KT McFarland: Obama Middle East Policy 'Abject Failure' Because He Did The Opposite Of Bush


Another day on Fox, another day in GOP upside down land. On this Monday's edition of America's Newsroom, their so-called "national security analyst" KT McFarland gave their viewers a big dose of revisionist history, and continued their distortions and conspiracy theories over the attacks on our compound in Benghazi -- only this time with a new twist -- if President Obama had just acted more like George W. Bush with our Middle East policy, maybe he'd be having less problems there -- because we all know how well that worked out for everyone.

McFarland was pushing some of these same lies on Benghazi a month ago, as Media Matters documented here: Fox's McFarland Invents Facts To Accuse Obama Admin. Of Abandoning Americans In Benghazi:

Fox's K.T. McFarland claimed that no additional forces were sent to help Americans at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, while it was attacked and claimed that this was "probably a political decision." But before McFarland made her claims on Fox, State Department officials had already said that when agents in the compound requested aid during the attack, additional forces from both Benghazi and Tripoli responded. Read on...

Of course, coming on Fox and lying is nothing new for McFarland. She was more than happy to play along and feign ignorance on the Romney 47 percent recordings with Greta Van Susteren back in September. She was heaping praise on Romney despite his lack of foreign policy experience and comparing him to St. Ronnie back in August. And she was giving wingnut Michele Bachmann cover for her part in the anti-Clinton protests in Egypt back in July.

Rough transcript of the exchange on Fox below the fold.

HEMMER: There are new allegations now the high level cover up over the events leading to the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi Libya. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl making that suggestion yesterday on the shows.

KYL: I think there are three questions that have to be answered. Why weren't the warnings about the need for security heeded? Why weren’t the requests for help during the terrorist attack answered? And why did the administration think it had to cover up all of the things that occurred before by putting out to the American people a narrative that I think will turn out to be absolutely false.

HEMMER: Three critical questions there. KT McFarland is our Fox's national security analysts and good morning to you. Is Senator Kyl onto something there when he questioned this?

MCFARLAND: I don't know. They've lied throughout. They they denied security request prior to. They denied requests for reinforcements during the attack and they continue to cover up about it. Now the question is, they've had so many different stories that you don't know what happened. Now, the question I've gotta' have is not what happened, Why didn't happen? Why did they feel they have to cover from the very beginning. Because, I think their entire Middle East policy turned out to be an abject failure.

HEMMER: If that were the case and that would have to be a decision that was made in the early hours of this attack in Benghazi. Would you agree with that?

MCFARLAND: Absolutely, and here's why. Here's the mindset is they had going into this. Everything that George Bush did, the Obama administration said, we'll do the opposite. If George Bush lead from the front, we'll lead from behind. George Bush went in on the ground in Iraq. We're gonna' go in from the air in Libya.

George Bush used contractors to provide security. We're going to use those Libyan guys to provide security in Libya. The problem was the Libyans weren't up to the job. The administration has looked at all these countries. They've helped topple dictators. Now they would dictators, but they were pro-American dictators and they've kept the peace with Israel for forty years.

What are you now seeing in its place? You're seeing country after country either in chaos, or electing an anti-American, anti-Islam... Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

HEMMER: So what what you're arguing is that they took all these decisions and flipped them on their head, 180 degree turn.


HEMMER: How's that working out?

MCFARLAND: Well, it's not working out real well. For them, I think they've gotten away with it so far. You know, the calls for what what really happened and Benghazi, you know, you and Fox News have been carrying out the call. No other mainstream media's really paid attention. They didn't even pay attention until it became a sex scandal with David Petraeus. Then everybody paid attention a little bit, but mostly about the sex scandal.

Now here we are ten weeks later. We still don't have any explanation of what happened, or why it happened or who did it. Ultimately there will be hearings. Ultimately people will come forward and you will know what really happened. But will it be too late? I don't know. To meet the bigger question is why is the Middle East now in flames?

HEMMER: Okay and that's a regional question that you say is change entirely. And what you would argue is that we're on the road losing the entire Middle East.

MCFARLAND: When the President said we're want to pivot to Asia, we're getting out of the Middle East. We've gotten out of Iraq. We are... we still have bases there, but slowly but surely we're withdrawing from that part of the world.

Now what is taking our place? All the countries that have relied on us and several without America to back us up, they're all going to start making accommodations. They're going to accommodate to the growing regional power, which is Iran and they're going to worry about the Muslim Brotherhood in their own countries. Just watch. Jordan will be next.

HEMMER: Hmm... Jordan next.


HEMMER: Amman Jordan?

MCFARLAND: Amman Jordan, a monarchy, a country that has had a peace agreement with Israel, they have a Muslim Brotherhood very active in Jordan and there are now protests against the king.

HEMMER: Well, it is true there is a power over vacuum in that region and the world. Back here though, Senator McCain was talking about Susan Rice.


HEMMER: And he is suggesting now that she should testify because we need to hear her out. Now some have parsed that and suggested he has softened his language. Do you see it that way?

MCFARLAND: No. I think what he really wants to do is get Susan Rice in confirmation hearings because if she has confirmation hearings, what's the first question they're going to ask you? Who gave you those talking points? Who rewrote the CIA memos? She'll be under oath. She'll have to tell the truth.

HEMMER: But does it stop with Susan Rice? Because Lindsey Graham was out yesterday saying I blame the president above everybody else for what happened Libya.

MCFARLAND: I think what the administration wants to avoid is Congressional hearings of any sort into what really happened in Benghazi.

HEMMER: Is that possible?

MCFARLAND: You bet it is. If they have a confirmation hearing of Secretary Rice, the first question she's going to be asked is, who wrote those talking points for you, why did you go out, even days later when it was obvious to every housewife in America that it was a terrorist attack, why did you go out and continue to blaming YouTube video? Why did you continue to say that it was a flash mob that got out of control?


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.