi. It’s gonna happen. You need to change your security profile.”

Lara Logan: Shut down–

Andy Wood: Shut down–

Lara Logan: –the special mission–

Andy Wood: –”Shut down operations. Move out temporarily. Ch– or change locations within the city. Do something to break up the profile because you are being targeted. They are– they are– they are watching you. The attack cycle is such that they’re in the final planning stages.”
Click to expand...

Again, the decision not to redact his name is a fairly brazen threat to the witness, wouldn't you agree? I hope he does not end up on one of Al Qua'ida's hit list because someone in the US Government wanted to score some cheap points.

I expect that Administration will shortly have to explain why they don't release the other interviews taken by the Witness shortly after attack.
 
16.5 said:
The witness whose name we all know has now publically denied that he is the author of he document, and further stated that the information therein is not accurate because he did not wish to disclose the fact that he disobeyed his boss's order not to travel to the facility.

Here is the link.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/02/exclusive-benghazi-whistleblower-says-he-was-smeared.html
Click to expand...

So he denies writing the incident report, but admits that it matches exactly the lies he claims he told to his superiors?

If he's so open about his willingness to tell blatant lies to his own employers, why should anyone believe him when he claims he's telling the truth now?
 
60 Minutes Replies to the Sideshow

As we know, one of the three witnesses that 60 Minutes featured on its recent broadcast gave statements on air and in his forthcoming book that differed from the report he provided to his employer.

60 Minutes initially stated that it was standing by the story, and now has released a more detailed refutation stating in part:

Ms. Logan said “The Embassy House,” the book written under the Morgan Jones pseudonym, along with Damien Lewis, presents a version of events consistent with what was reported on the television program. “If you read the book, you would know he never had two stories. He only had one story,” Ms. Logan said.

they also acknowledged their error in not disclosing that the book is being published by another subsidiary of CBS, which of course was used by the hyper-partisan political activist group Media Matters to attempt to discredit the entire report.

As always a link

The failure to disclose the connection between the publishing arm and 60 Minutes was a mistake. I mean, even Media Matters admits that it received funding from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party.
 
16.5 said:
As we know, one of the three witnesses that 60 Minutes featured on its recent broadcast gave statements on air and in his forthcoming book that differed from the report he provided to his employer.

60 Minutes initially stated that it was standing by the story, and now has released a more detailed refutation stating in part:

Ms. Logan said “The Embassy House,” the book written under the Morgan Jones pseudonym, along with Damien Lewis, presents a version of events consistent with what was reported on the television program. “If you read the book, you would know he never had two stories. He only had one story,” Ms. Logan said.
Click to expand...

Since the issue was never that the story in his book and the story he told CBS were different, but that the story he told CBS was different from the report he gave to his employer (as you yourself so helpfully point out above), how is that in any way a "refutation"?

And, again, if he's so open about his willingness to tell blatant lies to his own employers, why should anyone believe him when he claims he's telling the truth now?
 
ANTPogo said:
Since the issue was never that the story in his book and the story he told CBS were different, but that the story he told CBS was different from the report he gave to his employer (as you yourself so helpfully point out above), how is that in any way a "refutation"?

And, again, if he's so open about his willingness to tell blatant lies to his own employers, why should anyone believe him when he claims he's telling the truth now?
Click to expand...

Because the actual substance of his statement (that the State Department and the Administration ignored numerous indications and threats to the diplomatic facility, and did nothing to increase security despite numerous requests) have been corroborated by numerous independent sources.

I'll be the first to admit that partisan Administration apologists have done a masterful job at attacking him for what happened AFTER THE ATTACK STARTED, and before he was confirmed to have returned to the facility on the morning of the 12th. That is what selective leaks do.

More importantly, notice the SELECTIVE part of that clause. The government has refused to release the two later interview summaries of Davies. Why? Shouldn't it be obvious:

THE REPORT THEY RELEASED DESTROYS THE FABLE THAT THE ATTACK SPONTANEOUSLY AROSE OUT OF A PROTEST DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE CONSULATE.

In fact, that 9/14 report not only makes it absolutely clear that there was a sustained military style assault on the compound, and placed Ansar al Sharia militia in the compound on the 12th.

Yet the Administration fraudulently told the world on the 16th and for weeks thereafter that the attack was spontaneous!

Why doesn't the government release the other reports?

Avid readers of this thread know that the fable they told was false, and those reports will show just how early the Administration knew.

The Administration has once again been hoisted by its own leaked documents.

Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, you might fail of
the knowing me: it is a wise father that knows his
own child. Well, old man, I will tell you news of
your son: give me your blessing: truth will come
to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son
may, but at the length truth will out.
 
Rep. Nunes

A member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has issued a letter to Speaker Boehner calling for the appointment of a Special Investigator.

A summary of the letter from Devin Nunes and further details regarding this letter are provided here:

As always, a link.

A copy of the letter, which I strongly urge all of you to read is located here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/06/cia-contractor-testimony-could-undermine-obama-on-benghazi.html

The issues raised in the letter are very familiar to avid readers of this thread, including the failure to send FEST and the curious discrepancy between witness reports that there was an on-going battle throughout the night, and the claims that there was a lull in the fighting.

In fact, you can see that the part about FEST might have been taken from one of my posts in this thread, and I don't even have a top secret security clearance.

Keep tuned here for the latest.
 
60 Minutes Hoaxed, Inadvertently Confirms Administration Lied

As avid readers of this thread are aware the Government leaked a document to expose an alleged hoaxer.

Last night two Government representatives met with the New York Times and confirmed that the interview given to the FBI confirmed in all details the report the hoaxer's employer gave to the government, and therefore the hoaxer appears to have lied.

