Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Obama Fire General Ham Of Africom For Attempting To Buck His Order And Rescue Stevens?
Pat Dollard ^ | 10/28/12 | Pat Dollard

Posted on 10/28/2012 10:53:40 AM PDT by Nachum

The latest hot rumor flying around the internet is that General Ham of Africon, whose departure was announced last week, was actually fired for attempting to buck Obama’s order not to rescue Ambassador Stevens. He’s not exactly leaving early for his type of command, plus, he’s still in command, I have to assume, since his replacement still has to be confirmed by the Senate. Even if it’s an urban legend, it’s such a cool one that it’s kind of a duty to pass it on. Here’s the text most-often seen in emails, message boards and blog posts:

I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.

quote: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

(Excerpt) Read more at readability.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: africom; benghazi; benghazigate; bhoafrica; christopherstevens; cicobama; coverup; fired; general; generalham; ham; libya; rescue; stevens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: yldstrk

Here. Let me try to break this down for you.

General Ham took over for the disgraced General Ward.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/08/ap-ward-africom-lavish-spending-081712

It was a temporary position for Ham and he was only meant to hold the job until a permanent replacement could be found.

The replacement was announced ten days ago.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/10/army-forces-command-head-david-rodriguez-tapped-lead-africom-101812w/

There has been no change of command ceremony because General Ham is still the AFRICOM Commander.... right now. He’s there. Doing the job.

http://www.africom.mil/GenCarterHam.asp

He hasn’t been arrested, fired or relieved. He’s fine.

This is nothing more than a rumor and it’s total BS.


81 posted on 10/28/2012 12:40:31 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: atc23

Admiral Barnstead advised me to stay out of the pool.


82 posted on 10/28/2012 12:46:07 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

“Ham was in trouble over lavish spending before Benghazi. There was a question before all that happened whether or not to let him retire with 4 or 3 stars. Benghazi never played into that question.”

That was NOT Ham. That was Ward.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/08/ap-ward-africom-lavish-spending-081712

Ham took over for Ward who was in trouble for the lavish spending.

Ham is still now the AFRICOM Commander.


83 posted on 10/28/2012 1:01:39 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

Ignore my correction! I see you already got it! ;-)


84 posted on 10/28/2012 1:02:16 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
How nice for her. The real question at this point is who controls her sources, who are they speaking for.

The only way this is silenced at this point is with a full outing of what went on with the general from the man himself. Even then you will have the questions of who got to him and what they are holding over him. You can not end it now. Either way it goes it is a disaster for the dems.

85 posted on 10/28/2012 1:11:47 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
EVEN IF this is just a rumor for now, we still should keep ‘Benghazi’, ‘Amb Stevens and Sean Smith’, those two SEALs’ names (Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty), ‘CIA’, ‘Stand Down’, and ‘Gen Ham’ hot in headlines, and in 24/7 news cycles long as possible, and this is the time conservatives need to be smart about the social media.

Let's hope the overseas media, which like to stir up the pot, pick up the story.

The WH and media here can not keep all this under wrap.

86 posted on 10/28/2012 1:16:08 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

okay....not sure who tweeted what. The rumor about Ham being relieved is still a rumor at this point.....that much we DO know.


87 posted on 10/28/2012 1:18:12 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
MOST IF NOT ALL THESE CHANGES IN COMMAND WERE PLANNED LONG BEFORE BENGHAZI INCIDENT BECAUSE THEY WERE REPORTED IN THE MILITARY TIMES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS.

Ah that is the reason the general was replaced for allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment”.

Sorry but does not add up.

88 posted on 10/28/2012 1:18:20 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

One minute into this Bolton explains the two stories being circulated:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1927355949001/

Hope that clears up what I believe is a contradiction.


89 posted on 10/28/2012 1:25:03 PM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Did Obama Fire General Ham Of Africom For Attempting To Buck His Order And Rescue Stevens?

Well, yes.

If we set all the administration bullshit* aside, that seems to have happened. All the reports support that conclusion.

In a matter of minutes.

Let me ask a really stupid question...
If the commander of a battalion is ordered to surrender all the troops under his command to the enemy, and he ignores the order, can he be legally court martialed?

Stating the question in a clearer way, is the President of the United States immune to prosecution for any and all crimes while in office?

Can't the House impeach him for criminal incompetence?

90 posted on 10/28/2012 1:33:58 PM PDT by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius911; All

The two ex-SEALs who ignored orders not to assist are (rightly so) being hailed as heroes.

In that context, General Ham HAD TO MAKE THE SAME CALL.

I see him as a patriot if he, in fact, ignored the call to stand down and made an effort to rescue dozens of Americans. Remember, the two SEALs saved 30 or so lives before they were killed 7 hours into the attack.

Obama not only left the four dead men behind, he was willing to let dozens die for political reasons.


91 posted on 10/28/2012 1:36:54 PM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

.


92 posted on 10/28/2012 1:48:46 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; bboop

That’s true. Just pointing out that bboop is wrong about Griffin writing the tweet.


93 posted on 10/28/2012 1:49:00 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

That’s may be the most cogent thing you have typed so far. Obviously you have a bug up your butt about something I posted but, thanks to your inability to communicate it in anything approaching a known language, I still don’t have the faintest idea what it is. If you ever manage to learn how to express yourself directly in an adult manner get back to me and let me know what your problem with my post is. Your other problem is obvious.


94 posted on 10/28/2012 1:53:10 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; maggief
maggie's post 32

Bret Baier@BretBaier

multiple sources incldg Gen Ham himself say the report that he was relieved of his cmd over Benghazi, or anything else, are NOT true - 1/2.
95 posted on 10/28/2012 1:56:35 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
..--..

96 posted on 10/28/2012 2:23:43 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

Yes, posts #81 and #83 are also very informative on that.


97 posted on 10/28/2012 2:24:22 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

Still responding like a child I see.


98 posted on 10/28/2012 2:25:33 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Watch your back General Ham!!


99 posted on 10/28/2012 2:30:18 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
That would mean there were hundreds of servicemen/women making ready for the rescue mission only be to threatened to standdown or be removed from duty.

I'm not sure you can keep that many people quite?

100 posted on 10/28/2012 2:34:21 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson