Octopus Overlords

Max Peck wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Max Peck wrote: It sounds like she is not the only State Department official to use personal email of some sort for work-related purposes.

As Secretary of State, AKA head of the State Department, isn't that kind of on her too though? I mean, "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" seems like a pretty self-destructive rationalization.

I didn't say that it was good practice, but if the State Dept IT systems for unclassified email were so dysfunctional that it was not abnormal for high-level officials to use personal email accounts to get things done, then it doesn't necessarily follow that Clinton was doing it to avoid oversight. She may have done it for that reason, or she may -- along with the rest of them -- have done it simply to get stuff done.

FWIW, I don't recall seeing any claims that Clinton has said anything at all like "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" Have you seen any such defense from her? All I quoted was an article that cites an email exchange discussing how foobar the State Dept IT was.

Do you think that Hillary ever even pondered the technical details about how her email worked?

Damned if I know. The emails released from her server seem to indicate at least one occasion where she engaged in a discussion with staff with regard to how the State Dept email system didn't work. Beyond that, I know nothing.

That's my point. She was told the system was crap and she was the Sec of State running the department. Instead of looking to fix it, she just used a shitty workaround.

Staff: "Hey, this system sucks."
Boss: "Really?'"
Staff: "Yeah...if only someone running this department had the power to fix it..."
Boss: "Yep, if only. Well, I'ma go ahead and violate security protocol."

Rip wrote:There isn't anything classified on a security application.

Yes and no. Not being Chinese, I'm not intimately familiar with the ins and outs of American infosec policy, but I do know that on my side of the border a completed application would require a higher level of protection than being treated as simply unclassified. I'd be more concerned about the lack of judgement than the potential disregard of regulations, though. It just seems sloppy for the guy who heads that agency. (Disclaimer: I expect more from professionals than I do from politicians. In most cases, politicians are gifted amateurs at best.)

Rip wrote:

A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/po ... .html?_r=0

I can't access the linked article, so I had to settle for secondary reporting that cites it. There is too little information given for me to assess what actually happened. It appears that the information sent to her may have been via channels where it was not considered classified whereas other government agencies considered it to be, or that someone retroactively decided that it should have been classified but it wasn't actually classified at the time it was sent to her. If the information was from a clearly marked classified source and was either transmitted to her over an unclassified channel with the classification marking in place, or after the classification marking had been inappropriately stripped, then I would agree that a violation had occurred. However, the point of failure in such a case would be the person originating the inappropriate communication, not the person receiving it (although I'd expect the recipient to react appropriately if the violation was obvious, e.g. having received information bearing a classification marking over an unclass comms link). Note that this is just an opinion based on a rational assessment -- it is entirely possibly that American law requires the recipient to have some sort of psychic knowledge that the information is classified even in the absence of any markings.

Also, for the record, I'm not going to defend her decision to use a private email server. I believe that was a bad call on her part, but I'm not convinced that she's broken any laws. If credible evidence is uncovered that she did, I hope she is held accountable. If not, it is up to the American electorate to decide if they trust her judgement enough to put her in the White House.

Getting back to the whole personal server thing one last time, I pretty much agree with this guy:

It would present an "opportunity" for spy agencies if the foreign minister of Russia or Iran were to use a private email server for official business, the chief of the U.S. National Security Agency said on Thursday.

The comments by Admiral Mike Rogers were in response to questions during a U.S. Senate hearing about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server for email.

"From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity," Rogers told senators.

The server has become an issue in Clinton's campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. She has apologized for her use of the equipment.

During a hearing on the NSA, Republican Senator Tom Cotton asked Rogers a series of questions related to Clinton's use of a private email server at her home for communications as secretary of state.

Rogers said he did not want to be dragged into the issue, but Cotton said he wanted the NSA director's "professional opinion."

Cotton asked whether Rogers considered the communications of top advisers to the president, even those that are unclassified, a top priority for foreign spy agencies.

"Yes," Rogers responded.

Asking yourself "Would it be good for us if the opposing force did what I'm about to do?" is always a good sanity check to run before you execute a plan, especially if you're about to do something you think is clever.

