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 ...
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.
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.
Admiral Barnstead advised me to stay out of the pool.
“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.
Ignore my correction! I see you already got it! ;-)
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.
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.
okay....not sure who tweeted what. The rumor about Ham being relieved is still a rumor at this point.....that much we DO know.
Ah that is the reason the general was replaced for allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment”.
Sorry but does not add up.
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.
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?
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.
.
That’s true. Just pointing out that bboop is wrong about Griffin writing the tweet.
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.
..--..
Yes, posts #81 and #83 are also very informative on that.
Still responding like a child I see.
Watch your back General Ham!!
I'm not sure you can keep that many people quite?
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.