• 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

pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hicks has said he was demoted but it isn't true, it was his choice to come back to the sates. Pity party anyone.:(



The State Department on Wednesday rejected charges by Gregory B. Hicks, the former deputy ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, that he was demoted and treated unfairly after he criticized the department’s performance during and after the September terrorist attack in Benghazi.

“The Department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks,” said Patrick Ventrell, acting deputy spokesman for the State Department.

In House testimony, Hicks said that despite receiving high praise for his performance during the Benghazi crisis from President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, he was later given a “blistering critique of my management style” by Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for the Near East.

Hicks said family concerns were the “overriding” reason for his decision not to return to Libya. But he said he also felt that “I would never be comfortable working there” after the criticism. When he voluntarily withdrew from his assignment in Tripoli, Hicks said, he was given a State Department job in Washington that he considered a demotion.

Hicks’s decision took him out of the annual assignment cycle, and difficulty in finding a suitable assignment was “not uncommon” in such situations, Ventrell said.

“However, the Department worked with him to find a suitable temporary assignment and succeeded,” he said. “Mr. Hicks still receives the same salary and has the same employment status and rank as before. Per standard procedure, Mr. Hicks recently submitted a preference list for his next assignment and is under consideration along with other Foreign Service employees.”

State Department disputes diplomat’s charges of retaliation - The Washington Post​
 
I'm sure faceless-bureaucrat #327 is telling the truth, and not the guy with his reputation and career on the line.
 
OK let me think here. should I believe a man that has given 22 years of his life to serve the American public who has an impeccable record who has nothing gain from not telling the truth about his demotion or an administration who has been caught in more lies then i can count and who has everything to gain from their lies about not demoting him

I'm willing to bet that Karen DeYoung the author of that article was one of 14 reporters that attended that closed off the record meeting with Jay Carney
 
Last edited:
........it's always what happens after the fact, that gets people in trouble.

when you call someone a liar, they usually don't sit by and take it.

expect a response from mr. hicks.
 
trfjr said:
OK let me think here. should I believe a man that has given 22 years of his life to serve the American public who has an impeccable record who has nothing gain from not telling the truth about his demotion or an administration who has been caught in more lies then i can count and who has everything to gain from their lies about not demoting him

I'm willing to bet that Karen DeYoung the author of that article was one of 14 reporters that attended that closed off the record meeting with Jay Carney
Click to expand...
Are you implying she lied? Why would she jeopardize her career in journalism that way? That does make a it of sense.
 
pbrauer said:
Are you implying she lied? Why would she jeopardize her career in journalism that way? That does make a it of sense.
Click to expand...

Not at all. She simply has to write the State Departments' version of things and report it as the story. An of course she would do that - she has an ideological predisposition to protect the administration.

As for Hicks, if he wasn't demoted, then the whole "Oh he's just bitter about being demoted and that's why he's making up all this crazy stuff about Benghazi" narrative kinda goes away, now, doesn't it? :) Gotta pick your poison, can't try to smear a decent man in mutually contradicting ways, there, pbrauer.
 
pbrauer said:
Are you implying she lied? Why would she jeopardize her career in journalism that way? That does make a it of sense.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying the author lied I am saying the information that was given to her is a lie. would like to add the Washington Post isn't known for their journalistic ethics they have been caring the water for this administration from day one
 
cpwill said:
Not at all. She simply has to write the State Departments' version of things and report it as the story. An of course she would do that - she has an ideological predisposition to protect the administration.

As for Hicks, if he wasn't demoted, then the whole "Oh he's just bitter about being demoted and that's why he's making up all this crazy stuff about Benghazi" narrative kinda goes away, now, doesn't it? :) Gotta pick your poison, can't try to smear a decent man in mutually contradicting ways, there, pbrauer.
Click to expand...

What do you make of 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.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
Not at all. She simply has to write the State Departments' version of things and report it as the story. An of course she would do that - she has an ideological predisposition to protect the administration.

As for Hicks, if he wasn't demoted, then the whole "Oh he's just bitter about being demoted and that's why he's making up all this crazy stuff about Benghazi" narrative kinda goes away, now, doesn't it? :) Gotta pick your poison, can't try to smear a decent man in mutually contradicting ways, there, pbrauer.
Click to expand...

Well done.

pbrauer said:
What do you make of this?
Click to expand...

Why is he lying?
 
