No. of Recommendations: 37
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/01/60-minutes-benghazi-...

The Benghazi "witness" featured in a CBS 60 Minutes report that galvanized new discussion of the administration's response to the attack previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound on the night of the attack.

During the October 27 report, which was based on a year-long investigation by correspondent Lara Logan and producer Max McCellan, Logan described the man, identified as "Morgan Jones, a pseuodonym he's using for his own safety," as "a security officer who witnessed the attack." She explained that during the attack, "Jones scaled the twelve-foot high wall of the compound that was still overrun with al Qaeda fighters"; during an interview, he told her he had personally struck one of those terrorists in the face with his rifle butt. After the attack, "Jones" claimed in the report that he went to the Benghazi hospital and saw Ambassador Chris Stevens' body.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/60-min...

......But in a written account that Jones, whose real name was confirmed as Dylan Davies by several officials who worked with him in Benghazi, provided to his employer three days after the attack, he told a different story of his experiences that night.

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.

person answering the telephone Thursday at Blue Mountain, based in Wales, said no one was available to discuss Benghazi or Davies, who no longer worked there.

Damien Lewis, co-author of the book, said in a telephone interview that Davies was “not well” and is hospitalized. Lewis said he was unaware that the Blue Mountain incident report existed.


.....Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon and Schuster that "specializes in conservative non-fiction," published the supposed witness' book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Looks like "60 Minutes" has been fooled again.

Bet rightwingnuts don't make as much hay out of this as they did the Bush AWOL story. And Logan won't lose her job over it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Which is it?

Is the report simply a rehashing that contains nothing new, nothing that the government hasn't already confirmed, or is the report not credible?

LOL.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Which is it? Is the report simply a rehashing that contains nothing new, nothing that the government hasn't already confirmed, or is the report not credible?

It can't be both?

The credibility question pertains to whether Davies really was in the compound during the attack and went to the hospital and saw Ambassador Stevens's corpse. In his official report he said he didn't go to the compound or hospital on the night of the attack. In the "60 Minutes" story and his new book, he says he did, engaging in dramatic heroics, dispatching a few terrorists in hand-to-hand combat.

The "what's new" question pertains to whether Davies' tale tells us anything we didn't already know about the attack. I don't see anything new. I've asked you a couple of times to tell us what you think the "bombshell" in the "60 Minutes" story is. Can you do that now?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
St Patrick has gone full commie on farm subsidies and is no longer considered reliable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
" I've asked you a couple of times to tell us what you think the "bombshell" in the "60 Minutes" story is. Can you do that now? "

Why do you lie?

I've replied to you multiple times that the report said sources said the US knew that Qumu was involved...something Obama still denies.

But I look forward to the next thread about this in which you say, " you've not told us what the bombshell is.

Hillary and Obama watched Qumu raid the Embassy's consulate and then went on and on about a YouTube video.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sp
Hillary and Obama watched Qumu raid the consulate


There was NO live video feed the nightly the attack.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wrong. They watched the attack live from the Defense Department via drone.

You are right that they didn't watch it at the white house, they would have to care about it in order to have watched it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wrong. They never watched a live video feed anywhere the night of the attack. It's a right wing myth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"VIEW TO A KILL: As terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi, a US Predator drone was reportedly observing from above. (EPA)
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.
“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's just a myth perpetuated by Obamas department of defense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
" I've asked you a couple of times to tell us what you think the "bombshell" in the "60 Minutes" story is. Can you do that now? "
---
Why do you lie?

I've replied to you multiple times that the report said sources said the US knew that Qumu was involved...something Obama still denies.


Must have missed those replies or you're confusing me with someone else. I had to re-read the transcript to remember who Sufian bin-Qumu is.

"We've learned that this man, Sufian bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and long-time al Qaeda operative, was one of the lead planners along with Faraj al-Chalabi, whose ties to Osama bin Laden go back more than 15 years. He's believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al Qaeda in Pakistan."

Nothing in there suggests the U.S. knew that Qumu was involved at the time of the attack.

And why on earth did the Bush administration let Qumu go?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/former-guantanamo...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
sp
That's just a myth perpetuated by Obamas department of defense.


It didn’t take us long to find that the "Benghazi live stream" claim has already been debunked by the Snopes.com "urban legends" website.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/oct/15/david...


2012, Slate news story noting a claim by Charles Woods, whose son, Tyrone, died in the attacks, that the White House watched the attacks on a live stream over seven hours. The story also notes the CBS News report of a drone flying over the fatal scene hours after the attacks began. Slate quoted a White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, as saying: "No one watched video of the attack at the White House as it happened."

Separately, as documented by Erik Wemple, who writes a "reported opinion blog" on the news media for The Washington Post, Fox News commentator Sean Hannity repeatedly incorrectly stated that the State Department watched live video as the attacks occurred. In a Jan. 23, 2013, news story, Wemple said that earlier that day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked before a House committee about live video feeds to the agency and replied: "There was no monitor, there was no real time."

Given that this claim has been debunked for about a year, we see it as incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/2...

We’re talking about famous Fox News host Sean Hannity and the notion that the State Department was watching the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi diplomatic compound in “real time.” A sampling from the Nov. 16 edition of “Hannity,” featuring guests Rep. Mike Conaway and Oliver North:

A State Department official denied that anyone in the department saw any part of the evening on “real-time” video. Nor was there even the technical capability of beaming the video of the initial attack to other parts of the world, per this explanation from an administration official:

The Benghazi compound had a CCTV [closed-circuit television] system. Meaning, a system of cameras on the compound. Those cameras could be monitored from the [Tactical Operations Center, TOC], which is one of the structures on the compound..?.?. Those images could not be seen anywhere outside the TOC, let alone outside Benghazi. The footage from those cameras is recorded and stored for a period. The footage from the attack was not in USG [U.S. government] hands until later in September.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Must have missed those replies or you're confusing me with someone else.

I am not confused. You actually cut and pasted my reply with Qumu's name in a post of yours.

Nothing in there suggests the U.S. knew that Qumu was involved at the time of the attack.

Government Intelligence sources confirmed his involvement right away, but the Obama administration denied denied denied.

And why on earth did the Bush administration let Qumu go?

Probably because Bush and Cheney really didn't like to have suspected terrorists in Gitmo and they were successful in battling the Democrats to allow some of the prisoners at Gitmo to be freed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nothing in your snoping says that it was not viewed by the DOD. The DOD is what is talked about in the article.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To assume that the video was viewed at the White House or the State Department, would be to assume that anyone at the White House or the State Department actually gave a care about what was happening. To state that they did would be a true "pants on fire" event.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hillary and Obama watched Qumu raid the Embassy's consulate and then went on and on about a YouTube video.

Are you suggesting that Qumu was among the attackers and that he could be identified by aerial drone video?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Must have missed those replies or you're confusing me with someone else.
---
I am not confused. You actually cut and pasted my reply with Qumu's name in a post of yours.


I'd forgotten that. I'll take your word for it. Anyway, the part about Qumu didn't come from Davies. Nor did "60" say that the administration knew on 9-11 that Qumu was there. It's implied that they found out about that later.



Nothing in there suggests the U.S. knew that Qumu was involved at the time of the attack.
---
Government Intelligence sources confirmed his involvement right away, but the Obama administration denied denied denied.


Okay. Sez who? That's not in the "60" story.



And why on earth did the Bush administration let Qumu go?
---
Probably because Bush and Cheney really didn't like to have suspected terrorists in Gitmo and they were successful in battling the Democrats to allow some of the prisoners at Gitmo to be freed.


That can't be the reason. A lot of less dangerous prisoners weren't released.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No I am saying that Qumu was pointed out quickly as a leader of the attack.

I am saying that the 60 Minutes piece confirms what that the US intelligence sources said about the attack days after the attack and that the Obama administration denied these facts and instead pushed focus to the YouTube video, much like a street hustler distracts a three-card monte sucker.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No I am saying that Qumu was pointed out quickly as a leader of the attack.

I am saying that the 60 Minutes piece confirms what that the US intelligence sources said about the attack days after the attack and that the Obama administration denied these facts and instead pushed focus to the YouTube video, much like a street hustler distracts a three-card monte sucker.


Okay. I understand what you're dying now. Thanks for explaining.

I have three questions:

1) What does this have to do with Davies and his credibility?

2) What intelligence sources said Qumu was the mastermind of the attack in the days following?

3) If that is the case, then why is it news -- or a "bombshell" -- that "60 Minutes" is repeating it now, more than a year later?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay. I understand what you're dying now. Thanks for explaining.

Friggin auto correct. "Saying."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1) What does this have to do with Davies and his credibility?

I don't think I commented on his credibility. I think that there are some assumptions made that lead this article to question whether Davies is who they think he is and if he did what he said he did. His co-author cited some reason in the article as to why his report differed from his 60 minutes piece.

2) What intelligence sources said Qumu was the mastermind of the attack in the days following?

More than one news report was quoting unnamed intelligence reports about Qumu in the days following the attack. It was directly denied by the Obama admin.

3) If that is the case, then why is it news -- or a "bombshell" -- that "60 Minutes" is repeating it now, more than a year later?

Besides the fact that the Obama administration has still not publicly admitted this? The bombshell, as I have stated before is that the media has let the administration know, that if it wants to, it can actually do it's job regardless of how it makes Obama look.

That's a bombshell that was sent out just before the ACA website went belly up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1) What does this have to do with Davies and his credibility?

I don't think I commented on his credibility.


Okay. But that's the thread topic.


2) What intelligence sources said Qumu was the mastermind of the attack in the days following?

More than one news report was quoting unnamed intelligence reports about Qumu in the days following the attack. It was directly denied by the Obama admin.


I do not recall this. Any links? I'll look it up too.


3) If that is the case, then why is it news -- or a "bombshell" -- that "60 Minutes" is repeating it now, more than a year later?

Besides the fact that the Obama administration has still not publicly admitted this?


I don't think the Obama administration should publicly divulge intelligence information about the attacks, at least not until after it has caught and punished the perpetrators. Maybe not even then.


The bombshell, as I have stated before is that the media has let the administration know, that if it wants to, it can actually do it's job regardless of how it makes Obama look.

That's not a bombshell.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And the Britain based contractor, Blue Mountain's account can be trusted why?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-libya-usa-bluem...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...

This account a year ago states

"Other firms in the security industry expressed surprise that Blue Mountain had won a large, high profile contract from the US government. One industry executive said the level of service Blue Mountain provided did not appear adequate to the risks presented by a lawless city. ...

Darryl Davies, the manager of the Benghazi contract for Blue Mountain, flew out of the city hours before the attack was launched. The Daily Telegraph has learned that relations between the firm and its Libyan partner had broken down, leading to the withdrawal of Mr Davies.

Abdulaziz Majbiri, a Blue Mountain guard at the compound, told the Daily Telegraph that they were effectively abandoned and incapable of defending themselves on the night of the attack.

"We were in uniform, unarmed except for taser guns and handcuffs, and had been told in the case of attack to muster by the swimming pool," he said. "I was separated from the others and couldn't get anywhere near the swimming pool before I was shot."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...

Britain used a different contractor in Libya. It has been reported that Blue Mountain was selected because they agreed not to arm their employees.

Remember the statement by a Ms. Nuland she was unaware of any such security force being hired by the State Department.

So who hired them?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And the Britain based contractor, Blue Mountain's account can be trusted why?

It's not Blue Mountain's account that contradicts what Davies told "60 Minutes" and wrote in his new book. It's Davies's own contemporary account of what he did that night, written in a report to his employers. He doesn't even deny changing his story.

Why might Davies change his story? One reason might be that his new story makes a better tale for a money-making book.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not Blue Mountain's account that contradicts what Davies told "60 Minutes" and wrote in his new book. It's Davies's own contemporary account of what he did that night, written in a report to his employers. He doesn't even deny changing his story.

Why might Davies change his story? One reason might be that his new story makes a better tale for a money-making book.
_______________

Maybe. But was he really that dumb to not know he could be identified?

Reports, have never been made up?

Whether he was in on a sting (of Logan so it seems) it's pretty well known the Left has no use for Logan or Hillary Clinton for that matter.

Why did the State Dept claim they had no knowledge of this security firm?

The entire government looks like it is being run by a bunch of competing gangs.

I am beginning to wonder what Stevens knew that might be better left unknown by the competing factions.

Logan was raped in Egypt. Was that made up?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
oops
make that
I am beginning to wonder what Stevens knew that the competing factions might be better left unknown, for their own hide's sake.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay. But that's the thread topic.

The thread subject is that the report takes a huge credibility hit.


I don't think the Obama administration should publicly divulge intelligence information about the attacks, at least not until after it has caught and punished the perpetrators. Maybe not even then.

Well then Obama did exactly what you wanted. Threw the entire country a red herring. Here here!


That's not a bombshell.

I think it is. That's why I called it that. I can appreciate that you don't think it is, which is why you didn't post something with that title after you finally saw/read it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Definition of a wingnut: someone who believes what he reads in the Washington Times.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There has been no denial from the white house or the defense department about this story. Are you a left wing nut if don't believe anything in the post?

Ya might be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There has been no denial from the white house or the defense department about this story.

What part of the story would they deny?

The only part that's being questioned is whether Davies was in the compound or not and whether he went to the hospital and saw Stevens's body. That version of his story will likely sell more books, but what difference does it make either way to the White House and Pentagon?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That the DoD watched the attack.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sp
That the dod watched the attack.

Not that night.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What part of the ["60 Minutes"] story would [the White House and Pentagon] deny?
---
That the DoD watched the attack.


There's no mention of that in the "60 Minutes" story.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
SP says

There has been no denial from the white house or the defense department about this story. Are you a left wing nut if don't believe anything in the post?

1. I doubt that anyone would ask the White House or Defense Dept. about a story from the Washington Times, because

2. They'd just get laughed at.

Really, the house "newspaper" of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church? The Moonies, that's where you're going for news these days?

What do you hear from the Harvey Krishnas?
Print the post Back To Top