NYT cites unnamed sources who supposedly were briefed (i.e. no direct knowledge) about a previous unknown - and still not disclosed - interview that is denied by the person in question and this story is to be taken seriously?

"The information he provided in an F.B.I. interview was described Thursday by two senior government officials as completely consistent with an incident report by the Blue Mountain security business, which had been hired to protect United States interests in Benghazi. The officials who spoke said they had been briefed on the government investigation.

 

Mr. Davies, who worked for Blue Mountain, has disavowed the incident report, saying in an interview last week with the online magazine The Daily Beast that he did not write it and had never even seen it, and was not responsible for the account of events it contained. "

 

 

Come on. This is a hit piece planted by the administration to discredit Davies. Its obvious.

 

No question that the report was leaked and it had to be by the administration. That's not even news, right?

 

We do agree that there is a report that is supposedly from him that contradicts his book/60 Minutes interview, correct?

 

If so, then it's a credibility question. Is the guy telling the truth about not writing the report in question? Is his story a lie simply to sell books? Who would falsify a report within Blue Mountain? Why woudl they falsify a report?

 

Valid questions?

^ - Given how sternly he came out rebuking the supposed report and the shadowy-ness of the leak (unnamed "government officials") and the current track records of the administration I would not take this one story in the NYTs too seriously.

 

It was announced that there are more hearings with more witnesses coming. So the timing of the this very coincidental.

 

I posted sometime ago a link to a lengthy interview with a former colonel who described how when a security incident such as this occurs the entire State Department and military channels all go onto a special status. Post throughout the world go on alert and live audio/video feeds are transmitted in real time. They knew this was an organized attack from the start - just as he describes. The 'spontaneous protest' was created fiction from the beginning. The only question is why that cover-up was created in real time and why the various stand-down orders for supporting elements from Spain, Italy, Germany.

^ - Given how sternly he came out rebuking the supposed report and the shadowy-ness of the leak (unnamed "government officials") and the current track records of the administration I would not take this one story in the NYTs too seriously.

 

It was announced that there are more hearings with more witnesses coming. So the timing of the this very coincidental.

 

I posted sometime ago a link to a lengthy interview with a former colonel who described how when a security incident such as this occurs the entire State Department and military channels all go onto a special status. Post throughout the world go on alert and live audio/video feeds are transmitted in real time. They knew this was an organized attack from the start - just as he describes. The 'spontaneous protest' was created fiction from the beginning. The only question is why that cover-up was created in real time and why the various stand-down orders for supporting elements from Spain, Italy, Germany.

 

Not debating any of that.

 

I'm asking about this guy in particular. The report exists. Who wrote it if it wasn't him?

Now that is a good question that I hope we get answered.

Not debating any of that.

 

I'm asking about this guy in particular. The report exists. Who wrote it if it wasn't him?

 

Does it? One story in NYT attributed to completely unnamed sources makes it fact? Has the NYT published the report? If they do or some other entity does, its a story.

 

If you just google or bing 'Benghazi' you get all the blogs and story about this NYT article. If you google or bing 'Benghazi Congress' you get the stories on the House hearings. Interesting how that works.

 

So real story should be that the House is still looking deeper into this. As well as the 4 killed there were people injured in the 2nd attack during the evacuation of the CIA annex. Their testimony has never been heard before.

 

 

 

CIA operatives to testify at classified Benghazi hearing - CNN.com

 

"The security officers were among those who responded when Stevens' compound was attacked on the night of September 11, 2012.

 

 

They will appear before lawmakers behind closed doors during the week of November 11, sources told CNN.

 

...

 

 

One: What was the CIA doing in Libya? There have been allegations the CIA was operating a gun-running program with weapons going from Libya to Syrian rebels.

 

 

Two: What happened during the failed rescue attempts? CNN has been told that there was a group of would-be rescuers at the CIA annex, armed and ready to go within minutes of the attack, but they were held off until finally they defied orders and staged a rescue on their own.

 

Three: Did the administration know immediately that this was a planned terrorist attack? And if so, why did administration officials try to first claim it was a spontaneous response to a demonstration over a movie that offended Muslims?"

 

The likely answers to the above are:

 

One: Probably.

Two: All external help was ordered to stand-down or hindered in hopes of 'riding it out' to keep the CIA operation under cover.

Three: They knew that evening. The Youtube story is flat out manufactured cover story.

WaPo and Republican staffers have seen the report. So who wrote it?

Not that this will sway any true believers, but CBS is now retracting the report and acknowledging they were misled. This is a reversal from their earlier decision to stand by Davies.

 

Bottom line is he's just looking to make a buck, and this won't do anything to stop that. He's got a golden ticket now, as long as he keeps telling people what they want to hear.