Posted on 10/27/2012 12:45:13 PM PDT by ironman
Just sent this to NY SLIMES. Don’t expect a response, but it was cathartic to send.
The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
This comes just days after General Ham was replaced as head of Africom.
While your Newspaper has long lost any real journalistic credibility, you might be a bit curious as to why these two were replaced so soon after Benghazi.
Many sources say that both were going to disobey WH orders to stand down and not help during 9 hour long Benghazi firefight that killed four Americans. They were thereafter relived of command.
Of course, perhaps another front page story about some obscure Senate Race where a candidate expressed the Catholic Position on Rape and Abortion is more informative than two high ranking military men being replaced after they were forced to listen to the screams of four fellow Americans in real time and were prohibited from helping.
Thank God Vice President Biden was there to console the grieving father of the fallen SEAL who disobeyed orders to help save lives by complimenting the grieving father on the size of his dead hero son’s balls.
A wild guess, they caught the Admiral bad mouthing the Presidents response to Benghazi?
he’s toast.
I have no inside track on this, but that sounds like some very good dot-connecting.
bump
The Stennis was in the Persian Gulf when the Libya embassy was attacked. There is no way the Admiral was involved in violating any stand down order.
They should feel lucky.... Most dictators just shoot their military officers who disobey their orders ....
Damn, I hate that SOB in the WH....
Wonder what or who stopped them from disobeying orders.
? Couldn’t some of the Navy jets make it to Libya from the Persian Gulf in relatively short order?
The F-15 Can go 1875 mph.
The carrier was probably close to 2000 miles away. there would have been air force planes in Europe and Iraq closer. So the short answer is 'no'.
Glad to hear it. But the F-15 is an Air Force plane, not Navy. The F-18's max speed without ordinance is about 1200 miles per hour. And the nearest ones to Benghazi were about 2000 miles away.
Found info regarding Gen. Ham's removal on JetsInsider site. Rather strange place for this to be, but an entry provides a link to Stars & Stripes, and tigerdroppings.com. The rumors are that despite being ordered to stand down, Ham was planning to go anyway.
Here's the posting:
Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command is being replaced Looks like the commander "on the ground" during the Benghazi incident where we abandoned our people, is being replaced.
http://www.stripes.com/news/obama-to...ricom-1.193564
There is a rumor that he was going to ignore the stand down order and send help anyway.
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p...own-Order.aspx
per the link:
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.
This posting can be found here:
I find his removal strange, based on Panetta's quote that Ham was in agreement with him and Dempsey.
As usual, we're not being given the truth by this Administration.
This whole situation is looking like an episode from the new tv series: "Last Resort."
Just because the carrier group was in the Gulf, it doesn’t mean he didn’t criticize the CIC’s lack of response to rescue Americans. I’m not saying he did, just that it is definitely in the realm of possibility.
2000/1200 = 1.6667 hours
Fight lasted over seven hours.
By your logic there was time for airplanes to arrive from Florida.
The more likely cause was he got caught fooling around with a female subordinate. That’s been the reason for most of the removals from command lately.
Okay thanks.
It certainly seems likely enough that General Ham was removed for resisting the order to stand down and let the Ambassador die.
I don’t know about this admiral. But if he was in charge of all our naval forces, then I don’t think it necessarily matters that he was in the Persian Gulf at the time. If he was in the chain of command from the White House on down, then he might very possibly have done something or said something to resist the President’s order.
It certainly seems fishy that both commanders are being relieved at the same time.
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.