He called FOX News out today and they ended the interview.
"A Fox News interview ended rather abruptly on Monday after a guest took not one but two jabs at the network hosting him (see update below).
Co-anchor Jon Scott interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks, who has covered the military for decades, about his new book "The Generals." Scott asked Ricks weigh in on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and Sen. John McCain's criticisms of Amb. Susan Rice.
"I think Benghazi was generally hyped by this network especially," Ricks said. He added that he thought McCain seemed to be "backing off" from criticizing Rice since "the campaign [was] over."
"When you have four people dead for the first time in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?" Scott said, pushing back against Ricks' characterization of the network's coverage.
Ricks compared the situation to security contractors who were killed in Iraq. He described the attack in Benghazi as a "small fire-fight" and added, "I think the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox is operating as the wing of the Republican Party."
At that point, Scott thanked Ricks for his time and ended the interview after about 90 seconds."
Besides Mr Ricks looked and acted like an asshole.
I didn't see anyone acting like an asshole in that interview. It seemed way more amiable an exchange than one is likely to get most of the time here in SB.
Someone who states their opinion forthrightly and honestly as was done doesn't make that person an asshole. It just makes them a person with a different point of view.
Regardless of whether or not someone personally likes Tom Ricks (ie: personality is irrelevant here)...
1. He has previously said that he thought the Benghazi incident was hyped, he'd said it repeatedly and he'd said it publicly.
2. He told the Fox producer before he went on when they asked about it, that he thought it was hyped and if asked on the show about Benghazi, that would be his response.
3. Ricks was told he'd be on for 4-5 minutes. He ended up on the show for about 80 seconds I believe.
4. A number of FOX people after he went off the air said that they thought he was rude to him or seemed shocked by what he'd said.
Look, Tom Ricks is a first class journalist. The man has a superb reputation within the military. His book "Fiasco" is a devastating take on the Iraq invasion and CPA mess. He was close to Petraeus and many of the other outsiders who were arguing for a totally different approach to the war (like John Nagl). Even if you think his personality is disagreeable or that perhaps there was a misunderstanding in his role (Ricks thought he was being brought on to say what he'd already said publicly before several times: that Benghazi has been hyped as a story, especially by Fox), the basic story of this event is that Ricks said something that Fox didn't want to air and so they cut the interview short he was on. It is true that Fox has hyped the Benghazi story.
Ultimately, the GOP story on Benghazi has fallen apart.
afplcc wrote: Regardless of whether or not someone personally likes Tom Ricks (ie: personality is irrelevant here)...
1. He has previously said that he thought the Benghazi incident was hyped, he'd said it repeatedly and he'd said it publicly.
2. He told the Fox producer before he went on when they asked about it, that he thought it was hyped and if asked on the show about Benghazi, that would be his response.
3. Ricks was told he'd be on for 4-5 minutes. He ended up on the show for about 80 seconds I believe.
4. A number of FOX people after he went off the air said that they thought he was rude to him or seemed shocked by what he'd said.
Look, Tom Ricks is a first class journalist. The man has a superb reputation within the military. His book "Fiasco" is a devastating take on the Iraq invasion and CPA mess. He was close to Petraeus and many of the other outsiders who were arguing for a totally different approach to the war (like John Nagl). Even if you think his personality is disagreeable or that perhaps there was a misunderstanding in his role (Ricks thought he was being brought on to say what he'd already said publicly before several times: that Benghazi has been hyped as a story, especially by Fox), the basic story of this event is that Ricks said something that Fox didn't want to air and so they cut the interview short he was on. It is true that Fox has hyped the Benghazi story.
Ultimately, the GOP story on Benghazi has fallen apart.
Ed
So with this post...who did Mr. Ricks accuse of saying it was hyped? Besides Fox?
Also...hyped? This incident is very serious...brushing it off is complete BS. This isn't hyped. This is serious and anyone wanting to brush it off because it's the Obama admin needs to get the hell outa dodge.
I've cited AP sources in the past that there are still unanswered questions...this admin is avoiding it big time- for good reason- they screwed the pooch.
KungPaoChic
Posts: 1,861
West Palm Beach, Florida, US
JQuest wrote:
I didn't see anyone acting like an asshole in that interview. It seemed way more amiable an exchange than one is likely to get most of the time here in SB.
Someone who states their opinion forthrightly and honestly as was done doesn't make that person an asshole. It just makes them a person with a different point of view.
Fox News, the butthurt network!
I find the fact that someone who idolizes Ann Coulter would call Rick Thomas an asshole almost as ironic as it is amusing. If I were Mr. Thomas I would consider it a ringing endorsement.
j3_photo wrote: So with this post...who did Mr. Ricks accuse of saying it was hyped? Besides Fox?
Also...hyped? This incident is very serious...brushing it off is complete BS. This isn't hyped. This is serious and anyone wanting to brush it off because it's the Obama admin needs to get the hell outa dodge.
I've cited AP sources in the past that there are still unanswered questions...this admin is avoiding it big time- for good reason- they screwed the pooch.
1. Tom Ricks said that the media in general but Fox in particular had hyped this story. He didn't sit there and list 15 sources but if he'd had time I'm sure he'd have been perfectly willing to list a bunch of other media outlets that had put a lot of energy into this story and made it bigger than it is.
2. Any time a US facility is attacked or overrun, that's serious. Anytime Americans die, that's serious. Yep, I got that. But "brushing it off"? You've got to be kidding me. This thing got national coverage in 2 Presidential debates and one VP one where questions were asked about it--and that's "brushing it off"? It's been the result of at least 8 classified congressional hearings that I'm aware of and at least 7 public congressional hearings...and that's brushing it off?
Here's what we know:
--the CIA and DoS didn't request any additional support from outside of the country.
--there were NO requests for support from people onsite that were denied.
--that the Ambassador and staffer were dead before anyone outside of the consulate could have helped (this included the individuals in the Annex one mile away).
--that Obama and Rice did not lie. They were delivering messages that had been generated by the IC and that were consistent with classified testimony given by Petraeus before Congress earlier.
--that the IC can't believe the furvor over "Obama didn't call them terrorists" deal b/c to the IC, the talking points that referred to "extremists" is equivalent to terrorists.
Yep, there are still unanswered questions. And the administration is seeking to answer them. That's part of the reason the information on this has been so incoherent and inconsistent...b/c as it's become available it was made available.
So with this post...who did Mr. Ricks accuse of saying it was hyped? Besides Fox?
Also...hyped? This incident is very serious...brushing it off is complete BS. This isn't hyped. This is serious and anyone wanting to brush it off because it's the Obama admin needs to get the hell outa dodge.
I've cited AP sources in the past that there are still unanswered questions...this admin is avoiding it big time- for good reason- they screwed the pooch.
This is who Mr. Ricks is, his education, books and background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E. … rnalist%29 He didn't say lets brush it off but lets all be candid FOX is leading the charge as well as right wing radio. I provided the link as you seem somewhat adverse to Google. Mistakes were made but President Obama didn't personally kill anyone. He oversees hundreds of staff. I am curious. How did you feel about the lies that led to Iraq? Ms. Rice, Collin Powell, President Bush and his VP seem to have received a free pass. There thousands of Americans died.
Live interviews can often go off script though. McCain did it too Hannity. Mr. Ricks gave his opinion as he should. He was asked because he is a authority.
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,117
San Francisco, California, US
What Fun Productions wrote: Tom Ricks looked and acted like an asshole.
Fox have a bunch of assholes and he showed them how much of an asshole that he can be after he peeked out their assholeness. You see, you don't have to be an asshole to show off your ass to assholes. Assholes don't like having their asses exposed. Rick exposed their asses.
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,117
San Francisco, California, US
What Fun Productions wrote:
Nobody was "cut off" in the video I watched?
Besides Mr Ricks looked and acted like an asshole.
That's funny. I remember calling you that. And it was justified. But the mods cut me off. Like Fox, you too know what you're doing the majority of the times, but play the victim.
First, Tom Ricks is a pretty straight shooter. You don't have to like what he says. If you read "Fiasco" you'll see that it's got extensive footnotes and is well-sourced on a wide range of things including the BDA for the Clinton strikes agains Saddam Hussein to percentages of Iraqi attacks on US troops that appeared to be "honor" actions.
Second, where in the interview was he dishonest?
I suspect that anyone who happens to have a specific bone to pick with Fox is someone you'd call dishonest.