StringBean said:
I'm sure faceless-bureaucrat #327 is telling the truth, and not the guy with his reputation and career on the line.
Click to expand...

mtm1963 said:
........it's always what happens after the fact, that gets people in trouble.

when you call someone a liar, they usually don't sit by and take it.

expect a response from mr. hicks.
Click to expand...

trfjr said:
I'm not saying the author lied I am saying the information that was given to her is a lie. would like to add the Washington Post isn't known for their journalistic ethics they have been caring the water for this administration from day one
Click to expand...
I amended my information in post #8, now should we call Mr. Hicks a liar?:roll:
 
justabubba said:
because he does not want to acknowledge he brought this on himself
Click to expand...

And what evidence do you have that he is lying? Why would he lie about being demoted. And exactly what did he bring on himself??
 
All Hicks has to do is give written permission for the State Department to release his personnel records to the press, and they can see for themselves whether he was "demoted", or is still at the same rank and pay as he was before. Simple, really. One wonders why he wouldn't do that.
 
DiAnna said:
All Hicks has to do is give written permission for the State Department to release his personnel records to the press, and they can see for themselves whether he was "demoted", or is still at the same rank and pay as he was before. Simple, really. One wonders why he wouldn't do that.
Click to expand...

if you are asking this of hicks, have all the people release their personnel records as it relates to the situation.
 
pbrauer said:
What do you make of this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the picture of the ambassador being dragged through the streets must have convinced Hick's wife.
 
pbrauer said:
Are you implying she lied? Why would she jeopardize her career in journalism that way? That does make a it of sense.
Click to expand...

Obama lied, he told the American people while campaigning for reelection (give me a second chance) throughout 2012 that Al Qaeda was on the run and was being decimated. Obama lied for his own political gain to get reelected.

Those who were informed were well aware that when Obama took the oath of POTUS (twice) that Al Qaeda base of operations were confined to two parts of the world, Yemen and the Horn of Africa and a presence in Northern Pakistan.

In less than four years of Obama's first term in the White House we find out that Al Qaeda was running all over the Middle East and North Africa expanding their base of operations. I won't even touch on how much the Muslim Brotherhood has gained power during the Obama administration.
 
mtm1963 said:
if you are asking this of hicks, have all the people release their personnel records as it relates to the situation.
Click to expand...

Okay. Everyone who says the State department demoted them because of what they said about Bengazi should release their personnel records if the State Department denies it ever happened. Satisfied? :lol:
 
mtm1963 said:
out of context quotes.
Click to expand...

This is out of context??

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..​
.
 
pbrauer said:
This is out of context??

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..​
.
Click to expand...

the full text of the conversation, not just a snip.
 
DiAnna said:
Okay. Everyone who says the State department demoted them because of what they said about Bengazi should release their personnel records if the State Department denies it ever happened. Satisfied? :lol:
Click to expand...

ask it of one person, ask it of the others too.
 
mtm1963 said:
ask it of one person, ask it of the others too.
Click to expand...

I just agreed with you. Hicks says he was demoted. DOS says he wasn't, and retains the same rank and salary. If anyone else claims to have been demoted because of speaking out against Bengazi while the DOS denies it happened, they too should prove their allegations. Or STFU.

My position is completely consistent. Yours, however, makes no sense whatsoever. Anyway, I'm done here. These discussions are never about issues, they always end up being partisian finger-pointing bitch sessions. Useless waste of time! :)
 
DiAnna said:
All Hicks has to do is give written permission for the State Department to release his personnel records to the press, and they can see for themselves whether he was "demoted", or is still at the same rank and pay as he was before. Simple, really. One wonders why he wouldn't do that.
Click to expand...

DiAnna said:
Okay. Everyone who says the State department demoted them because of what they said about Bengazi should release their personnel records if the State Department denies it ever happened. Satisfied? :lol:
Click to expand...

DiAnna said:
I just agreed with you. Hicks says he was demoted. DOS says he wasn't, and retains the same rank and salary. If anyone else claims to have been demoted because of speaking out against Bengazi while the DOS denies it happened, they too should prove their allegations. Or STFU.

My position is completely consistent. Yours, however, makes no sense whatsoever. Anyway, I'm done here. These discussions are never about issues, they always end up being partisian finger-pointing bitch sessions. Useless waste of time! :)
Click to expand...

so you deem these posts as being consistent? OK!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom