Fox News’s Newest Benghazi Pundit Is Terry Bradshaw
Yesterday, Fox News Channel brought in an unlikely political commentator to discuss Benghazi:
Out Numbered host Andrea Tantaros began the segment by highlighting a Fox News interview with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, where host Bret Baier asked the same questions about the Benghazi attacks that had been answered a year earlier.
“Is this going to hurt the trust deficit even more, and widen that gap with voters if she continues to basically deny the truth?” Tantaros wondered. “That’s a classic Clinton move, the triangulation, trying to have it both ways. Bill [Clinton] tries to have it other ways in other places.”
“Do you trust Hillary Clinton?” the Fox News host asked Bradshaw.
“Not really,” he grimaced. “Don’t particularly like her, never have. The best thing to do here because she’s selling a book — the only reason she’s on Fox is because she’s promoting books.”
“I always say this, if you tell the truth, you don’t have to worry about covering up some other story,” he continued. “The truth sets you free. Just tell the truth. And now you can hang it — you’ll never forget it, and it becomes your foundation.”
Bradshaw opined that “if she’s going to decide to run for president, she’s going to have to answer for the Benghazi deal.”
In conclusion, the NFL analyst argued that nobody could “buy” that an anti-Muslim video would have triggered attacks in Benghazi.
Does this mean that we’ll be getting Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly on Fox NFL Sunday in September?
Here’s the video:
TB was never the sharpest knife in the drawer.
But the fox News audience isn’t either.
Peas in an intellectually challenged pod.
Hey Terry? Why don’t you give it a try? TURN. OFF. FOX. NEWS. Just doing that will leave you better informed.
Cool how Bradshaw is blazing the punditry trail for concussion victims.
It’s interesting to me that the focus of conservative interest in the Benghazi attack has been squarely and exclusively on how it effects the president politically. Nothing else. They don’t seem to be focused on the actual perpetrators, only how long it took Obama to catch one. They don’t seem to be focused on the ongoing situation in Libya or what the militants are effecting the political situation there. No, the only thing that is at all interesting is whether or not this hurts Obama or Clinton politically.
Not trying to be snarky, but what is the point of this post? 95% of it was taken from another blog. You wrote a simple introductory sentence, and then followed it up with a lame joke. Why even bother?
Gosh, maybe Tim McCarver will help me understand the IRS scandal.
Has anyone ever seen TB and Jenos in the same place at the same time?
I’m just sayin’….
Wait…Jenos leading a football team…any team…????
I guess I’ve just had to much caffeine.
I don’t see why people think having Terry Bradshaw comment on world affairs and politics is risible; it’s not like those other mokes on the screen with him are any smarter than he is.
A lot of concussion activity went into his opinions about Benghazi and Hillary Clinton.
Hey, Fox is just trying the old ‘appealing to authority’ trick. It works for marketing diet fads and Pepsi, why wouldn’t it work for hawking their nonsense?
This is a lot like asking Donald Trump’s opinion on anything other than hairpieces and multiple marriages.
@jewelbomb:
Click “Back” on your browser. Now look at the section that has this link. You see how it says “Quick Takes?”
Well, quick takes are short posts that might be interesting to the purveyors of this blog, but which the author doesn’t want or care to put a lot of time analyzing. “Fluff pieces” you might say.
In other words, quitcherbitchin.
@Neil Hudelson: Yeah, I understand all that. Nevertheless, the phrase “quick take,” at least as I understand it, implies that the author is going to provide his or her “take” (i.e., opinion) on a story. The further implication is that it’s going to be fairly brief.
In this case, I’m not really sure the author provided an opinion. Instead we get a hopelessly overused Patrick Stewart “facepalm” graphic that seems to suggest that the story or the subject of the story is, like, dumb or something. Then comes a post lifted from Raw Story and some lame joke.
I mean, whatever; the blog is free and its authors don’t own me anything. Still, perhaps the slightest smidgen of content or opinion might be warranted. I get it, Doug thinks some old footballer talking about Benghazi is stupid or something. Not really sure why Bradshaw’s opinion is less valid than all of the other clowns on Fox news, and I guess I should just accept that the post’s author can’t be bothered to provide an explanation.
In other words: notgonnaquitmybitchen
@jewelbomb: Maybe Doug just thought it was humorous and that some of us would get a giggle out of it? I suppose if one is w/o humor they might miss that point.
OK, But what makes you think any of us give a rat’s a$$ what you think? And for the record, I skipped 99% of your 2nd post and just read the last sentence. That’s how much I care.
Hey- I agree he is no expert, but how different is his opinion from any citizen, much less paid jerks like Bill (tiny, chip on both shoulders) Mahr (sp), or Jon Stewart ? Who gives a crap what ANYBODY says in this pathetic facebook waiting for their turn to talk society ?
@al-Ameda: By the way junior, I see you dig soccer- well this guy played a bit more of a mans sport, I doubt there are any head injuries in your little dance, other than fake falls when brushed by another dancer.
@ Michael Gravatt
Here’s a hint – being a dick is not manly.
@Michael Gravatt:
Junior? I don’t need to be lectured by people pimping a sport (that I like a lot) where wide receivers often fake pass interference when a defensive back looks at them the wrong way. Seriously, I’m sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities.
@Michael Gravatt:
Red Card…
Terry “couldn’t spell ‘cat’ if you spotted him the ‘c’ & the ‘a'” Bradshaw? Really, FOX?
Although “Head injuries in American football make me a man” should get a prize for something. Compensation, maybe.
In other news, Jeff Foxworthy was asked by the Fukushima people his thoughts on solving the cryogenic deficiencies plaguing their “ice wall” solution of containing radioactive waste water and Larry the cable guy was asked to comment on the elegant resolution of the Banach-Tarski paradox first postulated by Johnny van Neumann.