From NBC NEWS....

[GregV814]

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton will testify Oct. 22 before the House committee investigating the deaths of four Americans in the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, her presidential campaign said Saturday.



Golly, I hope she does not bump her head AGAIN and forget everything.......oh yeah, she kept notes tucked deep down behind the copier and backed them up on her iPod....

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Say, here's a question for you Pavlovian morons.

Since we now know that Benghazi (don't get frothy at the mere mention of the word here; it is necessary to write it to ask my question) was a CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels who really weren't our friends, it is normal and customary for State to provide security for a CIA outpost which isn't part of the normal diplomatic operation?

I'll hang up and take your answer over the air.

 

[GregV814]

are the diplomats still dead? your turn. Who was at the helm.. Your turn...

 

[LibertyBeacon]

are the diplomats still dead? your turn. Who was at the helm.. Your turn...

So you don't know? Or refuse to answer because you know where it leads you?

 

[Hijinx]

Say, here's a question for you Pavlovian morons.

Since we now know that Benghazi (don't get frothy at the mere mention of the word here; it is necessary to write it to ask my question) was a CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels who really weren't our friends, it is normal and customary for State to provide security for a CIA outpost which isn't part of the normal diplomatic operation?

I'll hang up and take your answer over the air.

If the operation was a CIA operation as you say--and I have no doubt that it was.
It is pretty obvious that the CIA and the State Department were working together in it.
The presence of a United States Ambassador at this outpost would seem to prove that.
It is normal for the State Department to provide protection for our Ambassador is it not?

To me the presence of the Ambassador leaving Tripoli and traveling to Benghazi is proof that the State Department was involved with the CIA in this mess.
So your question was ---is it normal and customary for State to provide security for a CIA outpost which isn't part of the normal diplomatic operation? Can be answered by another question: Is it normal for the State department to be involved in CIA operations, and who ordered the CIA operation to begin with? Certainly CIA operations have little to do with Diplomacy.

Now the Post is about Hillary appearing before a House Committee.
Does anyone here really expect this house Committee to ask Hillary the hard questions>
I don't. I think Gowdy will toss soft balls at Hillary and the whole thing will just be an embarrassment for the House.

Time will tell.

 

[GURPS]

I cannot find an example of 'Deputy Ambassador" in wiki;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_rank


Bilateral diplomacy

In modern diplomatic practice there are a number of diplomatic ranks below Ambassador. Since most missions are now headed by an ambassador, these ranks now rarely indicate a mission's (or its host nation's) relative importance, but rather reflect the diplomat's individual seniority within their own nation's diplomatic career path and in the diplomatic corps in the host nation:

Ambassador (High Commissioner in Commonwealth missions to other Commonwealth countries); ambassador at large
Minister
Minister-Counsellor
Counsellor
First Secretary
Second Secretary
Third Secretary
Attaché
Assistant Attaché




United States Foreign Service

In the United States Foreign Service, the personnel system under which most U.S. diplomatic personnel are assigned, a system of personal ranks is applied which roughly corresponds to these diplomatic ranks. Personal ranks are differentiated as "Senior Foreign Service" (SFS) or "Member of the Foreign Service".[6]

The SFS ranks, in descending order, are:

Career Ambassador, awarded to career diplomats with extensive and distinguished service;
Career Minister, the highest regular senior rank;
Minister-Counselor; and
Counselor.

In U.S. terms, these correspond to four-, three-, two- and one-star general and flag officers in the military, respectively. Officers at these ranks may serve as ambassadors and occupy the most senior positions in diplomatic missions.

Members of the Foreign Service consist of five groups, including Foreign Service Officers and Foreign Service Specialists.[7] Like officers in the U.S. military, Foreign Service Officers are members of the Foreign Service who are commissioned by the President.[8] As with Warrant Officers in the U.S. military, Foreign Service Specialists are technical leaders and experts, commissioned not by the President but by the Secretary of State.[9] Ranks descend from the highest, FS‑1, equivalent to a full Colonel in the military, to FS‑9, the lowest rank in the U.S. Foreign Service personnel system.[10] (Most entry-level Foreign Service members begin at the FS‑5 or FS‑6 level.) Personal rank is distinct from and should not be confused with the diplomatic or consular rank assigned at the time of appointment to a particular diplomatic or consular mission.

In a large mission, several Senior Diplomats may serve under the Ambassador as Minister-Counselors, Counselors, and First Secretaries; in a small mission, a diplomat may serve as the lone Counselor of Embassy.






sorry dude ... he is a NO Body ... a bull#### position to cover for CIA Operations

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Can be answered by another question: Is it normal for the State department to be involved in CIA operations, and who ordered the CIA operation to begin with? Certainly CIA operations have little to do with Diplomacy..

Yes, it is very normal. Happens more often than you'd realize. In this modern information age, it doesn't take very much effort to get educated. You'd better get to work.

I find a more plausible explanation if you understand how things work is that Panetta lost is nerve in the face of something having gone wrong during this operation. It happens. The work of the empire is fairly dangerous work. He lost his nerve to do whatever was needed to keep his resources safe because he realized that answering to the American people as to what went wrong would mean telling us that we were arming folks who were not our friends.

