Clinton Formally Steps Down As U S Secretary Of State

[SteeleJoe]

Çlinton has made lots of folks happy by stepping down, kinda of brings a tear to my own eye. I hope this is the last thing ever heard from her. She did a poor job.

Could you articulate what you mean by "poor job"... you know... like... with examples?

Sure lets start with the bombing in Libya that killed Stevens. I could fill a hard drive on Clinton but thats a start.

A bombing?! Is this a new conspiracy theory?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[chuckd]

So they were not notified. Whose fault is that?

Pannetta was with Obama when they got the word. One could assume Obama was bright enough to presume his presence might be required. Obama had a campaign trip planned for the next day so he had to retire to his quarters and get a good night's sleep. It would seem he merely dropped the problem in his Secdef's lap and walked away.

It's called dereliction of duty in the UCMJ.

Don't know where Hillary was but she was missing in action as well. Maybe at a wine tasting???

Edited February 8, 2013 by chuckd

[chuckd]

Another little gem picked up in the DOD testimony.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General on Benghazi: 'We Never Received a Request for Support from the State Department'

11:38 AM, FEB 7, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

"Why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond?," Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, "Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we --"

McCain iterrupted, "You never heard of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings?"

"I had, through General Ham," responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. "But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces--"

http://www.weeklysta...ent_700403.html

Edited February 8, 2013 by chuckd

[JLCrab]

I'm getting a little tired of this blaming all sorts of people for their supposed malfeasance. The real responsibility lies with those persons assigned to the US Embassy in Tripoli who were temporarily at the Benghazi location operated primarily by the CIA. There was a bombing outside the Benghazi US diplomatic mission in June 2012 and the UK representatives had already abandoned their Benghazi presence.

Once one has decided that there was “a security vacuum” and one's presence in Benghazi could not be adequately defended, then get the hell out of there and re-group in Tripoli until proper security is in place.

Edited February 8, 2013 by JLCrab

[chuckd]

Does anybody remember that TV ad during the Democratic primary campaign between Obama and Clinton about the 3 AM telephone call and who would answer it?

We finally have our answer.

Neither one of them would pick up the phone!

[Exsexyman]

She will not be missed by the blindered old American dinosaurs of Pattaya but she received an enthusthastic standing ovation from her State Department colleagues during her final appearance in Washington DC yesterday. She also enjoys very high approval ratings from the general American public. http://www.washingto...arded-congress/ Given the international public relations disaster left her by the previous administration she did a fabulous job. With such widespread support she could quite possibly be elected president in 2016.

Meanwhile..back in the real world...

1.) She did receive a standing ovation from her fellow State Department members. They loved her.

2.) She does enjoy very high public approval ratings.

3.) Being she is so popular she is clearly the front runner for the next Democratic nomination.

4.) Unless something drastic changes the Republicans will remain out of touch with the American electorate and will continue to lose elections.

So how is this out of touch with the real world? All your hoping for a corporate run, hawkish religion based Republican Party presidential election won't help you and your ilk. The American electorate is sick of you obstructionist fools.

In her farewell speech Hillary Clinton stated that "The world is now a much safer place". A lot of people would consider that view as being out of touch with the real world. Not to mention being seriously deluded.

[Jingthing]

She will not be missed by the blindered old American dinosaurs of Pattaya but she received an enthusthastic standing ovation from her State Department colleagues during her final appearance in Washington DC yesterday. She also enjoys very high approval ratings from the general American public. http://www.washingto...arded-congress/ Given the international public relations disaster left her by the previous administration she did a fabulous job. With such widespread support she could quite possibly be elected president in 2016.

Meanwhile..back in the real world...

1.) She did receive a standing ovation from her fellow State Department members. They loved her.

2.) She does enjoy very high public approval ratings.

3.) Being she is so popular she is clearly the front runner for the next Democratic nomination.

4.) Unless something drastic changes the Republicans will remain out of touch with the American electorate and will continue to lose elections.

So how is this out of touch with the real world? All your hoping for a corporate run, hawkish religion based Republican Party presidential election won't help you and your ilk. The American electorate is sick of you obstructionist fools.

In her farewell speech Hillary Clinton stated that "The world is now a much safer place". A lot of people would consider that view as being out of touch with the real world. Not to mention being seriously deluded.

Yeah, so the vast majority of Americans who like Hillary now and think she did a good job are all deluded. Good luck with that working for y'all when she runs for president.

[JLCrab]

I think there is a contingent that sees the ideal US Secretary of State as John Foster Dulles... and Yes! I'm shocked! Shocked! that all you others don't realize that you're just a bunch of Lilliputians that can't agree on which day to put out the garbage let alone manage world affairs.

Edited February 9, 2013 by JLCrab

[Chicog]

So they were not notified. Whose fault is that?

Pannetta was with Obama when they got the word. One could assume Obama was bright enough to presume his presence might be required. Obama had a campaign trip planned for the next day so he had to retire to his quarters and get a good night's sleep. It would seem he merely dropped the problem in his Secdef's lap and walked away.

It's called dereliction of duty in the UCMJ.

Don't know where Hillary was but she was missing in action as well. Maybe at a wine tasting???

You posted:

Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

So in the early stages, Panetta was responsible and failed to contact the President any time after the 5pm briefing, which implies to me he didn't think he needed anything from him.

In fact here is the timeline:

10:32 p.m. -- The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. "The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey."

11 p.m. -- Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.

11:10 p.m. -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

11:30 p.m. -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

September 12

Midnight to 2 a.m. -- Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders a special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.

Two things I'd like to ask you: Obama gave control to the Defense Dept. and at no point did they then refer back to him. Why not?

Secondly, if they had contacted him, what could they have requested that they could not initiate themselves, given that they admit the CiC had said it was "Up to Us"? A nuclear strike maybe?

You keep trying to paint it as Obama avoiding his duties, but it strikes me that you haven't got much of a leg to stand on it that regard.

If they needed anything they either should or would have called. Why they did not is the question that needs to be answered.

I reckon this subject is about done to death.

Depositions have been made, questions answered and changes will be made to avoid recurrences. It's over. Move on.

If Hillary stands in 2016, you'll have ample chance to bore the tits off us with it then.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Chicog

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[F430murci]

I think there is a contingent that sees the ideal US Secretary of State as John Foster Dulles... and Yes! I'm shocked! Shocked! that all you others don't realize that you're just a bunch of Lilliputians that can't agree on which day to put out the garbage let alone manage world affairs.

Yep, it happens when life is so full of opportunities and great things to enjoy. We have to make this difficult daily decision like which movie to see, where to eat, which car to drive, what shoes to wear or purse to carry.

Life is good and us lilliputians have to look hard to find something worthwhile to complain about.

Happy people don't obcess about stuff over which they have no control . . .

[chuckd]

Pannetta was with Obama when they got the word. One could assume Obama was bright enough to presume his presence might be required. Obama had a campaign trip planned for the next day so he had to retire to his quarters and get a good night's sleep. It would seem he merely dropped the problem in his Secdef's lap and walked away.

It's called dereliction of duty in the UCMJ.

Don't know where Hillary was but she was missing in action as well. Maybe at a wine tasting???

You posted:

Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

So in the early stages, Panetta was responsible and failed to contact the President any time after the 5pm briefing, which implies to me he didn't think he needed anything from him.

In fact here is the timeline:

10:32 p.m. -- The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. "The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey."

11 p.m. -- Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.

11:10 p.m. -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

11:30 p.m. -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

September 12

Midnight to 2 a.m. -- Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders a special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.

Two things I'd like to ask you: Obama gave control to the Defense Dept. and at no point did they then refer back to him. Why not?

Secondly, if they had contacted him, what could they have requested that they could not initiate themselves, given that they admit the CiC had said it was "Up to Us"? A nuclear strike maybe?

You keep trying to paint it as Obama avoiding his duties, but it strikes me that you haven't got much of a leg to stand on it that regard.

If they needed anything they either should or would have called. Why they did not is the question that needs to be answered.

I reckon this subject is about done to death.

Depositions have been made, questions answered and changes will be made to avoid recurrences. It's over. Move on.

If Hillary stands in 2016, you'll have ample chance to bore the tits off us with it then.

Thank God for auto-save. I had this post nearly completed yesterday afternoon when I tried to view it. I punched the view button and the entire internet in our village went kaput. I have apologized to the village chief and it is finally back up this morning. Lots of village girls and boys went Facebookless last night.

To address your questions...

1. Those times you so conveniently highlighted are Benghazi times. The US is six hours off. This emergemcy began at 1632 Washington time.

2. You asked a question that is unanswerable by anyone other than Panetta or Obama. I don't know why Panetta did not recontact Obama, nor do I know why Obama was not concerned enough about an invasion of our Consulate and the murdering of US diplomats to bother calling Panetta back for a progress report. Where was Obama's attention focused? Certainly not on Benghazi.

3. The US Military may not dispatch troops into a foreign country without Cross Border Authority. This authority must be issued by POTUS or no action may be taken. Was this action requested and refused, never requested or simply overlooked. Panetta and Brennan could not launch forces into Libya without the authorization on their own, regardless of whether Obama dumped the problem in their laps or not.

4. You say I don't have much of a leg to stand on but let me ask you this simple question about management 101. At that point in time, with a Consulate under attack on 9/11 and the lives of any number of US citizens in Libya and Egypt in danger, where do you think Obama should have been? In his residence packing a suitcase or in the Situation Room handling the emergency?

If he is going to enjoy the pomp and circumstance of being Commander in Chief, perhaps he should begin shouldering some of the responsibility for his actions and blame for his inaction.

Perhaps you have never been in a management position. If so you would not understand the need for him to have remained immediately available and on site for discussion and decision making during the attack.

PS: It I am "boring the tits" off you...simply stop responding.

Edited February 10, 2013 by chuckd

[DavoTheGun]

Chuckd sounds like he knows what he is talking about, does he really, I think not! blowing smoke they call this.

Maybe I am wrong, If I am, I would very much like to know his sources.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

The thread is about Clinton stepping down.

[chuckd]

Chuckd sounds like he knows what he is talking about, does he really, I think not! blowing smoke they call this.

Maybe I am wrong, If I am, I would very much like to know his sources.

No sources...other than over 30 years working on and running defense contracts in the Middle East, dealing with foreign governments and US State Department folks.

Having personally been through an Al-Qaeda assassination of an employee I have a fairly good feel for what has to be done...and it ain't telling my employees to take care of things while I go home and get ready for a trip. Running a couple of evacuations also brought home the fact to me that management needs to be hands-on sometimes.

Hiding behind delegation of authority is no way to run an emergency.

As I have said earlier, and more than once, I don't hold Clinton responsible for the lack of action during the attack. I think she was remiss in her responsibilities to ensure the Consulate and the Ambassador were adequately protected prior to the attack.

[JLCrab]

Having personally been through an Al-Qaeda assassination of an employee...

So were you remiss in your responsibilities in not having evacuated your employee the hell outa there beforehand?

[chuckd]

Having personally been through an Al-Qaeda assassination of an employee...

So were you remiss in your responsibilities in not having evacuated your employee the hell outa there beforehand?

Nope.

Edited February 11, 2013 by chuckd

[JLCrab]

On second thought, I'm not going to even touch that one.,

[DavoTheGun]

OK Chuckd, I stand corrected, I agree with most of what you say, I had a very "Close" association with the CIA in the seventy's thru to eighty's so also hav a bit of knowledge of what goes on!!

[Chicog]

Having personally been through an Al-Qaeda assassination of an employee...

So were you remiss in your responsibilities in not having evacuated your employee the hell outa there beforehand?

Nope.

Riyadh was it?

[chuckd]

Having personally been through an Al-Qaeda assassination of an employee...

So were you remiss in your responsibilities in not having evacuated your employee the hell outa there beforehand?

Nope.

Riyadh was it?

One of the incidents. They were all in the Middle East.

[Chicog]

One of the incidents. They were all in the Middle East.

One of my mates was badly injured in one of those attacks. They stopped him from being medivac'ed while they tried to pin it on the illicit booze trade. A-holes.

[SteeleJoe]

I may be wrong - and I confess I can't be bothered to checks I apologize if I'm wrong - but I think there were some posts that vehemently denied that Mrs. Clinton was popular. For what it's worth she came out on top of a recent survey as most suited for the presidency (mind you Condeleeza Rice was second).

Of course, it's probably not to be trusted since it was that Liberal biased lot over at FOX News who did the survey...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/02/13/fox-news-poll-hillary-clinton-and-rice-top-picks-who-would-make-good-president/

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[keemapoot]

I may be wrong - and I confess I can't be bothered to checks I apologize if I'm wrong - but I think there were some posts that vehemently denied that Mrs. Clinton was popular. For what it's worth she came out on top of a recent survey as most suited for the presidency (mind you Condeleeza Rice was second).

Of course, it's probably not to be trusted since it was that Liberal biased lot over at FOX News who did the survey...

http://www.foxnews.c...good-president/

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Maybe slightly off topic, but tangentially related: as Rubio is the new young fresh superstar face of the GOP, (even if he is a thirsty feller), I have to believe he would be slaughtered by Clinton in any Presidential race due to his inexperience. If Hilary doesn't run however, he looks good to go for the Repubs at this point.

[Chicog]

I may be wrong - and I confess I can't be bothered to checks I apologize if I'm wrong - but I think there were some posts that vehemently denied that Mrs. Clinton was popular. For what it's worth she came out on top of a recent survey as most suited for the presidency (mind you Condeleeza Rice was second).

Of course, it's probably not to be trusted since it was that Liberal biased lot over at FOX News who did the survey...

http://www.foxnews.c...good-president/

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Maybe slightly off topic, but tangentially related: as Rubio is the new young fresh superstar face of the GOP, (even if he is a thirsty feller), I have to believe he would be slaughtered by Clinton in any Presidential race due to his inexperience. If Hilary doesn't run however, he looks good to go for the Repubs at this point.

Best of a bad bunch? I mean look what they dragged out last time.

[keemapoot]

I may be wrong - and I confess I can't be bothered to checks I apologize if I'm wrong - but I think there were some posts that vehemently denied that Mrs. Clinton was popular. For what it's worth she came out on top of a recent survey as most suited for the presidency (mind you Condeleeza Rice was second).

Of course, it's probably not to be trusted since it was that Liberal biased lot over at FOX News who did the survey...

http://www.foxnews.c...good-president/

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Maybe slightly off topic, but tangentially related: as Rubio is the new young fresh superstar face of the GOP, (even if he is a thirsty feller), I have to believe he would be slaughtered by Clinton in any Presidential race due to his inexperience. If Hilary doesn't run however, he looks good to go for the Repubs at this point.

Best of a bad bunch? I mean look what they dragged out last time.

Interesting news today, Facebook Founder/Mogul Zuckerberg is backing Chris Christie in his re-election bid. Looks like this Repub has found himself a deep pocket already for 2016.

[Chicog]

Interesting news today, Facebook Founder/Mogul Zuckerberg is backing Chris Christie in his re-election bid. Looks like this Repub has found himself a deep pocket already for 2016.

He's got a lot more going for him, carried himself extremely well during Sandy.

[SteeleJoe]

Interesting news today, Facebook Founder/Mogul Zuckerberg is backing Chris Christie in his re-election bid. Looks like this Repub has found himself a deep pocket already for 2016.

He's got a lot more going for him, carried himself extremely well during Sandy.

Either a display of genuine quality or some very smart politicking - or both - that at that time he behaved in a way that gained some admiration from Obama supporters...that might pay some dividends depending on who the Dems field in '16.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[keemapoot]

Interesting news today, Facebook Founder/Mogul Zuckerberg is backing Chris Christie in his re-election bid. Looks like this Repub has found himself a deep pocket already for 2016.

He's got a lot more going for him, carried himself extremely well during Sandy.

Either a display of genuine quality or some very smart politicking - or both - that at that time he behaved in a way that gained some admiration from Obama supporters...that might pay some dividends depending on who the Dems field in '16.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Christie recently really made a good showing on the Letterman show, and was very funny and self-deprecating - showing up eating a donut after interminable jokes by Letterman over the past year about Christie's weight. He also fended off a former White House medical officer who said his weight was dangerous to his health. Christie is an old style straight talker. I like him.

[Chicog]

And he told Fox News to <deleted> when they tried to play politics during the emergency response. I think that endeared him to a lot of people.