Why didn’t the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven’s diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive–do you think it’s the media’s responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they’ve been attacked?I'd kind of like to know the answers to those questions, actually. Probably most of us who have handled classified information would like to hear a firm answer here. Is there one?
Good Questions
You probably heard that one of Sec. Clinton's aides got snippy over some questions. We like Sec. Clinton around here, but the questions are pretty solid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"I'd kind of like to know the answers to those questions, actually. Probably most of us who have handled classified information would like to hear a firm answer here. Is there one? "
Undoubtedly, but that/those answers that will not be willingly divulged by The ∅, his Administration, or his DoS.
Best case- Because they are a totally politicized bunch of fools hidebound by the same regulations they think protect them?
second best case- Because the actual security of the USA is about last on their list of daily concerns?
worst case- because they actually want us to look like incompetent idiots?
Power Line provides an email from State that supplies answers to those questions. Heads up, though--State's answers contain sophomorically adult language.
I think he made his position...clear.
Eric Hines
And the carefully and thoughtfully crafted prose directed towards the Buzzfeed person's questions originates with the Secretary of State's spokesperson.
Diplomacy! Who knew I too could speak like a diplomat?
Never mind how many clowns will fit in an iddy biddy car. We now have to anxiously fret over how many clowns will fit in Federalis halls of power in Washington, D.C.
Given the dearth of responsible adults to be found in those halls, the State of the Union is no surprise.
Well, the questioner is Michael Hastings -- the same reporter who betrayed the trust of General McChyrstal and his staff. Under those circumstances, I would say the response is accurate and merited.
"Well, the questioner is Michael Hastings -- the same reporter who betrayed the trust of General McChyrstal and his staff."
I did not make the Hastings connection. That sounds out the level of the Buzzfeed fellows character on or about that with Whale excrement. However,
"Under those circumstances, I would say the response is accurate and merited. "
I'll have to disagree. If I'm representing a high office, an associate, or anyone/organization other than myself, I'll hold my words and deeds to a higher level of professionalism. And even though the buzzfeed fellows tone took a nosedive, the questions were/are legitimate.
Diplomacy, it is said, is the art of knowing how to tell someone to go to H3!! and receive a gracious thank you in reply. DoS spokesguy failed, miserably.
Now if the BF guy was pestering DoS guy about a personal matter, I'd have no problem with a FO response.
Heck, on personal topic and in a dark alley, I'd have no problem with a willingness to back up or react to said suggestion to FO with acts.
I suppose I'm once again putting the thinking of a bygone age on display.
If I'm representing a high office, an associate, or anyone/organization other than myself, I'll hold my words and deeds to a higher level of professionalism.
Fair enough. I still think that "unmitigated ***hole" is merely accurate. FO may be no better than he deserves, but I see your point about wishing to represent your boss as being generous and professional.
Under those circumstances, I would say the response is accurate and merited.
There's another problem with this. It seeks to justify miscreancy on the grounds that someone else was a miscreant, too.
Eric Hines
Well, that's just where we differ. I don't think it's a case of two wrongs making a right, because I think it's not wrong for anyone in the military or diplomatic corps to respond to any question from Hastings by saying that (a) we remember how you betrayed the trust you were invested with by better men than yourself, and (b) therefore, go away, and tell your publication they'd better send someone else if they want any other answer on any subject at all.
If they happen to phrase that response roughly, well, he hasn't earned a high level of respect. In fact, I think he's merited a very low level of respect: treating him better than he deserves would only leave the wrong unaddressed.
Now, I do agree that the questions are valid. From another reporter, an answer ought to be given. If I were a commanding officer, I'd instruct my public affairs officer not to give this guy an opinion about the time of day or the color of the sky.
That's just it, he never should have engaged him in the first place. That's where he went wrong. Well, that, and working in such an incompetent administration.
Post a Comment