The first point that Attkisson makes about the report is that it adds nothing new to the Benghazi question. In fact, the report itself specifically states that it is not the final word on what happened in Benghazi. However, if you watch any of the coverage about the Benghazi Report, or read any of the stories that were written up about it, you would think that it was some bombshell conclusion wrapping everything up in a neat little package.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In her autopsy of the media’s coverage of the report, Attkisson finds that the media missed many inconsistencies and contradictions in the report itself, and that the media has come to the wrong conclusion.
The entire story is well worth the read and you should see what she has to say…
At times, the committee report—as it defends the intelligence community’s performance during Benghazi—flies in the face of evidence. It relies heavily on witnesses who have previously given inaccurate information or testimony: then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper…
Though the Washington Post claimed the committee’s findings were “broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events,” they differed in many substantive respects…
But each has uncovered new facts or different versions of facts as Obama administration accounts have continue to evolve.
The necessity of further investigation isn’t a function of how many probes have been held, but of their depth and quality as well as the contradictions unearthed and the quantity of outstanding questions. In those respects, one could easily argue there haven’t yet been enough investigations into Benghazi.