Post by davo on Nov 1, 2013 13:48:17 GMT -5
How about the Washington Post?
link
Today, The Washington Post revealed that the very same witness previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound the night of the attack. This completely contradicts what was reported on air by correspondent Lara Logan, who said that during the attack, the witness “scaled the twelve-foot high wall of the compound that was still overrun with al Qaeda fighters.” In the interview, the witness told Logan he had personally struck one of those terrorists in the face with his rifle butt and, following the attack, he went to the Benghazi hospital and saw Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body.
According to Post, the witness revealed none of those details in the incident report he wrote following the attack. Instead, he said that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa and learned of Stevens' death from a colleague. This paints a damning picture of the credibility of the supposed eyewitness -- and thus of the CBS report itself.
A network spokesman told the Post, ‘We stand firmly by the story we broadcast last Sunday.” This is not sufficient. When questions were raised about documents involving President George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard, CBS appointed an independent panel “to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken.” Similar standards must be applied in this case.
Brock is the head of the pro-Hillary American Bridge super PAC and the founder of Media Matters For America, the liberal watchdog group. Since the campaign against the CNN and NBC projects, he has emerged as Clinton's most vocal public defender, writing open letters to both news organizations protesting the projects, both of which were subsequently cancelled.
CBS seems to be standing by their story. Hopefully, they'll do further reporting to iron out the inconsistencies.
Here's what Brock was referring to, from the Washington Post. I hope this helps clear it up for you. Also, you should be able to pick up a copy of 'Morgan Jones' book on his so-called involvement in the Benghazi attack because they'll be plenty of copies on the heels of the 60 Minutes report. Red meat for the base, if nothing else.
link
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.”
----------------------------
Maybe the question to 'Jones' ought to be: Was he lying when he first told the story or is he lying now?