This kind of thing (deception, lies, subterfuge) has been happening in governments ever since there have been government. And it always will.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I don't. I think Gowdy will toss soft balls at Hillary and the whole thing will just be an embarrassment for the House.

You ever stop to think that Gowdy was handed this investigation because he is in the know and has the deft to handle this with the requisite kid gloves? Give that some thought.

 

[Hijinx]

You ever stop to think that Gowdy was handed this investigation because he is in the know and has the deft to handle this with the requisite kid gloves? Give that some thought.

It wouldn't surprise me. Gowdy has made a lot of noise, not only about this, but about other things. So far he hasn't produced squat.

 

[This_person]

Since we now know that Benghazi was a CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels who really weren't our friends, it is normal and customary for State to provide security for a CIA outpost which isn't part of the normal diplomatic operation?

1. Were they running the CIA directly out of the embassy, or a separate building?
2. Is it State's responsibilty to provide security for the embassy itself?
3. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of security (less than the security provided to our embassy in Paris, France) for this embassy?
4. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of immediate support when it was available to defend the embassy once it was under attack?
5. How does the CIA operation affect the repeated (and understood) lies that the embassy attack was based on a video?
6. How does the CIA operation really matter at all?

I'll wait....

 

[Hijinx]

1. Were they running the CIA directly out of the embassy, or a separate building?
2. Is it State's responsibilty to provide security for the embassy itself?
3. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of security (less than the security provided to our embassy in Paris, France) for this embassy?
4. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of immediate support when it was available to defend the embassy once it was under attack?
5. How does the CIA operation affect the repeated (and understood) lies that the embassy attack was based on a video?
6. How does the CIA operation really matter at all?

I'll wait....

Next question. Will the investigation be limited to Benghazi or will Hillary face questions about the emails she lied about and destroyed.
Will the Emails have to come up in a separate House Investigation say---in about 2 years from now?

What is Gowdy going to do about the Emails.

IMO this investigation will go nowhere, Gowdy will play Hillary's game, soft ball her, and then it will be a done deal.

This person has asked a lot of questions--pertinent ones.
Don't look for answers coming out of this crucible of lies we call the House.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

1. Were they running the CIA directly out of the embassy, or a separate building?
2. Is it State's responsibilty to provide security for the embassy itself?
3. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of security (less than the security provided to our embassy in Paris, France) for this embassy?
4. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of immediate support when it was available to defend the embassy once it was under attack?
5. How does the CIA operation affect the repeated (and understood) lies that the embassy attack was based on a video?
6. How does the CIA operation really matter at all?

I'll wait....

I answered the first question in the very post to which you followed up.

Beyond that, you're one of the brighter ones who post here and I firmly believe you'll be able to reason you way along. Where reason and deduction fail you, try open source information.

 

[This_person]

I answered the first question in the very post to which you followed up.

Beyond that, you're one of the brighter ones who post here and I firmly believe you'll be able to reason you way along. Where reason and deduction fail you, try open source information.

Okay, so let's go through them:
1. Were they running the CIA directly out of the embassy, or a separate building? Separate building
2. Is it State's responsibilty to provide security for the embassy itself? Yes
3. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of security (less than the security provided to our embassy in Paris, France) for this embassy? It doesn't, not even a little bit. Therefore, the Sec State at the time has a lot to answer for regardless of the CIA obfuscation.
4. How does the CIA operation affect the lack of immediate support when it was available to defend the embassy once it was under attack? It doesn't, not even a little bit. Therefore, the Sec State at the time has a lot to answer for regardless of the CIA obfuscation.
5. How does the CIA operation affect the repeated (and understood) lies that the embassy attack was based on a video? It doesn't, not even a little bit. Therefore, the Sec State at the time has a lot to answer for regardless of the CIA obfuscation.
6. How does the CIA operation really matter at all? It doesn't, not even a little bit. Therefore, the Sec State at the time has a lot to answer for regardless of the CIA obfuscation.

Since you asked me to answer my questions myself, there are the answers.

So, what is the point in bringing up the CIA operation as if it has any bearing on the Sec State's responsibilities/actions?

 

[Hijinx]

The game of Monopoly is a fun game. Hillary would lose at Monopoly, but she would keep enough cash and power to buy a get out of jail card.

Like she has been doing in real life.

 

[SamSpade]

The game of Monopoly is a fun game. Hillary would lose at Monopoly

I have to think that she'd win, but only after mysteriously gaining Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels already on them and a deeper stash of cash than exists in the game.

 

[GURPS]

I have to think that she'd win, but only after mysteriously gaining Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels already on them and a deeper stash of cash than exists in the game.

 

[Hijinx]

I have to think that she'd win, but only after mysteriously gaining Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels already on them and a deeper stash of cash than exists in the game.

In other words she would cheat..Just like she does in real life.

 

[SamSpade]

In other words she would cheat..Just like she does in real life.

Don't think of it as "cheating" - think of it as making sure the wrong person DOESN'T win.