When I was watching last Sunday’s 60 Minutes story on Benghazi, a couple things caught my eye. One, Lara Logan’s feigned shock in response to information we have known for a year or at least since hearings on Benghazi took place in early 2013. And two, after working on this story for a year, was there really anything new in it? The answer is, not much. And that sort of explains Logan’s reactions. She had to sell the mere regurgitation of old facts as groundbreaking, investigative reporting.
Prior to the 60 Minutes report, what I specifically can’t recall hearing about the Benghazi debacle was that AQ planned to attack the Red Cross, the British, and then the Americans. David Weigel’s post over at Slate confirmed that was a new detail. Weigel wrote that the other new information in the report was that, “Wood, a chief security officer in Libya, told the country team that ‘the attack cycle is such that they’re in the final planning stages.'”
Beyond those items, what was presented as new information was not really new at all if you have been following the story. For example, if you had watched the hearings before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, if you had read some of the cables from Libya prior to the attack, you might have been wondering why exactly is this the lead story on 60 Minutes right now?
Rehashing aside, it was a decent summary of the events leading up to and during the attack in Benghazi. Conservatives are pleased with the story. For many people, that 60 Minutes did a Benghazi piece well over a year after the attack seems to reaffirm that Benghazi is a huge scandal and coverup and heads still need to roll.
IR From Afar 