• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Department disputes diplomat’s charges of retaliation

cpwill said:
Yeah you said that earlier.

And then I pointed out that since Hicks had never said he was lowered by paygrade, but only demoted by billet (which requires no paperwork) then this claim by yours that he was lying was either A) uninformed (which, given how you identify yourself, is unlikely) or B) a deliberate lie in the form of a strawman smear on Hicks in an attempt to discredit him.

As I recall, I asked you to explain which one it was, and you never responded. Huh. Wonder why that is....


hicks said he was demoted
and by the absence of paperwork to that effect, it must be accepted that no demotion happened
which makes hicks a liar

Hicks said he was demoted by billet, which requires no paperwork. Are you saying that you are unaware of this and so the proper answer is option is "A) uninformed" ?
 
False, and obtusely so.:cool:

Yeah, Bubba is in a bit of a bind here. Sort of like the earlier point where they wanted to say he was lying about being demoted, but only testifying because he was disgruntled from being demoted.

Truly the need to protect the administration by smearing what appears to be a dedicated civil servant who put his life on the line for his country here is... well, 'distasteful' is probably the best word that won't get me censored.
 
Yeah, Bubba is in a bit of a bind here. Sort of like the earlier point where they wanted to say he was lying about being demoted, but only testifying because he was disgruntled from being demoted.

Truly the need to protect the administration by smearing what appears to be a dedicated civil servant who put his life on the line for his country here is... well, 'distasteful' is probably the best word that won't get me censored.

there is no smear
it is obvious to anyone who wants to see the truth that hicks is lying
as a civil servant, had he been demoted in ANY way, there would be a massive paper trail to document that action
and hicks would have produced said paperwork to document the harassment/intimidation
that he did not tells us hicks is lying
as usual, the reich wing, and its propaganda machine, have nothing factual to offer
 
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’ - The Washington Post

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios
 
then i look forward to seeing the paperwork which always accompanies a demotion

As was already pointed out to you by another poster, "demotion" as commonly used in the Foreign Service need not (and usually does not) refer to a formal reduction in grade. It refers to a reduction in responsibilities, prestige and prospects. As a veteran of nearly 34 years in the federal service, I can assure you that it's just as real without the formality of paperwork.:cool:
 
The Republicans are coming at the Obama Administration with an army of strawmen. It'll be quite the bonfire when its all over but, sadly for them, this straw man lies bleeding on the floor and won't make it to the party.

WAPO is not the Republicans

images


Read em and weep
 
As was already pointed out to you by another poster, "demotion" as commonly used in the Foreign Service need not (and usually does not) refer to a formal reduction in grade. It refers to a reduction in responsibilities, prestige and prospects. As a veteran of nearly 34 years in the federal service, I can assure you that it's just as real without the formality of paperwork.:cool:

pity that after 34 years you do not understand what a demotion consists of within your own organization
 
Yeah, that snip of the conversation doesn't tell the whole story. Hicks was told by Pope that anyone opting to leave Benghazi would get a good position out of it. But rather than getting a prestigious post after leaving Benghazi he was shoved in a deep dark hole in the State Department. It was the lack of a good position as promised that lead Hicks to see it as a demotion, he kept his salary, but none of the power or influence of his prior position.
 
Got it. You're not a serious discussion partner. Thanks for playing.:cool:

absolutely serious
so serious i do not pretend hicks did not say he was demoted tho he actually made such a misrepresentation
 
He misrepresented nothing. The only shortfall here is your understanding.:roll:

Yes he did.

Embassy Staff Undercuts 'Whistleblower' Testimony On Benghazi

Staff who served in Libya with Gregory Hicks, the GOP’s primary “whistleblower” in this week’s hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks, undercut his story that State Department officials demoted him as retribution for speaking out, instead telling ThinkProgress about a man who one described as “the worst manager I’ve ever seen in the Foreign Service.”

Throughout his testimony on Wednesday, Hicks seemed certain that any critique of his leadership style while serving as deputy chief of mission in Libya was based solely around anger related to his stance on Benghazi. He also blamed his subsequent assignment after being pulled from Libya in mid-Oct. 2012 on his speaking out against the Obama administration’s response to the attacks.

However, ThinkProgress has talked to staffers based in Libya who counter Hicks’ portrayal of both his own performance and the State Department’s alleged response to him speaking out. A meeting between Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and Hicks took place in Tripoli prior to his removal from Libya, but not under the same circumstances Hicks sought to portray. Counter to Hicks’ story of an unwarranted reassignment, the staff was upset with Hicks’ performance since he was first assigned to Tripoli on July 31, and told Jones as much prior to her meeting with Hicks.

“[Jones] and her aide had one-on-one meetings with us to see if [Hicks] could be guided into being a better leader,” a State Department employee posted to Libya told ThinkProgress. “Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post,” said the employee, who spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity, as they were not cleared to discuss personnel issues with the press.

A second State Department employee present in Libya before and during the Benghazi attacks confirmed the meetings occurred. Assistant Secretary Jones’ meetings with the staff prior to Oct. 2 were “entirely” focused on Hicks’ performance, according to this second employee, who also believed that Hicks should be removed from his position. “The group of us who were here during the attacks, we sat here two nights ago and watched [the hearing] with our jaws dropped,” the staffer said, referring to Hicks’ claim that he was demoted out of retribution for speaking out.

“He was removed from here because he was a disaster as a manager,” the second employee went on to say, expressing the belief that Hicks’ reassignment had “nothing to do with him being a whistleblower, it had everything to do with his management capacity or lack thereof.” This statement contradicts the narrative promoted on conservative media outlets that Hicks was being forced to remain silent and being punished for speaking out.

Continue reading at the link
 
Last edited:
Yes he did.

Embassy Staff Undercuts 'Whistleblower' Testimony On Benghazi

Staff who served in Libya with Gregory Hicks, the GOP’s primary “whistleblower” in this week’s hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks, undercut his story that State Department officials demoted him as retribution for speaking out, instead telling ThinkProgress about a man who one described as “the worst manager I’ve ever seen in the Foreign Service.”

Throughout his testimony on Wednesday, Hicks seemed certain that any critique of his leadership style while serving as deputy chief of mission in Libya was based solely around anger related to his stance on Benghazi. He also blamed his subsequent assignment after being pulled from Libya in mid-Oct. 2012 on his speaking out against the Obama administration’s response to the attacks.

However, ThinkProgress has talked to staffers based in Libya who counter Hicks’ portrayal of both his own performance and the State Department’s alleged response to him speaking out. A meeting between Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and Hicks took place in Tripoli prior to his removal from Libya, but not under the same circumstances Hicks sought to portray. Counter to Hicks’ story of an unwarranted reassignment, the staff was upset with Hicks’ performance since he was first assigned to Tripoli on July 31, and told Jones as much prior to her meeting with Hicks.

“[Jones] and her aide had one-on-one meetings with us to see if [Hicks] could be guided into being a better leader,” a State Department employee posted to Libya told ThinkProgress. “Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post,” said the employee, who spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity, as they were not cleared to discuss personnel issues with the press.

A second State Department employee present in Libya before and during the Benghazi attacks confirmed the meetings occurred. Assistant Secretary Jones’ meetings with the staff prior to Oct. 2 were “entirely” focused on Hicks’ performance, according to this second employee, who also believed that Hicks should be removed from his position. “The group of us who were here during the attacks, we sat here two nights ago and watched [the hearing] with our jaws dropped,” the staffer said, referring to Hicks’ claim that he was demoted out of retribution for speaking out.

“He was removed from here because he was a disaster as a manager,” the second employee went on to say, expressing the belief that Hicks’ reassignment had “nothing to do with him being a whistleblower, it had everything to do with his management capacity or lack thereof.” This statement contradicts the narrative promoted on conservative media outlets that Hicks was being forced to remain silent and being punished for speaking out.

Continue reading at the link

ThinkProgress? Really?:lamo
Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM). In every US Embassy everywhere the DCM is the Ambassador's enforcer, and often therefore the least popular senior officer in the Embassy. This is no evidence of anything.:cool:
 
ThinkProgress? Really?:lamo
Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM). In every US Embassy everywhere the DCM is the Ambassador's enforcer, and often therefore the least popular senior officer in the Embassy. This is no evidence of anything.:cool:

now you want evidence
when hicks insisted he was demoted but cannot produce the paper trail that accompanies one in the federal service, you found that unessential to continue believing his lie
by your posting history, you show no interest in knowing the truth
 
now you want evidence
when hicks insisted he was demoted but cannot produce the paper trail that accompanies one in the federal service, you found that unessential to continue believing his lie
by your posting history, you show no interest in knowing the truth

If you knew anything about the federal service you would not post such nonsense. Hicks used the term "demoted" as it is used in 99% of discussions: his responsibilities were reduced and his career prospects were injured. There is almost never a formal demotion in any branch of the federal service because that's too labor intensive and it takes forever. Real demotions (as I have described) are much more common. :cool:
 
ThinkProgress? Really?:lamo
Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM). In every US Embassy everywhere the DCM is the Ambassador's enforcer, and often therefore the least popular senior officer in the Embassy. This is no evidence of anything.:cool:

Okay, why did he say this?

REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS (R-TN): So when you came back to the United States, were you planning on going back to Libya?

MR. HICKS: I was. I fully intended to do so.

REP. DESJARLAIS: And what do you think happened?

MR. HICKS: Based on the criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there. And in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We'd endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed -- I accepted an offer of what's called a no-fault curtailment. That means that there's -- there would be no criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions. And in fact Ambassador Pope, when he made the offer to everyone in Tripoli when he arrived -- I mean Charge Pope -- when he arrived, he indicated that people could expect that they would get a good onward assignment out of that..

I think he used those two sentences to hide the fact he was in fact demoted.
 
Okay, why did he say this?

REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS (R-TN): So when you came back to the United States, were you planning on going back to Libya?

MR. HICKS: I was. I fully intended to do so.

REP. DESJARLAIS: And what do you think happened?

MR. HICKS: Based on the criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there. And in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We'd endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed -- I accepted an offer of what's called a no-fault curtailment. That means that there's -- there would be no criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions. And in fact Ambassador Pope, when he made the offer to everyone in Tripoli when he arrived -- I mean Charge Pope -- when he arrived, he indicated that people could expect that they would get a good onward assignment out of that..

I think he used those two sentences to hide the fact he was in fact demoted.

If I had to guess about some hidden motive for his non-return to Libya, I'd go with the family concerns. Twelve years of GWOT and an increasing number of unaccompanied posts have strained many Foreign Service families. Otherwise, he's the most credible witness in his own case.:cool:
 
If I had to guess about some hidden motive for his non-return to Libya, I'd go with the family concerns. Twelve years of GWOT and an increasing number of unaccompanied posts have strained many Foreign Service families. Otherwise, he's the most credible witness in his own case.:cool:
Yet, he said he fully intended to return, there is something fishy there.
 
Back
Top Bottom