• 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

Grim17 said:
That's all you got from that?

Really?
Click to expand...
You mentioned the 1:15 mark and that's she was talking about she was also wrong when she said Mr. Hicks was demoted, it was his choice not go back to Libya.

Robert Gates Criticizes Conservatives' "Cartoonish Impression" Of Military Support For Benghazi | Blog | Media Matters for America

GATES: I think the one place where I might be able to say something useful has to do with some of the talk of the military response. And I listened to the testimony of both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, and frankly had I been in the job at the time, I think that my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, despite all the turmoil that's going on with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so getting someone there in a timely way would have been very difficult if not impossible.

And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances.

And with respect to sending in Special Forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I've read people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think would have been very dangerous and personally I would not have approved that because we just don't -- it's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time.​
 
pbrauer said:
You mentioned the 1:15 mark and that's she was talking about she was also wrong when she said Mr. Hicks was demoted, it was his choice not go back to Libya.

Robert Gates Criticizes Conservatives' "Cartoonish Impression" Of Military Support For Benghazi | Blog | Media Matters for America

GATES: I think the one place where I might be able to say something useful has to do with some of the talk of the military response. And I listened to the testimony of both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, and frankly had I been in the job at the time, I think that my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, despite all the turmoil that's going on with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so getting someone there in a timely way would have been very difficult if not impossible.

And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances.

And with respect to sending in Special Forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I've read people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think would have been very dangerous and personally I would not have approved that because we just don't -- it's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time.​
Click to expand...
So now its not that help couldnt get there... But that people were too scared to help?
 
pbrauer said:
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​
Click to expand...

They're lying, and you're helping them. Congratulations.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
They're lying, and you're helping them. Congratulations.:cool:
Click to expand...
Of course they are lying, because you said so.:eek:
5eek.gif
 
Jack Hays said:
The way to know a government bureaucracy is retaliating is this: When they say they aren't retaliating, they are.:cool:
Click to expand...

This is what he said at the oversight meeting on Wednesday:

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.​
 
Jack Hays said:
The way to know a government bureaucracy is retaliating is this: When they say they aren't retaliating, they are.:cool:
Click to expand...

Whoever it was that originally said "it's not true until it's denied by officials" sure had it pegged! :thumbs:
 
pbrauer said:
This is what he said at the oversight meeting on Wednesday:

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...

Yes. And?:mrgreen:
 
pbrauer said:
How can he perform the same job in the states that he had in Libya?
Click to expand...

There are well known steps to transition overseas service into CONUS service of appropriate rank and responsibility. It happens all the time in the Foreign Service.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
There are well known steps to transition overseas service into CONUS service of appropriate rank and responsibility. It happens all the time in the Foreign Service.:cool:
Click to expand...
That very well may be true however he was the number 2 man in Libya, I don't see how he can perform that function in the US.
 
pbrauer said:
That very well may be true however he was the number 2 man in Libya, I don't see how he can perform that function in the US.
Click to expand...

No, he could not, but there are appropriate US duties for an officer of his rank and experience.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
No, he could not, but there are appropriate US duties for an officer of his rank and experience.:cool:
Click to expand...
I sure hope he gets what he wants. The following was in post 82:

"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.”
 
pbrauer said:
I sure hope he gets what he wants. The following was in post 82:

"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.”
Click to expand...

The proof will be in the pudding. Hicks himself apparently is not optimistic.:cool:
 
justabubba said:
like hicks, i was a federal employee
and i remain a union officer
which experience tells me that if hicks were demoted there would be an extensive paper trail documenting that action
and since we have seen no documentation it is safe to conclude there was no demotion
Click to expand...

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....
 
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....
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom