Announcement

**bsteadman** · 11-07-2013, 09:37 PM

Was British Soldier told to Stand Down in Benghazi?

Shoebat Foundation
11/6/2013

Excerpt:

When we chimed in on Lara Logan’s 60 Minutes piece on Benghazi, what caught our attention was a glaring discrepancy between a claim made by Logan and a diametrically opposing claim by the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Logan reported that CIA Annex personnel “ignored orders to wait” while the ARB said “the Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors”.

Now, 60 Minutes and Logan are on defense over the circumstances surrounding one of the people interviewed in its report. A British security contractor named Dylan Davies, who went by the pseudonym Morgan Jones for his interview, has 60 Minutes fighting off conflict of interest allegations as well as its decision to feature Davies himself.

Let’s take a look at the charges against Davies. In the 60 Minutes piece, he said he rushed toward the compound during the attack and later said he visited the hospital where Ambassador Christopher Stevens was taken and claims to have seen Stevens’ body through a window. That account was at odds with an account of the events of that night, attributed to Davies.

Via the Washington Post:

In Davies’s 21 / 2-page incident report to Blue Mountain, the Britain-based contractor hired by the State Department to handle perimeter security at the compound, he wrote that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa. Although he attempted to get to the compound, he wrote in the report, “we could not get anywhere near . . . as roadblocks had been set up.”

He learned of Stevens’s death, Davies wrote, when a Libyan colleague who had been at the hospital came to the villa to show him a cellphone picture of the ambassador’s blackened corpse. Davies wrote that he visited the still-smoking compound the next day to view and photograph the destruction.

This is where the story takes a rather interesting turn as Davies’ explanation for the discrepancy involves his being told to stand down.

Via the Daily Beast:

In his interview with The Daily Beast, Davies said the version of the events contained in the incident report matched what he told his supervisor, called “Robert” in his book, who is a top Blue Mountain Group executive. Davies said he lied to Robert about his actions that night because he did not want his supervisor to know he had disobeyed his orders to stay at his villa…

“He told me under no circumstances was I to go up there. I respected him so much I did not want him to know that I had not listened to him,” said Davies, referring to Robert. “I have not seen him since.” {emphasis ours}

This account was corroborated by the co-author of Davies’ book, Damien Lewis, who was contacted by the Washington Post for an article published four days after the 60 Minutes report aired:

“All I can presume, and again I’m speculating, is that his boss told him to stay in the villa and not go anywhere. So he would have penned a report and said he had done what was ordered,” Lewis said.

Kevin Tedesco, a spokesman for “60 Minutes,” said, “We stand firmly by the story we broadcast last Sunday.” {emphasis ours}

If, in fact, Davies submitted a false report of his activities in order to avoid being singled out for disobeying stand down orders, such an account would comport with charges that Annex personnel were ordered to stand down as well. If 60 Minutes knows this and is standing by its original story, perhaps we have additional subject matter for a future 60 Minutes story.

View the complete article at:

http://shoebat.com/2013/11/06/britis...tand-benghazi/

**bsteadman** · 11-08-2013, 06:29 PM

CBS 60 Minutes’ Lara Logan Apologizes for Erroneous Benghazi Survivor Report: ‘We Were Wrong’

Mediaite
Noah Rothman
11/8/2013

Excerpt:

CBS 60 Minutes reporter Lara Logan admitted on Friday that a person who claimed to have been witness to the deadly September 11, 2012 attack on an American consulate in Benghazi and who served as the centerpiece of a recent report on that attack may have misled her.

In late October, 60 Minutes ran a report featuring the account of British security expert Dylan Davies – though he called himself Morgan Jones – who recounted in detail his actions in the early morning hours during the Benghazi attack.

It was later revealed that Davies told the FBI he did not visit the American diplomatic compound on the night of the attack and had not, as he claimed, seen the body of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

“The most important thing to every person is the truth and today the truth is we made a mistake,” Logan said. “That’s very disappointing for any journalist.”

