Earlier today, I posted about Geraldo Rivera’s heated debate on Fox & Friends in which he spoke out passionately against the politicization of the tragedy at Benghazi. Tonight, Rivera visited The O’Reilly Factor where he got into it with Bill O’Reilly. Rivera was still a strong voice speaking out against the politicization but this time, Rivera made sure to highlight suspicious behavior by the Obama administration.
Rivera never criticized anyone at Fox for the 24/7 Benghazi-Gate drumbeating that’s been going on over at the “fair and balanced” network. And I had to wonder if someone didn't speak to him after the Fox & Friends debate because this time Rivera made a point of legitimizing the network's concerns:
There is a legitimate scandal on why there wasn’t more security for the Ambassador in Benghazi. Why the intelligence failed to predict that this militia was going to carry out a deadly attack. That’s one scandal. Then there’s the attack itself and I think that it’s going to be very, very difficult to argue that they should have sent in the Marines… The third part is the cover up (notice how it’s presented as a given) and therein lies the political rub. There I think there is some legitimacy to the criticism because Susan Rice clearly was not articulating real time intelligence when she did the Sunday talk show circuit. Why not? What did she know? When did she know it? That is a legitimate political question.
You might be surprised to know I agree with Rivera there. These are questions that should be asked and answered. But Fox's constant foaming at the mouth is clearly designed more to whip up animosity against the Obama administration than to enlighten. I can assure you that Fox's burning curiosity about Benghazi will immediately dissipate on November 7 if Mitt Romney is elected. It's too bad Rivera didn't address his own network's role in the very process he was decrying.
However, Rivera did get back to his main argument from the morning, that the tragedy is being politicized. For President Obama to discuss this now, so shortly before the election, would be, Rivera said, “like putting blood on the water to political sharks.”
Pointing to “a fog of war aspect,” Rivera repeatedly noted Mitt Romney’s failure to challenge Obama on the subject of Benghazi in the last debate. Why? Rivera said it was because “he knew that it was a lot more ambiguous than political operatives are making it out.” After repeating his argument that the tragedy should be reviewed dispassionately after the election, Rivera made another allegation I’ll bet he’ll make a point of modifying later on Fox: “You can’t count on (Republican Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) Darrell Issa to find truth here.”
And most important of all, you of course missed the whole point entirely, making the death of these four honorable men a political issue is just morally WRONG, I don’t care whose side you’re on and you KNOW that! So, before you put shame on anyone else, look in the mirror sir!
Shame on you for helping cover this up and blaming the Ambassador and Marines for their own deaths. You said they new the risks and death was probable? That’s like blaming a woman for getting raped because she wore skimpy clothing. You called it one of the “most dangerous consulates on the planet.” Then why were repeated requests for security denied? Shame on you.
Four Americans were killed while serving at one of the most dangerous consulates on the planet. There, serving our country and showing what REAL heroes are made of. There, helping the people of that country to become better, and bring freedom and positive change for its people. There, knowing that every day they were risking their own lives by just being there! I believe these men KNEW the risks involved and were not only willing, but proud to accept those risks on behalf of the United States and its people. Because, they knew that making places like Benghazi safer makes us all safer and that was worth the risk to them.
Let’s ALL try something new here for a refreshing change, let’s be HONEST with ourselves. No one believes these men went to Benghazi looking for a fun-filled picnic holiday. They KNEW where they going, they KNEW the risks and they served us all with the ultimate sacrifice doing what they believed in.
For Fox and republicans across this country to now diminish their lives and the role they played in not only bettering our country, but other countries who are struggling so hard for democracy, to now make this tragedy into a political issue to support their agenda to elect Mitt Romney is nothing more than a reflection of just how low and degraded the morality of Fox and Fox supporters have become in recent years! These men, the bravest of our country, did not serve as Democrats or Republicans, they served as Americans and they died as Americans, representing the BEST of the best of us!
Shame on Fox and anyone else to wants to take the tragic death of these heroic men and turn it into a political event just to score a few points for the âgreatâ Romney crusade machine. I have NO DOUBT, NONE, that these four brave men would be utterly disgusted by their tragic deaths being used in this manner. This is NOT the America they were over there representing. This is NOT the America the majority of Americans represent.
In the end, the American people WILL hold Fox and Fox supporters responsible for the lies, deception and complete politicization of a truly tragic event in which we lost four of our finest. They only fool themselves if they think we will forget. We wonât!
" If Benghazi-gate is a âreal storyâ, why have Geraldo and Williams, multiple Fox News contributors, and two regular guests come forward to say Fox News is flat lying about both the attack and the aftermath, and on a couple occassions, told them to, you know- stop?!
Why does Shep Smith roll his eyes every time it comes up? Why do the newsblock anchors look ashamed after they finish each reading?
Answer: This ârealâ story is so far below par that only the hardcore racists (Hannity, Kelly, OâReilly) are pushing it with a clear conscience. Everyone else is having trouble looking themselves in the mirror for their role."
The way you put it, it Sounds like FOX has a pretty balanced menagerie of viewpoints! Guess we can shut this site down and move on to better and more productive undertakings.
1.) 4 Americans were brutally murdered in what is considered an act of war. One of them an Ambassador.
2.) Prior to the act of war, there were repeated requests for more security that were either ignored or denied.
3.) During the act of war, there were repeated requests for help, that once again went unanswered or denied.
4.) Questions about the act of war, lack of security, and lack of action are going unanswered.
5.) Obama is once again passing the buck onto someone else. Nothing is ever his fault, unlike other presidents. He calls it a “bump” in the road and uses Hillary for his patsy.
5.) Obama’s approval rating is going down because of it.
And by the way, your example of the bombing of civilians does not disprove my assertion that drones have the technology to perform missions at night. For your one video, I can show you many more of successful missions that killed the right people. Secondly, I wasn’t saying the drone should have bombed anyone. I was calling for the video to be released, whether it shows anything or not. I can guarantee you, though, that if it was over the site, you will CLEARLY see who the aggressors were. You said the video probably only shows a few animals, dogs and sheep I think you said. If that is the case, then why has it not been released? That would have helped your side that wants to protect Obama at all costs.
A) Are you familiar with FLIR systems that drones are equipped with? Itâs hard to believe, but they can see at night! And pretty clear too! The videos that I’ve seen (e.g. the one where a drone operator killed some innocent civilians, a feat for which he has been charged with murder) do not convince me that the person watching can actually identify the persons’ running. Last I heard, there may (conditional tense expressing doubt) actually not have been any drone at all (i.e. it may have been a rumor that Fox happily lapped up because it served their political agenda. B) Are you suggesting Ambassador Stevens set this up? Good heavens, man! Quite the opposite. He was very highly qualified, both as a field operative and as a top-ranking diplomat. To me, that’s one of the reasons why I don’t think the answer to this will be as simple as you’d like. Real life is not often so neat and tidy. One of the Marines who died was at a safe house a mile away. The pleas for help were intense enough for him to risk his own life and enter the fray. I dearly regret his death but – if what the foxies have been saying is true, i.e. that there was a small army attacking the consulate with heavy weapons – seems to me (expressing doubt) that he may have been either disobedient or reckless or both. Wouldn’t be surprised if the whole story were to turn out to be yet another foxy invention (Mr. Woods’ dad wasn’t there either), so I’ll wait for the investigation findings. C) Doesnât even need a response. You admitted something went wrong, and then made speculations. True, but I admit willingly that mine are speculations: you want yours to be accepted as hard facts. Shall we wait for more complete information before jumping to conclusions? D) See A. Ditto (as in See A). F) Right, no can say with certainty. I agree entirely with you there but wonder how you can then go on and make the accusations you do. But the administration was pretty certain it was an internet video that caused everything in the following days. Ms Susan Rice said "the information we have in hand (or something like that) and the CIA confirmed that. Hard to think she’d rely on any other source, don’t you agree? Further, there were riots happening in over 20 countries throughout the ME and even General Hayden (Former CIA director under Bush) felt that the administration had a lot on its plate. My own theory (please to note that this pure speculation on my part) is that they’re looking for mole somewhere because the Ambassador should not have been where he was and yet somebody found out about it. I don’t claim that to be a fact, only a plausible (to me) theory.
