• 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!

Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

The Chief of Mission is responsible for all activities of all personnel of all agencies.:cool:
You can keep repeating this non-sequitur for as long as you like, it does not represent the reality in Benghazi.
 
Really..OK...I just posted multiple sources...just for you.....showing that this was not a State dept operation but a CIA operation, but you keep on with your narrative of this is a State operation.

Again Jack, you are ignoring facts. State doesn't have authority over CIA ops.

But the Chief of Mission, who represents the President and not the Department of State, does. :cool:
 
But the Chief of Mission, who represents the President and not the Department of State, does. :cool:
Um, the CoM is a State dept position, this was not a State Dept op, this was a CIA op, the CIA is independent of State.

You just don't know this situation, this turf....sorry.
 
But the Chief of Mission, who represents the President and not the Department of State, does. :cool:

Unfortunately for the Chief of Mission in this case, he and others waited in vain for help that never arrived, and paid with their lives. Since he represents the President, and not the Department of State, it seems that the WH is the one who should have quickly responded. Not that I have any great love for Hillary, but why is the State Department being blamed for this? Is there some authority overlap that I'm not grasping here? :shock:
 
As matter of interest, a CNN/ORC report dated May 19, 2013 titled... POLL: CONGRESS NOT OVERREACHING ON OBAMA SCANDALS dated May 19, 2013, showed that 54 percent of Americans don't believe that Congress is overreacting to the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups, while 42 percent said it is.

By an even larger margin, 59 percent to 37 percent, respondents said that Congress is making the right moves on the administration's actions on the Benghazi terror attack.

Looks like Obama is still holding on to most of his Party but he's lost the Independents & Republicans.
 
Um, the CoM is a State dept position, this was not a State Dept op, this was a CIA op, the CIA is independent of State.

You just don't know this situation, this turf....sorry.

Incorrect. Chief of Mission is not a State position although many State officers are selected. Many non-State are also selected: political appointee Ambassadors. Your lack of basic knowledge has led you astray. Chiefs of Mission represent the President, not the Department of State. Learn first. Then post.:mrgreen:
 
Um, the CoM is a State dept position, this was not a State Dept op, this was a CIA op, the CIA is independent of State.

You just don't know this situation, this turf....sorry.

No Chief of Station, anywhere, is "independent" of the Chief of Mission whom he supports. You don't know what you're talking about.:mrgreen:
 
Unfortunately for the Chief of Mission in this case, he and others waited in vain for help that never arrived, and paid with their lives. Since he represents the President, and not the Department of State, it seems that the WH is the one who should have quickly responded. Not that I have any great love for Hillary, but why is the State Department being blamed for this? Is there some authority overlap that I'm not grasping here? :shock:

The Department of State, on behalf of the President, has primary responsibility to support US diplomatic missions abroad.:mrgreen:
 
Incorrect. Chief of Mission is not a State position although many State officers are selected. Many non-State are also selected: political appointee Ambassadors. Your lack of basic knowledge has led you astray. Chiefs of Mission represent the President, not the Department of State. Learn first. Then post.:mrgreen:
Doesn't change the fact that this was a CIA op, Doherty being a CIA agent had no expectation of US military rescue while operating in a sovereign state. Even you with vast (Aristotle...cough) knowledge should understand that.
 
The Department of State, on behalf of the President, has primary responsibility to support US diplomatic missions abroad.:mrgreen:
Except when it isn't a diplomatic mission.....but a CIA intel/detainment facility.
 
No Chief of Station, anywhere, is "independent" of the Chief of Mission whom he supports. You don't know what you're talking about.:mrgreen:
The Chief of Station is the senior CIA representative, and he directs the activities of the intelligence personnel. His direct line of command is to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia—not to the State Department—and that is the relationship that provides him with his authority. Normally, the ambassador has little desire to learn what the CIA is doing because he has no real need to know about the details of operations and is only interested in oversight relating to situations that might cause serious damage to Washington’s relationship with the local authorities. Apart from that, the CIA operates independently and only shares partial information on what it is doing if the ambassador seems interested and there is a good reason to do so.

To cite one example from my own experience, the agency had a hidden microphone in the office of a top Italian Communist official in the 1970s, which enabled Washington to know exactly what the Partito Communista Italiano was planning. The information obtained was shared through an unsourced “eyes only” memo to the ambassador, who assumed the source was a CIA agent present at the Communist meeting and asked how accurate the person’s recollection was. The Chief of Station answered that the information was completely reliable but there was no one else in the room—avoiding having to say that it was a highly sensitive technical intrusion and letting the ambassador work out the meaning of the reply.

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/cias-benghazi-role/
 
Last edited:
Doesn't change the fact that this was a CIA op, Doherty being a CIA agent had no expectation of US military rescue while operating in a sovereign state. Even you with vast (Aristotle...cough) knowledge should understand that.

Incorrect again. In a situation like Libya they all would have been right to have every expectation of military assistance.:cool:
 
The Chief of Station is the senior CIA representative, and he directs the activities of the intelligence personnel. His direct line of command is to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia—not to the State Department—and that is the relationship that provides him with his authority. Normally, the ambassador has little desire to learn what the CIA is doing because he has no real need to know about the details of operations and is only interested in oversight relating to situations that might cause serious damage to Washington’s relationship with the local authorities. Apart from that, the CIA operates independently and only shares partial information on what it is doing if the ambassador seems interested and there is a good reason to do so.

To cite one example from my own experience, the agency had a hidden microphone in the office of a top Italian Communist official in the 1970s, which enabled Washington to know exactly what the Partito Communista Italiano was planning. The information obtained was shared through an unsourced “eyes only” memo to the ambassador, who assumed the source was a CIA agent present at the Communist meeting and asked how accurate the person’s recollection was. The Chief of Station answered that the information was completely reliable but there was no one else in the room—avoiding having to say that it was a highly sensitive technical intrusion and letting the ambassador work out the meaning of the reply.

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

CIA’s Benghazi Role | The American Conservative

For the third time, the Chief of Mission represents the President, not the Department of State. All agencies of course have their own chains of command back to Washington to conduct their own affairs, but all are also subordinate to the Chief of Mission, as their agencies are subordinate to the President. Mr. Giraldi is mostly correct, although his presentation seems a bit dated. My own experience in these matters is both more recent and significantly larger than his.:cool:
 
For the third time, the Chief of Mission represents the President, not the Department of State. All agencies of course have their own chains of command back to Washington to conduct their own affairs, but all are also subordinate to the Chief of Mission, as their agencies are subordinate to the President. Mr. Giraldi is mostly correct, although his presentation seems a bit dated. My own experience in these matters is both more recent and significantly larger than his.:cool:
Uh..huh...

Aristotle-like, I'm sure...a legend in your...mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom