Fox interview ends after author criticizes network

Good stuff in my opinion. I always enjoy a good old fashioned straight shooter. Thomas Ricks spares no expense in telling them what he thinks.

A Fox News Channel interview ended abruptly Monday after an author accused the network of hyping the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and "operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

SourceNow how about the actual interview.That was a really quick interview. I wonder if Ricks told Fox of his intentions before he went on. To be honest, I laughed really hard at this interview.

reply to post by GD21D


Yeah, because the killing of four Americans and then the lies that came during and after is not important right? I would hype it up as well.

Originally posted by meggiddo2012
reply to post by GD21D

 

Yeah, because the killing of four Americans and then the lies that came during and after is not important right? I would hype it up as well.

You were in Benghazi the day the attack happened?

reply to post by GD21D


I guess you got me there. Lol. (sarcasm)

Originally posted by meggiddo2012 reply to post by GD21D Yeah, because the killing of four Americans and then the lies that came during and after is not important right? I would hype it up as well. You were in Benghazi the day the attack happened?

reply to post by GD21D


So the changing of stories during the whole debacle is nothing? The dog & pony show of the arrest of the guy who made the infamous video wasn't misdirection? Sending up unarmed drones to watch the scene on the ground instead of maybe a armed one to assist wasn't a option? Not like we have never sent a drone to attack someone in another country before. I like how the media has ignored what the crowds were chanting in Egypt during the other "demonstration". What about all those democrats who right after were demanding answers. The answers that were given doesn't seem like the whole picture. Benghazi wasn't the first time someone died because of this administration and it will not be the last.

Originally posted by meggiddo2012
reply to post by GD21D

 

I guess you got me there. Lol. (sarcasm)

Be sarcastic all you like, but it still doesn't change anything. If you weren't there then how do you know what were lies and what was truth?You know what I find tragic? Politicians and large media institutions using the death of Americans strictly for political gains. A good example of this was Romney coming out within the first 48 hours claiming the Obama administration had handled the event poorly. How did Romney know what was going on on the ground. A first thought I'm pretty sure most people would like to send in forces to protect those Americans, but then again the last thing you want is to turn 4 American deaths into 60 or more. It's easy to armchair quarterback a situation from the sidelines when it isn't riding on your shoulders. A lot of people forget what happened in Somalia in 1993. So what would have been the rallying call of conservatives if Obama had sent Special Forces troops in right away to save 4 Americans who were already dead, therefore possibly causing more unnecessary American deaths? Would Fox News and conservatives applauded that decision? Nope, they would have used that as an excuse that he didn't know what he was doing.There are a lot of things I dislike all these administrations for, but the deaths or four Americans who knew what they were getting involved in is not one of them. Those were grown men who should've d@mn well knew the consequences for their actions. Right or wrong, they knew the possible outcome. And for anybody to use their demise for political gain is absolutely disrespectful.

Originally posted by GD21D
Good stuff in my opinion. I always enjoy a good old fashioned straight shooter. Thomas Ricks spares no expense in telling them what he thinks.

A Fox News Channel interview ended abruptly Monday after an author accused the network of hyping the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and "operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

SourceNow how about the actual interview.

That was a really quick interview. I wonder if Ricks told Fox of his intentions before he went on. To be honest, I laughed really hard at this interview.

I'd like to know how security contractors equate to state department personnel and CIA government workers. This guy is a moron and Susan Rice doesn't deserve to be SS. If she can't think and speak for herself and the American people, but instead parrot White House talking points, she isn't viable as a servant of the people. She is then just an operative for the administration.

If I were the guy from Fox, I would have ask this jerk "how many security contractors do die and why does it matter?" I would have also asked him why the story of the demonstration was vehemently presented as the reason for this incident when it didn't happen at all. Someone had to make that up. "So Mr. Whateveryournameis, why the story of the demonstration and who came up with it? Or do we know since she was just parroting what she was told to?"

reply to post by GD21D

Now I say this about the line of reasoning, not personally, but.....

A first thought I'm pretty sure most people would like to send in forces to protect those Americans, but then again the last thing you want is to turn 4 American deaths into 60 or more. It's easy to armchair quarterback a situation from the sidelines when it isn't riding on your shoulders.

That's about the weakest line of reasoning I've ever heard for leaving Americans to die under enemy fire while in service to their nation...and INSIDE an American Diplomatic Compound, no less. None of us have to have been there to know something is VERY wrong about 4 Americans being murdered on foreign soil while calling for help that could have, but never WOULD actually come. The near full year leading up to this is also shown by cables in and out of that facility/compound/whatever we want to call State Dept's little property there, show that security was pathetic and the infighting was about whose jurisdiction it was to do anything about it, not that a problem existed.

So... It's true enough that none of us can say for 100% certain what happened. That is what Special Prosecutors were brought into legal being to address issues of, actually. Let the investigations begin because this kind of screw up hasn't happened in over 30 years. No way can or will this EVER be allowed to "just drop". Men were abandoned under fire and after months of asking for help to prevent this from happening. The number means nothing. Principle here, among the guys this means the MOST to, means everything, IMO.

Originally posted by Bilk22
I'd like to know how security contractors equate to state department personnel and CIA government workers. This guy is a moron and Susan Rice doesn't deserve to be SS. If she can't think and speak for herself and the American people, but instead parrot White House talking points, she isn't viable as a servant of the people. She is then just an operative for the administration.

If I were the guy from Fox, I would have ask this jerk "how many security contractors do die and why does it matter?" I would have also asked him why the story of the demonstration was vehemently presented as the reason for this incident when it didn't happen at all. Someone had to make that up. "So Mr. Whateveryournameis, why the story of the demonstration and who came up with it? Or do we know since she was just parroting what she was told to?"

So American security contractors are less important than government officials now? One American life is more important than another? Of course it is because of the political benefit that can be gained from a State Department/CIA death. I'm also glad you brought up the CIA, because in my (opinion) those four that died were taking orders from the CIA, and subsequently executed for it. Just my opinion. May be wrong, may be right. Hard to really know with so many interests involved in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by GD21D

 

Now I say this about the line of reasoning, not personally, but.....

A first thought I'm pretty sure most people would like to send in forces to protect those Americans, but then again the last thing you want is to turn 4 American deaths into 60 or more. It's easy to armchair quarterback a situation from the sidelines when it isn't riding on your shoulders.

That's about the weakest line of reasoning I've ever heard for leaving Americans to die under enemy fire while in service to their nation...and INSIDE an American Diplomatic Compound, no less. None of us have to have been there to know something is VERY wrong about 4 Americans being murdered on foreign soil while calling for help that could have, but never WOULD actually come. The near full year leading up to this is also shown by cables in and out of that facility/compound/whatever we want to call State Dept's little property there, show that security was pathetic and the infighting was about whose jurisdiction it was to do anything about it, not that a problem existed.

Pretty weak huh? I did a tour in Baghdad, and in the event I was caught in a situation were I was in the middle of a riot or civil chaos I would hope they wouldn't send more Americans to be slaughtered. I knew the consequences of participating in Middle Eastern governing affairs. There was a chance I could've been killed, and I don't want more Americans risking their lives for a decision I made. Like it or not they always had the option to leave, just as I did. Regardless of security considerations. That Ambassador personally assisted in overthrowing that government in a covert manner. Sounds to me like a lot of nonsense none of us will ever know what really happened in that event and events like it. But I'm sure conservatives and Fox News were truly grieving over the deaths of these Americans. They just care soooooo much.

reply to post by GD21D


You do realize there are other news sources other than Fox right? Also, Navy Seals would have been sent in to help and extract the Ambassador and the others as well. 6 Navy Seals would be the equivalent of 30 ground troops; marines, Army etc. So very few if any would have lost their lives helping. Anyways, I'm surprised you haven't blamed Bush or the Jews yet since that seems to be a trend on this site.

reply to post by GD21D

That Ambassador personally assisted in overthrowing that government in a covert manner. Sounds to me like a lot of nonsense none of us will ever know what really happened in that event and events like it.

Oh really? ...and here I thought your whole point has been that no one can know what happened there or the precise details? I agree and as I have from the start, I simply call for investigations appropriate to discovering how such a betrayal at this level happened. Which Government by the way? The old one or the new one? Gadaffi was primarily a British and European Union effort, not American...although Obama gave some general support. They armed him, they supported him and Libya for the last several years before abruptly turning on him.

So, if a U.S. Ambassador, while acting in that role for the U.S. State Department was actually acting on behalf of U.S. Intelligence then I don't JUST feel the need for any old investigation. Now that you suggest that as a real possibility, it sounds like it might be time for another round of Church/Pike style hearings on just how far over the line U.S. Intelligence has gone since 9/11... ALL 12 years of it, IMO.

In this case? I don't care if he was peddling dope out the back gate. The men who apparently defied orders to assist the Diplomatic compound from the CIA substation DID manage to get out 20+ American Civilians. They were just too late to get Stevens out alive. Had they not moved alone, it could have been a body count exceeding the Mogadishu disaster, let alone it being U.S. State Dept people among others. This was almost MUCH worse...we have a couple among the dead to thank for so many coming out alive.

So, of course I care about the dead Americans. I care very MUCH about it.

Ambassadors are direct representatives of the American President, btw... You'd think he'd care more about having one murdered.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by GD21D

 

Oh really? ...and here I thought your whole point has been that no one can know what happened there or the precise details? I agree and as I have from the start, I simply call for investigations appropriate to discovering how such a betrayal at this level happened. Which Government by the way? The old one or the new one? Gadaffi was primarily a British and European Union effort, not American...although Obama gave some general support. They armed him, they supported him and Libya for the last several years before abruptly turning on him.

Chris Stevens smuggling himself into Libya is public knowledge that was never once refuted or challenged. At least as far as I know.

During the early days of the Libyans' fight to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, Christopher Stevens wrangled a ride on a Greek cargo ship and sailed into the rebels' stronghold city of Benghazi. He arrived at a time when the crackle of gunfire could be heard each night.

ABC NEWSWhat's even more odd is how this simple little fact has almost completely been ignored. You don't see any current reference to this fact in this whole charade.

So, if a U.S. Ambassador, while acting in that role for the U.S. State Department was actually acting on behalf of U.S. Intelligence then I don't JUST feel the need for any old investigation. Now that you suggest that as a real possibility, it sounds like it might be time for another round of Church/Pike style hearings on just how far over the line U.S. Intelligence has gone since 9/11... ALL 12 years of it, IMO.

Absolutely agree. 100%.The whole point of this thread was not to defend the Obama administration whatsoever. One corrupt admin is just as bad as another. The point that was being made by Thomas Ricks and somewhat myself was the conservative base and Fox News using those deaths for partisan political gain, not genuine concern for the victims or their families.I'm sure there may be a few individuals, left and right, who had genuine feelings for the victims and their families. It's just those who really care are few and far between, and not indicative of either political party as a whole. Whoever believes otherwise is naive in my opinion.

reply to post by GD21D


I can care less for Fox News.

But..........

If your going to bring up "Partisanship Media" then at least bring up the facts that the "other" networks could care less about this, as they didn't do ANY real reporting of it, due to the elections, and maybe their OWN biases....

What should have been a full blown scandal before the election was largely swept under the rug by the mainstream media, certainly up until the last week or two before the election. And even then, its coverage was limited and tepid. Obama certainly owes a debt of gratitude to his media allies who covered for him the best they knew how.

Shameful Media Coverage of Benghazi Scandal and Cover-up

I leave you with this.......

