Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:33 pm

Tom Ricks gives Fox News a vicious left cross to the chin

Filed under: Journalism,That's gonna leave a mark — Lex @ 7:33 pm
Tags: , ,

Fox News invites Tom Ricks, who sometimes but not always errs on the side of the Establishment, on to discuss the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi Sept. 11 that left a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead. The interview doesn’t go quite as Fox had planned.

For the record, in addition to the contractors to whom Ricks refers, between 9/11 and the end of the Bush 43 presidency, dozens of Americans were killed in dozens of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. And don’t even get me started on that administration’s ignoring warnings about 9/11 and stonewalling an investigation afterward.

Ricks was right: This wasn’t about four dead Americans, tragic as their deaths were. This was about an election, an election in which Fox was pushing a candidate and Fox’s candidate lost badly. If President Obama decides to nominate U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who wasn’t responsible for the consulate and whose contested original account of what happened was based on early and incomplete reports vetted for her by the U.S. intelligence community, to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, then Rice will be confirmed. And whether that ends up being a good thing or a bad thing, Roger Ailes and Fox News, for all their lies, can’t do a thing to stop it.

UPDATE: Fox claims Ricks later apologized.

UPDATE: Ricks says he didn’t apologize for jack and that Fox is, once again, lying.


(h/t: Mom; DougJ at Balloon Juice)


  1. As for the Ricks non-apology, apology..

    He said/He said

    Was Ricks being deliberately provocative? Perhaps he was, for controversy sells books. And maybe his criticism was overstated. But the fact remains that he was invited as a guest, was asked about the Libya attack, and responded in a way that made Fox’s relentless coverage of the controversy part of the story. And that was deemed unacceptable.

    Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice president, told me that Ricks’s conduct “felt like a stunt…That was just bush league, especially for a veteran reporter.” Ricks wasn’t answering the anchor’s question, says Clemente, and Scott, feeling “offended,” decided that “I’m not going to give this guy any more airtime.”

    What’s more, Clemente says, Ricks “apologized” to a Fox staffer on the way out.

    Ricks denies this, saying he told the staffer—who accused him of being rude—that he “might have been a bit snappish” because he was tired from his book tour. “This was in no way an apology,” Ricks told me, “but rather an explanation of why I jumped a bit when the anchor began the segment with the assertion that pressure on the White House was building—which it most clearly was not.”

    As for the interview itself, “I was not picking a fight with Fox. I was answering their questions.” ****

    **** NOT !! *****

    Bull !!!. Ricks absolutely WAS picking a fight with FNC the same way that John Ziegler tried to pick a fight with Contessa Brewer and got booted off MSNBC. If you attack a network you are appearing on with that kind of rhetoric, you should expect to get yanked off the air. One could still make the point Ricks was trying to make without resorting to the language Ricks was using…language which left FNC with no choice but to drop him like a hot potato.

    The only question I have is whether Ricks has a documented history of taking jabs at FNC. If he has, then FNC’s bookers share some of the blame for bringing him on knowing what could happen.


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, November 30, 2012 12:33 am @ 12:33 am

  2. ” If President Obama decides to nominate U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who wasn’t responsible for the consulate and whose contested original account of what happened was based on early and incomplete reports vetted for her by the U.S. intelligence community, to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, then Rice will be confirmed.” Lex

    Whoa, not so fast,

    Rice has been thrown under the bus. Stick a fork in her. She is done.

    When you have lost Susan Collins, who introduced her at the original confirmation hearing, you are finished, over, kaput !

    The Green loons have jettisoned her

    And Well, when Right Turn and Mother Jones agree, is there any room for doubt?

    The Iran investments

    Now go ahead and call me racist while you sip your kool aid, but she is toast .

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, November 30, 2012 12:57 am @ 12:57 am

  3. Stick a fork in her.. She’s done

    Why I oppose Susan Rice and You Should Too

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, December 6, 2012 12:49 am @ 12:49 am

  4. Nothing but crickets do I hear

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:00 am @ 12:00 am

  5. A fatuous defense of Susan Rice

    Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post rallies to the defense of Susan Rice with a column that rivals Dana Milbank’s latest offering for fatuousness. Parker claims that the primary obstacle to Rice’s confirmation as Secretary of State, should she be nominated, is the claim that she’s unqualified. She then suggests that this view of Rice is sexist.

    Parker is wrong on both counts. First, the primary objection to Rice is the fact that she provided the public with information about the Benghazi attack that she either knew (probably) or should have known was false.

    Parker dismisses this objection to Rice by saying that “everybody brave enough to enter the public arena gets away with a few free passes when they utter something short of brilliant.” Yes, but not when, for partisan political purposes, they make false statements about a terrorist attack.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Monday, December 10, 2012 9:37 am @ 9:37 am

  6. Looks like Rice was called on by Obama to explain the Benghazi disaster, based on her long professional experience in dealing successfully with similar events in the past.

    In other words – she’s a proven liar.

    Why Obama Blinked On Susan Rice Nomination

    “This tells us that the White House remains deeply worried about the Libya scandal.

    That Rice deliberately used her position to mislead the American people is no longer disputed by serious journalists. She went on every major Sunday news show after the 9/11 murder of US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and incorrectly attributed the cause to an obscure video and supposedly spontaneous protests.

    In fact, as Rice almost certainly knew from her intelligence briefings, the Libyan government, and even unclassified emails that the killing was a deliberate attack by an Islamist group.

    Rice presumably did this to advance the president’s reelection campaign. A successful terrorist attack did not fit Obama’s contention that “the tide of war is receding” in part because “al Qaeda is on its heels.” Presumably other administration officials, like Secretary of State Clinton or Pentagon boss Panetta, declined to do the dirty work out of wise concern for their reputations.

    That left Rice, the politico with a history of misleading the American public on national security matters for electoral reasons. As an NSC staffer dealing with Africa in the Clinton administration, Rice in 1994 reportedly urged against calling mass-killing in Rwanda the “genocide” it so obviously was. In a call with other national security officials, Rice specifically cited looming congressional elections as a reason to pull punches, especially since the administration was doing nothing.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:40 pm @ 8:40 pm

  7. Well, now that I’ve finished my schoolwork, we’ve been overtaken by events. That said, there is STILL no evidence that Rice did anything other than pass on early and incorrect information that had been vetted by security agencies. Perhaps she should have been more skeptical of it; not knowing what’s in it, I don’t know.

    Christian Whilton believes that Obama’s “withdrawal” of a nomination he had never made “tells us that the White House remains deeply worried about the Libya scandal.” I, on the other hand, and with no less evidence than Whilton, believe that Obama understands that he’s not dealing with sane, rational actors in the Senate GOP and that absent filibuster reform, he’s never going to get an even mildly controversial candidate confirmed. I think he’s at least half hoping that Senate Republicans try to oppose Kerry and particularly Hagel just so the electorate, which just resoundingly told the GOP that it is full of shit, can get a good look at just how batshit the GOP remains. Doing so would boost Democratic voter turnout in 2014, which would normally be expected to be a down year in congressional races for a second-term president. These nominations, or others like them, could do for the Dems in 2014 what the GOP’s impeachment of Clinton did in ’98.

    Finally, as to what prompted this whole thread, the Fox interviewer disingenuously tried to frame the discussion in a manner contrary to fact, and Ricks called him out on it and pointed out, further, that Fox was a propaganda machine. With the subsequent revelation that Roger Ailes dispatched a reporter to entreat David Petraeus to run for president and promised him the network’s support in return, we see that Ricks was, if anything, too kind.

    Comment by Lex — Monday, December 17, 2012 2:20 pm @ 2:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: