"Rogue" U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Bengzahi Stand-Down Order

reply to post by wasaka


We're supposed to believe something from a (obviously biased) blog?

Do you realize how many knuckleheads out there are claiming, claiming that and offering nothing to back it up?

Originally posted by wasaka

"Rogue" U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Bengzahi Stand-Down Order

Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi?


unspy.wordpress.com...

Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal... According to reports times247.com... once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.

Sounds like the story line for Last Resort (the new TV series on ABC)

edit on 30-10-2012 by wasaka because: added HULU link to Last Resort

The General should not be done this way. They should arrest Hillary Clinton and Barack Obummer for their LACK of SUPPORT in the Bengzahi Incident.

I'm thinking the admiral replaced in the Navy is unrelated. The ship he was on didn't enter 5th Fleet AO until October 17th and sailed from it's home port in Washington across the Pacific with port calls in Malaysia and Thailand. The article I found about it, only sites "inappropriate leadership judgment", which after a port call in Thailand could mean just about anything.

reply to post by Rastus3663


Oh you got me...


NOT, I didn't like him either.

ATS is becoming pathetic.

It's no longer Deny Ignorance, it's "Deny Everything You Don't Agree With, Accept Anything That Does."

The fact that people actually believe this crap as soon as it hits from known biased sites is just sad. What the hell has happened to this place?

reply to post by Destiny Of Souls


Here here!

I'm still trying to figure out if I have enough material to put a topic together connecting the "youtube video" that was originally blamed with the new UN move to crack down on internet terrorism.

This smells to me like the CIA got caught with their pants down and someone wanted to take advantage of it to further the UN agenda, and cover their butts. It didn't work because so many people knew so many details for the cover story to work.

reply to post by Destiny Of Souls


There is clearly more to this than what we have been told. There is a commission investigating Benghazi and there are videos of their proceedings posted in another thread that you can watch. It has been 100% proven that we were lied to about the youtube video that we were initially told sparked this "demonstration." That is patently false, and yet we were told by Ambassador Susan Rice, “That what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo. Almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted of course by the video.

Legally the use of the words "in fact" is significant.

We have military personnel who have been fired.

We have the Obama Administration lying about what they knew and when they knew it.

We have the first Ambassador killed in service since 1979 along with 3 other American citizens.

We know for a fact that our military was ordered to stand down 3 times, but no one will say who gave that order.

You can choose to ignore this if you like, but would you be denying ignorance?

Originally posted by Destiny Of Souls
ATS is becoming pathetic.

It's no longer Deny Ignorance, it's "Deny Everything You Don't Agree With, Accept Anything That Does."

The fact that people actually believe this crap as soon as it hits from known biased sites is just sad. What the hell has happened to this place?

what crap, specifically, are you talking about?

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Except that all the evidence is that General Ham was never arrested, never detained, or hasn't been fired. He's continued in his role as AFRICOM since the incident happened. If he had been removed from command, then his replacement would have been in place within a week or two, at most. Instead, here it is the end of October, and he's still acting in the role as theater commander.

Yes, the administration lied, and there is a lot more to this than we have been told, but with regards to just this particular story, I'm calling BS.

Spoken like someone who is an authority on ineptitude.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Except that all the evidence is that General Ham was never arrested, never detained, or hasn't been fired. He's continued in his role as AFRICOM since the incident happened. If he had been removed from command, then his replacement would have been in place within a week or two, at most. Instead, here it is the end of October, and he's still acting in the role as theater commander.

Yes, the administration lied, and there is a lot more to this than we have been told, but with regards to just this particular story, I'm calling BS.

I never said he was arrested. I said he was asked to step aside from his command. Others (military) in this thread have addressed how this kind of situation would be handled with a General. No his replacement could not be put in place that fast. It takes a vote of Congress (usually 6 months) to install a General.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Generals have been fired, and replaced almost immediately with a temporary commander, until a permanent replacement was installed by Congress. Look at Gen McChrystal. He was fired, and Gen Patraeus almost immediately replaced him. McChrystal's predecessor, Gen McKiernan was fired, and McChrystal replaced him almost immediately.

The article in Rolling Stone wasn't published until November, but Gen McChrystal was fired June 23rd. General Patraeus arrived in Kabul on July 2nd to take command. So don't tell me that they couldn't fast track a change of command, and had to leave him in command if he had done something wrong.

I know that you didn't say that he was arrested, but all the articles that were online stated that he had been detained "almost immediately" by his second in command. If it was bad enough that he was detained, then they wouldn't give him the opportunity to continue to be in the spotlight as the AFRICOM commander, in any capacity.

The only thing I think we can say we KNOW for CERTAIN is that there is absolutely more to this story than has yet come out. It'll come eventually. Too much has happened now and too many lines have been crossed for too many witnesses to see happen. All the little pieces will come together as men who saw those pieces, eventually put them together and make a picture that DOES make sense from start to finish. Until then? Well.. Gateway Pundit has at last attempted to be fair and in this article, make another push to be careful about media speculation running wild. Coming in the same article as that call for moderation in reporting, this part stopped me cold.

THIS...I hadn't heard. How many layers ARE there to this onion anyway??

The issue was almost certainly a refusal to come in, guns blazing, into Benghazi, a Muslim city, for fear of destabilizing Eastern Libya and upsetting Muslims with an American show of force. The decision was made to rely on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Feb 17 Brigade to help evacuate the area, even though Ansar Al-Sharia, the militia leading the attack, was a splinter group of Feb 17 and serious questions remain about the complicity of Feb 17 personnel in the attack.

Benghazigate is now a focus, but it should be remembered that there have been countless Benghazigates in Afghanistan, where US forces were denied air and artillery support while under fire. That should be the real focus of this conversation. What happened in Benghazi is what has been going on in Afghanistan for some time. It’s the outcome of the Obama Administration’s CVE and Hearts and Minds program that puts Muslim sensibilities first and American lives last.

Source

Since it IS the first time I've heard of U.S. political command choosing to use locals of the Muslim Brotherhood for anything more than problems to keep away that night..I'll hold comment except to say, the questions requiring answers just keep on coming. Special Prosecutors would not be in any way, out of line here. In fact, this is precisely what that process was designed to address, IMO.

Originally posted by Destiny Of Souls
ATS is becoming pathetic.

It's no longer Deny Ignorance, it's "Deny Everything You Don't Agree With, Accept Anything That Does."

The fact that people actually believe this crap as soon as it hits from known biased sites is just sad. What the hell has happened to this place?

And if it comes back and all this is true, and youve denied any of the information because you think its a bias source.......and inspite of the facts that have already come out......

Who will be the ignorant one then for not considering any information and being wrong?

Flat out denial of any information coming forth during an investigation because you dont like where it came from, is just as ignorant as totally accepting anything as truth until the facts are out...

Perhaps you should re-evaluate the standard at which you pass judgement

Originally posted by jefwane
Two flag officers being canned in the same geographic area in a short time span does seem incredibly unusual doesn't it. Could anyone repeat the name of the Navy Admiral relieved recently as well? I couldn't find it with the awesome search function here.

U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette

www.foxnews.com...

It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.

The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of "inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well that would all depend on how much attention would be drawn to this situation. He may very well still be acting as the commander. We can only speculate. I don't think, given the circumstances that it would be expedient to fire him. Don't you think it a bit odd given his age and the normal length of his tour (the last commander served 3 1/2 yrs.) that he is retiring now?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wow, I have read so many articles and YES this is the first time I have seen this speculation. This deserves a thread of its own!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The Washington Post too, has a pretty good article on the denial of officials that General Ham was fired because of his refusal to stand down. This is a case where conspiracy makes the higher case. How ironic that it just so happened...

I can't believe that the administration didn't fight back because they wanted to appease the Islamic public. To me, that is like saying to them, we are cowards. After seeing those pictures of beaten up and dead Stephens, I wanted to puke! I can't imagine a compassionate person saying "no" their cries for help. Those guards fought for seven hours before they were killed and no one from a base 500 miles away stepped in to rescue them. It could have been accomplished in a flash. What a horrible story.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Not really. It's pretty common for someone who has served that long, and reached that rank, to go out on a high note, after serving as head of a major command. There could be any number of personal reasons for him leaving. Illness, family reasons, choosing to spend time with family, a chance to travel with his wife or children...... Maybe he's just tired. That's a long time to serve in the military, and to have to be away from family. Maybe he wants to make up for it now before something happens and it's too late. Who is to say why he chose to walk away now.

www.washingtontimes.com...

What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. 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. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections and bold face lies.

What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison.