Libya

CBS Apologizes For 60 Minutes Benghazi Report as Primary Source's Forthcoming Book "Suspended"

Supposed first hand account may not have been

|

backsies
CBS

CBS News' Lara Logan apologized today for a 60 Minutes report on the September 11, 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi. The report's primary source, a security contractor going by the pseudonym Morgan Jones and revealed to be named Dylan Davies, claimed he was at the US mission the night of the attack, that in fact he scaled a wall and fought one of the attackers, who told him they were there "to kill Americans." CBS News' retraction comes after reports that the Davies' statement to the FBI (that he wasn't there that night) did not match what he told CBS, and wrote in a book about the experience. According to The New York Times' Julie Bosman, Simon & Schuster is now suspending publication of the book.

The story would suggest that the US government could have responded more quickly to the ongoing incident in Benghazi than it had, as some critics of the administration have argued. The attack in Benghazi involved two separate assaults over a seven hour period, at the US mission, and then at the CIA annex in Benghazi.  According to some sources, the White House and State Department never authorized military assets to cross over into Libya even as they were being mobilized.

Leon Panetta, then the defense secretary, admitted to Congress he had only had one conversation about the attack on Benghazi with President Obama the night it happened, and that the president did not ask for specifics on the kind of response that would be possible. General Martin Dempsey added at the time that the standard protocol was to keep White House aides informed, not necessarily the president himself. Nevertheless, that story is at odds with the president's claims he's "more deeply involved" in intelligence operations than any president before him. Not on September 11 he wasn't.

A military response may have been impossible in any case—former Bush and Obama defense secretary Robert Gates told CBS' Face the Nation in May that the idea that a response was possible was based on a "cartoonish" view of the US military. Cartoonish it may have been, with a price tag for US defense at nearly $2 billion a day, it may not have been such a far-fetched expectation.

None of this, of course, diminishes the bigger scandals in Benghazi; in the immediate aftermath, administration officials and their supporters sought to blame an otherwise obscure YouTube clip on a "spontaneous demonstration" that actually appeared, again almost immediately, as a coordinated terrorist attack, putting the First Amendment in the spotlight instead of the attackers. The Obama Administration has also continued to avoid holding anyone substantively accountable or providing any kind of real transparency on the issue, going so far as to call it a "sideshow" and asking what difference at this point the details even make.

NEXT: Poll: Obama Approval Rating on Economy at New Low

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So we’re to believe the government reports over this guy’s statement? They’ve earned the benefit of the doubt, have they?

    1. I’m with Episiarch. It doesn’t make a substantive difference. an individual lying about his heroic efforts during the attack doesn’t change the attack itself, or the impetus of the attack, which the administration lied about, repeatedly and then doubled down on that lie as it was unraveling.

      I’m actually less concerned with how the U.S. military might have responded, how the security apparatus was in place.

      Mistakes can be made- people fuck up, people don’t have the security assets they need on the ground. Admit it, fix it, move on.

      The Administration’s concerted effort to wag its finger at the American Constitutional Form of Government and Civil Rights he and his staff swore an oath to uphold is the real scandal.

      The secondary scandal was how quickly the Mainstream media swallowed the Administration’s line, then aided the lie, then blew the lie off as a Republic political point-scoring exercise.

      1. All of your points are correct, but something smells here. There is some reason they dont want anyone to know what happened there, perhaps something we have no clue about yet.

        Covering up before the election was not surprising. Covering up since because of all the lies, unsurprising as well. But why now? Why so much over-the-top effort to hide a phoney scandal?

        1. Re: Suthenboy,

          There is some reason they dont want anyone to know what happened there, perhaps something we have no clue about yet.

          Ambassador Stevens was putting his nose on an arms for Syria operation and had to be left to his own sad fate.

          Remember Cross Of Iron and why Steiner’s platoon was left behind enemy lines on purpose? Same thing.

          1. I think that’s pretty much accepted conventional wisdom, at this point.

            But what if part of that was CW for use in a false flag op by Syrian al Qeda.

        2. Why so much over-the-top effort to hide a phoney scandal?

          They’re too invested in the lie. I think it’s that simple.

          Plus, you have useful idiots like Vanneman and Shrike who have completely skipped over the lie, and now just see it as a technocratic scandal about how much money was spent on security.

        3. I think the real situation probably looked a lot like the train wreck in Atlas Shrugged. What happened after was just snowballing the same thing – people backing away, pointing fingers, passing bucks, etc.

      2. I’m actually less concerned with how the U.S. military might have responded, how the security apparatus was in place.

        Mistakes can be made- people fuck up, people don’t have the security assets they need on the ground. Admit it, fix it, move on.

        The real scandal is what was happening at that CIA complex in Benghazi.

        Specifically:

        1) It was a secret prison site in direct contravention of one of Obama’s executive orders.

        2) It was the locus of a US organized operation to smuggle weapons to the Syrian rebels, including chemical weapons.

    2. He either lied in the book/interview or lied to the FBI. One of those things can land you in prison.

      By the same token, why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt about what’s happened when he’s already admitted to lying to his employer?

      1. Where did he admit lying to his employer?

      2. Last I heard, he was claiming the FBI report is a complete fabrication, as in, he never said any of that stuff.

        1. Impossible…

          Now please ignore the fact that the Obama claimed you tube video and the sequestration (which originated in the white house) was the cause of the attack.

          Now that this has been ignored it becomes impossible for the FBI report to be a fabrication.

  2. How does whether this guy told the truth about being there change any of the problems with the whole situation in any way?

    1. Because he was a supposed eye witness who tore an enormous hole into the government’s story of what happened that night. Not actually being there is… sort of problematic.

      1. I don’t really care about details about what happened that night. Because what I do know is that an embassy was attacked, people were killed, and then Obama immediately tried to blame that on some video and in so doing fucked the First Amendment in the ass and glaringly lied to the entire country.

        I don’t really give a shit whether some contractor was there killing people with his bare hands.

        1. Fair enough. So then you should probably hate this guy for providing this less-than-reliable “scoop” to CBS, which has only served to deflect attention from the administration’s actions.

          1. Why? I don’t care about him one way or the other. You could also say I should hate CBS for believing him or not checking further before publicizing his story. But they’re just a sideshow.

            You’re the one who seems overly concerned with some dumbass contractor.

            1. Both of the guy’s names sound like fabrications.

          2. So, from doing some research it appears that he told his superiors that he wasn’t there because they gave him a direct order not to go, and he didn’t want to admit disobeying that order.

            Now though, he claims that he in fact was.there, and he appears to be standing by that. Your inference that he wasn’t there because of what he initially told his bosses is fallacious.

  3. Shrike alert! Shrike alert! Shrike inbound!

    1. He ducked into the thread about Guns and Ammo and blamed Bengazi on Iran/Contra

  4. Something stinks here. I suspect that Block Yomomma and his scummy little brownshirts would do anything, including the Breitbart/Hastings treatment, to as many people as they had to in order to keep the truth about Benghazi from ever coming out.

    1. Block Yomomma

      Hard to believe, but using this epithet actually saps your credibility.

      1. Can that which doesn’t exist be sapped?

        Contemplate this on your way to nothingness of enlightenment.

        1. Huh. Hope and nothingness.

  5. Given the credibility that this administration has earned, unless they have surveillance video of this guy buying a big gulp at a 7-11 in the states on the night of the attack, I tend strongly to believe him over them.

    1. For me it’s still a tough call on whether to believe the President of the US and some random guy who’s trying to pitch his book.

      Seems to me that the most likely case is that they are both lying.

  6. “Cartoonish it may have been, with a price tag for US defense at nearly $2 billion a day, it may not have been such a far-fetched expectation.”

    It doesn’t matter if we were spending $200 billion a day. Libya is a foreign country. For some reason, other countries don’t like U.S. soldiers showing up inside their borders and waving automatic weapons around. They feel like they’ve been, you know, invaded. Crazy, I know, but there it is.

    There are million things to criticize about President Obama’s Libyan policies. But the Republican blame game–“Obama watched TV while Americans died!”–is pure bullshit.

    1. Good thing Obama only bombed Libya into regime change and didn’t have any soldiers there! Would’ve hurt their feelings, which is what all foreign policy decisions should be based on.

    2. Hey, Anal! Long time no read!

      There are million things to criticize about President Obama’s Libyan policies. But the Republican blame game — “Obama watched TV while Americans died!” — is pure bullshit.

      Really, Anal? That’s the best you have? Because that’s not the scandal. The scandal is that the Obama administration spend a couple of weeks lying about why the attack happened to cover up the fact that the ambassador had asked for additional security for MONTHS, before the attack and that all the indications that an attack was imminent were completely ignored by the pants suit lady for ideological reasons.

    3. There are million things to criticize about President Obama’s Libyan policies. But the Republican blame game–“Obama watched TV while Americans died!”–is pure bullshit.

      Vanneman just won the 100 yard dash to miss the point.

      Just ignore the fact that Obama lied about the attack, repeatedly.

      1. Let’s not forget Susan Rice, the designated liar, look where that got her. She did end up in the perfect place for her.

    4. aaaannd you are missing the point, which is Team Obummer blaming the whole shebang on some goofy video while suggesting we should not let people make goofy videos, which is, you know, a blatant assault on Amendment number 1.

    5. Republican blame game–“Obama watched TV while Americans died!”–is pure bullshit.

      How about Obama blaming the attack on the “Republican” sequestration (scare quotes because the sequestration originated in the White house) and a youtube video?

      Do you think that is impure or pure bullshit?

    6. No, he blamed the entire attack on a youtube video. How did he come up with that cockamamee bullshit, anyway?

  7. A military response may have been impossible in any case?former Bush and Obama defense secretary Robert Gates told CBS’ Face the Nation in May that the idea that a response was possible was based on a “cartoonish” view of the US military.

    “You go to war with Libya with army you have then forget the details as they don’t matter much.”

    -Obama administration

    1. A military response may have been impossible in any case

      Which simply raises another question. Given the known risks to our people in-country, why didn’t we have any sort of capability to mount a rescue?

      If anything, this line of argument makes the administration look worse. Whether we have arranged ourselves so that a rescue can even be considered is executive-level responsibility.

      1. Strange, I thought we were some kind of mighty solo superpower. What happened to that, anyway?

      2. And why was the Africom Commanding General relieved of duty that day for activating his SF Team and planning a rescue?

  8. CBS News: Fake, but accurate

  9. We don’t ban books in the land of the free. We suspend them.

    That makes it all better.

    1. The publisher not pushing a book they know don’t no whether it’s true or not is not book banning nor book burning nor any other form of censorship.

      He’s free to write and ebook and sell it himself to his heart’s content.

      The original publisher however is under no obligations to publish a book if they found out it wasn’t truthful (assuming it’s nonfiction of course).

      Disclaimer: I don’t know if he lied or not and even if he had, I assume the administration is lying. If somehow they turn out to be correct, it will be incidental and they and their supporters won’t care if they ruin another person’s life. What’s one more out of the 14 million or so this year?

      But it’s still not an example of censorship. It’s a private business making what appears on its face to be a prudent decision. & note – they said “suspended” which still leaves open the possibility of publishing it later if they determine it is more likely to be truthful than not.

      But regardless – what do you think here? Any idiot can write any book about say, being in war, find out prior to publication they weren’t there, and yet they should still go through with it?

      A million little pieces….

  10. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.Privacy-Road.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.