Fran Townsend: The New York Times Report on Benghazi ‘Begs Credulity’

BERMAN: "Why does it matter if it was an al Qaeda affiliate as opposed to an al Qaeda inspired group as opposed to a group that admired al Qaeda. Why would those distinctions matter or do they?"
TOWNSEND: "Well, I'm not sure it does other than that leads you right into the sort of political controversy. Did people intentionally mislead the American public of that? What the cause of the attack was, because if it was spontaneous, it would have been harder to prepare yourself against. If it was a growing threat, which is by all accounts is what it was, then you have to account for why you weren't better prepared for it and that leads you directly into what has become a tremendous political conflict."
PEREIRA: "Does this piece in the New York Times change your idea of what happened here at all? Does it get too -- does it further murky what we already see as a murky situation?"
TOWNSEND: "Yes. I certainly think -- I think the New York Times article does nothing to clarify what's already been said about it. And in some respects, it is sort of murky, suggesting that Ansar al- Sharia isn't really a terrorist organization, was the video really an inspiration for the attacks, that's sort of been put to bed. And so, in some ways, it just muddies up the waters, I think."