Additional comment: I didn’t agree much with the Bush administration for launching two very expensive wars that were supposed to last a few months and wound up being the longest in American history. That’s probably why I find it particularly convincing that both Ms. Condoleeza Rice and General Michael Hayden have adopted a “wait-and-see” attitude in their appearances on Fox (never to be re-aired, BTW). Wouldn’t you agree that they probably know a lot more about such matters than either you or I?
A) Are you familiar with FLIR systems that drones are equipped with? It’s hard to believe, but they can see at night! And pretty clear too!
B) Are you suggesting Ambassador Stevens set this up? One of the Marines who died was at a safe house a mile away. The pleas for help were intense enough for him to risk his own life and enter the fray.
C) Doesn’t even need a response. You admitted something went wrong, and then made speculations.
D) See A.
F) Right, no can say with certainty. But the administration was pretty certain it was an internet video that caused everything in the following days.
A) Reality on the ground. The events at Benghazi occurred in the middle of the night on september 9th 2012. As there is no public lighting in that part of the world, the only source of light was probably a battery of generators at the Consulate itself (and the blaze, of course). Allarmed emails do not provide sufficient knowledge for efffective action. Until well past dawn, the drones would not have seen much more than a blaze and moving figures on the ground: goats? donkeys? chickens? women? children? men? or militias?
B)Who knew what? Ambassador Stevens was not your usual political appointment but the top-ranking agent who’d spent several months in Benghazi as an advisor to the militias fighting Ghaddafi. He was therefore the person most likely to be best informed on the situation and yet he went there with only three security personnel. I personally do not believe for a minute that he was suicidal. In any case, the early emails point to an emerging not an immediate risk. To have acted on such flimsy evidence would have placed additional American lives at risk.
C) What could/should have been done? Something clearly went wrong (as it did prior to the first 9/11 event in 2001 I beg to remind you) and it’s important to find out what and why. Expecting that to be done as from the day after is foolish. Personally, I think there may be a mole within the Embassy but that’s speculation on my part and I don’t pretend to be a proper “news” journalist. If there was/is a mole within the US diplomatic set-up, it would be foolish to say anything that would spook him/her, don’t you agree?
E) The risks of unconsidered action. It was pitch-black dark during the attack and drones would not have been able to see more than a blaze and running figures. Sending in a rescue squad would simply have placed even more American lives at risk. Sending in the drones to bomb the place to smithereens would have killed many more people. The Foxies couldn’t care less about Muslims but they should at least care something for the men and women belonging to those rescue squads.
E) What the real experts are saying I have personally seen both Condoleeza Rice (Secretary of State under President Bush) and General Michael Hayden (Director of CIA under President Bush and credited with having completely overhauled the agency) express essentially “wait-and-see” opinions on Fox and both have been TOTALLY IGNORED. Instead, Fox re-airs clip after clip by a former CIA field operative called Mike Baker. That’s like saying the indian knew more than the chief. Sheeeesh!
F) My Conclusion. There’s no way that anybody could have said anything with certainty as from the day after an attack that occurred in the middle of the night and that the very competent Ambassador clearly had not anticipated. Otherwise, he’d not have been there. And, yet, that’s precisely what the Foxies are clamoring for and they are clearly doing it in hope of influencing the elections. It is they who are politicising this tragic event and they are doing it so blatantly that only the most brain-dead will not realise what’s happening. Being somewhat of a PollyAnna (or Candide), I believe that this has become so blatant that it cannot but backfire on the Foxies.
I do not think this is true. Almost everyone on Fox is pushing Benghazi like crazy and nobody seems to have a problem with their conscience: Fox & Friends (week and weekend), Martha MacCallum, Bill Hemmer, Greta Van Susteren, Jennifer Griffin, Molly Henneberger. Rivera and Smith are the glaring exceptions.
Why does Shep Smith roll his eyes every time it comes up? Why do the newsblock anchors look ashamed after they finish each reading?
Answer: This “real” story is so far below par that only the hardcore racists (Hannity, Kelly, O’Reilly) are pushing it with a clear conscience. Everyone else is having trouble looking themselves in the mirror for their role.
Conspiracy, this is not. Unless you have an IQ of seven.