First, Tom Ricks is a pretty straight shooter. You don't have to like what he says. If you read "Fiasco" you'll see that it's got extensive footnotes and is well-sourced on a wide range of things including the BDA for the Clinton strikes agains Saddam Hussein to percentages of Iraqi attacks on US troops that appeared to be "honor" actions.
Second, where in the interview was he dishonest?
I suspect that anyone who happens to have a specific bone to pick with Fox is someone you'd call dishonest.
Ed
Fox News and their mindless sheeple are allergic to "extensive footnotes and is well-sourced"
He called FOX News out today and they ended the interview.
"A Fox News interview ended rather abruptly on Monday after a guest took not one but two jabs at the network hosting him (see update below).
Co-anchor Jon Scott interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks, who has covered the military for decades, about his new book "The Generals." Scott asked Ricks weigh in on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and Sen. John McCain's criticisms of Amb. Susan Rice.
"I think Benghazi was generally hyped by this network especially," Ricks said. He added that he thought McCain seemed to be "backing off" from criticizing Rice since "the campaign [was] over."
"When you have four people dead for the first time in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?" Scott said, pushing back against Ricks' characterization of the network's coverage.
Ricks compared the situation to security contractors who were killed in Iraq. He described the attack in Benghazi as a "small fire-fight" and added, "I think the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox is operating as the wing of the Republican Party."
At that point, Scott thanked Ricks for his time and ended the interview after about 90 seconds."
Opinion: We need more Thomas Ricks.
Thanks for posting this. Ricks called out FOX for what they are: An arm of the Republican party.
The intelligence community deleted information that they suspected terrorists were to blame because they did not want the bad guys to know they suspected them. Rice gave the talking points, as she understood them, when interviewed on TV.
There is no story here, unless you are one of the Usual Suspects or a FOX anchor.
So with this post...who did Mr. Ricks accuse of saying it was hyped? Besides Fox?
Also...hyped? This incident is very serious...brushing it off is complete BS. This isn't hyped. This is serious and anyone wanting to brush it off because it's the Obama admin needs to get the hell outa dodge.
I've cited AP sources in the past that there are still unanswered questions...this admin is avoiding it big time- for good reason- they screwed the pooch.
No, you and people like you are trying to keep a story alive where there is no story. Rice quoted her talking points when being interviewed on the Sunday shows. The CIA/intelligence community did not include reports of terrorist activity for any number of reasons, including the fact that they did not want the bad guys to know they suspected them.
Four Americans dead on any day is a bad day. However, working in a consulate in Libiya or anywhere in the middle east is a dangerous job and at times bad things happen to good people.
I will ask again: Were you so eager to assign blame after 9/11? Did you fault the Bush administration for the over 3,000 dead?
Live with this: Obama was re-elected president and he will be so for the next four years -- thankfully. Your made-up fantasies will not change that.
Fox News and their mindless sheeple are allergic to "extensive footnotes and is well-sourced"
Try your logic again. I dare ya !
I wonder why some Americans are so eager to be spoonfed the propaganda of an Australian. Is it masochism or just a deep-seated hatred of their own country?
These Faux demagogues make their colleagues-in-spirit from Pravda and TASS during the good old days of the USSR look like fair and balanced political analysts.
I wonder why some Americans are so eager to be spoonfed the propaganda of an Australian. Is it masochism or just a deep-seated hatred of their own country?
These Faux demagogues make their colleagues-in-spirit from Pravda and TASS during the good old days of the USSR look like fair and balanced political analysts.
By this standard, Reagan should've resigned after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. The biggest single-day loss of Marine lives since Iwo Jima.
Sometimes the bad guys get through and shit happens. To try to make some political scandal out of it is trading on the honor of our dead. Not a respectable way to go, and it's a black mark on our system that it's happening.
Justin wrote: By this standard, Reagan should've resigned after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. The biggest single-day loss of Marine lives since Iwo Jima.
Sometimes the bad guys get through and shit happens. To try to make some political scandal out of it is trading on the honor of our dead. Not a respectable way to go, and it's a black mark on our system that it's happening.
I wonder why some Americans are so eager to be spoonfed the propaganda of an Australian. Is it masochism or just a deep-seated hatred of their own country?
These Faux demagogues make their colleagues-in-spirit from Pravda and TASS during the good old days of the USSR look like fair and balanced political analysts.
That Australian spoons up a lot of propaganda in Britain too. Americans are actually kind of late to the propaganda game. Papers in Britain have long been enthusiastic supporters of their assigned political parties. In Italy, former PM Silvio Berlusconi personally owned the news media. Hugo Chavez has his own TV chat show in Venezuela.
The reality is that, while Fox is the single most popular "news" network, it's a relatively small number of Americans who use Fox as their main source of information.
No, you and people like you are trying to keep a story alive where there is no story. Rice quoted her talking points when being interviewed on the Sunday shows. The CIA/intelligence community did not include reports of terrorist activity for any number of reasons, including the fact that they did not want the bad guys to know they suspected them.
Four Americans dead on any day is a bad day. However, working in a consulate in Libiya or anywhere in the middle east is a dangerous job and at times bad things happen to good people.
I will ask again: Were you so eager to assign blame after 9/11? Did you fault the Bush administration for the over 3,000 dead?
Live with this: Obama was re-elected president and he will be so for the next four years -- thankfully. Your made-up fantasies will not change that.
You'll ask again? Yes I blame Bush and the CIA and I blame Obama for this shit...which happ'd almost a full term into his presidency. I bet you're giving him a pass!
What Fun Productions wrote: Tom Ricks looked and acted like an asshole.
How is he acting like an asshole exactly? He was asked a question and from I can see he answered it rather politely. Maybe it wasn't the answer Fox News was expecting him to give, but he still answered it.
The guy even gave a cheerful "your welcome" at the end.
T
Posts: 53,533
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Andrew Kaiser wrote:
How is he acting like an asshole exactly? He was asked a question and from I can see he answered it rather politely. Maybe it wasn't the answer Fox News was expecting him to give, but he still answered it.
The guy even gave a cheerful "your welcome" at the end.
It was his cheerful "you're welcome" that made me fall in love.
I wonder why some Americans are so eager to be spoonfed the propaganda of an Australian. Is it masochism or just a deep-seated hatred of their own country?
These Faux demagogues make their colleagues-in-spirit from Pravda and TASS during the good old days of the USSR look like fair and balanced political analysts.
Ignorance and bigotry.
You under estimate the level of ignorance that saturates our country.
Millions believe that FEMA Death Camps are real, that Obama Death Panels will terminate their existence at will.
The urge to get rid of the Kenyan Muslim is so great that most RW Nuts will offer their children as sacrifices id it aids their cause.
Greg Kolack
Posts: 17,242
Downers Grove, Illinois, US
UnoMundo wrote:
Ignorance and bigotry.
You under estimate the level of ignorance that saturates our country.
Millions believe that FEMA Death Camps are real, that Obama Death Panels will terminate their existence at will.
The urge to get rid of the Kenyan Muslim is so great that most RW Nuts will offer their children as sacrifices id it aids their cause.
A report just came out that death threats against Obama have sky rocketed to numbers far higher than any other President. Many are simply drunk postings of idiots, but many have been declared to be legit.
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
UnoMundo wrote: Ignorance and bigotry.
You under estimate the level of ignorance that saturates our country.
Millions believe that FEMA Death Camps are real, that Obama Death Panels will terminate their existence at will.
The urge to get rid of the Kenyan Muslim is so great that most RW Nuts will offer their children as sacrifices id it aids their cause.
Greg Kolack wrote: A report just came out that death threats against Obama have sky rocketed to numbers far higher than any other President. Many are simply drunk postings of idiots, but many have been declared to be legit.
Unreal.
obama symbolizes to the fearful a huge shift in the demographics of the US.
but it's not really a power shift.
all the plutocrats still run much of the game.
but the freaked out racists miss that part of the equation.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Justin wrote: By this standard, Reagan should've resigned after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. The biggest single-day loss of Marine lives since Iwo Jima.
Sometimes the bad guys get through and shit happens. To try to make some political scandal out of it is trading on the honor of our dead. Not a respectable way to go, and it's a black mark on our system that it's happening.
Let's not forget about Bush and the Pat Tillman cover-up...
Let's not forget about Bush and the Pat Tillman cover-up...
Or Jessica Lynch. Her and Tillman's brother even testified before Congress how the Bush government had lied about their cases to use them for propagandistic purposes.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Katarina N. wrote:
Or Jessica Lynch. Her and Tillman's brother even testified before Congress how the Bush government had lied about their cases to use them for propagandistic purposes.