Posted on 10/29/2012 12:12:26 PM PDT by tselatysr
This is one version of the back story that is being oft-repeated. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it’s going to need irrefutable documentation, or a formal, sourced statement from someone who was there with General Ham and witnessed this.
I saw Rep. Jason Chaffetz on Greta’s show in the past few days. Chaffetz went on a fact-finding mission to Libya a week or so after the Benghazi murders, accompanied by General Ham. Chaffetz stated that he personally asked General Ham if there had been assets under his command that could have responded to calls for help from Benghazi during the 7+ hour assault. According to Chaffetz, General Ham said that, yes, there were assets under his command who were in a position to help, but that help had never been requested.
It sure seems to me that if General Ham was prepared to “go rogue” and had been relieved of his command on the spot, he would have told Rep. Chaffetz that fact.
I like the image, but it will never happen. Not unless there is a collapse of both parties and the Washington government. THEN there could be a LOT of tribunals.
Everyone wants to believe that our admirals and generals are not political and have great moral courage. The truth is, our admirals and generals come from the farms, towns and cities of The United States. They are not gods. They have families to take care of. They have a reputation within military circles to protect. Most of them are still young enough to want to have a good job after they retire. Let me give you an example. Bill Clinton was the Commander In Chief. He was impeached for lying. Many people believed he would resign. Not slick Willy. Trust is essential in the military. If you are given an order in combat, your Commander has to trust that you will execute that order. The whole battle may hinge on you being trustworthy. When Clinton was impeached, how many generals or admirals retired over it? They could have. Their retirement is a comfortable one. They told the Democrats that they were willing to look the other way about Clinton’s lying. Something they would never tolerate from even a Second Lieutenant. Now, the argument they make is that if they embarrass the Democrats, then the Democrats will get revenge on them by cutting the military budget. Well, guess what, the Democrats will cut the military budget anyway. Obama can count on our admirals and generals looking away. He saw the precedent set during the Clinton administration.
Panetta’s comments are cowardly. Risk is INHERENT when deploying forces into “Harm’s way”. He is a fool and dishonors every American soldier when he says that. The 0bama regime has ripped the spirit straight out of our soldiers by their cowardly actions. Who wants to fight for a coward? NOBODY. I guess that’s the goal here; To demoralize our fighting forces. Soldiers should WANT to go into a situation like Benghazi that night. Putting their training to good use, to KILL the bad guys and to SAVE AMERICAN LIVES. This is a dream mission for most soldiers but 0bama didn’t want his Muslim brothers to be hurt or killed. 0bama is the enemy.
Only an Executive order would stop that!
0m0slem sided with his slime brothers over the lives of US citizens, patriots, and ambassadors!
Domestic ENEMY!!!!!!!!
But within 30 seconds, Panetta concluded that the General in charge of our forces in the region did not know what was going on! Panetta is not that gifted, folks. This is an outrageous act--and I am not referring to the General who was clearly aware of the emergency involved.
If after taking emergency action, the General would have been shown to have been mistaken in his assessment, he would doubtless have been subject to discipline for haste. But that is not the situation. This sort of interference--deadly interference--with your commanders in the field, is the sort of thing that loses wars. If Panetta didn't understand what was going on, that is no reason to remove the general.
William Flax
He may have been threatened, but he was never relieved or arrested. When an Officer is relieved, he doesn’t get to stay there.
There are certainly a lot of rumors swirling around out there...
...This morning on Beck, Pat and Stu were discussing this and stated they had been told by (I don't recall the exact words, but it was something along the lines of:) "..a reliable source who would be in a position to know," that Ham was stepping down early to be with his wife who is critically ill.
Of course they didn't name the source, but given that Beck has had a standing friendship for some time with MG (RET) Gerry Boykin, I would suspect it's him.
Under the UCMJ, “arrest” is not the same as “apprehension”, what civilians normally think of when they hear the word arrest.
RCM 302, “apprehension is the taking of a person into custody”.
RCM 304(a)(3) “Arrest is the restraint of a person by oral or written order not imposed as punishment, directing the person to remain within specified limits; a person in the status of arrest may not be required to perform full military duties such as commanding or supervising personnel, serving as guard, or bearing arms...”
Per the definition above, the actions of the Vice Commander in “relieving” the Commander may be properly defined as “arresting” him.
Colonel,USAFR
This story is completely bogus. GEN Ham has not been relieved. His replacement (GEN Rodriguez) was nominated on 18 Oct, but will not take command until confirmed by the Senate, sometime after the election. Until then, GEN Ham remains in command.
Find some FACTS that say otherwise.
Yup. Not what you’d expect of someone who’d been apprehended and relieved.
If this is true, and I have reservations, then they cannot prosecute General Ham without admitting that everything the Administration has said for the past six weeks is a lie......catch-22..........
Keep trying. Eventually more will listen.
This man wouldn't even risk his political future by going on the record as was his job - who thinks he's going to show any amount of courage in this instance involving life & death?
He is a effing coward and he's our president.
This man was actually arrested? What do the Congressmen that had spoken with him say about this? Good grief:(( What has happened to our country:( I know...Obama:(
I just don’t think that the average civilian ‘gets’ the language of this rumor.
There would be no coverup of something like this. A general being relieved of duty would be widely known - not circulating as a rumor. His picture would be taken down at every military headquarters in his command. The average soldier would know what’s going on. His replacement would be chosen immediately. He would not be speaking and making statements. His bio wouldn’t still be up at the AFRICOM website. This would be reported in the Army Times.
A four star being relieved of command is a BIG DEAL and not something that can be swept under the rug. There is no way that he’d still be giving statements and lectures with something like this happening.
The fact that people knew he was on his way out months ago doesn’t seem to register with these people either. For some reason, the drumbeat continues.
Now the *conditions* of such a thing can be foggier. But the *fact* that he’s still a commander is plain as day.
Seriously? People are about to be slaughtered and you are not sure that rises to the level that would warrant a man ignore a stand down order? What then pray tell would?
I know, the wind is in your face right now and it seems like you’re pushing a rock uphill, I’ve been there many times, but don’t give up. I think the result will be worth it. Be calm and persistent and post strategically and the tide will shift.
That is so sad and pathetic:(
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.