The witness lied to sell his book.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Last Thursday the Washington Post ran a report that questioned the central parts of what Davies had told you. They cited this incident report right after the attack that he gave to Blue Mountain, the security company he worked for. He told them that he never made it to the compound, that he was at his villa there. Did you know about that report, that incident report?
LARA LOGAN: No, we did not know about that incident report before we did our story. When the Washington Post story came out, he denied it, he said that he never wrote it, had nothing to do with it, and that he told the FBI the same story that he told us. But as we now know, that was not that case.
Incidentally, the book’s publisher Simon & Schuster (owned by CBS) has since withdrawn the book from publication.
“It was a night upon which I would fight my way into the besieged Benghazi Mission three times over, largely against orders, in an effort to find my American brothers-in-arms and to stand with them against the terrorist horde. It was a night on which I should have died many times over.”
From “The Embassy House: The explosive eyewitness account of the Libyan Embassy siege by the soldier who was there”.
(http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/08/21369183-publisher-pulls-cbs-sources-benghazi-book)
I guess that’s what happens when you rely on the TB for all your news. At any rate, I’m sure we can still depend on our own Holy Inquisition to get to the bottom of this.
-
Um, we actually "do" know what happened in Benghazi.
-
Lying is usually sufficient to disqualify you from being a source.
- Not when the source's lies are essential to preserve conservative dogma. n/t
-
If I laogh too hard, it really hurts . . .
-
There's a small problem with the liberal thinking process here.
-
Lying is usually sufficient to disqualify you from being a source.