'60 MINUTES' BENGHAZI WITNESS ADMITS TO CHANGING HIS STORY, RAISING
Michael Calderone | 11/04/2013 | HuffPost
NEW YORK -- SECURITY OFFICER DYLAN DAVIES ADMITTED THIS WEEKEND THAT HE LIED TO A SUPERIOR IN SEPTEMBER 2012 ABOUT HIS WHEREABOUTS THE NIGHT OF THE BENGHAZI ATTACK. But Davies says his latest version of events, told on CBS' "60 Minutes" and in a new memoir, are true.
“I am just a little man against some big people here,” Davies told The Daily Beast in an interview published Saturday, suggesting he was the victim of a smear campaign.
DAVIES’ ACCOUNT OF THE NIGHT FOUR AMERICANS, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, WERE KILLED IN A TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE U.S. DIPLOMATIC OUTPOST IN BENGHAZI HAS BEEN CHALLENGED SINCE HE APPEARED OCT. 27 ON “60 MINUTES,” IN AN INTERVIEW CBS BILLED AS “THE FIRST EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT FROM A WESTERNER” ON THE GROUND THAT NIGHT.
THE WASHINGTON POST REVEALED ON THURSDAY THAT DAVIES ONCE PROVIDED A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS. THE POST REPORTED THAT DAVIES PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED TO HAVE NEVER REACHED THE COMPOUND ON THE NIGHT OF THE ATTACK, SAYING HE ONLY ARRIVED THE DAY AFTER. BUT IN THE VERSION HE RELAYED ON “60 MINUTES,” AS WELL AS IN A NEW MEMOIR PUBLISHED UNDER A PSEUDONYM, DAVIES ARRIVES AT THE COMPOUND AS THE BATTLE RAGES ON AND TANGLES WITH A TERRORIST.
DAVIES' ADMISSION THAT HE CHANGED HIS STORY RAISES SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR "60 MINUTES." DID THE PROGRAM KNOW DAVIES ONCE TOLD A SUPERIOR THAT HE DIDN'T REACH THE COMPOUND? IF NOT, WILL THE NETWORK REVISIT THE STORY? AND IF SO, HOW DID "60 MINUTES" VET ITS EYEWITNESS TO BE SURE HE'S NOW PROVIDING AN ACCURATE VERSION OF EVENTS?
A spokesman for the program, Kevin Tedesco, stood by the Davies interview when reached by The Washington Post. Tedesco has not responded to repeated requests from The Huffington Post to discuss it.
Adding to questions about Davies’ credibility, Fox News correspondent Adam Housley said on air last week that he had spoken a “number of times” to Davies, but stopped “when he asked for money.” (Housley referred HuffPost's questions about his interaction with Davies to a Fox News spokeswoman, who did not respond.)
In the "60 Minutes" interview, Davies described scaling the compound’s 12-foot wall during the attack and knocking one terrorist fighter to the ground with the butt of his rifle. He also spoke about seeing Stevens dead in the hospital, and said Stevens had expressed security concerns just hours before the attack.
But The Post obtained an incident report from Sept. 14, 2012, that revealed Davies provided his employer with a written account of the events that differed greatly from what he said on “60 Minutes” and in the memoir.
Davies told his employer, British-based contractor Blue Mountain, that he was at his beachside villa the night of the attack. He wrote that he tried to reach the compound but “could not get anywhere near” it because of roadblocks. And rather than finding Stevens in the hospital, Davies described learning of his death from “a Libyan colleague who had been at the hospital [and] came to the villa to show him a cellphone picture of the ambassador’s blackened corpse.”
Davies defended himself in the Daily Beast interview, saying he lied to his Blue Mountain superior because he had been instructed to stay away from the compound. Davies said he didn't write, and had not previously seen, the incident report, which is written in the first person.
Republican lawmakers have remained focused on the Benghazi story, raising questions about what Obama administration officials knew before and after the attack. The morning after the “60 Minutes” report, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) said he’d hold up Obama administration nominees from being confirmed by the Senate until all survivors of the Benghazi attack appear before Congress.
OVER THE PAST WEEK, PROGRESSIVE MEDIA WATCHDOG MEDIA MATTERS HAS PUBLISHED SEVERAL STORIES CHALLENGING THE “60 MINUTES” REPORT, INCLUDING ONE IN WHICH VETERAN JOURNALISTS AND MEDIA ETHICISTS EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROGRAM'S REPORTING.
ON FRIDAY, DAVID BROCK, CHAIRMAN OF MEDIA MATTERS AND AUTHOR OF A NEW E-BOOK ARGUING THAT BENGHAZI IS A “PHONY” SCANDAL DRIVEN BY CONSERVATIVE media outlets, called on CBS News to retract the report.
Brock also urged CBS News to set up an independent panel to investigate the story, similar to how the network responded to questions about Dan Rather's infamous 2004 report on former President George W. Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard. CBS News has not responded to Brock’s letter.
On Sunday's "60 Minutes," CBS' Scott Pelley read three viewers' letters on air about the previous week’s Benghazi report. Brock's didn't make the cut.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
REPORT SAYS ADMINISTRATION WASN’T LYING ABOUT BENGHAZI
By Eugene Robinson | truthdig | Jan 17, 2014
President Barack Obama listens as Susan Rice, then the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, speaks during a meeting with U.N. Ambassadors in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Dec. 13, 2010.
THE BIPARTISAN REPORT ON BENGHAZI RELEASED WEDNESDAY BY THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SHOULD FINALLY CONVINCE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS OF THE OBVIOUS: THERE IS NO THERE THERE.
Administration officials did not orchestrate any kind of attempt, politically motivated or otherwise, to deceive the American people. In their public statements, including the infamous talking points, they relied on what intelligence analysts told them.
In other words, IF SUSAN RICE WAS WRONG WHEN SHE WENT ON THE SUNDAY TALK SHOWS AND SAID THE ATTACKS WERE THE VIOLENT OUTGROWTH OF A SPONTANEOUS ANTI-AMERICAN DEMONSTRATION RATHER THAN A LONG-PLANNED TERRORIST ASSAULT, IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WAS WRONG.
That said, the initial assessment given by Rice—then serving as ambassador to the United Nations, now as President Obama’s national security adviser—may turn out to have been correct. We don’t yet know. Says the report: “The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to review the amount and nature of any preplanning that went into the attacks.”
OTHER PREPOSTEROUS CLAIMS ABOUT THE SEPT. 11, 2012, ATTACK, IN WHICH U.S. AMBASSADOR J. CHRISTOPHER STEVENS AND THREE OTHER AMERICANS WERE KILLED, ARE ALSO DEBUNKED IN THE SENATE REPORT. MOST SPURIOUS IS THE CLAIM THAT THE ADMINISTRATION FAILED TO LAUNCH A RESCUE ATTEMPT THAT MIGHT HAVE SAVED LIVES.
“The committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel ... prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated,” the report states.
Armchair warriors have argued that an aerial assault might have driven off the attackers, but Pentagon officials told the committee there were simply no U.S. fighter jets in position to reach Benghazi in time. All available military and CIA assets in Benghazi were mobilized, and they likely prevented additional deaths.
I AM UNDER NO ILLUSION THAT THESE FINDINGS WILL QUIET THE HARD-CORE BENGHAZI CONSPIRACY CROWD. Nor will it stop some cynical Republicans from using the tragedy as a political weapon against Obama—or against Hillary Clinton, who was then secretary of state, if she makes another run for president.
But perhaps others, including thoughtful critics of the administration, can focus on what really happened. There are important lessons to learn.
First, and most elementary, is that it wasn’t anyone in the Obama administration who shares fault for the attacks in Benghazi. It was a bunch of radical Islamic militants, terrorists, extremists—call them whatever you want. The killers who perpetrated the atrocity deserve the blame.
Second, it is not possible to plan for every contingency and thus prevent every attack. The United States has diplomatic and military facilities around the globe. Officials should do everything in their power to keep all of these installations safe, all of the time. The historical record—including the bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Yemen—suggests that the goal of perfect security will not be achieved.
Third, it is always obvious in hindsight that officials could have done more to anticipate or prevent an attack. This is certainly true of Benghazi, and the administration should be held accountable for making sure the appropriate lessons are learned and implemented.
According to the report, it had been clear for months that the security situation in Benghazi was deteriorating. A bomb had been detonated at the main gate of the U.S. mission, causing some damage. Assailants had fired rocket-propelled grenades at the British ambassador’s convoy. U.N. and Red Cross personnel had come under attack.
Stevens informed the State Department of the worsening conditions. In July, he asked for an additional 13 security personnel to protect his staff in Tripoli and Benghazi; the report says there is no indication that officials in Washington ever responded to this cable. A month later, however, Stevens twice turned down an offer by the Defense Department to extend the presence of a 16-member military team that had already been providing extra security.
According to the report, THE STATE DEPARTMENT APPEARED NOT TO REALIZE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE SITUATION—OR EVEN TO KNOW WHAT BRANCH OF THE BUREAUCRACY WAS SUPPOSED TO RESPOND. THIS IS THE TRUE SCANDAL OF BENGHAZI: A LESSON FROM A PRIOR ATTACK WAS LONG IGNORED.
THE SENATE REPORT SAYS THERE SHOULD BE AN UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, WITH REAL CLOUT, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS ENSURING THAT VULNERABLE POSTS SUCH AS BENGHAZI HAVE ADEQUATE SECURITY. THIS WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED BY A REVIEW PANEL FOLLOWING THE EMBASSY BOMBINGS IN KENYA AND TANZANIA. WHICH HAPPENED IN 1998.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
"Brock also urged CBS News to set up an independent panel to investigate the story....."
Elky, ya can't spin the TRUTH. America does not need spiders to spin a "charlotte's web" All that needs to be done is to produce all of guys who were stationed Benghazi up until the Sept. 11, 2012 attack, for a congressional hearing.
Come on loons. Are you proud of The Dear Leader and his minions for lying about Benghazi? Yes or no!
If The Dear Leader were a Republican, would you be giving him the same feeble excuses for lying? Yes or no!
So far the loons are doing what they always do, change the subject. The topic is The Dear Leader lying about Benghazi. They don't want to address this so they talk about anything but Benghazi. Oh, my mother taught me when I was about four years old that two wrongs don't make a right. Also you don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
Loons how about addressing The Dear Leader and Benghazi. Do you condone the lies he and his minions put out? A simple yes or no will do.
The anti-Muslim film lie disgusts me. Does it disgust the loons? I think not. When you are kissing The Dear Leader's a:s:s, it's hard to not lie for him and justify his disgusting behavior. Ideologues are that way.
Nice, poleo, the RWNJS are about to take down our whole country but you want to talk about Benghazi. Some Patriot you are.
Don't you remember BF “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Don't you understand now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
You know, I remember Reagans first term; a battalion of Marines were sent to, Beirut, Lebanon as peace keepers. They had no clear mission and were not even allowed to load there weapons. Their barracks were bombed and 241 US Marines lost their lives. The worse tragedy since World War 11. I, liked Reagan and profited from his policies. Reagan was re-elected for a second term. The moral of this story is; SHEEET HAPPENS! The public forgives if they like you. Get over Benghazi! It didn't hurt Obama's re-election and it won't any other Dem. that runs for President.