Fox Interview Ends After Guest Accuses Network Of Operating As ‘Wing Of The Republican Party’

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-interview-ends-after-guest-accuses-network-of-operating-as-wing-of-the-republican-party/

 

A Fox News interview about the Benghazi attacks ended Monday morning after the guest openly accused the network of “hyping” the story — doing so with political motivations by acting as “a wing of the Republican Party.”

 

Author Tom Ricks was brought on Happening Now to discuss how several GOP lawmakers are backing off their criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice‘s handling of the September terror attacks that left four Americans dead in Libya.

 

Asked why lawmakers like Sen. John McCain seem to be backing off Rice a bit lately, Ricks replied: “I think Benghazi was generally hyped by this network especially. And now that the campaign is over, I think he is backing off a little bit. They aren’t going to stop Susan Rice from being Secretary of State.”

 

Co-anchor Jon Scott pushed back, asking “When you have four people dead, including the first U.S. ambassador, for the first time in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?”

 

“How many security contractors died in Iraq? Do you know?” Ricks shot back.

 

“I don’t,” replied Scott.

 

“Nobody does because nobody cared,” Ricks said. “We know several hundred died but there was never official count of security contractors in Iraq. When I say this focus was essentially on a small fire-fight, I think, number one, I’ve covered a lot of fire-fights and it is impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes.”

 

Ricks then took another open shot at Fox News: “I think the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox is operating as the wing of Republican Party.”

 

At that point, Scott cut the interview short: “Tom Ricks, thanks for joining us today.”

 

Ricks smirked and replied: “You’re welcome.”

 

Watch below, via Fox News:

 

It's about time someone got on their network and called them on their shit.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Not like it matters. They're not going anywhere and this won't make any of their viewers stop watching. I think it's pretty obvious to any reasonable person that Fox News is a joke and that includes conservatives. Not all conservatives are dumb and the ones who aren't get their news from other outlets.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Yay getting shutout for telling the truth.

 

Not the same situation, but this reminds me of Ron Paul ending an interview with CNN because Dana Bush kept asking him the same question over and over again. Why he is unelectable and how people dislike him. Lmao.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Why should we be more surprised when someone whose job is to be a soldier for hire dies over when someone who is supposed to be a peaceful diplomat is killed?

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think Fox is actually in the right on this one.

 

The administration clearly screwed up regarding Benghazi and then they tried to hide that fact, and the media helped them to cover it up. It was a botched thing all around by the admin and by the liberal side of the media.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

What exactly did the administration screw up in Benghazi?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Uh.... They asked for more security due to the fact that they thought they were in danger and the administration declined. They then died.

 

"screw up" is a very nice way of putting it.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Uh.... They asked for more security due to the fact that they thought they were in danger and the administration declined. They then died.

 

"screw up" is a very nice way of putting it.

 

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/state-department-officials-benghazi-attack-unprecedented/

The officials echoed what administration officials have maintained since the attack: that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

 

Saying "they should have had more personnel there" is like saying "we should've had fighter jets circling the twin towers in case of a threat." It was an unprecedented attack and even with the 3-5 requested additional security personnel they stood zero chance of living.

[Thanatos 2,847]

In addition to what Favre said, they tried to pin the blame on the video being released online, as if that sparked a concerted and joint effort to attack US forces.

 

They continued to hold to this position for two weeks, and when Romney tried to point this out, CNN's moderator corrected him on his wording, distracting from his point, (she later admitted he was correct).

 

This is all despite the fact that we now know the administration was sure it was not in response to said video at the very latest 48 hours after the attacks.

 

But they were afraid of Romney and the American people placing blame on the president for his security failings, and so they tried to spin it as if it was a spontaneous attack- something they could not possibly have seen coming. They continued to spin it like this for a long time, despite evidence, (and logic and common sense), to the contrary.

 

Benghazi should have been a huge story on the President covering up something, but the media gave him a complete pass on it. Not only that, they tried to attack Romney for playing political games whenever he tried to bring up the very legitimate point that the administration had covered up something. It was the most blatant demonstration of liberal bias I have seen in awhile.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

In addition to what Favre said, they tried to pin the blame on the video being released online, as if that sparked a concerted and

But they were afraid of Romney and the American people placing blame on the president for his security failings, and so they tried to spin it as if it was a spontaneous attack- something they could not possibly have seen coming. They continued to spin it like this for a long time, despite evidence, (and logic and common sense), to the contrary.

 

 

Dude, read the CIA briefings on the matter. It has nothing to do with what the administration did or did not want to cover up. You, along with everyone else that seems to think the administration fumbled Benghazi, are not looking correctly at the timeline of information. The initial intelligence reports immediately following the attack believed it had to do with the protests, demonstrations, etc. and that's why the administration put the blame on the YouTube video. They quickly rescinded that claim after they received more intelligence. What about that is a cover up? The CIA and State Dept TO THIS DAY still claim it was a spontaneous attack.

 

As one official said: "The lethality and the number of armed people is unprecedented. There had been no attacks like that anywhere in Libya - Tripoli, Benghazi or anywhere - in the time that we had been there. And so it is unprecedented, in fact, it would be very, very hard to find precedent for an attack like (it) in recent diplomatic history."

Edited November 27, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Ya... Which is why they leaked information on General Patreaus... Former head of the CIA who steadfastly calls this a terrorist attack. Too bad it cost him his career. He said as much in his briefing to Congress.. The original CIA report referenced terrorist attacks, those references were later removed in later drafts of the report.

 

It was and is an ongoing cover up.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Dude, read the CIA briefings on the matter. It has nothing to do with what the administration did or did not want to cover up. You, along with everyone else that seems to think the administration fumbled Benghazi, are not looking correctly at the timeline of information. The CIA and State Dept TO THIS DAY still claim it was a spontaneous attack.

 

That quote says nothing about it being a spontaneous attack, simply that it was unprecedented. I am not saying Obama is to blame for what happened, I am saying that because they were afraid of that blame being placed on his shoulders, they tried to make it out to be something he could not possibly be blamed for.

 

Whether or not he is actually to blame is a different debate altogether.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Honestly I haven't even been keeping up with this all that much but now that I've read into it, Fox and Breitbart and whatever other right wing propaganda "news" organizations are out there are seriously getting this upset over the changing of "al Qaeda" and "terrorists" to "extremists?" Word? I'm done. This is a joke. No wonder the "liberal media" isn't reporting it. There's nothing to report.

 

Ya... Which is why they leaked information on General Patreaus... Former head of the CIA who steadfastly calls this a terrorist attack. Too bad it cost him his career. He said as much in his briefing to Congress.. The original CIA report referenced terrorist attacks, those references were later removed in later drafts of the report.

 

It was and is an ongoing cover up.

 

lol you are the king of posting unsubstantiated bullshit.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

lol you are the king of posting unsubstantiated bullshit.

 

Well obviously I can't prove that they leaked the information... But I am just connecting dots here. You have your head of the CIA who is about to go to Congress and testify AGAINST your claims... So the information about his affairs magically leaks before these hearings.. He becomes a disgraced general and now former head of the CIA, hearings happen and reports are shown that the CIA now backs the spontaneous attacks stuff? Again, yes, that takes a little logic on my part... but nothing far fetched. If it was, you would have tried disproving it.

 

2 + 2 = ?

 

Here's some big news from David Petraeus's testimony this morning, via AP:

 

Lawmakers say Petraeus told them that CIA talking points written after the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus says that reference was removed by other federal agencies that made changes to the CIA's draft.

 

Why this is important is that the White House has defended its post-attack talking points as coming from the CIA. And now the CIA director at the time is saying its analysis was edited by "other federal agencies".

[Thanatos 2,847]

Honestly I haven't even been keeping up with this all that much but now that I've read into it, Fox and Breitbart and whatever other right wing propaganda "news" organizations are out there are seriously getting this upset over the changing of "al Qaeda" and "terrorists" to "extremists?" Word? I'm done. This is a joke. No wonder the "liberal media" isn't reporting it. There's nothing to report.

 

The issue is not whether or not Obama called it a terrorist attack. Regardless of whether or not it was spontaneous, it was a terrorist attack, or extremist attack, or whatever. That was what the CNN moderator corrected Romney on- Obama did say that "no terrorist attacks will shake the fabric of this nation" or some such, the day after the attack. But he was still insisting that it was a spontaneous attack, not a planned event- which was Romney's point, he merely stated it incorrectly, which allowed the moderator to correct him, distract from the point, and brush it off the table altogether. It was the most farcical cover-up of the administration's actions and it was all based on a technicality.

 

That is the problem. Obama's admin tried to pass it off as a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video posted online. They tried to pass off a well-coordinated attack on several different US outposts at once as being in response to a video that had been posted 24 hours earlier. This flies in the face of common sense and sheer logic.

 

Because of their fear of the people saying, "Obama is responsible for the attacks, because it was a planned attack and it was a failure of his administration not to catch it before it occurred," they tried to spin it as if was not a planned, coordinated strike, but rather a spontaneous demonstration in protest to a movie.

 

I don't know whether you can say the president is responsible. What I do know, beyond a doubt, is that they tried to cover it up and play it off so there was no way this could even be questioned, rather than manning up. And the media accuses Romney of playing political games over it. Just lol.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

 

That is the problem. Obama's admin tried to pass it off as a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video posted online. They tried to pass off a well-coordinated attack on several different US outposts at once as being in response to a video that had been posted 24 hours earlier. This flies in the face of common sense and sheer logic.

 

 

On September 16th, the day Susan Rice went on a bunch of Sunday shows, that's what the unclassified information said. Whether it flies in the face of common sense and sheer logic is irrelevant. It's the information the CIA and FBI gave the administration, so they reported it. The "controversy" should end there.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Well obviously I can't prove that they leaked the information...

 

Exactly. I'm not going to debate conspiracy theories and hypotheticals. I'll leave that to Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, who you sound just like.

[Thanatos 2,847]

On September 16th, the day Susan Rice went on a bunch of Sunday shows, that's what the unclassified information said. Whether it flies in the face of common sense and sheer logic is irrelevant. It's the information the CIA and FBI gave the administration, so they reported it. The "controversy" should end there.

 

They continued to try to defend it as spontaneous two weeks after the attacks, when we knew otherwise.

 

Also funny statement of yours. I would prefer my admin to question reports that fly in the face of common sense and logic.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Exactly. I'm not going to debate conspiracy theories and hypotheticals. I'll leave that to Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, who you sound just like.

 

Yet you ignored the quote from the AP saying that the CIA originally filed it under an organized terrorist attack before it got edited out by other agencies while you continue to say that the CIA backed the spontaneous excuse given by the administration.

 

Is that because it would look awful if the Obama administration tells the nation that it was spontaneous mostly based and backed by the CIA... The same CIA that came to the conclusion that it was actually an organized terrorist attack?

 

Too bad they don't talk about that on CNN... The public being lied to by the Obama administration on the foundation of a lie itself.

 

Kind of disgusting.

 

Although, I am sure the Administration just feels soooo bad that their negligence cost us American lives.

 

It's funny really... "terrorists" kill Americans and we declare an unconstitutional war. The government kills Americans and we are supposed to just take it.

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

It's funny really... "terrorists" kill Americans and we declare an unconstitutional war. The government kills Americans and we are supposed to just take it.

 

 

What?

 

Are you referring to 9/11 as being "terrorists" that kill Americans?

 

And I really don't see how Benghazi was the government killing them. Their negligence, perhaps, but the blood is still on the terrorist's hands.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Yeah that guy sure stuck it to them.....

 

That was pathetic. He takes a U.S. ambassador and his family and tries to compare them to highly trained civilian contractors that go over there knowing what could happen, which coincidentally is why we carry weapons and kits that are specifically equipped to deal with small arms fire and insurgent attacks. The diplomats go over there with pens, diplomacy, and the intention of making peace and if not that at least civility.

 

Yeah I definitely see how they are one in the same, it is a completely logical apples to apples comparison. This dude is tool and the liberal media outlets get ahold of this and rally around it as a battle cry to show how right and just they are. For all those who needed validation on this you are yourself just a sheep, the rest of us knew this already and did not need some liberal schmuck to go on Fox and make a fool out of himself to all of us who can think for ourselves to validate something that we already knew.

 

Have your victory Democrats, it was hard fought, your cause just, your intellect impeccable, and your intentions pure. We are all extremely impressed.

 

Now back to the think-for-yourselfers, is it not ironic how there is no unbiased "media" outlets left? I would trade the media in this country for a half eaten ham sandwich and warm glass of water. There is really now way to believe anything you hear, you kind of have to listen to about 9 different reports and then draw conclusions on what makes sense before you are in the ballpark of what ACTUALLY happened.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

Also funny statement of yours. I would prefer my admin to question reports that fly in the face of common sense and logic.

 

And I do too. But when people demand answers immediately, you go with what your intelligence community has given you.

 

Anyway, I'm already tired of the Benghazi topic. I posted this thread because the guest called Fox News on their shit and I thought it was good someone finally did it.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Regardless of the subject matter, I love that this guy said this on air. Don't get me wrong, MSNBC is guilty of exactly the same thing, but I love seeing them get shown up on their own network.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Regardless of the subject matter, I love that this guy said this on air. Don't get me wrong, MSNBC is guilty of exactly the same thing, but I love seeing them get shown up on their own network.

 

Agreed. And MSNBC doesn't get as much as shit for their bias because they're open about it. Isn't the network's motto "Lean forward"? I think people have a problem with Fox because they parade around as "Fair and Balanced."

[WindyCitySports 407]

Agreed. And MSNBC doesn't get as much as shit for their bias because they're open about it. Isn't the network's motto "Lean forward"? I think people have a problem with Fox because they parade around as "Fair and Balanced."

I have heard that point before and it is very well taken. Regardless, the media should be as unbiased as possible, and it saddens me that no one is even attempting to be so anymore.