Steve Hayes on Mike Morell: Shouldn’t we expect that our intelligence professionals tell the truth?
STEVE HAYES: I will give you two examples... One, he complains bitterly in the book about cherry-picking, critics are cherry picking information that supports their case and leaving out information that doesn’t. He does the exact same thing throughout his entire two chapters on Benghazi and he does it in his interview with you. A perfect example was when you were talking about/he writes about whether this was a pre-planned attack or not. You [Bret Baier] interviewed the CIA contractors who wrote the book 13 Hours — it said there had been surveillance of the facility, and in their book they wrote that that surveillance put them into high alert. It was a big deal that they were casing the facility before the attack. It doesn’t appear in Mike Morell’s book. He simply leaves it out. You can have questions about what they say, you can disagree, but you can’t just set it aside. And that is what he does, repeatedly. The other example is your exchange with [Morell] on Abu Khattala, again, whether this was a pre-planned attack. He seemed utterly unfamiliar with the specifics of that indictment. He says it wasn’t clear they were attackers, it wasn’t clear they wanted to hurt any body. Well the indictment says specifically and repeatedly — five different times — says they came there to kill. Abu Khattala knew this was a CIA facility and the other was a CIA cover. He wanted to go in and kill Americans because he thought their intelligence activities there were illegal. Very specific language presumably based on intelligence we’ve gathered. And he kind of shrugged it off when you aksed him about it. Well you can’t shrug it off. Don’t we deserve something better in this country than to have intelligence professionals who mislead as a matter of course. Who did it at the time, did it in their book, do it in interviews. Shouldn’t we expect that our intelligence professionals tell the truth and be straight with the American people? "THIS VIDEO IS FAIR USE UNDER U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW BECAUSE IT IS (1) NON-COMMERCIAL, (2) TRANSFORMATIVE IN NATURE, (3) USES NO MORE OF THE ORIGINAL WORK THAN NECESSARY FOR THE VIDEO'S PURPOSE, AND (4) DOES NOT COMPETE WITH THE ORIGINAL WORK AND COULD HAVE NO NEGATIVE AFFECT ON ITS MARKET."