“Nobody likes to admit that they made a mistake, but if you do, you have to stand up and take responsibility and you have to say that you were wrong,” she continued. “And in this case we were wrong.”

Logan recounted how CBS became aware of an incident report which led 60 Minutes reporters to question his account only after their interview with Davies had aired.

Logan said that they had thoroughly investigated Davies story prior to airing his report, including reviewing his communications with American officials and viewing his personal photographs of the scene of the attack on the morning after.

“We take the vetting of sources and stories very seriously,” Logan added. “But we were misled and we were wrong and that’s the important thing."
......................................

View the complete article, including video, at:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cbs-60-mi...we-were-wrong/

**bsteadman** · 11-08-2013, 09:42 PM

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Lara Logan Apologizes for ’60 Minutes’ Benghazi Report: ‘We Were Wrong’, which was started 11/8/2013 by 'Hotlanta Mike'

The thread references a 11/8/2013 article in The Blaze written by Madeleine Morgenstern - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...we-were-wrong/

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3088997/posts

Excerpt:

“60 Minutes” correspondent Lara Logan apologized Friday for what CBS News is now acknowledging was a flawed report last month about the Benghazi attacks.

“The most important thing to every person at ’60 Minutes’ is the truth, and today the truth is that we made a mistake, and that’s very disappointing for any journalist, it’s very disappointing for me,” Logan said on “CBS This Morning. “Nobody likes to admit that they made a mistake, but if you do, you have to stand up and take responsibility and you have to say you were wrong, and in this case we were wrong.”

Excerpts from the thread:

To: tractorman; butterdezillion; Hotlanta Mike; Republicanprofessor; 2ndDivisionVet; ConorMacNessa; ...

Good question!

After reading the thread article, it looks like Holder’s FBI fed the Left-Stream Washington Post just enough information to convince Logan that the Holder’s FBI interpretation of events were more valid than their source.

Thus came a typical suit-requested ‘we-are-so-sorry-for-trying-to-find-out-the-truth-and-promise-to-never-do-it-again,’ “twisting in in the wind,” apology from Logan.

Since Holder’s FBI took 3 weeks to get to Benghazi to “investigate,” why should ANYTHING Holder’s FBI says be held up as “valid?”

Is Holder using his FBI to fend off, and shut down any Media investigations from finding out what really happened before during and after the joint Obama/Clinton designed Benghazi Massacre?

What are the High Crimes, and Derelictions of Duty that the Obama Administration has been trying to cover up for the last 14 months?

Which Media outlet will be the first to break the Benghazi Massacre Cover Up Story?

What effect will the public revealing of truth of the Benghazi Massacre Cover Up have on the election campaigns of Democrats in the 2014 and 2016 Federal elections?

Will the Left-Stream Media dare to award a Pulitzer Prize to the Media outlet journalist who breaks the story first?

The TRUTH eventually always comes out, the only question is “Who will uncover THE TRUTH first?”

50 posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 10:11:34 AM by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)

To: Hotlanta Mike

Folks, if FBI asks you “Were you at Benghazi?’ of course you would lie.

Because you’re either #1 innocently there, or #2 guilty of helping the terrorist attack.

If #1, then you probably noticed the White House issuing stand down orders to ensure the US compound gets burned to the ground while survivors were abandoned to die. You also noticed any final survivors in the days afterward getting intimidated and threatened into silence. Could a survivor be killed a few weeks later if Obamatollah feels he might talk? Ask the 2 FBI guys who ‘Fell out of the helicopter’ after the Boston Marathon attack.

If #2 (you helped the terrorists attack Benghazi) then I think we can all agree you wouldn’t brag about that to the FBI.

So either way, of course people are lying to FBI. It’s a convenient way to stay alive.

73 posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 11:48:41 AM by LyinLibs (If victims of islam were more "islamophobic," maybe they'd still be alive.)

To: Hotlanta Mike

Exactly. And it sounds like their whistleblower knows it full well. He has seen the machine from the inside and has no trust of it. Reminds me of the secret service guy who has said that the DC corruption is much, much worse than most people have ever imagined.

