Thomas Ricks, Benghazi Issue, and Fox News

[dudalb]

He went kind of crazy on CNN, got booted, Fox picked him up, he went even more crazy. Eventually got booted, then went off on his on where he's still crazy..

Techincally Beck was on CNN's sister network, HLN, but otherwise correct.
Supposdely Beck's big mistake at FOX was when he begun accusing several prominent people in the GOP of being part of the Evil Progressive Conspiracy.

Ricks is one of my favorite writers on Modern Military topics, and I expected nothing less from him but to blast FOX for their crappy coverage of the Bengazi incident. He is no apologist for the Obama Administration, and feels that mistakes were made, but the conspritacy theories that Fox was pushing was too much for Ricks.

 

[Mark6]

It wouldn't benefit the Obama administration. The unspoken assertion is that Obama ordered information that portrayed Muslims in a negative light to be repressed or spun into being not really the Muslims' fault, because Obama's secret policy is to always appease or excuse Muslims because he's a secret Muslim.

That. And not always "unspoken" assertion either.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Ask yourself this: why aren't they at MSNBC, CNN, and CBS anymore?

Because those networks can't tolerate true conservatives!


Yes, that's sarcasm.

 

[leftysergeant]

He went kind of crazy on CNN, got booted, Fox picked him up, he went even more crazy. Eventually got booted, then went off on his on where he's still crazy..

I think his depature from HLN had something to do with remarks he made about some sort of gun control measure introduced by Senator Chuck "Jooooooooooo-MER."

 

[Brainster]

Ricks to MSNBC:

You’re just like Fox, but not as good at it.

 

[Brainster]

Maybe this isn't the right thread for this, but there's one thing about the Benghazi controversy I don't get: how would it benefit the Obama administration to misrepresent the attacks (ie, claim they were a reaction to the anti-Muslim video as opposed to Al Qaeda)? Or, what would their motivation be (assuming Rice/the admin was up to something)?

Obama was at least partly running on the message that he had kept Americans safe from terrorism. A terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9-11 that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans might tend to undercut that message.

 

[A'isha]

Obama was at least partly running on the message that he had kept Americans safe from terrorism. A terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9-11 that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans might tend to undercut that message.

Which is why he cleverly covered that up by calling it an "act of terror" instead of "an act of terrorism" right after it happened.

But he couldn't fool Fox News! They're all over this scandal like McCain on Rice!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ricks to MSNBC:

It's funny how people try to paint MSNBC as being the "fox news of the left." Actually, it's pathetic.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which is why he cleverly covered that up by calling it an "act of terror" instead of "an act of terrorism" right after it happened.

But he couldn't fool Fox News! They're all over this scandal like McCain on Rice!

Many people on the right have difficulty distinguishing between "terrorism" and "coordinated attacks from groups like Al-Qaeda".

 

[thaiboxerken]

Which is why he cleverly covered that up by calling it an "act of terror" instead of "an act of terrorism" right after it happened.

But he couldn't fool Fox News! They're all over this scandal like McCain on Rice!

Conservatives can't even make their conspiracies sound realistic anymore.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ricks to MSNBC:

Actually, it was sort of a back-handed compliment. MSNBC does not get as bogged in party loyalty and cheerleading as Fox Boobs.

 

[Checkmite]

Obama was at least partly running on the message that he had kept Americans safe from terrorism. A terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9-11 that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans might tend to undercut that message.

I could see the point of that before the election; but why bother now? It's done. What's the point? Do they think they're going to get the American electorate to demand to "take it back" and elect Romney instead? That can't even happen.

And anyway, they're not even running with the "Obama failed to protect" ball. Ever since Petraeus's testimony last week, the allegations about "leaving our people to die" and "denying military support when asked" seem to have come to a dead stop, at least from the Republicans on the Hill (the rank-and-file citizen support base probably continues to repeat them, not having been given different marching orders); whatever Petraeus et al told them during that hearing seems to have left no room or excuse for continuing that line of attack against the president. So now it's just this bizarre fixation over what Rice said on a couple of morning shows, as if her calling them protests instead of terrorist attacks somehow direly threatened national security or something.

 

[Brainster]

It's funny how people try to paint MSNBC as being the "fox news of the left." Actually, it's pathetic.

Oh, I agree. Especially that clown O'Donnell.

 

[Brainster]

Which is why he cleverly covered that up by calling it an "act of terror" instead of "an act of terrorism" right after it happened.

And why did Rice attribute it to an anti-Islamic video the following weekend, hmmm?

Rice appeared on CBS News' "Face the Nation" five days after the September assault and suggested that there was no evidence the incident was a pre-planned act of terrorism. She said the violence appeared to be a spontaneous flare-up by protesters enraged over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

 

[leftysergeant]

And why did Rice attribute it to an anti-Islamic video the following weekend, hmmm?

Do pay attention. She was, at that time, no longer calling it a demonstration that got out of hand, but that that was there first impression. The FBI had not yet provided her with the exact information she needed to comment further.

 

[stevea]

So Tom Ricks statements are (in paraphrase) ..
1/ Benghazi event was politically hyped, and after the election that is declining.
2/ He proposed that 4 embassy personnel killed is in some way comparable to many security contractors killed in Iraq during a war.
3/ That's this is a "essentially a small firefight" and therefore there may never be a clear picture of the event.
4/ That Fox is biased and hoping the event.

Aside from adding some opinion logs to the political bias fire, only statements 2 and 3 are relevant to Benghazi.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can rationally compare the deaths of security contractors (aka mercenaries) in a war zone to what appears to be a planned attack on a US mission. It's an irrational comparison. The better question is how many other embassies are attacked in this way ? Or why this one at this time.

This was clearly not a "small firefight". By definition a firefight is a small arms exchange and this attack involved rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks, diesel canisters, mortars. This so called military expert is either a liar or an idiot when he refers to this as a firefight.

Fox may well be biased in their reporting on the matter. Tom Ricks said nothing that wasn't merely political opinion/bias, clearly false or a grotesque tu quo que fallacy. If going onto a channel with a bias and spewing your own biases with falsehoods & fallacies is a win, then Tom Ricks won. Otherwise - not so much.

 

[A'isha]

And why did Rice attribute it to an anti-Islamic video the following weekend, hmmm?

Because the CIA, probably using information similar to this and this, gave her (and others) a memo which read,

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated. The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Which is exactly what Rice said, right down to the "we're still investigating and things might change" caveat.

 

[RandFan]

I find it hard to understand how anyone can rationally compare the deaths of security contractors (aka mercenaries) in a war zone to what appears to be a planned attack on a US mission. It's an irrational comparison.

You are missing the point. He is comparing the reactions to the events and not the events themselves. The reporter had no idea how many had died for one very simple reason, the reporter didn't care. Their outrage over the death of Americans is provisional on whether the deaths can be used politically.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And again, it's beginning to sound more and more that if there was any attempt to make misleading statements on this issue, the goal was to mislead the bad guys.

As I mentioned early on, this is something done often in law enforcement. We often don't want the bad guys (or other bad guys) to know exactly what we know or don't know.

 

[kedo1981]

Weren’t protests against the scam film actually taking place at nearly the same time in different parts of the middle east