More importantly, last night two Government representatives met with the New York Times and confirmed that the interview given to the FBI confirmed in all details the report Blue Mountain gave to the government, and therefore the Administration appears to have lied.

The hoaxer will end up in the dustbin of history. The fact that the FBI knew on September 14 that the attack on the facility was a sustained terrorist attack perpetrated by the Sharia brigades is the final dagger in the heart of the the Administration's false talking points.

Avid readers of this thread KNOW that we have been demanding the release of the FBI interview reports for months. The information in the first one that is publicized is DEVASTATING to the administrations fable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/business/media/accounts-differ-to-fbi-and-cbs-on-benghazi.html
 
CBS News Admits Benghazi Attack Report Was “Wrong”

“We were wrong,” 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan said on CBS This Morning about the Sunday newsmagazine’s report on the Benghazi attack in ’12, adding “We apologize to our viewers.” Taking a page from Crisis Management 101, CBS News’ admission of error and apology came about 12 hours after the news division had issued a statement that it was looking into the report, after learning its main interview for the segment had given conflicting information to the FBI about his whereabouts during and after the attack. “We were misled,” Logan told Norah O’Donnell and Jeff Glor. 60 Minutes will apologize on-air this Sunday, she said.
Click to expand...

So much for that.
 
And here's why CBS is now admitting that they were wrong:

Accounts Differ to F.B.I. and CBS on Benghazi

Dylan Davies, a security officer hired to help protect the United States Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya, gave the F.B.I. an account of the night that terrorists attacked the mission on Sept. 11, 2012 that contradicts a version of events he provided in a recently published book and in an interview with the CBS News program “60 Minutes.”
Related

Mr. Davies told the F.B.I. that he was not on the scene until the morning after the attack.

[...]

But CBS had all along acknowledged that Mr. Davies had also been interviewed by the F.B.I. The network had suggested that the agency’s interview would corroborate Mr. Davies’s account on “60 Minutes.” Instead, the disclosure that the F.B.I. interview matched the incident report leaves CBS facing more questions about the primary source for its investigation.
Click to expand...

So, either he's lying now, or he lied not just to his employer, but to the FBI.

I think we've finally found an actual scandal surrounding Benghazi!
 
CBS has now admitted they got played by Dylan Davies.

CBS correspondent Lara Logan apologized to viewers Friday for a disputed "60 Minutes" report on the Benghazi attack and said the program would issue a correction.

"Today the truth is that we made a mistake," Logan said on "CBS This Morning."

At the center of the dispute is Dylan Davies, a British security contractor who under a pseudonym gave "60 Minutes" a heroic account of his involvement in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. After the program aired, the Washington Post and the New York Times discovered contradictions between the account Davies gave "60 Minutes" and the descriptions of the attack the contractor gave to his employer and to the FBI.

Those reports raised questions about whether Davies was actually present at the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack, casting doubt onto the contractor's credibility as a source. CBS issued a statement Thursday that said the network had learned of "new information" undercutting Davies' account and was looking into the matter.

Logan told viewers that the program took Davies' vetting "very seriously," but that the contractor "misled" them.

"We were wrong to put him on air," Logan said.
Click to expand...

As always, a link.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...nutes-benghazi-report-we-made-a-mistake-video
 
16.5 said:
In fact, that 9/14 report not only makes it absolutely clear that there was a sustained military style assault on the compound,
Click to expand...

No, Davies' report says that an off-duty guard commander phoned him and said the US Mission was under a "sustained attack". The words "military style" are not used. The attackers were later described in vague terms as "over fifty armed men". Whether this attack was the result of a coordinated military-style militia assault or a spontaneous mob of people who happened to be armed is not detailed in the report. There are no specifics about their tactics, their weapons, or their known associations.

Davies himself prefaces his report by admitting "I cannot confirm that all the details are correct" because all that information is second-hand to him.

and placed Ansar al Sharia militia in the compound on the 12th.
Click to expand...

Five of them, 12 full hours after the assault on the Mission started, and at least three hours after the attack on the CIA annex was over (and right around the time the last American personnel were leaving Benghazi).

That there were five Ansar al-Sharia members in the compound as it was being looted the next morning, long after the attack was over, doesn't really tell you anything about whether the attack 12 hours before was a coordinated Ansar al-Sharia attack or not, and to claim it does is an utterly unwarranted leap of logic, and only barely justifiable as a leap of hindsight.

Yet the Administration fraudulently told the world on the 16th and for weeks thereafter that the attack was spontaneous!
Click to expand...

Davies' report does not contradict that assessment.

Avid readers of this thread know that the fable they told was false, and those reports will show just how early the Administration knew.
Click to expand...

The only fable we know is false is the story told by Davies in his book and uncritically (and foolishly) repeated by 60 Minutes.
 
ANTPogo said:
The attackers were later described in vague terms as "over fifty armed men". .
Click to expand...

Anyone else think that "over fifty men" is a "vague statement"?

Sustained attack and Sharia in the diplomatic facility.

And the administration just confirmed the report given on 9/14.

What a disaster for the Administration.

Can we finally get a comprehensive investigation?
 
16.5 said:
What a disaster for the Administration.
Click to expand...

They've been saying that for over a year now, and yet Obama was reelected in an electoral landslide, while Benghazi has been nothing more than fuel for CTists and rabid right-wing Congressmen ever since.

Can we finally get a comprehensive investigation?
Click to expand...

There's already been one of those. What you want is a partisan witchhunt and subsequent burning-at-the-stake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom