• 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!

Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

You're right. He broke US law and was then pardoned. That's different. What US law did Obama break when it come to Benghazi?



Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your weak attempt at trying to paint "incompetence" in the same light as criminal action is beyond me. Lol, American economy destroyed, good lord, go out and get a job or try picking up a history book? It'd be nice.

First, as to the law, there are plenty. We still need more to back up this testimony, but, start with obstructing an investigation.

My suggestion is that you and other libs start looking at this objectively, and stop looking at it through protective lenses.
 
Actually by his own admittance it seems to describe him well. he admits to failing at his job, and then blames the administration for demoting him for a completely different reason despite clearly recognizing he failed to do his job.

I am sure everyone there felt like a failure. Ever hear of survivor's guilt? And he probably feels like a failure for not getting help to his dying friends. It doesn't matter that it was out of his hands. Have you ever been in a situation like that?

He is neither the best nor the worst Foreign Service Officer I have worked with and yet he has been effectively demoted while those who perform worse than him continue up the chain? The reasons are obvious.
 
Poor work? he is a whiner? he doesn't play well with others? For the same reasons every other person gets demoted and wants to blame some huge conspiracy for their own failures.

So it took them 22 years to figure that out?
 
That doesn't describe Greg Hicks, though.

I think grief and survivor guilt describes Mr. Hicks. By his own admission he failed to respond when tipsters phoned in on where the Ambassador was. He rightfully worried it was a trap to lure more Americans into an ambush, so it is a bit puzzling he felt others should have made the decision to throw more Americans into a night time melee that NO ONE knew what were the true facts in Benghazi.

I found his comment that never had a State department lawyer wanted to be present at a congressional fact finding meeting before. I didn't know how many times Mr.Hicks brief any Congressmen after a Consulate attack that caused the death of an Ambassador, can't have been too many. Seems very appropriate a State Counsel would be present at these meetings and Mr. Hicks should have welcomed that. I don't think too many folks truely thought Chaffetz was there in a non partisan capacity.

I don't attack Mr.Hicks for his grief or guilt, nor his failure to react when the tipsters phoned in to tell him where Ambassador Stevens had been taken. I've seen Senior NCOs suffer terribly when troops or close friends are lost and these men KNEW there would be deaths.

When it comes to the mis-statements made after the Benghazi attack I'd say the umbrage is staged partisan politics. As best as I can remember the beginning of a long and bloody reign of terror in Iraq that was the newly placed al-Queera in Iraq being described by Rumsfeld and Cheney as just a 'few dead enders' and the last gasp of a few 'die hards'. I seem to recall a few more than 4 Americans were killed in that affair.

What I do see is a very partisan attack designed to smear Hillary Clinton as the GOP sees her as a real threat in the 2016 Presidential Elections. However I don't see this being more than a blip on the news cycle. I reckon the vast majority of citizens see this as GOP grandstanding and attempting to profit politically from a tragic death. As another poster pointed out there has been a baker's dozen of similar attacks during the BushII administration.
 
The only thing tangible that has come out of this is that it should now be obvious to even the staunchest supporters of this administration that they lied about who was responsible. This in itself isn't going to bring down the regime, no one is going to jail, and I doubt anyone from the administration will even acknowledge it but at least it should now be obvious that, for whatever reason, this administration did NOT want to call it terrorism and had to be backed into a corner to do so.

Personally, I believe it was all related to election year politics. Is there any other reason they would so blatantly lie that makes sense?
 
By his own admission he failed to respond when tipsters phoned in on where the Ambassador was. He rightfully worried it was a trap to lure more Americans into an ambush, so it is a bit puzzling he felt others should have made the decision to throw more Americans into a night time melee that NO ONE knew what were the true facts in Benghazi.
We have people that specialize in that sort of thing… we call it a "military."


It’s a bit puzzling that others are puzzled by the idea that trained combat soldiers can perform in situations other than "it's daytime and all the facts are known."
 
The only thing tangible that has come out of this is that it should now be obvious to even the staunchest supporters of this administration that they lied about who was responsible. This in itself isn't going to bring down the regime
I’d have to agree – lying to cover up your incompetence is unethical, but not impeachable.
 
it appears to me someone wants to blame the administration for his crappy work which got him demoted. Seriously, do you actually believe every demoted person is the victim of some horrible conspiracy and that they were really good workers who are just victims? If you do believe that i have a great way for you to lose weight while making millions of dollars.

Suddenly libs hate whistle blowers. If someone at Walmart got demoted for saying negative things about them you would call them a hero.
 
We have people that specialize in that sort of thing… we call it a "military." It’s a bit puzzling that others are puzzled by the idea that trained combat soldiers can perform in situations other than "it's daytime and all the facts are known."

As a former trained combat soldier with the scars to prove it I'll pass on any lecture on what the 'military' can do. First there was no 101 waiting just one lift away. Far from not knowing all the facts NO facts were known other than contact was lost with Ambassador Stevens and there was a very confused mix of armed, and unarmed 'native' guards along with Libyan security forces in the area. The react force was very limited and not mortar proof, any air strikes had as good a chance of hitting civilians who have nothing to do with the attacks as any terrorist.

Mr.Hicks faults others who are not trained combat soldiers for not committing more forces into the melee, but hours later when informed of where Ambassador Stevens is HE refuses his Horatio moment. while the number of men available and how far each group was from Benghazi varies with each telling, NO force could have gotten there before Ambassador Stevens went down. what the React Force could do is add the the KIA we suffered and cause a great deal more uproar.

To put it in simple terms how many men would have had to ride to Custer's aide in order to save his command and how long did they have to do so before all the men had died?

Now the question I'd like an answer for is why on the eve of another 9-11 anniversary did the Ambassador leave the relatively secure Embassy for the well documented far more vulnerable Consulate? To meet a Turkish official? You mean they couldn't do that in Tripoli? Ambassador Stevens was a well known risk taker compared to men like Hicks. It is what it is. Taking risks is not without risk.

I can find no fault with Hicks or Stevens as humans don't always make the best decisions in hindsight, but this witch hunt is highly political and nothing of it's like was launched by the 'conservatives' who are so shocked by a consulate being attacked yet were not so shocked and demanding answers when a baker dozen was hit during the BushII years NOR felt the 'dead-enders' and 'die hards' was used to describe the start of al-Queera in Iraq's reign of terror was deliberate lying to them and the American people. (nor overly outraged by the BushII administration foot dragging and refusal to allow any cabinet members to give complete answers to Congress over the run-up or troop requirements AFTER the fall of Saddam.)
 
Mr.Hicks faults others who are not trained combat soldiers for not committing more forces into the melee,
Irrelevant.

but hours later when informed of where Ambassador Stevens is HE refuses his Horatio moment,
Huh? What are you talking about? Are you somehow trying to fault a 60-year old diplomat for not putting on combat gear and flying 400 miles to Benghazi?

while the number of men available and how far each group was from Benghazi varies with each telling, NO force could have gotten there before Ambassador Stevens went down.
Good thing the Obama administration was told beforehand when Ambassador Stevens was going to be killed so that they could plan things ahead of time.
 
Poor work? he is a whiner? he doesn't play well with others? For the same reasons every other person gets demoted and wants to blame some huge conspiracy for their own failures.

I would figure the party of self responsibility would recognize how much easier it is to blame others for your failure than to take a look at how you screwed up. But then again see my sig.

He didn't go along with this concocted BS about a video that Clinton and Obama made up. That is what got him demoted.

Geez, you libs look absolutely ridiculous right now. This is a blatant cover-up, and it's staring you right between your eyes.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
 
As a former trained combat soldier with the scars to prove it I'll pass on any lecture on what the 'military' can do. First there was no 101 waiting just one lift away. Far from not knowing all the facts NO facts were known other than contact was lost with Ambassador Stevens and there was a very confused mix of armed, and unarmed 'native' guards along with Libyan security forces in the area. The react force was very limited and not mortar proof, any air strikes had as good a chance of hitting civilians who have nothing to do with the attacks as any terrorist.

Mr.Hicks faults others who are not trained combat soldiers for not committing more forces into the melee, but hours later when informed of where Ambassador Stevens is HE refuses his Horatio moment. while the number of men available and how far each group was from Benghazi varies with each telling, NO force could have gotten there before Ambassador Stevens went down. what the React Force could do is add the the KIA we suffered and cause a great deal more uproar.

To put it in simple terms how many men would have had to ride to Custer's aide in order to save his command and how long did they have to do so before all the men had died?

Now the question I'd like an answer for is why on the eve of another 9-11 anniversary did the Ambassador leave the relatively secure Embassy for the well documented far more vulnerable Consulate? To meet a Turkish official? You mean they couldn't do that in Tripoli? Ambassador Stevens was a well known risk taker compared to men like Hicks. It is what it is. Taking risks is not without risk.

I can find no fault with Hicks or Stevens as humans don't always make the best decisions in hindsight, but this witch hunt is highly political and nothing of it's like was launched by the 'conservatives' who are so shocked by a consulate being attacked yet were not so shocked and demanding answers when a baker dozen was hit during the BushII years NOR felt the 'dead-enders' and 'die hards' was used to describe the start of al-Queera in Iraq's reign of terror was deliberate lying to them and the American people. (nor overly outraged by the BushII administration foot dragging and refusal to allow any cabinet members to give complete answers to Congress over the run-up or troop requirements AFTER the fall of Saddam.)