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Staff: "Hey, this system sucks."
Boss: "Really?'"
Staff: "Yeah...if only someone running this department had the power to fix it..."
Boss: "Yep, if only. Well, I'ma go ahead and violate security protocol."

My thoughts as well. That said, when you want high profile secretary of state stuff that will move your career forward, mucking around with an old shitty email system is not high on your priority list. Or even in your circle of awareness, beyond it being an impediment to that high profile secretary of state stuff.

Which is to say, I agree with you.

GreenGoo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Staff: "Hey, this system sucks."
Boss: "Really?'"
Staff: "Yeah...if only someone running this department had the power to fix it..."
Boss: "Yep, if only. Well, I'ma go ahead and violate security protocol."

My thoughts as well. That said, when you want high profile secretary of state stuff that will move your career forward, mucking around with an old shitty email system is not high on your priority list. Or even in your circle of awareness, beyond it being an impediment to that high profile secretary of state stuff.

Which is to say, I agree with you.

You work in government IT (at NDHQ, iirc). Haven't you yourself mentioned staff using work-arounds because stuff just doesn't work properly? Have you ever heard of any Minister of National Defence taking it upon themself to meddle in the technical details of the IT infrastructure? For that matter, our one little snippet of information only tells us about the one exchange (i.e. discussing the problem, one staffer suggesting writing an article about it and another staffer saying it would be a bad idea to go public about the problem because it would worsen the security risk). For all we know from the information presented in this thread she may very well have followed up by telling the CIO-equivalent to get their shit together. Or not. We don't know, but where's the fun in letting ignorance get in the way of jumping to conclusions or deploying weapon-grade snark.

The original point I tried to make wasn't to defend her decision wrt the server (I agree that she chose poorly), just that it was common practice in the State Department at that time and it is entirely possible that the decision was made for expediency in getting her job done rather than in an effort to evade oversight.

Lawbeef's point is when you're the head of a department, working around the department's failings instead of fixing them and then complaining about the failings, is bullshit.

People do all sorts of things to work around shitty policy and/or tech that makes it impossible (or at least incredibly cumbersome) to do their jobs. None of those people have the power to fix the shitty policies and/or tech that makes their job impossible.

I can be sympathetic about a minion working around stuff (even security violations, technically) just to do their job. It's hard to be sympathetic when the boss tries the same thing. It means they were aware of the problem, that it's a big enough problem to work around (against company/department/government policy), yet do nothing to try to fix it.

Even the CIO is beholden to the CEO in most organizations. Government can be "special", no question, but that just perpetuates the problem.

GreenGoo wrote:Lawbeef's point is when you're the head of a department, working around the department's failings instead of fixing them and then complaining about the failings, is bullshit.

People do all sorts of things to work around shitty policy and/or tech that makes it impossible (or at least incredibly cumbersome) to do their jobs. None of those people have the power to fix the shitty policies and/or tech that makes their job impossible.

I can be sympathetic about a minion working around stuff (even security violations, technically) just to do their job. It's hard to be sympathetic when the boss tries the same thing. It means they were aware of the problem, that it's a big enough problem to work around (against company/department/government policy), yet do nothing to try to fix it.

Even the CIO is beholden to the CEO in most organizations. Government can be "special", no question, but that just perpetuates the problem.

That's fine (except for the tolerance for security violations -- that kind of makes me want to shoot you in the face*). I'll just point out one last time that we don't know, one way or the other, whether she made any attempt to have the IT problems fixed. She was Secretary of State, not God Almighty, and just saying "Make it work!" does not convey any magical capability for making it work all of a sudden if it was previously a dysfunctional piece of shit -- if it did, your boss would say it to you and you'd magically fix your infrastructure. In the mean time, she may have just said "Fuck it" and did what she had to do to get the job done.

We. Don't. Know. But we're having too much fun jumping to conclusions to bother caring about maintaining any objectivity or pretending that we live in societies that cherish principles like presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence. Probably because it is easier to take a jaundiced look, start with a predetermined conclusion and run with it. It's certainly more entertaining than all that tiresome, boring, waiting-for-the-facts-to-come-out stuff.