It would be good to compile a directory of whistleblowers and what they have said about the way this regime operates. The IG’s who were fired by the regime. The Chrysler owners who were directly threatened with IRS harassment. The Benghazi and Fast & Furious whistleblowers. The military leaders who were fired on trumped-up charges. Snowden. The IRS people. The memos saying that people could be prosecuted if they ddn’t report on their colleagues’ personal lives. The CIA people who took screencaps showing that the Boston marathon “Saudi person of interest” had the “known terrorist” classification changed and gave that evidence to Congress in spite of the threat of 20 years in prison for blowing the whistle, J Christian Adams being demoted because he objected to racist Holder policies... Etc.

Seems to me that they all agree on one thing: this regime does whatever it wants to do, with no regard for the law. They are lawless thugs. I think the public deserves to have this information compiled and reported. It gives a picture that corroborates the further identity of the wolf whose fangs are becoming more publicly visible with each new lawless act by this foreign enemy combatant in our Spite er, White House.

74 posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 11:49:57 AM by butterdezillion (Free online faxing at http://faxzero.com/ Fax all your elected officials. Make DC listen.)

To: wardaddy

I am very familiar with what happened, but thanks for the links.

My point is that she is still working for the same people that wanted to squelch the truth about her rape and attack after they happened. Because it wouldn’t help the Obamameister.

She did not fight her masters when she was brutalized by CBS.

Now, she becomes the fall guy for not telling the truth.

Battered wife syndrome, anyone? Stepford Wife?

Looks like a job is more important than hearing herself roar.

And the fembots did nothing to help her either.

Here’s the bottom line: To CBS, she was expendable. Just like the four who died on Sept. 11, 2012.

It is a shame she could not see that.

80 posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 12:41:29 PM by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)

CONTINUED IN FOLLOWING REPLY

**bsteadman** · 11-08-2013, 10:20 PM

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

To: txhurl

Personal dirt. But I have no way of knowing it’s true and I probably shouldn’t have even said anything. Truth is that personal dirt can be invented if there isn’t some already there, and maybe a person is inoculated a bit if everybody already knows the dirt.

In October of 2008 the media personalities were told by the media heads that if they or their guests reported on Obama’s eligibility issue their careers would be over and the lives of them and their loved ones were in question. The media heads said they did this because they had been told (by Soros, Axelrod, and Emanuel, according to Doug Hagmann who got statements and corroborating evidence from people involved after one of the media personalities gave him a signed statement about the meeting in which the threats were made) that if anybody reported on those things, the media company itself would be annihilated through anti-monopoly measures. Very similar to the Chrysler and/or AIG people being told they would be annihilated by the IRS if they made trouble for Obama giving all the money to the unions.

A well-placed source of mine says that Hagmann quieted down on the story after one of his confidential sources was killed. He wanted to protect his other sources - one of whom has since fled the country in fear for her and her child’s life, as confirmed by Cold Case Posse Commander Mike Zullo, who also said that there are others he knows. Another investigator checking up on Hagmann’s claims and information reported that Glenn Beck left Fox because of those threats - since Fox refused to provide bodyguards for his secretary who was receiving threats and intimidation daily.

There is an over-arching pattern of threats and intimidation against the media and other people who are perceived as a threat to Obama’s fundamental transformation of the US from a free country to a third-world dictatorship. Arpaio’s presser (announcing a criminal investigation of document fraud for Obama’s BC and selective service registration) was overshadowed by the sudden death of Andrew Breitbart on the same day, less than 5 hours after Breitbart had called Arpaio and agreed that Arpaio’s case is compelling... and on the same day that Rush Limbaugh received a package treated as a bomb threat because it referred to 2 famous assassinations. A tech at the coroner’s office was blatantly poisoned with arsenic a couple days before the Breitbart autopsy was due to be made public - an autopsy that didn’t even claim to check for the most probable form of assassination for Breitbart. The symptoms of blatant arsenic poisoning come a half-hour after exposure so it would have been really easy for the police to catch the perpetrator but they refused to do a real investigation, and what little they did was filled with lies (such as the claim that the doctors let Cormier go after his first visit with poisoning symptoms because they believed he might have “just” had the imminently-fatal condition of “perforated bowel”...) The whole thing suggest collusion between the doctors, police, and somebody who wanted Breitbart dead and wanted the coroner to claim it was a natural heart attack.

