Greta Van Susteren and Lindsey Graham just keep deceiving the public!

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013

Last night, the edification never stopped on Fox: In an earlier post, we documented Greta Van Susteren’s ongoing grisly misconduct.

Greta keeps playing her viewers for fools, several million at a time.

(Last night’s numbers still aren’t in. But last Wednesday, May 15, Greta had 2.12 million viewers at 10 PM, with more getting conned by her 1 AM rerun. By way of contrast, Lawrence had 685,000 viewers at 10 PM that night on The One True Liberal Channel.)

Whatever! Greta keeps saying she has no idea where Susan Rice got that crazy tale about the spontaneous protest and the YouTube video. Last night, she played this same card when she spoke with Lindsey Graham, who began embellishing facts as soon as he opened his mouth.

On Sunday, a White House spokesman said Rice was owed an apology. Needless to say, Greta was baffled by this strange suggestion.

As for Lindsey, he was brave and defiant. The first Q-and-A went like this:
VAN SUSTEREN (5/22/13): We repeatedly see this, the White House representative on the five Sunday shows this weekend, as well, asking Republicans, I suppose they mean you, for an apology to Susan Rice. Are you going to apologize?

GRAHAM: Not only does she not deserve an apology from me or anybody else for the way she misled the American people, she deserves to be subpoenaed by the Congress and have to give answers to hard questions, something she's never had to do before. She should apologize to Greg Hicks, the number two in Tripoli, the number two guy, second behind Chris Stevens, who said, and I quote, "When I heard her testimony my jaw dropped, my heart stopped, and I've never been more embarrassed.”
Just that quickly, Graham embellished what Hicks really said. See below for an accurate transcript.

In the second Q-and-A, the rubber began to hit the road concerning Rice’s ridiculous story about the spontaneous demonstration and the YouTube video. You could see that Lindsey Graham was just plenty upset:
GRAHAM: Was she an empty vessel that they could pour misinformation through? She was chosen because she was the most politically compliant person. She just didn't say this was caused by a video, a spontaneous event. She said, well, we obviously did have a strong security presence. She said there was a significant security presence defending our consulate and our facility in Benghazi, and that did not prove sufficient to the moment.
Graham had made his first reference to the spontaneous protest/video nonsense.

Finally, in his third statement, Graham really tore the bark off the weepin’ willow. He described his reaction when he spoke with Rice in private last fall:
GRAHAM: Oh, I was convinced that she was completely misrepresenting the facts. If she looked at the classified information behind the talking points, she couldn’t have suggested to anyone on the planet this was caused by a video and spontaneous in nature. All of the information coming from Libya, there's 100 pounds of information suggesting a coordinated Al Qaeda-sponsored terrorist attack, and one ounce suggesting a protest, and they picked the ounce.

Don't lose sight of the fact that they story she told on behalf of President Obama and the administration was the best story they could tell seven weeks before election, totally disconnected from the facts. And she could be apologizing to Greg Hicks, to all the families involved, and she should be subpoenaed.
When will someone apologize to poor abused Gregory Hicks? Meanwhile, Graham was deceiving the public again about the spontaneous demonstration and the YouTube video.

Where did Rice get that crazy account, with which she completely misrepresented the facts? Graham couldn’t imagine! But as we noted this morning, Rice was simply repeating the CIA’s basic account of the Benghazi attack.

Below, you see the CIA’s first account of the attack in Benghazi. This account remained in the talking points all the way through to the next day’s final version:
ORIGINAL CIA TALKING POINTS (9/14/12): We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.
According to the CIA, the attacks in Benghazi “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo”—and the protests in Cairo were protests about that insulting video! Everyone on the planet knows this, except the millions of people who watch Fox News each night.

Obviously, Greta and Graham know where Rice got that account. That said, they can also feel sure that Fox viewers don’t know—and they know that people like Glenn Kessler just can’t stop wetting their pants when they think, for even a moment, about fact-checking Fox.

They also know that the children on MSNBC have no plans to fight back about matters like this. They know that Rachel will continue to clown, helping us learn the various ways to adore her more fully.

In our next post, we’ll show you how Lawrence spent his first twenty minutes last night.

Greta and Graham understand that they can continue this crap forever. MSNBC is a very bad joke.

Greta and Graham both know that.

What poor abused Hicks really said: Why repeat what Hicks really said when you can make it that much better? Below, you see what Hicks really said in his testimony, and you see Graham's embellishment:
Statement and embellishment:
HICKS (5/8/13): I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.
GRAHAM (5/22/13): Hicks said, and I quote, "When I heard her testimony my jaw dropped, my heart stopped, and I’ve never been more embarrassed.”
Lindsey makes life seem fuller!

Don’t get us wrong. We have no idea why Hicks’ jaw dropped, and no one asked him to explain. Hicks said a lot of dumb shit that day, thus making himself a hero.

