• 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

And again, as I tried to make clear to you previously, you were and still are conflating the Steven compound with the CIA compound, they are 2 two different installations, 1.2 miles apart, with separate operations and commands.

No, I am not. I am telling you that both compounds were under the authority of the Chief of Mission.:roll:
“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].”:hm
 
No, I am not. I am telling you that both compounds were under the authority of the Chief of Mission.:roll:
“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].”:hm
The CIA compound was NOT an embassy.

I know your entire point hinges on this fact, but the fact is, it was not an embassy, thus not under the authority of State. It's authority was the DNI.
 
The CIA compound was NOT an embassy.

I know your entire point hinges on this fact, but the fact is, it was not an embassy, thus not under the authority of State. It's authority was the DNI.

The Chief of Mission's authority is not limited to State. It is also not limited to diplomatic installations. All USG installations, activities and personnel are under the Chief of Mission's authority. This includes both Benghazi compounds. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.:cool:
“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].” :cool:
 
“Country teams” in embassies...
The CIA annex was not a State dept facility, it was not under State dept authority....unless you have direct information showing otherwise, you don't have an argument.
 
Something for the rwers to sink their teeth into:

Unnamed sources tell Fox News that the CIA Annex in Benghazi held three Libyan militia members for days and that retrieving these detainees may have been a motive for the September 11th attack on the nearby US consulate.
The new reporting builds on details previously published by Fox's Jennifer Griffin and information apparently leaked by ex-intelligence officer Paula Broadwell last month. Speaking on Fox News Monday, Griffin indicated new sources suggest the CIA annex may have been a detention site for local militia forces and even for some prisoners from other parts of Africa.

Report: CIA's Benghazi Annex a Detention, Interrogation Site
 
The CIA annex was not a State dept facility, it was not under State dept authority....unless you have direct information showing otherwise, you don't have an argument.

For the third time, Chief of Mission authority is not limited to State Dept. facilities. Chief of Mission authority covers all USG activities, by whatever agency.
“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].”:hm
 
Something for the rwers to sink their teeth into:

Unnamed sources tell Fox News that the CIA Annex in Benghazi held three Libyan militia members for days and that retrieving these detainees may have been a motive for the September 11th attack on the nearby US consulate.
The new reporting builds on details previously published by Fox's Jennifer Griffin and information apparently leaked by ex-intelligence officer Paula Broadwell last month. Speaking on Fox News Monday, Griffin indicated new sources suggest the CIA annex may have been a detention site for local militia forces and even for some prisoners from other parts of Africa.

Report: CIA's Benghazi Annex a Detention, Interrogation Site

For the third time, Chief of Mission authority is not limited to State Dept. facilities. Chief of Mission authority covers all USG activities, by whatever agency.
“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].”:hm
Is that true even though the CIA had a secret operation at Benghazi?
 
Did ya'll see Dan Pfeiffer doing the full Sunday Susan Rice today.
Yeah ... he's honest ... uh huh.

Greetings, Bubba. :2wave:

Missed it! Do you have a link so I can play catch-up? :cool:
 
Greetings, Bubba. :2wave:

Missed it! Do you have a link so I can play catch-up? :cool:

He was on all the Sunday morning news shows. They're probably all repeated somewhere sometime.
I'm kinda surprised the WH would encourage a repeat of the kind of thing that would have folks recall Rice's mendacity fest.
 
For the third time, Chief of Mission authority is not limited to State Dept. facilities. Chief of Mission authority covers all USG activities, by whatever agency.
Unless you have ANYTHING to show that the CIA operations in Benghazi were a diplomatic operation, I don't believe you are correct. Repeating authority quotes on diplomatic missions does not cover secret CIA operations within the same country....unless you have some other documentation showing otherwise directly addressing the CIA annex.
 
Unless you have ANYTHING to show that the CIA operations in Benghazi were a diplomatic operation, I don't believe you are correct. Repeating authority quotes on diplomatic missions does not cover secret CIA operations within the same country....unless you have some other documentation showing otherwise directly addressing the CIA annex.

Chiefs of Mission are Presidential appointees, not State Department appointees. Chief of Mission authorities are therefore Presidentially derived. They cover all activities of all kinds by all agencies, diplomatic or non-diplomatic. This is a matter of fact. Whatever was happening at either compound in Benghazi, it was under Chief of Mission authority. :cool:
 
Broadwell CIA Annex In Benghazi Exposed - Business Insider

A key subplot to the ongoing sex scandal saga involving ousted CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer-turned-mistress Paula Broadwell is the September 11 attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi that killed four Americans.
Earlier today senior CIA and other Obama administration officials briefed members of Congress about the attack and Petraeus will testify to the House and Senate intelligence committees on Thursday.
Thanks to Broadwell revealing previously-unknown information in a speech at the University of Denver, we are closer to the truth of what was happening there.


Read more: Broadwell CIA Annex In Benghazi Exposed - Business Insider
 
recall Rice's mendacity fest

pfeiffer on abc this morning:

Pfeiffer: GOP owes Rice an apology - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

stephy, taken a bit aback: why?

does whoever edited the talking points, removing the truth ("islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda") while leaving in place the lie ("spontaneous demonstrations"), owe the embarrassed ambassador a my bad?

of course, the white house doesn't want YOU to know who edited the talking points

it's irrelevant

Obama Aide: 'Irrelevant' Who Edited Benghazi Talking Points | The Weekly Standard

that's coverup, comrades

and why wasn't that vile video even mentioned in the 100 pages of frantic back and forth between nuland and rhodes and sullivan and vietor, et al, that occupied so much administrative energy in the frantic 24 hours before susan-rice-sunday?

What About the Video? | The Weekly Standard

stay tuned
 
Prove it beyond your generalized quote on diplomatic operations. This was a CIA detention/operations annex, not a diplomatic mission.

It does not matter what it was. A Chief of Mission is the President's representative. All activities of all kinds by all agencies fall under Chief of Mission authority.:hm
 
Chiefs of Mission are Presidential appointees, not State Department appointees. Chief of Mission authorities are therefore Presidentially derived. They cover all activities of all kinds by all agencies, diplomatic or non-diplomatic. This is a matter of fact. Whatever was happening at either compound in Benghazi, it was under Chief of Mission authority. :cool:
BS, they don't have authority over CIA operations, you simply expanding your cited definition on diplomatic operations.....which the CIA annex was not.

I keep asking to you for documentation, you keep providing your interpretation. If you were as you claim, you can point to docs, not your ever expanding definitions.
It is your claim, prove it.
 
BS, they don't have authority over CIA operations, you simply expanding your cited definition on diplomatic operations.....which the CIA annex was not.

I keep asking to you for documentation, you keep providing your interpretation. If you were as you claim, you can point to docs, not your ever expanding definitions.
It is your claim, prove it.

The claim has been proven.
“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].”
There is nothing in the foregoing that limits Chief of Mission authorities in any way.
This is not a difference of opinion. It is a simple question of fact.:hm
 
maureen dowd, nyt (link above):

Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens were rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies.

what do you think the ambassador was doing there

more:

As Emma Roller and David Weigel wrote in Slate: “The die was cast long before the attack, by the weak security at the consulate, and commanders may have decided to cut their losses rather than risking more casualties. And that isn’t a story anyone prefers to tell.”

ouch

i don't think even rush limbaugh would go that far

stay tuned
 
BS, they don't have authority over CIA operations, you simply expanding your cited definition on diplomatic operations.....which the CIA annex was not.

I keep asking to you for documentation, you keep providing your interpretation. If you were as you claim, you can point to docs, not your ever expanding definitions.
It is your claim, prove it.