It’s actually quite similar to the Michael Hastings death. The videotape was available at 4am so that the OTHER MEDIA MEMBERS would know he died from an explosion and not a car crash - right after he had asked to drive his neighbor’s car because he believed his was being tampered with in order to kill him and silence him from reporting on John Brennan. Brennan is the guy who oversaw the sanitization of Obama’s passport file from Jan-March of 2008. The killing was blatant enough that the media would get the message. But the coroner’s office covered up for it “officially” so no real investigation and charges would ever happen.

The gal who reported on Fast and Furious - I keep forgetting her name - had her computer messed with around the same time as Obama’s regime had somebody tell her to back off her stories. If they were only after her information - like they were with the reporter whose confidential notes were taken without a warrant when the feds raided the home in pursuit of her husband’s potato gun - they would have tried to hide the fact that they were messing with her computer. But that wasn’t their intention. Their intention was to intimidate her into silence, so they made her computer turn off and on in the middle of the night.

This is the kind of crap that is becoming more and more routine with these lawless thugs, now that Holder can stand in the way of any law enforcement efforts.

They messed with Orly’s car, and they most likely messed with my husband’s van the day after I was put in touch with Lt Col Terry Lakin’s team, to provide evidence to refute the presumption of regularity in the HDOH’s actions. He could have been killed by an explosion caused by sparking right next to the engine because the sheathing of the wires had been cut. Fortunately he noticed something wrong before it reached that point, but all the electronics except lights were fried and he was SCARED. I’m sure they could have done something that would have killed him outright but that was not their intention. Their intention was to silence me. IMHO

In the end they didn’t even need to do that because they just got Denise Lind to rule that Constitutional and statutory authorization has nothing to do with whether combat orders in a foreign country are lawful (cough). (Too bad somebody in the chain of command didn’t take Lind at her word and “lawfully” authorize some Hellfires to Benghazi on 9-11-12...)

How they got her to do that...... is anybody’s guess...

How they get ANYBODY to do what they want is left to our collective imagination...

86 posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 1:33:42 PM by butterdezillion (Free online faxing at http://faxzero.com/ Fax all your elected officials. Make DC listen.)

**bsteadman** · 11-09-2013, 06:47 PM

Benghazi Question Lara Logan’s apology does not answer

Shoebat Foundation
11/9/2013

Excerpt:

60 Minutes’ Lara Logan appeared on CBS This Morning today to inform viewers that the program would be issuing a formal apology during its November 10th broadcast. The apology will be about relying on a British security contractor’s account of events on the ground in Benghazi on 9/11/12. The contractor – Dylan Davies – went by the pseudonym Morgan Jones for the 60 Minutes report. In the report, Davies said he ran to the Special Mission Compound (SMC) during the attack and later saw the body of Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the hospital.

In her interview with CBS This Morning, Logan said an FBI report attributed to Davies was inconsistent with that story. - (IMO - Statements and claims by the FBI, which is under the control of BHO-II, regarding this matter can not be trusted. Also, Davies' fear of intimidation from U.S. Government sources may have played a major role in shaping his subsequent statements and actions. - bsteadman)

In the days after the 60 Minutes piece, an incident report surfaced that was allegedly filed by Davies, though he denies ever writing one. However, he didn’t deny the account presented therein, which indicated he went to neither the SMC nor the hospital. When confronted about the conflicting accounts, Davies said he lied to his boss because he was told not to go to the SMC and didn’t want his boss to know he disobeyed an order. - (bold and color emphasis added)

That leads to an extremely important question: Was Davies instructed to stand down?

As a contractor retained by the U.S. State Department, this continues to remain a relevant question. If the answer is “yes”, it means that both the CIA Annex and a British soldier who had been contracted by the State Department had both been told to stand down.

The excerpt from the 60 Minutes piece that initially stood out to us had to do with Logan’s assertion that CIA Annex personnel “ignored orders to wait”. This statement is completely at odds with the findings of the Accountability Review Board (ARB), which was convened by… you guessed it, the State Department.

The ARB said the CIA Annex personnel were “not delayed by orders from superiors”.

Here is a short excerpt from the 60 Minutes report which includes that quote; that report has since been taken down from the 60 Minutes YouTube page:

It is interesting that Davies is being discredited but Logan’s claim that CIA Annex personnel “ignored orders to wait” is not.

Why? And what is the source of such a matter-of-fact claim?

It would seem that the distraction here is the credibility of Davies. The extremely important point of interest that is getting overlooked has to do with the claim that Davies was instructed to stand down. To this point, that has not been disputed. Doing so would call Davies’ courage into question because it would mean that he chose not to go to the SMC, then lied and said he did so he could write a book. No one seems willing to do that, nor should they be. The man was in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Courage was not in short supply; that we know.

View the complete article, including videos, at:

http://shoebat.com/2013/11/09/bengha...pology-answer/

**AMERICAN ADVOCATE** · 11-11-2013, 12:03 AM

Any way you slice it , some silly fool gave an order to " stand down " ( meaning ~ do nothing to protect the AMERICAN personel at the embassy or the annex in BENGHAZI ) . Even though AMERICANS will die horrible deaths , you are commanded to place yourselves in ' dereliction of duty ', guilty of treason and co-complicit in murder . I M O ~ the blood guilty criminals include obummer , hairy rude , ' nazi pelosivitch ', joe bite-me , " hitlery " clinton and many others . " WE THE PEOPLE " demand a special prosecutor and a federal grand jury to indict and arrest all these criminal traitors to AMERICA .

**bsteadman** · 11-27-2013, 02:11 PM

Lara Logan to Take Leave of Absence From CBS in Wake of ’60 Minutes’ Report

Internal review found troubled Oct. 27 segment on Benghazi attack 'deficient in several respects'

Variety
Brian Steinberg, Senior TV Editor @bristei
11/26/2013

Excerpt:

CBS News correspondent Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan will take leave of absence from the network in the wake of a flawed “60 Minutes” report on last year’s attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

The suspension was a result of CBS News’ internal review of the Oct. 27 segment about Benghazi, which the network found to be lacking in its efforts to substantiate the assertions of a key source, security officer Dylan Davies. The review was disclosed in an internal memo from CBS News chairman Jeff Fager issued Tuesday.

The “60 Minutes” Benghazi controversy has spiraled during the past month into a major black eye for CBS News. Logan is one of the Eye’s star correspondents, and Fager is known to be a favored lieutenant of CBS Corp. topper Leslie Moonves.

Even with his exec role, Fager remains exec producer of the venerable newsmagazine that he inherited from its founder, Don Hewitt, in 2004.

“As executive producer, I am responsible for what gets on the air. I pride myself in catching almost everything, but this deception got through and it shouldn’t have,” Fager said in the memo to staff. “When faced with a such an error, we must use it as an opportunity to make our broadcast even stronger. We are making adjustments at ’60 Minutes’ to reduce the chances of it happening again.”

The “60 Minutes” report came under scrutiny after reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times suggested Davies, the security officer whose statements provided the grist for the segment, had given inaccurate information to the CBS program.

During the Nov. 20 broadcast of “60 Minutes,” Logan delivered a rare on-air mea culpa, telling viewers that producers came to realize they had “been misled, and that it was a mistake to include him in our report” after a discovery that Davies had given a different account of his time in Benghazi to the FBI. In the segment, Davies claimed to be an eyewitness to the attack by insurgents that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead.
..................................

View the complete article at:

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/lara...rt-1200887463/

**bsteadman** · 11-27-2013, 02:34 PM

Heinous Treatment of Lara Logan… Again

Shoebat Foundation
11/27/2013

Excerpt:

CBS 60 Minutes reporter Lara Logan is taking a leave of absence for her work on a piece about Benghazi. This treatment of her is a disgrace on multiple levels. Before we get to that, consider some recent history.

Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak ultimately stepped down as a result of Barack Obama’s support for the ‘Arab Spring’ in Egypt on February 11, 2011. In hindsight, that support appears to have been in greater supply than we knew at the time. On the day Mubarak resigned, CBS reporter Lara Logan was in Tahrir Square to report on the celebrations. She barely escaped with her life after she sustained a massive sexual assault at the hands of a crazed Muslim mob.

Courageously, Logan came forward less than three months later, told her story, said she never wanted to talk publicly about it again, and said she wanted to get back to work. After being stripped of her dignity, Logan decided to fight tooth and nail to get it back.

She did just that.

Fast forward to October 27, 2013. In a piece she did about Benghazi for 60 Minutes, Logan interviewed Lt. Col. Andrew Wood and Gregory Hicks, both impeccable witnesses who testified in front of Congress. She also interviewed a British soldier named Dylan Davies (aka Morgan Jones) who was employed by the Blue Mountain Group to provide security.

Since the report, Davies has been discredited, Logan issued an unequivocal apology on national television, and 60 Minutes took down the entire piece from its website despite Davies’ account being the only questionable aspect of the report.

Of course, what this means is that because one portion of a body of work is discredited, the entire body of work is discredited. Why doesn’t this hold true relative to the Obama administration’s original lies about Benghazi?

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that 60 Minutes, Lara Logan, or her producer intentionally set out to mislead viewers. The worst that can be said about them is that they failed to fully vet an alleged witness.

Incidentally, one of the claims made by Davies that should be easily confirmed or debunked is that he was ordered to stand down. If he was, it means the CIA Annex and the State Department may have been singing from the same sheet of music that night in Benghazi.

Contrast this with the Obama administration. On September 16, 2012, then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and lied; she said the attack was the result of a protest in response to a video. The entire administration – including Barack Obama himself – parroted that lie for two weeks. Susan Rice was ultimately rewarded with a promotion to National Security Adviser for this despicable behavior.
.............................................

View the complete article at:

http://shoebat.com/2013/11/27/heinou...nt-lara-logan/

**bsteadman** · 11-29-2013, 01:40 AM

‘She Was Targeted’: The Five Clashes Over Lara Logan Suspension

Mediaite
Josh Feldman
11/27/2013

Excerpt:

The hosts of The Five debated Wednesday whether CBS News was right to suspend Lara Logan following an internal investigation into the botched 60 Minutes Benghazi report. Brian Kilmeade was convinced that Logan was “targeted” for her outspokenness on the Benghazi attacks, while Andrea Tantaros admitted that despite Logan’s reputation and reporting chops, CBS News made the right decision in suspending her.

Kilmeade highlighted how Logan previously spoke out in favor of going after the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack, calling it “the entire reason she’s paying the price right now.” Bob Beckel, however, wondered if her passion and emotions “colored her 60 Minutes piece” and so she was desperate enough to believe a liar and “didn’t use her normally good journalistic judgment.”

Eric Bolling defended 60 Minutes, urging caution and saying, “We can’t make the leap and say 60 Minutes rushed to judgment and gave her time off because she made a mistake.”

Andrea Tantaros brought up the fact that CBS News head/60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager did not get in trouble, and in the internal report released he “acts as judge and jury on this matter, rather than a co-defendant.” Kilmeade found it discouraging CBS didn’t stand behind Logan, but Tantaros said, “They’re making an example of her.” And because of the journalistic reputation 60 Minutes need to uphold, the suspension makes sense from their point of view.

