Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least the Rachel Maddow crowd can follow the flow of a interview. Hicks was asked why he thought McCain and others at the time were softening their rhetoric against Rice. Hicks responded that all the grandstanding over Benghazi was hype. He was then asked a follow up as to why he thought it was just political posturing, and he answered the question directly, just not the way Fox had hoped.
JON SCOTT (co-host): Pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as [Fox News correspondent] Catherine Herridge reported just minutes ago. Several top GOP lawmakers are backing off their criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, instead focusing on the White House. Two senators even expressing concerns about a possible White House cover-up. Let's talk about it with Tom Ricks. He is author of The Generals. He has spent decades covering our military. He joins us now.
Senator John McCain said in the past he would block any attempt to nominate Susan Rice to become U.N. -- I'm sorry, secretary of state. She's currently the U.N. ambassador. He seems to be backing away from that. What do you make of it?
RICKS:I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he's backing off a little bit. They're not going to stop Susan Rice from being secretary of state.
SCOTT: When you have four people dead, including the first dead U.N. ambassador -- U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?
[b]RICKS:[/B] How many security contractors died in Iraq, do you know?
SCOTT: I don't.
RICKS: No. Nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, number one, I've covered a lot of firefights. It's impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of Republican Party.
SCOTT: All right. Tom Ricks, thanks very much for joining us today.
RICKS: You're welcome.
Read the bolded part of this transcript and then tell me that it isn't just what left leaners use to try to escape from anything they don'w like. Changing the subject never works so well except for left leaners.
Wse don't know if there was a cover up of the hundreds of contractors killed in Iraq, but we never had the attention of McCain, Graham, etc.
The Daily Show and Maddow are not news channels, they don't claim to be but still very informative. By the way, Stewart had Huckabee, OReilly and other opposing views and treated them fairly, unlike Hannity, I don't think you really ever watched Stewart. His show is extremely clever and entertaining. Maddow has a bias but mostly intelligent, both are entertaining in pointing out the hypocracy of Fox News and others. The difference is fox is supposed to be an objective news station, in that respect they have failed.
MSDNC is supposed to be objective too.
So?
Fox runs the stories the lame-stream dinosaur media refuse to.
For that reason alone it's an essential news outlet even if you don't like it and find it biased.
"We don't know if there was a cover up of the hundreds of contractors killed in Iraq"
Really?
Do you recall anyone from the Bush administration making up a crazy story about a video pissing people off in Iraq?
I seem to recall lots of Democrats going after the Bush Administration for their prosecution of the Iraq War, yet no made-up fairy tales to cover obvious incompetence as we have seen in Libya.
"I don't think you really ever watched Stewart. His show is extremely clever and entertaining. Maddow has a bias but mostly intelligent"
I've tried to watch Stewart.
I really have.
The problem with watching Stewart is knowing the part of the story he doesn't discuss.
I guess it's pretty funny unless you're informed about the subjects he's hacking away at.
Maddow, intelligent?
GAFB!
They need to put a filter on her computer so she doesn't access The Onion.
At least the Rachel Maddow crowd can follow the flow of a interview. Hicks was asked why he thought McCain and others at the time were softening their rhetoric against Rice. Hicks responded that all the grandstanding over Benghazi was hype. He was then asked a follow up as to why he thought it was just political posturing, and he answered the question directly, just not the way Fox had hoped.
JON SCOTT (co-host): Pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as [Fox News correspondent] Catherine Herridge reported just minutes ago. Several top GOP lawmakers are backing off their criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, instead focusing on the White House. Two senators even expressing concerns about a possible White House cover-up. Let's talk about it with Tom Ricks. He is author of The Generals. He has spent decades covering our military. He joins us now.
Senator John McCain said in the past he would block any attempt to nominate Susan Rice to become U.N. -- I'm sorry, secretary of state. She's currently the U.N. ambassador. He seems to be backing away from that. What do you make of it?
RICKS:I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he's backing off a little bit. They're not going to stop Susan Rice from being secretary of state.
SCOTT: When you have four people dead, including the first dead U.N. ambassador -- U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?
RICKS: How many security contractors died in Iraq, do you know?
SCOTT: I don't.
RICKS: No. Nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, number one, I've covered a lot of firefights. It's impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of Republican Party.
SCOTT: All right. Tom Ricks, thanks very much for joining us today.
RICKS: You're welcome.
Update: NBC covered the story again tonight and Jay Lenno even had a one-liner about the number of stories the administration has put out on this matter.
It may have started out with just Fox reporting it, but like so many past news stories the left-leaning press would rather ignore, it's now out there and cannot be swept under the rug any longer.
Just be consistent and be equally outraged over the embassy attacks during the Bush administration. Dont worry, you can look them up on Wikipedia if you dont know when they happened (which you wont since Fox didnt hype them).
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,590 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
At least the Rachel Maddow crowd can follow the flow of a interview. Hicks was asked why he thought McCain and others at the time were softening their rhetoric against Rice. Hicks responded that all the grandstanding over Benghazi was hype. He was then asked a follow up as to why he thought it was just political posturing, and he answered the question directly, just not the way Fox had hoped.
JON SCOTT (co-host): Pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as [Fox News correspondent] Catherine Herridge reported just minutes ago. Several top GOP lawmakers are backing off their criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, instead focusing on the White House. Two senators even expressing concerns about a possible White House cover-up. Let's talk about it with Tom Ricks. He is author of The Generals. He has spent decades covering our military. He joins us now.
Senator John McCain said in the past he would block any attempt to nominate Susan Rice to become U.N. -- I'm sorry, secretary of state. She's currently the U.N. ambassador. He seems to be backing away from that. What do you make of it?
RICKS:I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he's backing off a little bit. They're not going to stop Susan Rice from being secretary of state.
SCOTT: When you have four people dead, including the first dead U.N. ambassador -- U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?
RICKS: How many security contractors died in Iraq, do you know?
SCOTT: I don't.
RICKS: No. Nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, number one, I've covered a lot of firefights. It's impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of Republican Party.
SCOTT: All right. Tom Ricks, thanks very much for joining us today.
RICKS: You're welcome.
It's interesting to me that no one here is at least commenting upon the parts of Ricks' statements I've highlighted above, which I find most damning about the media coverage of Benghazi. I've personally never covered a murky firefight occurring under the cover of nighttime halfway around the world, but I intuitively know that what the author of a renowned book about warcraft based on international reporting says is at least reliable, if not 100% true. Has the fog of war taught us nothing?
Leaving Ricks' somewhat partisan arguments aside, (that Fox News operates as a rhetorical wing of the Republican Party), shouldn't we all demand more of the news media to keep us informed? Shouldn't we demand that clear distinctions be made between Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, for starters, categories that FOX has clearly conflated? I'm no fan of FOX, but, they should be fair and balanced to their viewers: terrorism in Libya in this century ain't the same as that led to 9/11 spawned in Saudi Arabia and bred in Afghanistan in the last.
Given that demand, the origin of threats should be clearly explained to us with their own unique histories and rationales, however unwelcome they may be, and such origins should include explanations that talk to us like we are the adults we are rather than the finger-pointing children modern discourse seems to prefer. While I'm not completely endorsing the idea that an anti-Muslim video can be blamed for violence, it is something we should think about. Whether we like it or not, we are citizens of the world, and we will be dragged, kicking and screaming if it must be, into that world. Let's hope that fewer die while some of us learn that stark fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Benghazi scandal---what Benghazi scandal? You MUST be a right wing nut
