War of words

>>> thomas ricks tells the truth and fox news doesn't like it a bit. yesterday ricks called fox news out for its plit tieization of benghazi .

>> i think benghazi was hyped by this network especially. when sgl when you have four people dead including the ambassador, how do you call that hype?

>> how many security contractors died in iraq, do you know?

>> i don't.

>> nobody does because nobody cared. i think that the emphasis on benghazi has been extremely political because fox was priet operating as a wing of the republican party .

>> that interview was cut short and following his appearance, ricks tells politico he saw some surprise faces in the hallway over at fox after that hit. "one staff person said she thought i had been rude. my feeling was that they asked my opinion and i gave it." and it doesn't end there. fox executive vice president michael clement tells the hollywood reporter when mr. ricks ignored the anchor's question and it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself and his book, he apologized in our offices afterward but doesn't have the strength of character to do that publicly? but ricks says, no, that's not what happened. please ask mr. clement what the words of my supposed apology were. i'd be interested to know. frankly i don't remember any such apology. to when clement fired back. "i'm surprised by the general's utter dishonesty. i'll refresh his mem ri. he said i'm sorry from a nonstop book tour. perhaps now he can get some rest." so here's where we're at. fox is taking issue with the way mr. ricks criticized the network. they don't like to be publically challenged, but nobody at fox is taking issue with the substance of mr. ricks critique. guess they must agree. tonight in our survey, i asked, will republicans say no to tax cuts just to spite president obama ? 95% of you say yes, 5% of you say no.

>>> coming up, i'll show you why black friday has republicans