So why the instant blame on a video that nobody had ever heard of?
 
WTF is that? Did i get run over by the turnip
truck or something that would have me believe that is something official? You may be that gullible, i am not. before you go hunting for a credible source, those are not the results of an investigation and are the guesses made by people who admittedly made a mistake in their first theories which were corrected when they investigated. Like I told other republican guys, unless you can prove Ovbama is Omniscient, or at least had some way of magically knowing everything that happened in benghazi without an actual investigation, you are wrong. Your claim obama knowingly lied relies on him actually knowing what happened which none of this proves at all.

LOL !! Exactly ....." what is that " as you purposely chose to remain ignorant because it suites your Narrative.

THAT is as official as it can be.
 
Irrelevant.


Huh? What are you talking about? Are you somehow trying to fault a 60-year old diplomat for not putting on combat gear and flying 400 miles to Benghazi?


Good thing the Obama administration was told beforehand when Ambassador Stevens was going to be killed so that they could plan things ahead of time.

The terrorist blew a 12 foot hole in the Benghazzi Compound Wall ........on JUNE 6th.

There were repeated request for more security....that were ignored.

Yes SOMEONE should have known an attack was imminent.

Its fun wayching the Libs grasp desperately at irrelevent data when its clear Obama and Hillary Lied.
 
Irrelevant. Huh? What are you talking about? Are you somehow trying to fault a 60-year old diplomat for not putting on combat gear and flying 400 miles to Benghazi? Good thing the Obama administration was told beforehand when Ambassador Stevens was going to be killed so that they could plan things ahead of time.

The Horatio moment is an aggressive command decision, putting on battle gear and charging into battle is John Wayning it... ;)

Mr. Hicks admits he, like everyone else didn't respond in a timely fashion to information received. He feared an ambush.

Or BushI that involving US ground Forces in Somalia would bog us down in a mess there would be no easy extract from? Fact is there can be no 100%guarantee every attack overseas can be stopped without deaths, as the 13 that happened under BushII can attest.

I will further explore your thought on 'the military' and what they will do in the dark and under very confused conditions-

In Mogadishu as fellow soldiers spent a horrific night under constant attack with no food or water and very little ammo many fellow soldier who had missed the movement clambered to join their fellow soldiers- 'the military' refused them. When soldiers were slowly dying from wounds that surgery could save 'the military' refused to allow medivac choppers in.

So don't blanket say 'the military' would have charged blindly into that mess, INDIVIDUAL men to help their comrades, of course, but not their highers who would have to answer for such a gamble.
 
So why the instant blame on a video that nobody had ever heard of?

I'll ask Hillary next time I see her... :roll:

My guess is the riots and protests in Egypt over the movie al Jazzersize put on air...

and who says no one heard of it, thousands of Egyptians had by then...
 
I'll ask Hillary next time I see her... :roll:

My guess is the riots and protests in Egypt over the movie al Jazzersize put on air...

and who says no one heard of it, thousands of Egyptians had by then...

No, they hadn't. It played zero role in Benghazi, yet Clinton ran out there in a matter of hours rushing to blame it on something other than herself.

They did play it endlessly on al Jazeera AFTER Hillary and Obama kept talking about it. Those two were the biggest promoters of the stupid thing.
 
The Horatio moment is an aggressive command decision, putting on battle
gear and charging into battle is John Wayning it... ;)

Mr. Hicks admits he, like everyone else didn't respond in a timely fashion to information received. He feared an ambush.

Or BushI that involving US ground Forces in Somalia would bog us down in a mess there would be no easy extract from? Fact is there can be no 100%guarantee every attack overseas can be stopped without deaths, as the 13 that happened under BushII can attest.

I will further explore your thought on 'the military' and what they will do in the dark and under very confused conditions-

In Mogadishu as fellow soldiers spent a horrific night under constant attack with no food or water and very little ammo many fellow soldier who had missed the movement clambered to join their fellow soldiers- 'the military' refused them. When soldiers were slowly dying from wounds that surgery could save 'the military' refused to allow medivac choppers in.

So don't blanket say 'the military' would have charged blindly into that mess, INDIVIDUAL men to help their comrades, of course, but not their highers who would have to answer for such a gamble.

Wow, people are still deflecting from this Cover-Up and dereliction by pointing at Bush ?

And that was a ridiculous generalization of what happened in Mogadishu.

A Soldier fell 60 feet as he repelled out of a Blackhawk, and that changed their tactical advantage as it took at least 2 people out of the battle.

If there is one thing to learn about Mogadishu it is we never leave a soldier or a American behind.

Obama and Hillary left the personel in Benghazzi behind, to die. Ignoring the repeated request for more security, ignoring the 12 foot hole that was blown in the Compound Wall IN JUNE.

Ignoring the fact that all other Western Nations pulled their people out.

And when the inevitable happened, they constructed a huge lie.

If one of you apologist can point to a obvious political narrative set up to hide a terrorist attack that happened on Bush 's watch then be my guest.

Right now, your'e defending low life scum of the earth people who woukd trade lives for political expediency.
 
I'll ask Hillary next time I see her... :roll:


My guess is the riots and protests in Egypt over the movie al Jazzersize put on air...

and who says no one heard of it, thousands of Egyptians had by then...

Oh BS, the Egyptian protest initially had NOTHING to do with a Video No One Saw.

The Obama administration needed that video distributed, publicized, so any new protest, deaths and violence would add a sense of legitimacy to their cover up.

If the entire Islamic world erupted over that video it would have served their purposes.
 
No, they hadn't. It played zero role in Benghazi, yet Clinton ran out there in a matter of hours rushing to blame it on something other than herself. They did play it endlessly on al Jazeera AFTER Hillary and Obama kept talking about it. Those two were the biggest promoters of the stupid thing.

way I hear it the movie was played in Egypt the day before the Benghazi attacks. I realize partisans see this as Hillary's fault, she did take the blame before Congress, but the hyper-partisans so want to ruin her for 2016 they will stop at nothing apparently. Interesting you see al-Jazercise as programming based on what The USofA President or SoS says on tv.

Just like BushII's team made some very bad calculations and assessments prior to and once in Iraq- FYI a few more than 4 Americans died in Iraq- so too did the Obama team make a wrong call on what triggered the Benghazi attack. funny how one draws such ire from what crowd. :peace
 
Oh BS, the Egyptian protest initially had NOTHING to do with a Video No One Saw. The Obama administration needed that video distributed, publicized, so any new protest, deaths and violence would add a sense of legitimacy to their cover up. If the entire Islamic world erupted over that video it would have served their purposes.

Pure partisanship and opinion. The Obama team had ZERO to do with the video and wanted it buried, sad to think some of 'us' think otherwise.
 
Pure partisanship and opinion. The Obama team had ZERO to do with the video and wanted it buried, sad to think some of 'us' think otherwise.

Nonsense. Obama and Hillary used that video as a scapegoat because they knew they screwed the pooch horribly, and right before an election no less.

Sad that you are ignoring the testimonies of those that were actually there. The facts are all in front of you, and you choose to close your eyes and and look the other way.

Integrity is rare.
 
Pure partisanship and opinion. The
Obama team had ZERO to do with the video and wanted it buried, sad to think some of 'us' think otherwise.

The Obama Team used the video for 10 days to explain away their failure, because it was politicallly expediant.

5 TIMES Rice went out and publicized the video. How is that burrying " the video".

Are you folks allergic to integrity and character ?

You said you were in the military ? Doing what ? Pushing pencils ? Because your no soldier. A soldier wouldn't sell out his fellow buddies just to perpetuate the lies of a politician.
 
I think grief and survivor guilt describes Mr. Hicks. By his own admission he failed to respond when tipsters phoned in on where the Ambassador was. He rightfully worried it was a trap to lure more Americans into an ambush, so it is a bit puzzling he felt others should have made the decision to throw more Americans into a night time melee that NO ONE knew what were the true facts in Benghazi.

I found his comment that never had a State department lawyer wanted to be present at a congressional fact finding meeting before. I didn't know how many times Mr.Hicks brief any Congressmen after a Consulate attack that caused the death of an Ambassador, can't have been too many. Seems very appropriate a State Counsel would be present at these meetings and Mr. Hicks should have welcomed that. I don't think too many folks truely thought Chaffetz was there in a non partisan capacity.

I don't attack Mr.Hicks for his grief or guilt, nor his failure to react when the tipsters phoned in to tell him where Ambassador Stevens had been taken. I've seen Senior NCOs suffer terribly when troops or close friends are lost and these men KNEW there would be deaths.

When it comes to the mis-statements made after the Benghazi attack I'd say the umbrage is staged partisan politics. As best as I can remember the beginning of a long and bloody reign of terror in Iraq that was the newly placed al-Queera in Iraq being described by Rumsfeld and Cheney as just a 'few dead enders' and the last gasp of a few 'die hards'. I seem to recall a few more than 4 Americans were killed in that affair.

What I do see is a very partisan attack designed to smear Hillary Clinton as the GOP sees her as a real threat in the 2016 Presidential Elections. However I don't see this being more than a blip on the news cycle. I reckon the vast majority of citizens see this as GOP grandstanding and attempting to profit politically from a tragic death. As another poster pointed out there has been a baker's dozen of similar attacks during the BushII administration.

Not to mention that attacks have been on the decline....

diplomatic-attacks4.png
 
Back
Top Bottom