But just for the record, Hicks didn’t say that his heart stopped. And he left open the possibility that he has been more embarrassed.

We’ll guess that his ridiculous conduct has given him several chances. At this point, the experience seems beyond the reach of Fox Hews host Greta Van Susteren.

18 comments:

  1. Hicks' statements appeared to be nothing more than his attempt to gain more face time in the media and possibly to open the door for right wing rewards for his dishonest interpretations of what took place during the attack in Benghazi.

    The three phony scandals that the republicans and media are pushing are extreme wastes of time and resources using taxpayer dollars to score political talking points. Anything to damage the current administration is the republican tactic. The republicans and media are not interested in discovering the truth their main interest is in selling a misrepresentation of facts to portray the current administration in a bad light.

    The "scandals" should never have risen to the media saturation they currently have gained. The scandals should have been laughed out of existence within three days of the republican creations.

    In over sixty years of living on this plan I have never witnessed such weak BS hold as much traction for so long. Observing the serious expressions on the actors and their ridiculous interpretations of events make the American leaders appear to be crazy, stupid or the most corrupt fools to ever grace the airways. They embarrass all Americans with their obvious dishonesty and self-serving attempts to harm the Obama administration and in so doing the country, as well. The U.S. does not appear to be stronger for all the nonsense, but appears to be weak, confused and corrupt. Without a doubt, it is the republicans' fault

    The only people who are buying into the current republican memes are uninformed and misinformed Americans. It isn't evil that makes them believe, it is their gift of undeserved and unearned trust to leaders that perceive their audiences as easily manipulated fools. Is it any wonder that foreign leaders do not trust American leaders who are willing to deceive their own people. If they will exploit and deceive the people of their own nation, what wouldn't they do to foreigners.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gc, most of what you say is true, but you seemed to have missed the era of "Clinton Rules." This is merely a return to that era. That may not, in even the medium term, be a good thing for the right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. " Hicks said a lot of dumb shit that day, thus making himself a hero."

    While attacking Hicks is comforting for TDH, this blog has never shown him saying anything like "dumb shit."

    Susan Rice's motives must never be questioned (even though she is a career political operator); Hick's motives are thoroughly trashed. Bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you not read? Somerby writes: "Don’t get us wrong. We have no idea why Hicks’ jaw dropped, and no one asked him to explain." He simply assesses the quality of Hicks' testimony. There's no motive assigned to Hicks.

      By looking at what she actually said and the context in which she said it, Somerby reasons Rice has been and continues to be unfairly trashed. If you have a problem with Somerby's assessment of Rice's testimony and her treatment in the media, what specifically is it?

      Making sh*t up in an attempt to score a point puts you in line with those Somerby criticizes. And see, motive does not even have to be addressed to make this point!

      Delete
    2. TDH has a handy search function; you might want to try it.


      "Does Gregory Hicks have politics? Does he have good judgment? On both counts, we’ll have to say this:

      Inquiring minds ought to ask. Very few people will." --from May 13

      Today's post snidely refers to Hick's making himself a hero, blah, blah, blah. That's called a smear, not a simple assessment.

      As far as Rice's testimony? That's a good one. Please give me a link to her getting sworn in for testimony.


      Delete
    3. Brad,

      "If you have a problem with Somerby's assessment of Rice's testimony and her treatment in the media, what specifically is it?"

      The administration, in the midst of an election campaign, was trying to put the best spin on an unfortunate event in presenting information to the public through Rice on a series of shows. Within the administration various interests were trying to influence that presentation for their own ends. So far, this shouldn't be controversial.

      But the spin went too far. The Benghazi attacks were not at all like the other protests that had occurred around the region. The Benghazi attacks were directed at significant CIA outposts. Everyone in the Executive branch knew that.

      TDH has always believed the fog-of-war defense coming out of the Executive branch. I have never thought that the "fog" could have lasted 5 days. The FBI interviewed all the personnel evacuated within 48 hours. By that time they knew what had happened on the ground and when.

      So by the time they were making the talking points in the days after, they weren't really gathering information, they were starting to take information out. TDH maintains to this day that in trying to withhold information, various participants were actually performing a valuable public service.

      Did Rice present the best information available at the time or did Rice present a set of talking points that she knew were "flawed?" TDH has retreated to defend two positions: 1)that the talking points were flawed, but Rice was not at fault in presenting them and 2) even if Rice did knowingly present flawed talking points, the press criticism of the presentation was misleading and wrong-headed.

      TDH's take on #1 is unsatisfying, because it absolves the government of misleading all of us. TDH's take on #2 would be fine, except that TDH never shows what the proper criticism of the Rice presentation of talking points would look like. Instead, TDH claims that due to the insertion of qualifying clauses (often called weasel words), no criticism of the Rice's presentation can ever be valid.

      There's more, but I thought I should keep it brief.

      Delete
    4. You should've kept it briefer. It's all fat and no meat.

      The closest you get to anything meaty is your own rank speculation: "did Rice present a set of talking points that she knew were "flawed?"" And you've got nothing to answer it.

      You pretend TDH is failing at doing what you think should be done ("proper criticism of the Rice presentation of talking points"), and minimize the importance of the press criticism TDH is really engaged in.

      Because you are useless.

      Delete
    5. Useless, maybe. But not an unpaid water-carrier.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 8:24 PM 5/24/13:

      Sorry, you still seem intent on typing a novel. You simply provide no evidence of "the government misleading all of us."

      You start off by asserting the government was spinning Benghazi which was okay...until it wasn't. You provide no evidence the government was spinning the event from the start and no evidence how and when "the spin went too far."

      Moreover, you provide no evidence "everyone in the executive branch knew...the Benghazi attacks were not at all like the other attacks that had occurred around the region."

      Correspondingly, you assert, "The FBI interviewed all the personnel evacuated within 48 hours. By that time they knew what had happened on the ground and when." You seem to think the government had a handle on things within a few days of the attack. There is no evidence of the government establishing any clear, accurate narrative of what happened two days after the fact and it defies logic, given the nature of the event, that any could have been constructed.

      In regard to of the talking points, a reasonable, fact-based explanation of them is that they were edited to more accurately reflect what was actually known and could be revealed at the time. As TDH has clearly demonstrated, the initial CIA talking points were horribly flawed and it would have been utterly irresponsible for the government to release them in that form. As TDH points out, those initial talking points even included assertions of the involvement of Ansar al Sharia based on media reports. And as TDH alludes, to interpret the talking points edits, as the right-wing scandal-mongers do, requires severely tortured logic.

      Going on, you assert that "in the days after, they weren't really gathering information, they were starting to take information out." Again, you offer an empty, utterly dumb allegation that the government stopped its investigation in the days after the attack. Apparently in your novel, the government figured out the essentials within a couple of days and correspondingly stopped gathering information to focus its energies on scrubbing those talking points to help Obama win the White House. That only makes sense if you ignore evidence and reason like, well, the Fox-faithful.

      As far as Rice is concerned, you insinuate she presented talking points "she knew were 'flawed'". Again, you have no idea what she thought of the talking points but find it useful for your novel to slime her anyway. You again are just making stuff up.

      One final note about those so-called "weasel words." The context of "proper criticism" is TDH's sound, evidentiary based contention that Rice has been unfairly trashed in the media. Once again, you absolutely refuse to provide any evidence to refute this contention.

      I could go on. However, I have made my point. I requested proof but you simply typed more of that fact-free, Fox-approved novel you've been sharing.

      Thanks, but no thanks.

      Delete
  4. Quaker in a BasementMay 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM

    this blog has never shown him saying anything like "dumb shit."

    You're new around here, aren't you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, if I were new, I probably wouldn't come back. But I used to like this blog a lot, so I keep visiting. TDH is grasping at straws on the Hicks testimony. The fact-free attacks on Hicks are the kind of journalism that TDH used to ridicule.

      Delete
    2. Why is "TDH...grasping at straws on the Hicks testimony"? You forgot to say.

      What exactly is "fact-free" about those "attacks" on Hicks? Given what Rice actually said and given she was reciting CIA talking points, all of which was surely known by Hicks, Hicks' statement cited above can generously be called "dumb shit." One might even go so far as to say it's disingenuous shit.

      Delete
    3. Quaker in a BasementMay 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM

      If you're not new here, then your reading skills aren't very good. TDH has quite accurately demonstrated faults in Mr. Hicks' testimony in careful detail.

      Delete
    4. Ummm, no. Though TDH did slag Hicks for not answering his phone promptly, TDH has not demonstrated faults in Hicks' testimony.

      TDH doesn't exactly say that Hicks' "jaw dropped" statement is wrong or even "dumb." Kind of slippery like that. TDH always points put that nobody asked him why his "jaw dropped."

      Delete
    5. You haven't been paying attention (or, more likely, are pretending):

      1) Knowing what Rice actually said, and
      2) knowing the provenance of the talking points

      is more than sufficient to show that calling Hick's response "dumb shit" is, as Brad said quite generous to Hicks. A far more fair analysis is that rather than being dumb, Hicks is a deceptive and self-dealing charlatan.

      Delete
    6. "self-dealing"???

      Like this was a big career booster in the Obama administration? That's one heck of an alternative universe you're in--I advise you never leave TDH and read anything else because it will be an awful shock.

      Delete
  5. Howdy, I believe your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your web site in Safari, it looks fine however, if opening in Internet
    Explorer, it has some overlapping issues. I simply wanted to
    provide you with a quick heads up! Apart from that, great website!


    Feel free to visit my webpage; Louis Vuitton Outlet

    ReplyDelete