"If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism." ~ Hunter S. Thompson

reply to post by GD21D

I got the intent....and I entirely and deeply disagree. Some people are seeing Fox News as some super arm of the Right Wing or GOP but I really can't understand that position. Fox is Newstainment, but so are all the 3 letter news groups. They've also carried more Obama speeches than any other network I heard in 2009 and 2010. It stood out enormously when listening to satellite radio because it was all there was to hear.

A large % laughed off and totally disregarded the entire story because it was Fox reporting it. That didn't even change until CBS and others finally bothered to notice that an event not seen in 30 years had repeated itself and no one in officialdom seemed to care enough to get to the bottom of it.

I blame Obama only in so far as his leadership or lack there of. The months of Cables out of the State Dept compound from Darrel Issa's Committee are very instructive. Those weren't White House people or even Clinton's staff communicating with Benghazi over security arrangements or using the "Feb 17th Martyrs Brigade" of ALL the things....as the contract security for the U.S. property there. It was middle management and upper management. They're career people, not 4 year appointees.

The problem may touch Obama and maybe it needs to. I don't know about that part. However, the same idiocy that lost 2 U.S. Embassies in Beirut and 2 more in Africa before 9/11 lost is this compound. It sounds like we may agree with the systemic nature of the problem and how deeply entrenched the issues are.


Sorry if I did misread you. It's become so common for sides to be either aggressive about Benghazi and that means 'Get Obama!' or 100% defensive and at the heart of that is 'Defend Obama!'. I look at the evidence in the public realm so far by the gov't documents and more and see bureaucrats not politicians as the MAIN problem here but it's a BIG one and Government currently seems to lean toward throwing a few cabinet heads overboard.......but that leaves the real problems BELOW them in the same spots.

I loved the look on the newscasters face when he signed off it was like "Yup you got us, hope my boss isn't watching".
The guy did have a point though it was just used as a political tool.

Originally posted by Bilk22


If I were the guy from Fox, I would have ask this jerk "how many security contractors do die and why does it matter?"

Wow this is just idiotic..

So basically you are saying that only certain Americans lives are worth saving?

The hell with the rest including your soldiers.

The author was right...hype and nothing more.

Originally posted by GD21D

Originally posted by meggiddo2012
reply to post by GD21D

 

Yeah, because the killing of four Americans and then the lies that came during and after is not important right? I would hype it up as well.

You were in Benghazi the day the attack happened?

No, but we have information of what happened, and the lies are apparent.

Originally posted by GD21D

Originally posted by meggiddo2012
reply to post by GD21D

 

I guess you got me there. Lol. (sarcasm)

Be sarcastic all you like, but it still doesn't change anything. If you weren't there then how do you know what were lies and what was truth?

Maybe because we now know what actually happened? And the administration itself has contradicted itself numerous times on what its position was. I dont have to be there to hear a report of what the administration knew at the time, and then listen to what they said at the time, and compare it to what they say now.

Originally posted by GD21D

Originally posted by Bilk22
I'd like to know how security contractors equate to state department personnel and CIA government workers. This guy is a moron and Susan Rice doesn't deserve to be SS. If she can't think and speak for herself and the American people, but instead parrot White House talking points, she isn't viable as a servant of the people. She is then just an operative for the administration.

If I were the guy from Fox, I would have ask this jerk "how many security contractors do die and why does it matter?" I would have also asked him why the story of the demonstration was vehemently presented as the reason for this incident when it didn't happen at all. Someone had to make that up. "So Mr. Whateveryournameis, why the story of the demonstration and who came up with it? Or do we know since she was just parroting what she was told to?"

So American security contractors are less important than government officials now? One American life is more important than another? Of course it is because of the political benefit that can be gained from a State Department/CIA death. I'm also glad you brought up the CIA, because in my (opinion) those four that died were taking orders from the CIA, and subsequently executed for it. Just my opinion. May be wrong, may be right. Hard to really know with so many interests involved in the Middle East.

One is serving their country, one is doing a paid job. A contractor is not necessarily American.