View the complete article, including video, at:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/she-was-t...an-suspension/

**bsteadman** · 11-30-2013, 10:02 PM

CBS News: One of Logan’s mistakes was Blaming al-Qaeda

Shoebat Foundation
Ben Barrack
11/28/2013

Excerpt:

In CBS News’ Summary of Findings against Lara Logan and her producer Max McClellan, Executive Director of Standards and Practices Al Ortiz took issue with a rather irrefutable charge made by Logan in the now “discredited” 60 Minutes report on Benghazi which aired on October 27th. Apparently, Ortiz thought identifying al-Qaeda as having been involved was too much of a stretch.

CBS chairman Jeff Fager – who seems to have no problem holding up the deceptive communist and globalist Walter Cronkite as a beacon of journalistic integrity – ultimately made the decision to place Logan and McClellan on leave.

Via Washington Post:

Questions have also been raised about the role of Al Qaeda in the attack since Logan declared in the report that Al Qaeda fighters had carried it out. Al Qaeda’s role is the subject of much disagreement and debate. While Logan had multiple sources and good reasons to have confidence in them, her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the attack and controlled the hospital were not adequately attributed in her report.

Really??!

The truth is that it’s journalistic malpractice not to conclude al-Qaeda was involved. As has been reported here, Ansar Al-Sharia, the group widely accepted to have been at the heart of the attack is al-Qaeda. According to many sources, the name change was the brainchild of none other than Osama bin Laden himself. It served at least two purposes.

Since the al-Qaeda name had become politically toxic, a re-branding effort was needed.

Since Ansar Al-Sharia is a reference to those who follow Sharia law, bin Laden thought it would help the recruiting effort if the U.S. was seen as waging war against Sharia law itself.

In reality, identifying the attackers as belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood would have been more accurate since every group that was involved rolls up under that umbrella. The systemic refusal within mainstream media circles to point this out is far more egregious and a much greater disservice to the American people than Logan accusing al-Qaeda of being involved at Benghazi. Logan very correctly went there, much to the apparent chagrin of Ortiz and Fager.

Granted, if that had been the only problem with Logan’s report, she’d probably still be there and Ortiz wouldn’t have been engaged but itemizing that as a problem is clearly an attempt to discredit the entire report instead of the account of one person featured in it – Dylan Davies.

Davies, an employee of Blue Mountain Group, which was contracted by the U.S. State Department, is apparently the Jenga piece that brought the entire report crashing down. However, if you take him out of the mix, it was an extremely credible – if less dramatic – report.

Ah, but what of those who say if any of it is found to be discredited, all of it must be?

Fine, then why isn’t that standard being applied by the media to the Obama administration? Why was Susan Rice promoted instead of fired when she knowingly lied on five Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012? Why wasn’t Jay Carney fired? Why wasn’t more media pressure applied to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the President himself, all of whom blamed a video for the attack? It was a narrative pushed for two weeks until the lie could no longer be told.

Many told that lie, knowingly so, over and over and over. Obama’s 36 demonstrable lies about Obamacare only serve to bolster that argument. There is no evidence Logan attempted to mislead, only that she erroneously relied on a witness she thought was credible.

While it’s true that CBS News can’t issue pink slips to Obama administration officials, it certainly should do its job as an adversarial check on power. The high standard CBS is holding Logan to is not being applied to the branches of government that the press is supposed to hold accountable most.

Some administration officials may have even lied under oath. Logan did not. In fact, before she was put on leave, Logan issued a strong mea culpa. No one from the Obama administration – many of whom lied to the families of the victims at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012 – has come close to that. In her testimony, Clinton infamously and indignantly said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!” when pressed to answer for the discrepancy between the lie about the video and the fact that the Benghazi compound suffered a terrorist attack committed by… dare I say it, al-Qaeda, et. al.
............................................

View the complete article, including video, at:

http://shoebat.com/2013/11/28/cbs-ne...ming-al-qaeda/

Announcement

60 Minutes’ Benghazi Report Blames White House — Was ‘Planned, Sophisticated’ Attack

60 Minutes’ Benghazi Report Blames White House — Was ‘Planned, Sophisticated’ Attack

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment