Posted on 10/28/2012 12:01:13 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation. On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an otherwise unrelated briefing on “Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force." News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta said, "Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. "Kip" Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, "the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years." Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.
Read more: TRR: Is a General losing his job over Benghazi? - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/#ixzz2AcbbB7Er Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
(Excerpt) Read more at p.washingtontimes.com ...
The number of career casualties from being thrown under the Obumbler bus continues to mount...
If so, then he should open his mouth. What can Obama do - demote him?
coherent explanation = plausible lie???
coherent explanation = plausible lie???
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.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham's place as the head of Africom.
Chilling...
Should be banner headline, lead story news. Thanks for posting this here.
A perfidious #2 who had already been prepped to do this in event Ham had balls. IMHO, of course...
How and why would Rodriguez have the support behind him that could constitute a mutiny?
Panetta was an army intel guy and his son is a navy intel reservist. Now this son is a lawyer in Oakland, Calif. Now that his dad covered up the rasons for the deaths of SEALs I wonder what this man thinks of his dad...?
Here is some more interesting “stuff”....
This was a reply on another site that raised a Very Plausible scenario ———
“It is now known that Congress knew Obama has been trying to figure out how to release the blind sheik in US prison to the MB in Egypt. To make his release acceptable to the American public and to clinch the election, Obama had to create an October Surprise hostage exchange - Stevens for the sheik. To help the MB capture Stevens, Obama had to remove all security from Stevens, lest a fight break out and Stevens gets himself killed. But the two ex-seals that came to Stevens’ aid did put up a fight. After hours of trying to capture Stevens alive, the terrorists finally decided to end it and kill them all.
From sources such as a 20 year CIA veteran interviewed by Glenn Beck, we know that it is entirely unreasonable to believe Obama didn’t know minutes from the events beginning to unfold - that everyone knew from the start - Hillary, Obama, Petreaus, Panetta, etc. We now know that the ex-seals were told to stand down (allow capture?), that the CIA was told to stand down, and that any rescue mission being considered came (intentionally?) too late.
Do you see where this is going? Obama wanted no resistance. He wanted Stevens captured alive.
To hide the WH-MB link, Obama began to push the video as the reason for Stevens’ death. But when the lie wouldn’t hold any longer, Biden said that Obama and Biden never knew that Stevens’ was lacking security, only to find now that this is too incredible to believe.
The press continues to ask, “What did Obama know and when did he know it?”, and are refusing to ask the real question, “Why was Stevens’ request for security repeatedly intentionally denied, and why did the Obama administration refuse to launch any rescue operation?”
Not if Rodriguez was following the command of someone higher up the chain to relieve Ham of command. Though if the timeline given is correct it’s pretty obvious the plan to do so was already in place, which is at best extremely suspicious.
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.
Chilling is right. That doesn’t happen often.
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 in stories.
Releasing the sheik makes Obama look weak. Having an ambassador taken hostage makes Obama look weak. Trading the sheik for the ambassador makes Obama look weak.
None of it is good for Obama. I can understand him wanting to appease the Muslim Brotherhood, but only after the election.
State and Defense didn’t want their pet Libyan government look weak in the eyes of the Islamists by sending in a military response with or without their permission. There likely is an American-backed gun running operation from to the Syrian rebels.
I have an strong aversion to conspiracy theories - the only thing that makes me wonder what more is going is the reduced security for Stevens’ trip, and that really is a red flag.
But human stupidity, cupidity and wickedness accounts for so much without deep and complicated plots.
Panetta said “(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”.
I understand the fear of a standing military as a threat to individual sovereignty of a free We the People and the need for civilian control but that doesn’t mean the Commander in Chief has to be grossly ignorant of military strategy and tactics. A president should at least be intelligent enough to accept advice from officers that spent their lives becoming experts.
Obama and Panetta are as qualified to understand advice from the JCS and other top level commanders as they are to advise a brain surgeon how to operate.
How can our nation survive when voters elect such utterly incompetent leaders and approve their appointments to positions like Secretary of Defense or State?
Consider this as well: How many lives were saved because the ex SEALs ignored orders?
This says 30 - interview with his father.
Thirty more lives O was willing to throw away.
Consider this as well: How many lives were saved because the ex SEALs ignored orders?
This says 30 - interview with his father.
Thirty more lives O was willing to throw away.
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.