Unless, of course, you do know for a fact that she never tried to get the problem fixed. In that case, just point me at the facts and if they look legit I'll gladly jump off my fence and on to your bandwagon.

* Just kidding. I'd actually just yell at you and report you to security.

Max Peck wrote: That's fine (except for the tolerance for security violations -- that kind of makes me want to shoot you in the face*). I'll just point out one last time that we don't know, one way or the other, whether she made any attempt to have the IT problems fixed. She was Secretary of State, not God Almighty, and just saying "Make it work!" does not convey any magical capability for making it work all of a sudden if it was previously a dysfunctional piece of shit

It kind of does. Things are broken because people break them. People want to fix things and often know how to do it (especially something like an IT system. Broken policies are potentially another matter). When the boss tells you to fix something, you fix it. You often have been hoping for someone to allow you to fix it for years, and if by some small miracle someone does allow you to fix it, your faith in humanity is restored.

The problem, especially in IT, is not being unable to fix it, but no one willing to pay for it (despite the opportunity cost of remaining broken being demonstrably more significant).

Max Peck wrote: Unless, of course, you do know for a fact that she never tried to get the problem fixed. In that case, just point me at the facts and if they look legit I'll gladly jump off my fence and on to your bandwagon.

What I do know, is that there has been a lot of talk about why she had her own server, but absolutely no talk about what she tried to do to avoid having her own server. i.e. fix the problem. This is a tactic that is often used by people trying to deflect criticism away from themselves, whether they are children spilling juice all over the counter, or in a board room trying to weasel out of responsibility for falling behind on a project.

It's not my fault that everyone is asking why she had her own server, but no one seems to be asking what she did to fix the reason she had to have her own server.

Lastly, the buck stops with the boss. Whether she did or didn't try to fix the problems, and whether she was able or unable to fix the problem, she has to take ownership. She's the secretary of state. She is now in charge of that department. Period. Sure she can point at her IT manager and say it's his fault, and that might even work sometimes, but mostly the stakeholders don't want to know who's fault it is, they want to know why it wasn't fixed. And that question falls directly on the boss. That's why they get the big bux.

GreenGoo wrote:

Max Peck wrote: That's fine (except for the tolerance for security violations -- that kind of makes me want to shoot you in the face*). I'll just point out one last time that we don't know, one way or the other, whether she made any attempt to have the IT problems fixed. She was Secretary of State, not God Almighty, and just saying "Make it work!" does not convey any magical capability for making it work all of a sudden if it was previously a dysfunctional piece of shit

It kind of does. Things are broken because people break them. People want to fix things and often know how to do it (especially something like an IT system. Broken policies are potentially another matter). When the boss tells you to fix something, you fix it. You often have been hoping for someone to allow you to fix it for years, and if by some small miracle someone does allow you to fix it, your faith in humanity is restored.

The problem, especially in IT, is not being unable to fix it, but no one willing to pay for it (despite the opportunity cost if remaining broken being demonstrably more significant).

Meh, now look what you made me do. I'm reading her job description as Secretary of State instead of taking that nap I was thinking about, gorramit, because I'm wondering just how busy she would have been, and how much free time she would have had in order to personally supervise the IT systems.

Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following:

• Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
• Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
• Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
• Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
• Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
• Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
• Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
• Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
• Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
• Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
• Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
• Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
• Administers the Department of State;
• Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.

Yup, with just that on her plate, I'm sure she had nothing better to do than micromanage the email systems. It seems implausable that she was so busy that she'd merely say "Hey, Staffer23, tell the Alpha Nerd to make this work properly!" and go back to her own work, or even (gasp) assume that the nerd herd was already doing its best to make things work and just did what seemed expedient to get her own work done. That would be inconceivable. In. Con. Ceivable.

It isn't like she tried to do it right and then set up a server. The server was setup long before she was SecState and there is nothing to indicate she ever even tried to use the proper system. Heck she didn't even have a State department address.

