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.
In terms of Rice's talking points, it could have been handled better. That said, What if Obama Administration's National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon, recommended that the points be amended on request of the FBI and CIA and what if he stated it publicly? Or for that matter, if another adviser, sifting through reams of information made that judgement call, what difference would it make? Truly, if someone did publicly make that admission, would you be satisfied? Only five days following the attack, there was an element of uncertainty that called for prudence, and two weeks later news organizations were still withholding information on request by the CIA-- not to aid a supposed cover-up-- but to not compromise people then currently working for intelligence in Benghazi: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi … 66651.html
Last you ask ESO, "When will President Obama take responsibility for anything?" On October 16th this year, at the second presidential debate, in front of 65.6 views (obviously you missed it), the President said in relation to Benghazi, "I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.". Full transcript here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/2012-presiden … amp;page=8
I agree with Rick's assessment, this whole thing, for some sorry-ass political stakes has been wrongly politicized. There are good fights, but this was a losing fight from the start. The sudden diffidence lately shown by the McCain and Graham is a small step in face saving from a fight they've lost. It seemed like red meat on 9/16, today it's another ball and chain on legs of republicans who are intent of walking that gangplank into the abyss. (Phillip, did I just mix my metaphors?!)
An excellent read, that gives a roundabout assessment of what went down in Benghazi is here; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/magazine/christ … anted=all. The article makes the point that if you're involved in US security, intelligence, or diplomacy that there's an inherent risk to the job--try to eliminate that risk is only going to make your job more difficult or next to impossible.
@erlybrd....if the shoe fits...
Personally, I like the philosophy of President Truman who had a plaque on his desk that said "The buck stops here." When will President Obama take responsibility for anything? That is the antithesis of leadership. Benghazi is but one sorry example among others that could be listed.
Nuff said!