BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI BENGHAZI! BEEN LYIN'! BEEN LYIN'! BEEN LYIN'!

The day after CBS ran a story about Benghazi, the conservative blogsphere was on fire reporting the details of the interview.

Now that British "witness," Dylan Davies, who called himself "Morgan Jones," has admitted to his lying, I wonder how many of the conservative blogs will publish that story. 

How about none.  

Because most of the time, these low-information bloggers jump on a story before they know if it's true or not, and what drives that eagerness to shout to the blogsphere the latest in the Benghazi fake scandal is the conservative blogsphere's hatred of Mr. Obama.  Not facts.

So you get blogs like the one linked to above ready to jump on a report and spread misinformation, confusion and outright lies.  Very much like what FAUX NOOZ does.  





'60 Minutes' Benghazi Witness Admits To Changing His Story, Raising Questions About Broadcast

by Michael Calderone of the HuffPost

NEW YORK -- Security officer Dylan Davies admitted this weekend that he lied to a superior in September 2012 about his whereabouts the night of the Benghazi attack.

But Davies says his latest version of events, told on CBS' "60 Minutes" and in a new memoir, are true. “I am just a little man against some big people here,” Davies told The Daily Beast in an interview published Saturday, suggesting he was the victim of a smear campaign. Davies’ account of the night four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in a terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi has been challenged since he appeared Oct. 27 on “60 Minutes,” in an interview CBS billed as “the first eyewitness account from a westerner” on the ground that night.

 The Washington Post revealed on Thursday that Davies once provided a different account of the events. The Post reported that Davies previously claimed to have never reached the compound on the night of the attack, saying he only arrived the day after. But in the version he relayed on “60 Minutes,” as well as in a new memoir published under a pseudonym, Davies arrives at the compound as the battle rages on and tangles with a terrorist. Davies' admission that he changed his story raises several questions for "60 Minutes."

Did the program know Davies once told a superior that he didn't reach the compound? If not, will the network revisit the story? And if so, how did "60 Minutes" vet its eyewitness to be sure he's now providing an accurate version of events?

 A spokesman for the program, Kevin Tedesco, stood by the Davies interview when reached by The Washington Post. Tedesco has not responded to repeated requests from The Huffington Post to discuss it. Adding to questions about Davies’ credibility, Fox News correspondent Adam Housley said on air last week that he had spoken a “number of times” to Davies, but stopped “when he asked for money.”



'Benghazi Hoax' Strikes CBS' '60 Minutes'

 'Harrowing account' of tragedy offered by British 'witness' on TV news mag appears completely untrue, says Washington Post  

In what Washington Post's Karen DeYoung describes as an "explosive report" on CBS' 60 Minutes on Sunday, the venerable TV news magazine offered "a harrowing account of the extremist attack that killed four Americans" at the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya last year.

[skip]


But, as reported by DeYoung at WaPo today, that story by "Jones", as offered on 60 Minutes, appears to be completely untrue. That "harrowing account" by "Jones," whose real name is reportedly Dylan Davies, is completely at odds, according to the Post, with the written account that he "provided to his employer three days after the attack" when he said he was nowhere near the diplomatic compound on the night of the deadly tragedy...