Fox News interviewed author Tom Ricks on Monday about this new book "The Generals," and it ended abruptly when host Jon Scott asked the author to comment on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Ricks said, “the incident had been generally hyped by Fox News especially." He added, "I think the emphasis on Benghazihas been extremely political, partly because Fox is operating as the wing of the Republican Party."
Later, Ricks mentioned that the interview lasted about half the length as originally planned and that a Fox News representative called him rude after the interview.
The feud between Ricks and Fox News carried on Tuesday as well. The network’s executive Vice President Michael Clemente told the Hollywood Reporterthat Ricks has "apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."
Ricks, however fired back saying that he never apologized in an email to the Hollywood Reporter, Ricks wrote, "Please ask Mr. Clemente what the words of my supposed apology were. I'd be interested to know. Frankly, I don't remember any such apology."
Ricks emailed Clemente on Tuesday afternoon to clear that he did not apologize after his segment with Fox News.
Check out a copy of his email below:
To clarify my comments for you: I did not apologize.
As it happened, I ran into Bret Baier as I emerged from the interview. We know each other from working at the Pentagon. He asked if I was serious in saying that Fox had hyped Bengahzi, and I said I was. We discussed that. It was cordial exchange. (I wouldn’t mention this private conversation except that you apparently are quoting my hallway conversations as part of your attack.)
Later, as I was leaving, the booker or producer (I am not sure what her title was) said she thought I had been rude. I said I might have been a bit snappish because I am tired of book tour. This was in no way an apology 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.