How the media botched the House intel committee report on Benghazi
Sharyl Attkisson:
She shows the weaknesses in the report and what was not looked at. There has yet to be a comprehensive look at the debacle and many of the separate investigations appear to be deeply flawed briefs for the agencies trying to avoid responsibility. Many of the conclusions are inconsistent with known facts. There has been an amazing attempt to avoid the facts as disclosed by actual eye witnesses to the event who worked for the CIA in Benghazi.
It neither “exonerates” nor “debunks.”There is much more.
It specifically states that it is not the final word on Benghazi.
Yet national press outlets claimed all of the above about the House Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi released on Nov. 21.
The Washington Post stated that “the panel’s findings were broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events,” though many of the administration’s versions of events have been discredited or proven incorrect.
USA Today portrayed the report as a sweeping effort that “cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing” and the Associated Press claimed the report concluded “there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials,” though it didn’t examine most aspects of the administration’s actions regarding Benghazi. For example, the committee did not attempt to dissect White House actions or decision-making. And it did not generally “assess State Department or Defense Department activities” (page 4).
What the House Intelligence Committee did do was focus on a narrow slice of Benghazi: the intelligence community. As such, the report largely defends the CIA.
It is nothing more or less than another in a series of compartmentalized investigations into the Benghazi debacle.
The House Armed Services Committee focused on actions of the Pentagon, largely serving to defend military interests. The Accountability Review Board focused on actions of the State Department, though it chose not to interview some key players, such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
...
She shows the weaknesses in the report and what was not looked at. There has yet to be a comprehensive look at the debacle and many of the separate investigations appear to be deeply flawed briefs for the agencies trying to avoid responsibility. Many of the conclusions are inconsistent with known facts. There has been an amazing attempt to avoid the facts as disclosed by actual eye witnesses to the event who worked for the CIA in Benghazi.
Comments
Post a Comment