To buy into the belief that she setup the server to get stuff done after the proper network and server failed her requires you to ignore numerous facts.

Rip wrote:It isn't like she tried to do it right and then set up a server. The server was setup long before she was SecState and there is nothing to indicate she ever even tried to use the proper system. Heck she didn't even have a State department address.

To buy into the belief that she setup the server to get stuff done after the proper network and server failed her requires you to ignore numerous facts.

Your fervently cherished beliefs just don't look like facts from here. Sorry. Maybe if I shared your Naughty Hillary® fetish I'd be able to see it, but she's just not my type.

Also, you really, really don't want to google "Naughty Hillary fetish" -- trust me on that.

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Max Peck wrote: These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States...

I have it on good authority she was using the Great Seal to crack walnuts.

Rip wrote:It isn't like she tried to do it right and then set up a server. The server was setup long before she was SecState and there is nothing to indicate she ever even tried to use the proper system. Heck she didn't even have a State department address.

To buy into the belief that she setup the server to get stuff done after the proper network and server failed her requires you to ignore numerous facts.

Which is exactly what the previous Secretaries of State did - see Colin Powell as an example, though apparently Condi Rice didn't even use email.

Do you think Hillary or Obama could EVEN NOW after 3 years of investigation get Congress to approve an IT overhaul? If Congress really thought this was necessary to fix, they would fund it.

Max Peck wrote: Yup, with just that on her plate, I'm sure she had nothing better to do than micromanage the email systems. It seems implausable that she was so busy that she'd merely say "Hey, Staffer23, tell the Alpha Nerd to make this work properly!" and go back to her own work, or even (gasp) assume that the nerd herd was already doing its best to make things work and just did what seemed expedient to get her own work done. That would be inconceivable. In. Con. Ceivable.

eh? She's responsible for her organization. That she has a lot of work to do doesn't change anything.

I'm not sure if you've ever managed anything, but there is this thing called delegation. That's part and parcel to any job. And even if she had delegated, she would be responsible for the job that was done, for good or for bad.

She's allowed to use her judgment and decide if people can work autonomously or not, but that doesn't absolve her of responsibility if things are broken.

You aren't the head of an organization, see inefficiencies and broken systems, and then just assume that the good people down in IT know what they're doing and good luck to them. Their problems are YOUR problems, when you're the chief. Just like if HIlary screwed up (for real, not this benghazi nonsense) then Obama is responsible. He appointed her. Obama doesn't get to shrug and say "well, yeah, she made the mistake of thinking Putin was an ally, but I thought she knew what she was doing and even though I didn't like it, I figured it would all work out in the end".

Zarathud wrote:Do you think Hillary or Obama could EVEN NOW after 3 years of investigation get Congress to approve an IT overhaul? If Congress really thought this was necessary to fix, they would fund it.

a) if IT is a shared service, then I pity you.
b) if changes to IT require an act of Congress, I pity you.

If that's true then the IT infrastructure for your government is held together with bandaids and shoe strings. It's only a matter of time before the entire thing collapses.

That's embarrassing.

Pyperkub wrote:This is getting interesting

Hard to argue with that.

gbasden wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:This is getting interesting

Hard to argue with that.

I can't help but feel this is just about optics. What are the chances that the RNC actually cough up some bucks?

If they were serious, they would sue.

I can't believe any of the GOP candidates would stand up this well to an 11-hour (so far) partisan grilling. Admire Clinton or not, she is tougher than any of them.

From what I've seen, I don't think they landed a punch on her. What a waste of money.

Pyperkub wrote:This is getting interesting

From Josh Marshall:

I think Sen. Reid and those other Senators are right that it would probably be appropriate for the RNC to pick up the tab for the millions spent by Trey Gowdy's 'Benghazi committee'. But in fairness, probably fair for the DNC to pick up the bill for today's event.

Well, at least I learned something from the inquisition: Congress-critter Martha Roby doesn't grasp the concept of "sexual innuendo" at all, whereas Hillary Clinton may well have an actual sense of humour.

Did I just read a dozen posts lamenting that the Secretary of State should be spending *any* amount of time or effort dealing with the IT infrastructure at the State Dept?

The Secretary of State is nothing at all like a middle manager or a CIO or a CEO or anything of that sort - at all. They aren't appointed for the managerial skills, or their elite IT overhauling skills. Their job literally has nothing to do with that - and while it's true that the Secretary of State is the head of the State Department, they aren't sitting around running it the way a Sales Manager is the head of a Sales organization. They are a political appointee whose primary job requirement has nothing at all to do with managing an organization (or their IT Dept). Their job is to manage and implement the President's foreign policy, from a political perspective.

Jesus H. Christ.

I have an extreme dislike of Hilary Clinton and can't conceive of me ever voting for her (unless it's against Trump). But this is whole thing is absurd. Discussing whether she broke the law in having classified information pass through an email server she had setup for personal use? Reasonable line of inquiry. Complaining that she's not running the State Dept according to the best practices used to manage your local Target? WTF are you people talking about?!?

RunningMn9 wrote:Did I just read a dozen posts lamenting that the Secretary of State should be spending *any* amount of time or effort dealing with the IT infrastructure at the State Dept?

The Secretary of State is nothing at all like a middle manager or a CIO or a CEO or anything of that sort - at all. They aren't appointed for the managerial skills, or their elite IT overhauling skills. Their job literally has nothing to do with that - and while it's true that the Secretary of State is the head of the State Department, they aren't sitting around running it the way a Sales Manager is the head of a Sales organization. They are a political appointee whose primary job requirement has nothing at all to do with managing an organization (or their IT Dept). Their job is to manage and implement the President's foreign policy, from a political perspective.

Jesus H. Christ.

I have an extreme dislike of Hilary Clinton and can't conceive of me ever voting for her (unless it's against Trump). But this is whole thing is absurd. Discussing whether she broke the law in having classified information pass through an email server she had setup for personal use? Reasonable line of inquiry. Complaining that she's not running the State Dept according to the best practices used to manage your local Target? WTF are you people talking about?!?

Indeed, how can we tolerate such a waste of money?

Those situations involve a third party defrauding the taxpayer, not Congress. That's not the government (in)efficiency we're looking for.

The price tag (wasteful as it is) isn't what people find most offensive, obnoxious, and asinine about this whole scheme.

Max Peck wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Did I just read a dozen posts lamenting that the Secretary of State should be spending *any* amount of time or effort dealing with the IT infrastructure at the State Dept?

The Secretary of State is nothing at all like a middle manager or a CIO or a CEO or anything of that sort - at all. They aren't appointed for the managerial skills, or their elite IT overhauling skills. Their job literally has nothing to do with that - and while it's true that the Secretary of State is the head of the State Department, they aren't sitting around running it the way a Sales Manager is the head of a Sales organization. They are a political appointee whose primary job requirement has nothing at all to do with managing an organization (or their IT Dept). Their job is to manage and implement the President's foreign policy, from a political perspective.

Jesus H. Christ.

I have an extreme dislike of Hilary Clinton and can't conceive of me ever voting for her (unless it's against Trump). But this is whole thing is absurd. Discussing whether she broke the law in having classified information pass through an email server she had setup for personal use? Reasonable line of inquiry. Complaining that she's not running the State Dept according to the best practices used to manage your local Target? WTF are you people talking about?!?

Obligatory HRC-looking-impressed shot:

Max Peck wrote:

Lol, I wouldn't get too excited, he's coming for you next.

RunningMn9 wrote:Did I just read a dozen posts lamenting that the Secretary of State should be spending *any* amount of time or effort dealing with the IT infrastructure at the State Dept?

The Secretary of State is nothing at all like a middle manager or a CIO or a CEO or anything of that sort - at all. They aren't appointed for the managerial skills, or their elite IT overhauling skills. Their job literally has nothing to do with that - and while it's true that the Secretary of State is the head of the State Department, they aren't sitting around running it the way a Sales Manager is the head of a Sales organization. They are a political appointee whose primary job requirement has nothing at all to do with managing an organization (or their IT Dept). Their job is to manage and implement the President's foreign policy, from a political perspective.

Jesus H. Christ.

I have an extreme dislike of Hilary Clinton and can't conceive of me ever voting for her (unless it's against Trump). But this is whole thing is absurd. Discussing whether she broke the law in having classified information pass through an email server she had setup for personal use? Reasonable line of inquiry. Complaining that she's not running the State Dept according to the best practices used to manage your local Target? WTF are you people talking about?!?

No worries Rmn9. Why don't you explain to us how the state department is run, who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

While I always enjoy and can count on the scorn no matter the topic, why don't you educate us on what we're missing.

See, up here, our ministers are like, in charge of their ministries. I know that seems foreign to you because you know, the minister of defense doesn't actually drive the apc's or design the hr system, but guess who gets the political fallout when the apc's are in the shop more than functional? Or when there are security issues with the hrms?

That's why the minister kicks the asses of his subordinates when things go wrong.

But no, yeah, the secretary of state is not a middle manager (because that is totally what Lawbeef was saying).

But in all seriousness, if the secretary of state is not responsible for the state department, who is? If the department is not working efficiently, who's ass do you have to kick to get it working more efficiently? And who does the kicking?

I'm happy to be proven wrong, if for example, you have a department of infrastructure that is responsible for email services for other departments. There are lots of possible ways to manage a government department.

Since you have such a strong opinion, I assume you know how the state department is managed, who's at the top of the food chain, and who gets to kick who's ass. Please tell us.

One great thing to come out of yesterday is that even Fox News seems to realize that "Benghazi" is a dead horse. They cut away form the hearings way before any other network and today I see no mentions of the hearing in their top headlines. I don't plan on voting for Hillary, but yesterday the Republicans sure did do a great job of making her look way better than them.

GreenGoo wrote:state department..., who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

State Department org chart (PDF)

Steven C. Taylor, CIO, should probably be answering the questions as to why his employees feel the need to use external e-mail servers to get their job done. If he pleads poverty, perhaps Douglas A. Pitkin, acting Director of Budget and Planning needs to be brought in. If their answers are unsatisfactory, they both answer to Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management.

Here are their phone numbers.

GreenGoo wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Lol, I wouldn't get too excited, he's coming for you next.

I was applauding the fact that he was able to evaluate the situation on it's own merits rather than starting with the forgone conclusion that a politician he doesn't like must automatically be in the wrong. Plus he made his point succinctly and with a clarity that I admire and envy. When he takes me down a notch or two, I can only hope it will be in the same style.

GreenGoo wrote:Why don't you explain to us how the state department is run, who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

You've got lots of free time, look it up for yourself.


Edit: Dammit (again) Isgrimnur!

Isgrimnur wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:state department..., who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

State Department org chart (PDF)

Steven C. Taylor, CIO, should probably be answering the questions as to why his employees feel the need to use external e-mail servers to get their job done. If he pleads poverty, perhaps Douglas A. Pitkin, acting Director of Budget and Planning needs to be brought in. If their answers are unsatisfactory, they both answer to Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management.

Here are their phone numbers.

Oh, hey, look who's at the top of the org chart. If only she had the authority to order them to fix problems she so clearly identified within her department.

Look, no one suggested that she fix the problem herself, or even have it on her daily agenda. What Lawbeef was saying, which I agree with, is that the head of the department is responsible for problems that exist within the department. Normally a politician would simply plead ignorance, but she can't even do that because she clearly identified it as a problem that she needed to work around.

If only she had a aide or two, or perhaps an Under secretary that she could take the time to say 1 sentence to, perhaps something like "holy fuck (she likes to swear, right?) I can't get anything done here. find out why and what we need to fix it".

But as Rmn9 suggests, she has time to have a private email server set up to work around the problem, but kicking asses in her department so she doesn't have to set up her own server is not in the scope of the Secretary.

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Why don't you explain to us how the state department is run, who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

You've got lots of free time, look it up for yourself.
Edit: Dammit (again) Isgrimnur!

I'm too busy dropping into threads and shitting on people.