What Gregory Hicks really said about Susan Rice!

MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013

The dumbness surpasses belief: Just for the record, what did Gregory Hicks really say about Ambassador Rice?

Last Wednesday, Hick testified to a House committee about the attack in Benghazi. At one point, he savaged Rice.

For background, see our previous post.

Hicks said his jaw dropped when he watched Rice on the September 16 Sunday shows. He said he was embarrassed by the things she said.

Why did he say he felt that way? Specifically, what was his criticism?

In typical fashion, no one ever really asked him to explain! Nor have we seen anyone note how crazy his comments were.

Below, you can read the relevant passage from Hicks’ testimony, which didn’t take place in the Senate.

Hicks was speaking with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), one of the dumbest mother-frumpers this side of Maureen Dowd. In this truly astonishing passage, Hicks semi-explains why his jaw dropped when he watched Rice on TV.

Gowdy behaves like a lunatic:

GOWDY (5/8/13): So Mr. Hicks, let's find out the truth. The president of Libya responded to the attack and labeled it an attack by Islamic extremists possibly with terror links, correct?

HICKS: Yes, sir.

GOWDY: So hours after our ambassador and three others are killed in Benghazi, the president of Libya says it was an attack with possible terror links, correct?

HICKS: Yes, sir, that's what I recall.

GOWDY: Did the president of Libya mention a spontaneous protest related to a video?

HICKS: No, sir.

GOWDY: When Ambassador Stevens talked to you, perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you?

HICKS: He said, “Greg, we're under attack.”

GOWDY: Would a highly decorated career diplomat have told you, or Washington, had there been a demonstration outside his facility that day?

HICKS: Yes, sir, he would have.

GOWDY: Did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration?

HICKS: No sir, he did not.

GOWDY: So fast forward, Mr. Hicks, to the Sunday talk shows and Ambassador Susan Rice. She blamed this attack on a video. In fact she did it five different times. What was your reaction to that?

HICKS: I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.

GOWDY: Did she talk to you before she went on the five Sunday talk shows?

HICKS: No, sir.

GOWDY: You were the highest ranking official in Libya at the time, correct?

HICKS: Yes, sir.

GOWDY: And she did not bother to have a conversation with you before she went on national television?

HICKS: No, sir.

GOWDY: So Ambassador Rice directly contradicts the evidence on the ground in Libya, she directly contradicts the president of Libya, she directly contradicts the last statement uttered by Ambassador Stevens!

That exchange is so dumb, in so many ways, that it beggars description. It would take all day to correct the errors, embellishments and logical gaps put on display in that passage.

That said, let’s get clear on one basic thing Gowdy kept saying in that remarkable passage.

Rather clearly, Gowdy was saying that Rice should have taken her brief that day from the Libyan president, not from U.S. intelligence! She should have said what the Libyan president said, not what the CIA had said about the events in question.

Just marvel at Gowdy'a analysis! The Libyan president hadn’t mentioned a spontaneous protest. For that reason, Ambassador Rice shouldn’t have mentioned a spontaneous protest either!

According to the outraged Gowdy, Rice “directly contradict[ed] the president of Libya!” Can Susan Rice really do that?

Americans, can we talk?

For better or worse, the CIA had described a spontaneous protest. The CIA had described such a protest/demonstration right from its original talking points on.

And here’s a minor clue for Gowdy and for the ridiculous Hicks: Rice was representing the United States government on TV that day, not the Libyan president!

That exchange between Gowdy and Hicks is death-defyingly stupid. Gowdy is the instigator, but Hicks plays right along.

By the way, how large are the gonads on Hicks? Given what actually happened during the Benghazi attack, this passage is simply astounding:

GOWDY: When Ambassador Stevens talked to you, perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you?

HICKS: He said, “Greg, we're under attack.”

GOWDY: Would a highly decorated career diplomat have told you, or Washington, had there been a demonstration outside his facility that day?

HICKS: Yes, sir, he would have.

GOWDY: Did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration?

HICKS: No sir, he did not.

By now, the intelligence community has decided that there was no pre-existing demonstration in Benghazi that day. If that is correct, then their original assessment was wrong.

That said, Ambassador Stevens had little chance to discuss this matter with Hicks. You see, Hicks failed to answer the telephone the first two times Stevens called from Benghazi, where he was under attack. As Hicks testified, he “was relaxing” in his villa, “watching a television show that I particularly like.” For that reason, he said he didn’t answer his phone the first two times the ambassador tried to reach him.

It really takes a major pair to discuss what Stevens didn’t say on the phone that night. As Hicks testified, when Stevens finally did get through, he only had time to say a few words before his line went dead.

Under these circumstances, it’s astounding to see the way Hicks and Gowdy went on about what Stevens didn’t say. But this is the way our discourse has worked for the past many years.

Hicks and Gowdy behaved like fools, but Maureen Dowd was moved by what Hicks said. Your country has had this massive cultural problem for a good many years.

Starting Monday night, the young millionaires on The One True Channel will have the chance to sort through this mess. Based on their past performance, do you think there’s any chance that they will know how to do that? That they will be willing to fight?

To be sure, they'll tell you that Fox is wrong. But will they challenge mainstream players like Dowd? Will they challenge the gutless reporting in the New York Times?

We think the odds on that aren't good. We'll discuss this problem all week.