Several sources have pointed to the possibility that a major CIA gun-running operation aimed at arming anti-Assad Al-Qaeda-affiliated forces was in danger of being exposed. If true, the information casts an even more devastating pall over the Benghazi terrorist attack and the administration’s botched handling of the region.
The decision to stand down as the Benghazi terrorist attack was underway was met with extreme opposition from the inside. The Washington Times's James Robbins, citing a source inside the military, reveals that General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, who got the same emails requesting help received by the White House, put a rapid response team together and notified the Pentagon it was ready to go. He was ordered to stay put. “His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow,” writes Robbins. “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.”
If true, Ham has apparently decided he wants no part of the responsibility for the decision not to help those in harm’s way. He is not alone. As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol revealed late Friday, a spokesperson, “presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus,” released the following statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
October 29, 2012
"Over the weekend, the newest, and by far the most disturbing, revelations surrounding the Benghazi attack were revealed."
An item at FrontPageMag.com:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
309 comments:
1 – 200 of 309 Newer› Newest»Just posted this in another thread.
So Barry's running weapons to our enemy Al Qaeda to bring down Syria and trying to normalize our relations with Iran?
They both want us dead or under submission.
I don't think this will end well.
Much of this is still very speculative. If confirmed, however, it's clearly an impeachable offense. The hearings alone will consume the first half of next year.
A vote for Obama is a vote for six months of impeachment hearings and President "cue ball balls" Biden.
I'm really not sure the republic can survive that intact.
As I commented here on 10/26
Stevens was running guns thru Libya to Turkey and then to Syria.
I find the Ham story to be unbelievable, given he is still in command. If it were true, it would explode, sooner or later. That he got the messages, absolutely. They must have been CRITICs. You can't hide from the logs of those messages. Somebody at the WHCA (in uniform) pulled the message off a printer, handled it to the watch officer, who walked it to the President or the NSA. Then both the arrival minute and delivery time went into logs and was reported.
As for the CIA msg, the dogs not barking are verry interesting.
1. It doesn't say that no request was received
2. it doesn't say that nobody refused to help.
I suggested some time ago the CIA was involved in this and that is why a changing story emerged in part to cover-up the covert actions-- we have been arming various groups in the Syrian conflict with small arms for some time.
Professor,
In your discussion with Robert Wright you said the House picks the President and the Senate the Vice President in case of Electoral tie.
Would that be the newly elected bodies or the ones in office on election day?
"I'm skeptical" tag conspicuously absent.
Duly noted.
I do not believe the rumor about General Ham's relief/replacement.
FIrst and foremost, I cannot see that happening without it leaking massively. USAFRICOM employs hundreds of civilians and military personnel, and I believe it would leak like a sieve if something like this happened. When Benghazi was going down, one can presume that there were dozens of people on duty in some sort of operations center, passing information and updating key leaders. No way something like this happens and people stay quiet.
And as far as I can tell, General Ham is still in Command of AFRICOM, too, he has not been relieved, or suspended from command pending an investigation.
http://www.africom.mil/GenCarterHam.asp
I do not believe the rumor about General Ham's relief/replacement.
FIrst and foremost, I cannot see that happening without it leaking massively. USAFRICOM employs hundreds of civilians and military personnel, and I believe it would leak like a sieve if something like this happened. When Benghazi was going down, one can presume that there were dozens of people on duty in some sort of operations center, passing information and updating key leaders. No way something like this happens and people stay quiet.
And as far as I can tell, General Ham is still in Command of AFRICOM, too, he has not been relieved, or suspended from command pending an investigation.
http://www.africom.mil/GenCarterHam.asp
Can't wait to hear from the Lefties on this one.
Especially the ones who got into such high dudgeon over Iran-Contra.
As I say, this thing keeps metastasizing.
The Drill SGT said...
I find the Ham story to be unbelievable, given he is still in command
The point was made somewhere that it's unusual for a CO to be replaced in such a command halfway through the tour.
Make sense?
And the LSM isn't going to cover it because of the "Hurricane" ravaging the "northeast."
Obviously a set-up by the Obama administration. They conjured this thing up to cover up their weakness and incompetence. Conveniently, it also obscures the Extremely Disturbing Story about that guy in Wisconsin who got beat up.
I have to be honest, if Zero's diry trick do get him reelected, we might have a constitutional crisis.
Once more Obama's strategy to radicalize the Muslim states surrounding Israel into a cohesive Sunni force took absolute precedence over stability and peace.
roesch/voltaire said...
I suggested some time ago the CIA was involved in this
FWIW, the State Departartment commo at the consulate was gone. commo with the CIA annex would naturally be going out via CIA channels, so from a msg log perspective, the CIA files are going to be more complete than the DoD traffic logs.
The Official Response from the WH, such as David A. and David P and Jim M. on "Benghazi" is ---
Go F*** Yourself.
(adapted from the new movie, Argo)
" You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin' "
(from Nancy Sinatra, These Boots Are Made for Walkin')
What is Romney's stance on helping Syrian rebels? I believe I remember him saying he was in favor of it.
Obama stated in the foreign policy debate:
"But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region."
Is the rumor true about arms being delivered to Al-Qaeda? Unlikely, but if so is this not getting into the realm of Iran-Contra, only with a dead American Ambassador?
Too much time is wasted worrying about emails. The real story will be found in classified communications - that most will never see or hear about. As soon as the ambassador was in peril or missing a FLASH message would have been sent directory to the situation room. Its receipt would be confirmed to the sender and then hand delivered to the president. (Ambassadors are high in the chain of command, equivalent to a 4-star general - it is not something that would be ignored or delayed.)
The CIA did respond - they sent the response team from Tripoli. Doherty was in that group.
There has been a lot of turmoil in the corp of flag officers. These are honorable men who took an oath to obey the orders from the president. It is going to take time for the truth to emerge from those sources if it ever does. Sooner or later one or more will determine the president is derelict in his duty and all bets will be off.
Mitt Romney: US must help Syrian rebels oust Assad
This guarantees that if Obama is re-elected, there will be hearings and more hearings and more hearings. It will go on and on.
I also heard it was reported that members of the military had actively targeted the militants, but they were told to stand down.
Romney at the foreign policy debate:
"And so the right course for us, is working through our partners and with our own resources, to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a -- in a form of -- if not government, a form of -- of -- of council that can take the lead in Syria. And then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. We do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the -- the wrong hands. Those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. We need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies, and particularly with -- with Israel."
Pretty much the same stance as the President. Yet Romney is not the one that appears to be running a cover-up over what happened in Benghazi.
Mitt Romney: US must help Syrian rebels oust Assad
What does this prove?
Let me second those who have said the Gen Ham thing is bullshit. No--I repeat, no--second in command will "apprehend" a Unified Command 4 star cinc. Unless of course the second in command had written orders from the SecDef or president and backed up by a platoon of marines or MPs. and while I think our national command authority is in disarry, the secdef or POTUS would not issue written orders. This story is bullshit.
edutcher said...
point was made somewhere that it's unusual for a CO to be replaced in such a command halfway through the tour.
I think occam's razor provides other posible reasons to look at first.
1. He was confirmed 2 years ago, the norml tour is 3 years. It's early but ham has 36 years of commissioned service and another 3-4 of enlisted service. He'd face manditory retirement at 40 years. e.g. soon.
2. obama or Panetta may be gone soon. perhaps this is a chance to reward somebody at Ham's minor expense.
3. Ham could be sick?
4. other.
All I know is that Ham is still in command. Ham's Deputy is an Admiral, still there, not Rodriquez, who wasn't anywhere near there on Sep 11.
Wild false rumor IMHO
EMD, I am responding to Clint @ 12:05.
Inga--I dont see much difference in the POTUS position nor the Romney position on Syria. YMMV, of course.
Roger J. said...
Let me second those who have said the Gen Ham thing is bullshit
.
Somebody reread "Seven Days in May"
Obviously the whole story is baloney - no sitting president would sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing after hearing one of his ambassadors was in peril or missing.
Can anyone say Impeachment? I knew that you could . . .
Unless Romney wins and saves us all a lot of trouble.
I heard this rumor the other day. Has it gone past rumor at this point?
I've heard several accounts of how automatic gearing up for a response is and what sorts of responders are on call at all times for something like this. Also, that these teams would view live video surveillance as something unheard of as far as intel goes, no matter what Penatta said.
But if Ham was actually relieved because of this (he is certainly being replaced, we know that) it's an extraordinary claim and needs concrete proof.
And while this may astound you, I think both the POTUS and Romney's positions are the best approaches with respect to Syria.
"Let me second those who have said the Gen Ham thing is bullshit. No--I repeat, no--second in command will "apprehend" a Unified Command 4 star cinc. Unless of course the second in command had written orders from the SecDef or president and backed up by a platoon of marines or MPs. and while I think our national command authority is in disarry, the secdef or POTUS would not issue written orders. This story is bullshit."
You're confusing a movie with what could happen for real. Apprehend is just a term, it doesn't mean it would be at gunpoint. SECDEF could have ordered his second in command to relieve him and it would be done. Ham wouldn't resist as he'd made his point which was he was not going to just leave Americans to die.
Not saying it happened, but it isn't as theatrical as some are making it out to be.
Inga said...
What is Romney's stance on helping Syrian rebels? I believe I remember him saying he was in favor of it.
=================
Dear Inga,
Romney said that he wanted to arm pro-Western rebels, not repeat the Obama mistake of supporting radical Islamists in Libya and Egypt.
He disagreed with Obama's stated policy of not arming any rebel faction (which would have been a huge lie to the audience watching the 2nd Debate - if he was in fact covertly gun-running to radical Islamists in Syria via Turkey.)
You do understand the difference, right???
Romney - Supporting and arming Anti-American, anti-West rebels sympathetic to Al Qaeda is BAD, BAD, BAD!!!
Obama - Trust me, I won't support any Syrian rebel group. And any evidence to the contrary is from lying racist liars who lie, lie, lie!!
EMD, I am responding to Clint @ 12:05.
Romney's statement does not indicate he would be willing to secretly arm Al Qaeda rebels in Syria via Libya.
(Also: I think the best course would be to wait for any type of confirmation this, which as of now, is just conjecture and speculation. I'm not jumping to any conclusions on what this might portend.)
Several sources have pointed to the possibility that a major CIA gun-running operation aimed at arming anti-Assad Al-Qaeda-affiliated forces was in danger of being exposed.
How can a gun-running operation be put in peril by protecting the consulate?
Synova--as Drill points out, Gen Ham has not been relieved; and I agree with Drill's observations that Gen Ham is near the end of his tenure as CINC. CINCs, except for perhaps the SACEUR, tend to have relatively short tenures. As nearly as I can tell there have been no perturbations in the force with respect to AFRICOM chain of command.
@Inga
So to paraphrase you: "I shall now project onto Romney all the evil that my side does. Therefore, my side is good and Romney is McLiar-Flip-Flop bad. And please ignore all the bodies on the way home! :) And make sure to get their ID's so you can vote Obama as President for them!"
We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan but arming similar people throughout the region? How different is the Muslim Brotherhood from the Taliban?
What a quagmire.
It makes Fast and Furious look sensible. At least they're we're just arming drug lords, who at least have some kind of logic that we can understand.
Going back to Obama's unwillingness to publicly back the "rebels" in Iran a few years ago, it raises the question of what he is willing to do, and why.
Plenty of unanswered questions, I don't like Beckian conspiracy angles (over basic incompetance) but at the very least the re-election has severely interfered with being the Commander in Chief.
More news that will be ignored by the unprofessional hollywood pro-democrat media.
"Let me second those who have said the Gen Ham thing is bullshit. No--I repeat, no--second in command will "apprehend" a Unified Command 4 star cinc. Unless of course the second in command had written orders from the SecDef or president and backed up by a platoon of marines or MPs. and while I think our national command authority is in disarry, the secdef or POTUS would not issue written orders. This story is bullshit."
The word "apprehend" is a problem. Sounds like "arrested" but it can mean anything as mild as "caught him in the hallway".
Also, the rumors, you figure, could easily come from people who were there and the 2nd in command showed up and said "we got an order to stand down" at which point the two head off to do big-wig stuff behind doors.
What it "looks like" matches the rumor.
Rodriguez is not the deputy at AFRICOM. He's currently head of FORSCOM, which is stateside.
I agree with Roger... if a Deputy CDR gets word to relieve his actual, the first words out of his mouth would be "let me see a written order." The whole HQ would insist on seeing the order in writing. He couldn't get a platoon of MPs to back him up without showing them the written order.
And you could never keep it under wraps... Combatant Command HQs are huge, with a lot of people working in them.
Something is amiss at AFRICOM, and there's something we're not seeing yet. But it didn't happen this way.
I am skeptical, and it almost certainly could not be sorted out prior to the election. The issue that could be effectively focused on is Obama's campaign claim that the minute he heard of the attack he issued an order to do everything to protect the Americans under attack and, if so, why the military failed to send help. Everyone understands this very simpley issue - why did we not send a rescure force.
QUESTION FOR ANY MEDIA PERSON READING:
"I want to focus on events in the White House that you participated in on 9/11 and that require no investigation. You say that the minute you heard about the attack you issued an order to do everything to protect the Americans in Benghazi who were under attack. But then military did not send help. Who did you give that order to and what was your role/participation in the subsequent decision not to send military help?"
Roger, I've said from the first that this particular rumor is something that shouldn't be taken at face value.
Also, the rumors, you figure, could easily come from people who were there and the 2nd in command showed up and said "we got an order to stand down" at which point the two head off to do big-wig stuff behind doors.
except that the replacement isn't the Admiral Deputy. It's Rodriquez, who was 4000 miles away on the day in question.
Obama gun running to Syria, via Turkey from Libya is old news. The news du jour is this:
Contradictory statements from Panetta and Obama. Did he order or did he not? One of them is lying and which one do you think it is? Clue: "You Lie".
Synova--I was citing some rumors that appeared on some blogs--as Jason points out, this something that doesn happen except perhaps in a Tom Clancy novel. Let me give you two examples of relief of a CINC--President Harry Truman fired MacArthur in very public way (and HST was right); Gen Clark was fired by the Sec Def but again in a public way.
It's amazing what trouble a leftist agenda can get you in where people vote.
So many things to spin.
And you have to keep women happy at the same time.
I find the Ham story to be unbelievable, given he is still in command.
Ham was replaced by Rodriguez on October 18.
Synova--I know you have some experience about the military, and I was in no way impugning your assessment.
I think the larger problem is that when the national command authority fails to address these questions, they continue to let bullshit rumors flourish. And this is, IMO, another abdication of leadership.
Rumor runs riot.
The Ham story is still just speculative rumor, and implausible at that. It does no good to Romney that his so called supporters push rumor as fact.
I see no evidence behind the gun running story yet either.
And as far as I can tell, General Ham is still in Command of AFRICOM, too, he has not been relieved, or suspended from command pending an investigation.
http://www.africom.mil/GenCarterHam.asp
Ham was replaced by Rodriguez on October 18.
On 18 October 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta participated in a "DOD News Briefing on Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force." In his introductory 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 . . ."
The issue is not whether he was replaced but if he was fired because of Benghazi.
Inga,
This story has NOTHING to do with Romney. Get that? Back on October 9th, I was really struck when you said that you wouldn’t vote for Obama after his racially divisive speech at Hampton was revealed. I thought, “Finally, a liberal commenting on Althouse who is more interested in the truth than point-scoring for her side.”
Unfortunately, that was a mirage. You immediately went back to ridiculous attempts at point-scoring for the Democrat team rather than learning/telling the truth. It is disappointing to me because ALL of the liberals who comment here are point-scorers rather than truth-tellers. Garage, phx, Ritmo… All more interested in “winning” than truth.
How were you trying to point score? By trying to shift the focus to Romney WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS STORY! A more honest approach would have been to simply say, “This is still speculation. While it is possible, there also other, less incendiary explanations that are equally if not more possible.” Why not say that? Instead it’s “ROMNEY, ROMNEY, ROMNEY!”
I, and imagine others, are tired of you all yelling, “SQUIRREL!” whenever something uncomfortable is brought to your attention. BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST.
Reading this again it says Ham was apprehended and relieved by his second in command. It doesn't say that was Rodriquez who did it, only that he has replaced him instead of Ham's second in command, which I believe is Navy?
So his second could have relieved him under orders from SECDEF - verbal or written - and is just waiting on Rodriquez to take over.
"Unfortunately, that was a mirage. You immediately went back to ridiculous attempts at point-scoring for the Democrat team rather than learning/telling the truth. It is disappointing to me because ALL of the liberals who comment here are point-scorers rather than truth-tellers. Garage, phx, Ritmo… All more interested in “winning” than truth."
Inga loves spinning a story - any story - back to Romney. And if he didn't exist it would be back to BOOOSSSHHH.
Yes RogerJ, THAT was my point.
General ham was once an enlisted man in the 82nd Airborne.
He would not be the type to abandon men behind enemy lines, which is where Airborne men always begin their fights from.
A small technical point if I may--I have no doubt that GEN Rodriguez was NOMINATED to replace GEN Ham. But if my failing memory still serves me a NOMINATION for CINC has to be approved by the Senate--which, of course, is not in session. GEN Ham, I am sure is still in command of AFRICOM.
"
Blogger Inga said...
Mitt Romney: US must help Syrian rebels oust Assad""
So you are in favor of leaving the two ex-SEALs to die ?
Helping Syrian rebels can be debated. This is not about that.
"So you are in favor of leaving the two ex-SEALs to die?"
10/29/12 12:52 PM
Michael K, how could you come to that conclusion, that's an odd assumption.
I think this whole mess can be placed on Althouse's shoulders. She churned out too many lawyers who on not being able to find work in a top 100 firm took to politics.
CINCs of unified commands answer to the SECDEF and take their orders from the SECFED--the Goldwater legislation of 1986. The services have some say in the deliberations of the JCS, and I am sure their comment are evaluated by the SECDEF. But the chain of command runs thru the CINCs of the unified command thru the SECDEF to the president.
What is Romney's stance on helping Syrian rebels? I believe I remember him saying he was in favor of it.
What does this have to do with the Benghazi cover up? Nothing? Oh I see what you did there.
I agree with Cedarford. I'm still unclear as to why we intervened in Libya in the first place, especially knowing that a number of the rebels were AQ-affiliates. We need to look at this from a U.S. and Western interest. The only thing worse than a Qaddafi or Assad are countries where AQ is welcomed or have influence.
It seems like Obama thought Libya was going to fall, so we should get out ahead of things by helping accelerate the downfall and hoping that the "good rebels" and not the "bad rebels" would end up with control of the country. Maybe he's right. BUt the "bad rebels" in both Libya and Syria are going to have a lot more say and pose more of a problem to the U.S. than they would if Qaddafi were still around, and probably the same is true of Syria and Assad.
John said...
Obviously the whole story is baloney - no sitting president would sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing after hearing one of his ambassadors was in peril or missing.
I had a similar thought in High School. No President would be stupid enough get involved in the cover up of a 3rd rate break-in, and certainly wouldn't record himself doing it.
So, Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in Benghazi might have inadvertently revealed the supply of weapons to Al-Qaeda-affiliated forces in Syria from the US?
Boy, do they look stupid.
So right McCullogh.
So how do we automatically know who the bad rebels are and who the good rebels are and what they will do once in power.
We should not interefer in other countries revolutions, especially Muslim countries, IMO.
With respect to our policy with respect to Syria the less said about we might want to do the better--let us not forget the Russians are also involved. Now I am quite willing to give Mr Obama the benefit of the doubt, as i am willing to give mr Romney--the less said, at this point, the better. I am frankly quite gratified that policy with respect to Syria has mostly flown beneath the radar. And both mr obama and mr romney deserve some credit.
Roeschi attempts a misdirect from his beloved marxist prez to the CIA.
FrontPageMag.com
"If true,"
Great source there, Althouse. Good God man.
"I had a similar thought in High School."
History repeats itself.
"GEN Ham, I am sure is still in command of AFRICOM."
There's no dispute about this, I think.
"The issue is not whether he was replaced but if he was fired because of Benghazi."
There may be dispute about this. Maybe the timing is a complete coincidence. Maybe he was fired over Benghazi. Maybe he quit over Benghazi. It could be any of the three and we don't know.
"And you could never keep it under wraps... Combatant Command HQs are huge, with a lot of people working in them."
A lot of people who saw *something* and are telling their friends that they saw something serious go down.
The simplest explanation is that Ham was hot to go and a subordinate delivered a stand-down order and the two left the area leaving everyone else to wonder. Wonder and talk.
"What is Romney's stance on helping Syrian rebels?"
Misses the point. The relevant question is: "What is Romney's stance on aiding U.S. personnel under active attack by a terrorist organization?"
"FrontPageMag.com
"If true,"
Great source there, Althouse. Good God man."
I never heard of the source, but even so I consider it more reliable than the New York Times.
The Benghazi terrorists were probably armed by U.S. in the first place when we helped the rebels. McCain probably posed for pictures with them.
Reading this again it says Ham was apprehended and relieved by his second in command. It doesn't say that was Rodriquez who did it, only that he has replaced him instead of Ham's second in command, which I believe is Navy?
This may be true. I posted on another site that Rodriguez was the deputy because I couldn't find the name of the deputy. Rodriguez has had considerable criticism for operational hesitancy, which should probably recommend him to Obama.
If I were Ham and the story was true, I would be long gone and let the deputy handle the change of command.
Ham was not replaced. He is still commander of AFRICOM. Go to the Website, www.africom.mil, to confirm.
Is anyone else getting a "peace in our time" vibe here?
We know how that ended.
I find the Ham story to be unbelievable, given he is still in command.
Ok, asking the military folks about Ham. Is it possible there is some middle ground, ie maybe Ham was not happy, made waves about the whole thing but nothing so dramatic as this story. Then he was replaced later, or maybe his natural time to leave was stepped up, in a very deniable way?
So he was relieved but in a deniable way? Not saying it happened that way but it’s hard to ignore the timing. It certainly may be completely unrelated.
As Jason points out GEN Ham is still the AFRICOM CINC. untill such time time as GEN Rodriguez is confirmed by the Senate.
Yes, Jason, I think everyone has agreed that Ham has not been relieved. He has, however, been given notice. His replacement is Rodriguez.
Dan Brown, call your office!
I think something was going down in Benghazi, and Congress needs to find out just what.
The administration may not have known that the ambassador was visiting in Benghazi at the time. Those two ex-SEALs, now "private security contractors" may just have instinctively run over to help and so inadvertently stepped into some sort of "Looking Glass War" scheme and exposed it to scrutiny - along with the dead ambassador, of coursee, which is probably something else that was not supposed to happen.
It will likely all get sorted out in time, but what we do know for sure is that at present, everybody are lying to us.
Shanna--without access to any backchannels that General Ham provided to the NCA it will be a matter of speculation.
"Blogger Inga said...
"So you are in favor of leaving the two ex-SEALs to die?"
10/29/12 12:52 PM
Michael K, how could you come to that conclusion, that's an odd assumption."
Because that is the topic. You are defending your favorite president. I am far less concerned about the failures of State to close or reenforce the consulate. When brave men are fighting for their lives and calling for help and help is denied, I don't like it. You seem to be fine with it.
I have previously suggested that anyone who doubts this story read Dakota Meyer's book, Into the Fire. The story is remarkably like this one where men were under fire and help was, not denied but never approved. Meyer had been told not to go into the valley where the fire fight was. He went anyway.
Sound familiar ?
This is just really very sad for all concerned. The true facts will eventually come out but speculation just fuels the fire here. Our dealings in this part of the world just leave us in a no win situation like this one and many others.
It is quite amusing that General Ham was the Big Cheese.
This is just really very sad for all concerned. The true facts will eventually come out but speculation just fuels the fire here. Our dealings in this part of the world just leave us in a no win situation like this one and many others.
The only rumor that hasn't been "cited" here is the October Surprise. It's puzzling that so few have caught on to the obvious climate manipulation that has taken place to cause a harmless tropical storm to abruptly strengthen and turn 90 degrees to the west right into Philadelphia instead of running harmlessly out into the Atlantic.
Generated with the tried-and-true HAARP method (pioneered by the Bush WH to target poor black neighborhoods in NOLA), Sandy's course now sets the stage for a federal takeover of the city's transportation systems through November 6, thus ensuring that in at least one critical metropolitan area, voter participation will once again top 100%.
All while diverting attention from pesky middle-east irritations.
There never has been a good explanation as to why the ambassador was in Benghazi. But that truth will not come out before the election.
I had thought that perhaps the killers were former allies, or at least a group using weapons we had provided, which might provide a reason for the silly emphasis on the video and the spontaneous demonstration.
It was surprising that so few Americans were killed. The rumor now is that the two former seals killed about 60 attackers. I doubt that, but they must have done some heroic stuff to hold off the attackers.
my favorite news sources have links on their front page for a propaganda booklet titled "Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future."
Althouse's desperation gets ever nuttier.
I can't believe she has students who accept her as a professor.
No Michael K, you are mistaken. You are assuming that because I question these reports I am in favor of how things were handled in Benghazi. I've said several times that this administration was at fault for making the bad decision to not remove Embassy staff In Libya when the Brits did, also the lack of beefed up security was a huge error in judgment.
Because I don't glom onto conspiracy theories Michael, I guess you can make inferences if you choose, so many inferences, so little time untill the election.
FrontPageMag.com
"If true,"
Great source there, Althouse. Good God man.
That brings up a good point. If Obama has nothing to do with this. Or if there isn't a large smoking gun in his direction. Why the media blackout? CNN, ABC, NBC all have their fingers in their ears pretending that this doesn't exist.
Under normal circumstances this would be all we would hear about. Remember the Osama coverage?
Their silence speaks VOLUMES. And they think we are too dumb to notice?
John said...Obviously the whole story is baloney - no sitting president would sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing after hearing one of his ambassadors was in peril or missing.
I think you're being ironic here, but to be sure it gets mentioned---we've never had a president who has shown so little regard for what a sitting president is supposed to do from executive orders in the hundreds to refusing to salute the flag to skipping national security briefings to riding the celebrity circuit.
Blogger Jason said...
Ham was not replaced. He is still commander of AFRICOM. Go to the Website, www.africom.mil, to confirm.
Do you think the web site has to be absolutely accurate ? Panetta announced his replacement at an unexpected press appearance. I think we will all find out what happened but only after the election and only if Romney is elected.
I suspect the deputy is in acting command.
A brother-in-law of mine was the air group commander in the first Gulf War. A group of Congressmen came through and asked him if the Marines had everything they needed. They didn't expect a real answer but he said, "Actually no. We need___" It was some communications equipment. They got it and he was retired after the war ended. He was in line for a star before he spoke up.
He was also one of the most famous Marine aviators from Vietnam. His call sign was "Fokker," if anybody knows about Marine fighter pilots. His flight suit is in the Smithsonian air museum. 500 combat mission in Vietnam.
It turned out OK, though. He went into business after retirement and just sold his company for $23 million.
I think Marine air lost more than he did. I hope General Ham has similar luck.
IMO what is being held hostage here is our foreign policy with respect to the middle east. That should be a serious debate, but at this point in the presidential debate it is too little and too late. We need a coherent, and enforceable policy with respect to the ME--which at this point we do not have in the debagte. The default position will be "its he economy." Whoever win the election will have to wrestle with this question.
This does sound fishy - I have a hard time believing that General Ham would override a direct order like that, and being "apprehended" would have been publicized on the MSM by now.
Unfortunately, at this point it can't be ruled out completely, because
1) it would explain the sequence of events and
2) The admin/State/SecDef clearly are hiding something.
The White House knows exactly what happened. If nobody asks them and insists on an answer, they won't tell you. Now of course they would tell you if it was good information that would help you vote for them. If they resist telling you the truth, then that means they want you to vote before they tell you something that would change your mind.
You OK with that?
It's taken weeks to get to the truth on Benghazi - and we aren't there yet actually - so what happened or didn't happen regarding Ham might not be known for a few weeks as well.
Considering the way this administration acts, however, I'm betting it's not good.
"Apprehesnsion" is a specific military term and is different from arrest. As a former MP and personal security for the CINCUSAREUR some years ago, it was drilled into me that I had the right to 'apprehend' criminals but not to 'arrest'. Apprehension is a form of detainment. Arrest has greater implications. Only commissioned officers have the right to 'arrest'. Having a subordinate step in to apprehend a superior would only require a command from the appropriate level. It would not require a formal relief or 'arrest'. Arrest could have been threatened, of course.
There would be a paper trail.
We should ask Obama what happened. he knows the ehole story. Why doesn't someone ask him?
It's hilarious for garage et al to complain about "sources" when the NYTimes and WaPo and the rest of the MSM refuse to cover the story.
Obama could clear this up in 30 minutes with a press conference.
That he hasn't done so already, and especially now that the stink is rising, is damning.
Someone's brother was in the SF group Ham previously commanded and someone's brother still knows a lot of guys in that group. Said brother said that the story about Ham is accurate and further said there are worse details to come. Skype, however, isn't all that secure, so...
Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney explains in the Washington Times. “The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies, as well.
From the article Althouse cited (referring to the possibility that Stevens was involved in supplying rebels in Libya and now Syria with arms).
Frank Gaffney must be living in bizarro world if he thinks that Syria and Libya were "once our friends".
John wrote:
Obviously the whole story is baloney - no sitting president would sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing after hearing one of his ambassadors was in peril or missing.
And yet the fire fight went on for several hours and no help came, despite indications that we had drones over the embassy and that info was known very early.
If Obama was not sititng on his hands doing absolutely nothing then explain why absolutely nothing was done.
Because if they knew that the embassy was under attack (and they did) then POTUS or some in his inner circle would be the ones to say yes or no to any efforts to rescue the ambassador and the embassy.
The fact that it didn't happen suggests something.
My guess is, they were too risk averse and dind't want to send in strikes unless all the t's were crossed and i's dotted since it was so close to the election.
But by not doing anything they are now or should now have to deal with the fallout of not doing anyything. If they have a better explanation, then they should be as forthcoming as possible. They all know who said what, because they are the ones TO know.
Standing orders would suggest that if the embassy was attacked a force go in to protect it. Which suggests that such an order was over ridden. The marine who disobeyed direct orders was told not to go to the embassy, which again, is suggestive that there was an order to stand down. WHo placed that order, and why?
It had to be an order placed by a select few including the President. Petraus has already said it wasn't the CIA, which leaves only a few other choices.
Now,I dont think there is a good reason to not send in drone strikes or special forces, but the administration my think they have a good reason for not doing so. That reason NEEDS to be made apparent, otherwise people will assume the worse. And then they need to defend that (lack of) action. They may have a valid excuse, but it's not "We need to get to the bottom of it. lets have an investigation." That will happen anyway. But they should know what their reaction was and who gave what orders.
Because the story as it stands appears to be that on multiple occasions people in the embassy which was being attacked asked for help repeatedly and no help came. And because no help came, DIED!
What happened?
The thing to do, Freder, would be keep our own guns in our own hands and under our own control.
Intervene honestly or don't.
This story is reminding me of King David and Uriah the Hittite. After Davids first attempt to get himself out of a charge of adultery failed he then proceeded to give orders to Joab his general to "put Uriah into the heat of the battle and then retire from him". David is considered morally guilty as a murderer, even though the murder was at the hands of the enemy.
Frank Gaffney must be living in bizarro world if he thinks that Syria and Libya were "once our friends".
Possibly, but he probably knows we still use bayonets.
Incidentally King David repented of his sin when confronted by Nathan the prophet.
Why isn't Romney demanding the Obama administration come clean? He's been silent on it since the debate.
Someone's brother was in the SF group Ham previously commanded and someone's brother still knows a lot of guys in that group.
Funny, Ham's bio doesn't mention a stint with special forces. Looks like he was infantry his entire career.
I think someone's brother is full of shit.
FrontPageMag is a right-wing neocon hack site. Don't pay any attention!
/Inga
So, just like Iran-Contra, but much, much, much worse, plus excuses and blame shifting from the idiot Obama-trolls and media sycophants.
Maybe Romney has been given a provisional "ride in the inaugural limousine" and is preemptively keeping state secrets
Why isn't Romney demanding the Obama administration come clean? He's been silent on it since the debate.
The Romney administration may very well and might have a legal responsibility to do so. However, in the meantime, why step foot on Obama's gallows?
John said...Obviously the whole story is baloney - no sitting president would sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing after hearing one of his ambassadors was in peril or missing.
Excuse me while I
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The thing to do, Freder, would be keep our own guns in our own hands and under our own control.
Gee, where were you when Reagan was shipping arms to the Iranians, the Contras and the muhajadeen?
Further to my previous comment:
The story has a ring of truth to it precisely because it used the term 'apprehended' and not 'arrested' or 'relieved'. The statement clearly comes from someone in the military who understands the differences.
Ham could be threatened with arrest, court-martial, loss of grade, loss of pension, prison... all while he was 'apprehended'.
I repeat, that term has specific military legal meaning. It may have a civilian corrollary, but Ms. Althouse, PBUH, will need to address that if appropriate.
Obama could clear this up in 30 minutes with a press conference.
Pogo puts it succinctly. There is no real mystery here. We're not trying to locate a Higgs boson or Jimmy Hoffa's grave
Obama and others know why military aid was not sent to Benghazi. They just won't tell us.
After six weeks of evasion and delay without a credible explanation, we can assume that something serious is being covered up, though we don't know what.
Nice story, but how do they square all that with the fact that Ham is still the AFRICOM Commander 7 weeks later?
It sounds like the plot of a Bruce Willis movie.
Romney is afraid to go for the jugular because the MSM is running interference. Honestly does this issue impact Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada? Nah.
It's all about the economy, stupid. Benghazi is the cherry on top of the shit cake.
roesch/voltaire said...
"I suggested some time ago the CIA was involved in this and that is why a changing story emerged in part to cover-up the covert actions-- we have been arming various groups in the Syrian conflict with small arms for some time."
Yet, you are undoubtedly still canvassing the South side of Madison for Obama, because either you agree with Obama's policy of arming al Qeada affiliated groups, or otherwise think it acceptable.
You guys rock.
Gee, where were you when Reagan was shipping arms to the Iranians, the Contras and the muhajadeen?
High school. So do you agree with the statement about control or not?
"Why isn't Romney demanding the Obama administration come clean? He's been silent on it since the debate."
Romney would be accused of politicizing the event by... you.
If Romney had some balls, he wouldn't care. He would thrill his base and some independents if he did!
EMD said...
"EMD, I am responding to Clint @ 12:05.
Romney's statement does not indicate he would be willing to secretly arm Al Qaeda rebels in Syria via Libya."
Right.
Because intelligent people can distinguish, rather easily I might add, between the means of accomplishing an end.
Dumb people, not so much.
They would come out in a hurricane for him!
Tim, you have no idea what Romney truly stands for, but you can make INFERENCES, LOL.
So do you agree with the statement about control or not?
Her basic point is valid, we shouldn't be secretly arming insurgents all over the world. But that wasn't my point. My point is that the hypocrisy in her and Althouse's concern about this is legion. I bet she wouldn't care, and actually would think it was a good idea if it were Reagan or Bush doing this. And as pointed above, Romney's complaint about Syria is that we are not supporting the rebels actively enough.
I'd stop blogging completely unsubstantiated (but easily checked) reports like this.
Stuff like the Ham story are easily verified, and to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the military, they sound like bullshit.
Thus, I actually think promulgating stories like this clounds the waters and makes it harder for the truth (which is bad enough on its own) to come out.
It gives people the opportunity they're looking for to dismiss the whole story as BS.
Inga - there is a difference between having balls and being stupid. Romney isn't stupid. He's not going to engage in a Jackass-style political stunt just so you libs can get your jollies.
So, Inga - you want Mitt to do the job the entire MSM - who's paid to do that sort of thing - won't do??
Have you considered exactly WHY they're not doing their job??
"Gee, where were you when Reagan was shipping arms to the Iranians, the Contras and the muhajadeen?"
High school (as Scott said.)
The thing is, Freder, that some people look at the past and learn. My opinion is mine alone. What seemed like a good idea at the time has longer term consequences. We supported tyrants in the name of stability but we found, or *should* have found, that it's a bad long term plan.
In the mean time is "but Reagan did it" really an argument you want to run with?
It's Romney's fault that the media isn't reporting on Benghazi!!
Of course!!!
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.
If you can't Blame Boooosh, then it must be Romney's fault. I mean, who else is there, really?
Unfortunately, though, no credit to the in-house nit-wits for this one as I heard some liberal hackosaurus roll this out on one of the Sunday shows in response to discussion about why the Palace Guard media isn't reporting on Benghazi.
Well, er, Why hasn't Romney questioned Obama about it? Ha HA! (Oh, and also, What about the Dingell-Norwood Bill? Ha HAHAHA!)
It's also Reagan's fault. Bonus points.
Inga, you really are a despicable piece of shit. How you can be so flippant about two brave american's being left to die with no help when it was readily available is sickening. Maybe next time it's your (possibly pretend) daughter.
Go fuck yourself.
my favorite news sources have links on their front page for a propaganda booklet titled "Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future."
I don't think there exists a far out right wing conspiracy theory website that is too far out for righties.
Lalalalalalala. Let's not talk about Obama's role in Benghazi. Not now. Not ever. Lalalalalala.
Avwh, perhaps they dont want to lose their credibility by reporting on conspiracy theories and are waiting for incontrovertible evidence first, then report.
I don't suppose you've thought of that. Getting out every stupid rumor is far more important reporting, right?
Inga said...
"Tim, you have no idea what Romney truly stands for, but you can make INFERENCES, LOL.
Actually, I do.
It starts with competence.
On that alone, Romney is light years ahead of the least experienced man ever nominated and then elected president.
You could spend a lifetime trying to point to one man with less experience who was elected, but you would fail.
As for character, we know Obama is a liar.
As for Obama's record, he's a failure.
On everything. No accomplishments, no successes.
I could go on, but Obama's failure are tiresome, and the sooner we turn the page, the sooner America can recover from these disastrous years.
You are free to double-down on failure; you are free to not learn from your mistakes; you are free to distort Obama's record of failure; you are free to condemn America to a future of servitude to debt; you are free to do all of these things, but you are not free in thinking smarter people believe them best for America.
Because we do not.
Is it a reasonable assumption that major news outlets wouldn't report on a story this huge, with so many ramifications if they had decent info to report on? Is it realistic to believe that every last one of them are so far in the tank for any President?
Another conspiracy theory.
Ah yes, it's a conspiracy theory to say that the MSM is covering up for Obama?
the only purpose that conservatives have in discussing benghazi is to defeat obama. They don't truely care about chris stevens. If Romney is elected the first order of business will be to forget chris stevens even existed because it wont matter. It's real outrage of course but the outrage is not at obama's response to benghazi but the perception of the republicans that they think he is a liar a secret muslim and a communist, so any and all attacks on him are going to continue.
They cried crocodile tears when Chris Stevens died, but inside they were hi-fiving, here's an issue they can hammer obama with until election day so the world would be safe for republicans.
I have no idea what happened in Benghazi, and unlike our republican friends I am no mind reader, I don't know what Obama did or did not know.
They cried crocodile tears when Chris Stevens died, but inside they were hi-fiving, here's an issue they can hammer obama with until election day so the world would be safe for republicans.
Ritmo, CALL YOUR OFFICE! Someone is trying to steal your schtick!
At this moment, in a driving rainstorm of a pending hurricane, men of honor, of the Old Guard, are standing watch over the tombs of the Unknown Soldiers.
They serve with dedication, and ensure the Unknowns are honored and protected.
They do more for the dead than our failed president did for the living.
That is to his shame.
the Iranians, the Contras and the muhajadeen
One of those things is not like the others.
Inga's right. Why would the press ask questions about the conflicts in POTUS's and SECDEF's stories?
Just because one contradicts the other is not newsworthy. There are more important 'bumps in the road' than 4 dead Americans who died defending American soil.
Inga is like the germans I interacted with the decade I lived there...frequently,when the subject of the Holocaust was brought up, the Germans would point out that the Allies didn't bomb the death camps and so we are just as complicit as the Nazis.
How much did Obama rake in from his 9/12 fundraising?
Obama, a president the nation can be proud of.
Just not this nation.
"My point is that the hypocrisy in her and Althouse's concern about this is legion. I bet she wouldn't care, and actually would think it was a good idea if it were Reagan or Bush doing this."
Seriously, Freder?
I haven't been at all inconsistent with my opposition to the concept of arming the tyrant, dictator or warlord in the name of stability and I've always disapproved of funneling arms into a conflict that Americans would not support if we were involved directly. Same with dropping bombs. I also trust our own military under our own command and don't approve of any situation where we give up that control.
You don't have to make a straw-Synova up in order to fuss. I'll tell you exactly what I think.
You've heard me say dozens of times related to military involvement... do it, or *don't*.
Not my fault you don't pay attention to data that disputes your prejudices.
Is it a reasonable assumption that major news outlets wouldn't report on a story this huge, with so many ramifications if they had decent info to report on?
Don't ask me, ask Jake Tapper.
Avwh, perhaps they dont want to lose their credibility by reporting on conspiracy theories and are waiting for incontrovertible evidence first, then report.
The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards story.
Weird, huh?
I have a friend at CentCom whose response to my questions about Benghazi was just to say that the details of the event were "way worse" than what's been made public so far.
This is going to be a explosive scandal at some point. We'll see if the media's refusal to cover the issue can push that point out beyond the election....
Is it a reasonable assumption that major news outlets wouldn't report on a story this huge, with so many ramifications if they had decent info to report on?
It's realistic to believe that all but one of them wouldn't, because only one of them is.
lose their credibility
This is funny.
Why would the L.A. Times sit on the Khalidi tape?
wyo sis said: "I think you're being ironic here"
Right you are. Some things seem so obvious to me that I assume the same for others. Thanks for pointing it out - seems everyone didn't catch that.
Why would the L.A. Times sit on the Khalidi tape?
Because the media exists to nail Republicans only.
I have a friend at CentCom whose response to my questions about Benghazi was just to say that the details of the event were "way worse" than what's been made public so far.
That dovetails exactly with what I was told yesterday.
"waiting for incontrovertible evidence", Inga?
You mean, the MSM can't/shouldn't be asking Qs & digging, just wait for the Obama Administration (the most transparent administration ever, don't you know) to waltz in with the info, everything answered & sorted out. Yeah, that'll happen...in another dream world, maybe.
Is this why the MSM no longer does its job? The libs actually EXPECT them to cover up or ignore anything "bad" for their side's narrative? And like good little lapdogs, that's what they do.
Jeez, what the hell ever happened to critical thinking, a free press, and the fourth estate?
Inga said...
What is Romney's stance on helping Syrian rebels? I believe I remember him saying he was in favor of it.
You do understand that there is this little thing called, distinction. One of the glaring ones is that Romney isn't POTUS. Your argument holds no water in the face of that. Try again.
I know it might be hard knowing that your little coward god is going to go up in flames come the 6th, but it's just so darned fascinating watching you vacillate for him, bib and all.
"perhaps they dont want to lose their credibility by reporting on conspiracy theories and are waiting for incontrovertible evidence first, then report."
Yes, yes, of course, once the Administration tells them the incontrovertible evidence then they'll report it. That's, like, totally exactly how it happened in Watergate.
Now run along and find a way to blame Benghazi on Eisenhower. Or better yet, Lincoln.
This isn't the October Surprise Obama wanted! OMG - the rest of the last 8 days of this election will be Benghazi-Gate!
Inga said...
Avwh, perhaps they dont want to lose their credibility by reporting on conspiracy theories and are waiting for incontrovertible evidence first, then report.
I don't suppose you've thought of that. Getting out every stupid rumor is far more important reporting, right?
To call you credible at this point would require many people to suspend their levels of disbelief at what you are saying vs. the clear facts that are coming out the entire tract of Benghazi. You are not credible, you are delusional if not a total and complete Obama zealot. Any and all attempts by you to pain this as some type of burgeoning conspiracy is utter delusion. Seek mental wellness help.
This isn't the October Surprise Obama wanted! OMG - the rest of the last 8 days of this election will be Benghazi-Gate!
It will be Sandy, Sandy, Sandy.
The sharks smell blood in the water and they want their dinner now! They don't care that the blood is rancid, chummy crap, they would rather eat that than wait for a fresh meat.
Sharks are very stupid.
Because they are hungry for blood.
Rush asked an interesting question today. If the SEAL on the roof was painting a target with a laser, that had to mean that there was either a plane or an armed drone in the area to read the laser position.
Who told it not to attack when it was on scene, armed and with a target?
The SEAL using the laser gave away his location by using it. Very brave, heroically brave. But not done without belief that at attack would happen.
Who told cancelled that attack?
Inga - do you think Republicans are committing political suicide by pushing Benghazi?
And sharks don't chew on their meat and savor it, they basically swallow everything whole.
Also another question to Inga - is Bengahzi "Old news" already? Doesn't seem so to me, except for the alphabet-media outlets that are trying their darndest to not talk about that B-thing.
Inga, you have yet to answer my questions from the other thread...
If Obama gave the order, as he is on record as having stated, who failed to execute it?
If Obama gave the order, why did Panetta order the stand-down, as he is on record as giving? Where does he get the power to override POTUS?
Where was the failure?
You don't think the press should be asking these questions? Should the administration not be asked about this?
What IS the role of the press in Inga's world?
Just to show us the photo's of the dead bodies and reprint press releases?
If Gen. Ham was fired to prevent him from helping the SEALs why isn't Ham talking about it? This rumor doesn't add up.
The thing to do, Freder, would be keep our own guns in our own hands and under our own control.
If only the Iranians, Russians and Syrians thought the same.
Fast & Benghazi!
Speaking of stupid, here's one now:
"The sharks smell blood in the water and they want their dinner now! They don't care that the blood is rancid, chummy crap, they would rather eat that than wait for a fresh meat."
Blood in the water? Oh, dear, let's not look at it, let's pretend it doesn't exist. People are dead and the President is making up odd stories and refusing to answer questions? Well, fiddlesticks, how sad I suppose but this IS inconvenient for him. Squirrel. I'm sure we'll find out what happened at some point. Squirrel. Or not. It's really not our business unless He says so.
I have a friend at CentCom whose response to my questions about Benghazi was just to say that the details of the event were "way worse" than what's been made public so far
And your friend at CentCom (and what is exactly his job there) would have special knowledge of Africom activities exactly how?
He must have been talking to "someone's brother".
Maybe all the non-FOX networks have done extensive investigations into this, and what they have found completely exonerates the President, but they don't want to affect the election, so they are going to wait until next WEdnesday to release the info.
Romney should raise it, puting the politicizing tag on Obama.
"I have been quiet about the Benghazi terrorist killing of Americans in the hope that the President would provide a true account to the American people without anyone politicizing the situation. Instead, I have seen President Obama politicizing the issue, doing campaign interviews where he claims the minute he heard of the attack he issued an order that everything be done to protect our people in Benghazi. Well, it now has come out that the Obama administration did not send available military support to rescue the Americans under attack. I am concerned about this. I am not accusing President Obama of doing anything wrong. I am asking for the truth to be disclosed to the American people. I am calling upon Presiden Obama to provide at least the following information to the American people: (1) to whom he issued the order; (2) a copy of the order with any confidential information redacted; (3) an explanation of his role/participation and knowledge of the decision not to send military rescue; and (4) if his order was not obeyed, what happened. None of this requires any investigation. It is all infomation tht the president already knows and can immediately disclose to the American people. I respectfully request the he do so."
Romney could even promise that once the information is disclosed, he will not be critical of the president. He will allow the American people to assess the information in the manner they deem appropriate.
grackle (and others who make similar claims): No one is claiming that Gen. Ham was fired or relieved. The term is 'apprehended'. Read my comments on the subject.
While the story may or may not be true, the use of the proper legal designation indicates someone who is familiar with martial jurisprudence and protocol. And it conforms to the notion that Gen. Ham can still be in command.
I have a friend at CentCom whose response to my questions about Benghazi was just to say that the details of the event were "way worse" than what's been made public so far
And if the answer to my previous question is that "he was digging around on the SIPRNet to see what he could find about Bengazi", then he is in deep shit if he gets caught.
"I have a friend at CentCom whose response to my questions about Benghazi was just to say that the details of the event were "way worse" than what's been made public so far."
Deep Throat: Speak, please.
No one is claiming that Gen. Ham was fired or relieved.
You apparently didn't bother to read the article that is the subject of this thread.
“His [Ham's] response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow,” writes Robbins. “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.”
--Is it a reasonable assumption that major news outlets wouldn't report on a story this huge, with so many ramifications if they had decent info to report on? Is it realistic to believe that every last one of them are so far in the tank for any President?
Another conspiracy theory.---
LOLOLOLOLOL
The gift that keeps on giving.
Hey, give Panetta some props for picking a DoD event featuring Holly Petraeus, Assistant Director for the Office of Servicemember Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to announce General Ham's replacement by General Rodriquez at AFRICOM. This among other "announcements" of command replacements provided in the context of consumer protection for service members.
Wasn't leaving people in Vietnam part of the story of shame behind that traumatic episode in American History.
It speaks to the fundamental principle of the American character.
We don't abandon our people.
If Katrina was a political disaster, as well as a natural disaster, it was because it was perceived as the abandoning of an entire city.
Obama chose to sacrifice those people and the question for me is how many people are going to choose to forgive him at the polls.
Freder, you are correct. Apprehension is detainment. Relief could be temporary, momentary, and the person relieved can be re-instated at any time.
No arrest.
It still plays out.
Thanks for the pointe-out freder.
Inga: They don't care that the blood is rancid, chummy crap...
Meanwhile, they can sit in their Situation Room, watching live drone feeds from a seven-hour running battle and do nothing except try to get their excuses straight.
You'd think the mainstream press would have learned by now that failure on their part to do their job will automatically result in ever more lurid stories running wild around the Internet.
Given my overall disgust at the Washington Post's failure to publish a full accounting, I heartily applaud FrontPageMag.com and others pushing stories detrimental to the administration. Maybe it can wake somebody up down at 15th and L.
Of course, if Romney's internal polls show he is ahead and/or gaining ground, then caution will probably prevail (maybe rightfully) and Romney will not take the chance of the MSM coming down in mass on his for "politicizing" the debate. He will need to rely upon honest journalists and wisconsin senator Johnson who nailed the issue on Sunday. Or maybe a democratic senate candidate in trouble might be forced into calling for disclosure. I doubt it. Pretty good control over them.
seems explosive and, given Inga's track record of being totally idiotically wrong on this story and every development, probably true.
The issue is the whole incident smacks of something weird.
Exactly what has yet to be determined.
john said...
The only rumor that hasn't been "cited" here is the October Surprise. It's puzzling that so few have caught on to the obvious climate manipulation that has taken place to cause a harmless tropical storm to abruptly strengthen and turn 90 degrees to the west right into Philadelphia instead of running harmlessly out into the Atlantic.
Generated with the tried-and-true HAARP method (pioneered by the Bush WH to target poor black neighborhoods in NOLA), Sandy's course now sets the stage for a federal takeover of the city's transportation systems through November 6, thus ensuring that in at least one critical metropolitan area, voter participation will once again top 100%.
SEPTA's never been shut down for a week unless the damned TWU went on strike.
I've never seen any weather - snowstorm or hurricane affect SE PA mass transit like that.
He must have been talking to "someone's brother".
That brother was a team leader under Ham until recently, when he was assigned to another group with a different sector of responsibility. He and his were exactly the type of troops that would be sent as part of a ready response team...and have been.
Ahh the debate continues--What may be interesting is General Rodriquez's confirmation hearing in the Senate when some of these questions may arise--please note that General Rodriguez has yet to be confirmed by the senate and General Ham is still the CINC of AFRICOM. But i will stipulate that things may have changed a bit since I served in the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away--
Damn--and did I mention that General Ham happens to be African American? Probaby racism involved.
Not to speak to the veracity of the stories purportedly coming from military souces, but to the plausibility:
Ham spools up the CIF and is ordered to stand-down. He refuses.
His 2IC is asked if he can follow a legal order. "Yes, sir."
He is then ordered to apprehend (detain) Gen Ham and relieve him from command until further orders are issued. A little 'private' conversation goes between Gen Ham and (SECDEF?/POTUS?) about loyalty, civilian control over the military, courts-martial, retirement pensions, reputation, etc.
Gen. Ham calms down or resigns himself to the situation...perhaps after it is too late to send help. He is reinstated to command and ordered to silence.
I'm not trying to claim facts not in evidence.
The military can't afford to lose passionate, courageous soldiers. Especially those who are proven leaders. It is expected that soldiers in combat situations will act out of passion, anger, and, frankly, vengeful bloodlust. The type of insubordination hinted at in the rumors is entirely within the accepted and honored ethos of the US military.
If the rumors are true, then the Obama campaign must be very worried about what will come out.
Where is Wikileaks when you need them?
Garage typed: "Fast and Benghazi!"
Isn't that pithy and cute and funny and biting? Because the right wing cares about a few dead Americans the progressive finds two events worthy of mockery.
Nice.
Obama and others know why military aid was not sent to Benghazi. They just won't tell us.
I don't see how anyone can come to a different conclusion. There is every reason to believe that the White House was informed almost immediately about the attack on the consulate. And, that either Obama or someone very close to him, such as Valerie Jarrett or VP Biden was informed within minutes of that. That is long standing SOP, as a number here and elsewhere have pointed out here. And, this most likely happened before or while Obama and Biden were meeting with their Secretary of Defense.
The other part of this is that the use of force in such a situation would most likely require the approval of the President or his delegate (Remember Cheney issuing the shoot-down orders 11 years before?)
The President is the Commander-in-Chief. All authorizations for use of force by the military must, at some point, come from him. Maybe not directly, when operating under standing orders or policies, but at least indirectly. That means that he had ultimate authority of go/no-go that afternoon and evening. Combine that with the fact that he most certainly knew what was going on.
That means that he either gave the stand down orders himself, allowed an immediate deputy to do so, or dithered when faced with the decision until it was too late, and did so repeatedly. My guess is the latter, relying on input from Jarrett and Biden, doing what he had done with all the previous opportunities to nail OBL. That just seems more in-character than actually giving the stand down orders himself.
In other words, when the 3 a.m. call came (actually, sometime between 4 and 5 p.m.), I think it is going to turn out that instead of making a decision, he voted "present", and then took a nap so that he could be well rested for his flight to Las Vegas the next day.
Garage Sez:
"If true,"
Great source there, Althouse. Good God man.
You must not like the New York Times. Facts are too hard for them to get right, and so they are going to rely more on reporters.
Not to mention something like they intend to print things that allows them to guide people to draw conclusions they want to have.
Post a Comment