USC › Title 22 › Chapter 52 › Subchapter II › § 3927

22 USC § 3927 - Chief of mission

Current through Pub. L. 112-218. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
"(a) Duties
Under the direction of the President, the chief of mission to a foreign country—
(1) shall have full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all Government executive branch employees in that country (except for Voice of America correspondents on official assignment and employees under the command of a United States area military commander); and
(2) shall keep fully and currently informed with respect to all activities and operations of the Government within that country, and shall insure that all Government executive branch employees in that country (except for Voice of America correspondents on official assignment and employees under the command of a United States area military commander) comply fully with all applicable directives of the chief of mission.
(b) Duties of agencies with employees in foreign countries
Any executive branch agency having employees in a foreign country shall keep the chief of mission to that country fully and currently informed with respect to all activities and operations of its employees in that country, and shall insure that all of its employees in that country (except for Voice of America correspondents on official assignment and employees under the command of a United States area military commander) comply fully with all applicable directives of the chief of mission.
(c) Promotion of United States goods and services
Each chief of mission to a foreign country shall have as a principal duty the promotion of United States goods and services for export to such country.":hm
 
In November The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. mission in Benghazi "was at its heart a CIA operation."
In January, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress that the CIA was leading a "concerted effort to try to track down and find and recover ... MANPADS [man-portable air defense systems]" looted from the stockpiles of toppled Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi.
The State Department "consulate" served as diplomatic cover for the previously-hidden annex.

The top-secret presence and location of the CIA outpost was first acknowledged by Charlene Lamb, a top official in the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, during Congressional testimony in October.
Representatives Jason Chaffetz and Darrell Issa immediately called a point of order when Lamb exposed the location of the annex, and asked for the revelation to be stricken from the record.
“I totally object to the use of that photo,” Chaffetz. said. “I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here today.”


Read more: The Secret CIA Mission In Benghazi - Business Insider
 
This is not a difference of opinion. It is a simple question of fact.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

In addition, two of the four men who died in the Sept. 11 attack -- former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were actually CIA contractors killed defending the mission, not State Department contract security officers, as originally publicly identified, the officials told several news organizations on condition of anonymity.


.....

Of the more than 30 U.S. officials evacuated from Benghazi, only seven worked for the State Department, officials briefed on the intelligence told The Wall Street Journal. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, the Journal said.





Read more: Ex-Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty: CIA workers, not State Dept. - UPI.com
 
Last edited:
maureen dowd, nyt (link above):



what do you think the ambassador was doing there

more:



ouch

i don't think even rush limbaugh would go that far

stay tuned

Facepalm_9a08b9_59080.jpg
 
Chiefs of Mission are Presidential appointees, not State Department appointees. Chief of Mission authorities are therefore Presidentially derived. They cover all activities of all kinds by all agencies, diplomatic or non-diplomatic. This is a matter of fact. Whatever was happening at either compound in Benghazi, it was under Chief of Mission authority. :cool:

Last week, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler noted that the revised talking points indicated that Obama administration officials in various agencies were inhibited by a key fact as they were grappling with what could be said publicly about the attacks in Benghazi: The assault had targeted a CIA annex in addition to a temporary State Department mission. That made the job tough for the drafters of the talking points. As Kessler wrote,

from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador [Chris Stevens] tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

Kessler emphasized an obvious point: The initial talking points drafted by the CIA implied that "State screwed up, even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation."

Benghazi: What Did the CIA Know, and When Did It Know It? | Mother Jones
 
pfeiffer and schieffer, this morning:

DAN PFEIFFER: The point that our Chief of Staff is making is that this is the Republican playbook here which is try, when they don't have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations. We're not going to let that distract us and the President from actually doing the people's work and fighting for the middle class.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, “These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business.” You’re taking exactly the same line they did.

more:

SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government. It’s my, I'll just make this as an assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.

But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.

But what I'm saying to you is that was just PR. That was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if he knew nothing say, “We don't know yet?” Why didn't the White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this as no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?

Face The Nation - CBS News

the white house doesn't want YOU to know, mr schieffer

stay tuned
 
Back
Top Bottom