Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.
Originally posted by wasaka
Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
Has anyone read the article to know that whatever side you are on He was not arrested. He was relieved of command. I repeat he was not arrested. The arrest part was only used to grab your attention. The OP should be ashamed. Political trolls. Nov 6th can not come soon enough. This site is being over run by crazies.
This is a conspiracy website, not a news site. Attention grabbing headlines are the norm.
Having said that, the OP was not a "conspiracy theory" but facts as they have been reported
by main stream media sources, namely the Washington Times.
The OP also include the term "9/11" and yes that was to grab attention... but the fact is this
did happen on 9/11 and I maintain the term "arrested" is equally as valid. You choose to see
the OP as a "crazy political trolling" when all I did was ask one simple question and make one
simple observation. Here they are again:
A) Is a General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi?
B) Sounds like the story line for Last Resort (the new TV series on ABC)
Tell me again, what exactly should I feel ashamed of ???
The source I linked to reads:
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.
I read "apprehended" as arrest. I could be wrong, mistaken, or misinformed
but that is why I posted this to ATS, so we could all get to the bottom of this.
To my mind, being arrested means you are not free to leave (like when the
police detain you). That arrest may only last a few moments but in this case
its hard for me see how a General being relieved of his command after he
disregarded a direct order from the White House is not a proper use of
that term. Again, I could be wrong, so you decide for yourself.
Apparently General Ham is not the only member of the armed forces who
attempted to respond and who has been relieved of his command.
LATEST NEWS: www.foxnews.com...
"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.
Inappropriate judgment eh? Like, perhaps, deciding that he was going to go do his job when our people were under attack through an act of war on U.S. soil by known belligerents and terrorist? There isn't much that’s “inappropriate” in my view under such circumstances in terms of rapid response, but the CIC (that would be Obama) apparently sees things differently.
Under the UCMJ, any order that will harm soldiers etc can legally be ignored. However, it would still need to be defended in a military court. You get arrested and then you defend your actions, however in this case no one want to see that happen because it would get a lot of bad press... you can bet this will fade into obscurity as do all stories about negative events participated in by the top brass.
Just remember, our Government (the Marxist Obama administration) lied to us directly, "eyeball to eyeball", for an extended period of time. They blamed a YouTube video when we know, without having to look at rumors, that communication where taking place that made it clear that NIGHT it was an organized attack and never a spontaneous event by unruly protesters. The big question is why the stand down order given?
Imagine, pre-9/11/12, that you were responsible for arranging the defense of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Would you have considered American interests and personnel best protected by bringing in a local security outfit called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade?
Question: If the Federal government has been caught lying to the American people about Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Korea, Vietnam, the Gary Frances Powers U-2 shoot-down over Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Watergate break-in, the October Surprise, the Iran-Contra scandal, the BCCI scandal, the invasion of Iraq, and the hunt for al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- what on earth would cause any thinking American to blindly believe that the Federal government is not lying through its teeth right now about running arms to al Qaeda in Libya and Syria?
This just further proves how inept the entire military is from top to bottom.
Even if they didn't move him, he could have come out and said he had health problems, or something with his family. There are a number of excuses that could have been used that would never have tied him to what happened. They could have waited a few weeks, and then had a family member get sick, or whatever