% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • bluecloud1013 bluecloud1013 Nov 26, 2012 8:13 PM Flag



    ..NEW YORK (AP) — 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."

    The charges were made by Thomas Ricks, a veteran newspaper reporter and author of "The Generals," who was brought on for an interview with anchor Jon Scott about GOP criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's comments about the attacks.

    Ricks said he thought the story of the Benghazi attacks was "hyped, by this network especially."

    Scott asked why Ricks would call it hype when four Americans were killed, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years.

    Ricks responded that few people knew how many U.S. security contractors were killed in Iraq and compared that to the attention paid to "what was essentially a small firefight" in Libya.

    "I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party," Ricks said.

    With that, Scott thanked him and turned to a co-anchor, who introduced a commercial.

    "When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor's question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself and his book," Fox News executive Michael Clemente said.


    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • How about letting the entire family of Bin Laden’s (100+) fly out of the country on 9/11 after all air travel was shut down? Why is there no outrage over allowing that to happen? Who was in charge at that time you ask? The ‘W’………George……and his friend Dick ‘I’ll shoot you in the face with this shotgun….I’ll do it……BAM’ Cheney. Why where they not held accountable? On the very effing day, they knew and let the Bin Laden’s leave, rounded them up and flew them to away. You want to be disgusted about something, try that. Don’t give me your fake outrage and anonymous posts on this little read MB, pee off you fake conservative wanna bees.

    • What a truly pathetic trio you are. None of you three stooges can even address or begin to answer the simple question whether or not you are satisfied with the administrations explanation on the consulate attack. If you are, then be man enough to say so, but to throw insults at legitimate questions exposes your weak character.

      Issues stand alone and relevance is determined at that time, based on what occurred, with no consideration for what may have happened in the past.

      You may hate Fox, but without their efforts we would have been left with the explanation that the attack was a response to a video - CNN, NYT were nowhere to be found. And as we do know now, the Administration knew that story was wrong from the start and still let Ambassador Rice go out and lie a week later. That doesn't bother you in the least? Fools.

      All you do is answer by bringing up previous incidents, mostly during Bush. As if that could ever get us anywhere. I could bring up plenty of examples of democrat presidents that were errors or poor judgement and likewise that would have us no closer to the truth on an unrelated issue. Danny #$%$, you don't know what my thinking was on any of those issues - you'd probably be surprised if you were capable of an original thought. For anyone to consider a dead Ambassador as a hyped issue is truly repugnant.

      So Blue, when you're done rolling on the floor laughing about dead Americans, knell and pray for an answer.

      • 1 Reply to theresnobeachhere
      • Re: "Elk - Are YOU satisfied with the administrations explanation for the attack on our consulate and the deaths of those American citizens? Answer that coward."

        Get over it, nobeach. McCain and Graham have managed to get you working yourself into a full monty wedgie over this but fact is they hardly give a dam about this particular incident nor do they think Rice did anything so terrible. As Graham let slip today, it is all about payback for John Bolton:


        || ……When asked about the possibility of supporting Rice to be the next secretary of state, Graham insisted that she could not be confirmed until Congress was provided more information from the FBI investigation into the Benghazi attack.

        “I remember the John Bolton episode pretty well,” he pointed out. “Our Democrat friends felt like John Bolton — they didn’t have the information needed to make an informed decision about Ambassador Bolton’s qualifications — John Bolton to be ambassador — and Democrats dug in their heels and said, ‘We’re not going to vote, we’re not going to consider this nomination until we get basic answers to our concerns.’”

        “All I can tell you is that the concerns I have are greater today that they were before. We’re not even close to getting the basic answers.”

        In 2005, President George W. Bush recess-appointed Bolton to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations after Democrats filibustered the nomination because the White House refused to provide information about his mishandling of N.S.A documents and his questionable assessment of Syria’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

        “This is about partisan politics, not documents,” White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said at the time. “They have the information they need.”

        After Bolton was forced to resign as ambassador, Graham opined that the Democrats’ filibuster “unfairly undermines President Bush’s prerogative to appoint his own people to his team.” ||

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Hey Blue, theresnorealityhere will never admit that it's just a hyped issue brought on by FAUX. Where was theresnorealityhere when BUSH got warned of Bin Laden attacks, ignored them and one month later THOUSANDS were killed? Where was theresnotruth when BUSH LIED about weapons of mass destruction in order to get a war started in which THOUSANDS died? The CONS are fake, they let BUSH get away with murder and then turned him into a hero. Where was theresnobrains when the administration asked for more money for more security at our embasseys when the REPUBLICANS said NO. It sounds like a set up to me. The GOP CONS light your house on fire, then disconnect the telephone so you can call for help. What a bunch of ANTI-AMERICANS. Hey CONS, I think you need reminding, PRESIDENT OBAMA WON AGAIN, and YOU LOST, AGAIN !!!! The TEA BAGS had their time in the limelight, and proved they were just corporate HO's masquerading as concerned citizens. We got the message CONS and we voted, WE THE PEOPLE took our country back. YOU LOSE.

    • Blue, what could you possibly find funny about this! It is now pretty clear that Ambassador Rice was used by the administration - my gut tells me that she probably knew it but was a good solider. Regardless of the Susan Rice sideshow aspect of this there are real issues that need to be addresed. I asked you a few weeks ago if you were really satisfied with the administrations explanation so far - any thoughts!?

      But suggesting that the killing of a US Ambassador is being hyped is beyond contempt. It doesn't freak in matter if it was a small fire fight or not. Ambassadors have a special position and are granted a unique stature in diplomacy - that's why when I was in DC protesting in front of the Iranian embassy during the hostage crisis DC cops were jabbing me in the back with their batons. I'm sure that they agreed with me but their JOB was protecting the sovereign soil of the embassies and their ambassadors.

      So in case I'm wrong on why your rolling on the floor laughing about this, I'll wait for your clarification before further comment.

      • 1 Reply to theresnobeachhere
      • Re: "Blue, what could you possibly find funny about this! It is now pretty clear that Ambassador Rice was used by the administration - my gut tells me that she probably knew it but was a good solider. Regardless of the Susan Rice sideshow aspect of this there are real issues that need to be addresed. I asked you a few weeks ago if you were really satisfied with the administrations explanation so far - any thoughts!?"

        nobeach, no doubt you are convinced this is the genuine backstory because you must remember the good old days when you must have been out there waging the good fight against an even much more dastardly stabbing in the back of a "good soldier" who was sent, in fact, to the UN by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., to pave the way for the invasion of Iraq.

        But as you continue to make clear, the invasion of Iraq will most certainly pale in importance when compared to Benghazi.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy