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

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

You know this guy was in the armed forces for almost 40 years right? If anything happened the most likely thing to go on would be lack of action and a premature retirment instead of taking away everything the man worked for over 40 years.

Had this man really went rougue, being fired would be the least of his issues to deal with.

If General Ham chose to ignore a "stand down" order and the statement was made by the deceased ex-seal's father: "Whoever gave the order to "stand down" killed my son." and nobody takes the blame for it - not Obama, not Panetta, then I think refusing to obey this "stand down" would make Ham a hero in the eyes of John Q. Public. I can't see him being censured for it publicly. I am inclined to think he may have refused the order and resigned his position right then and there.

Now, if General Ham had made the "stand down" order on his own he would be the one that would have gotten fingered so the heat would be off Obama. Same deal with the Fleet Commander who lost his command and is being investigated for improper judgement.

Obama Met With Panetta, Biden on 9/11/12 55 Minutes After State Notified WH Benghazi Was Under Attack
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 30, 2012
cnsnews.com...

This was a planned meeting entered on the official White House schedule - 5:00 P.M.

About 25 minutes after the attack started—at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time—the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon.

About the Benghazi attack and that Stevens and others were in the compound

Today (10/302012) CNSNews.com was told by a Defense Department spokesman:

“However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”

I cannot fathom that discussing this attack would not take precedent over any planned discussion. Panetta and Obama claim no involvement in the refusal to provide support for this attack. America isn't buying it.

There is a reason for a lack of transparency, people. If they could blame someone for the "stand down" they would be on it like ducks on a June Bug

Either Obama and Panetta were involved in the decision to "stand down" and won't admit it or these people are too incompetent to be holding the offices they have because they can't find anyone to blame. The latter is beyond belief IMHO.

Politics

It galls me to no end that Obama tell us that "nobody get left behind" regarding the hurricane so quickly after his Ambassador and other Americans got a thumbs down. I would not be surprised if this is a new concept for him. Sounds good anyway.

Admin Note: Please, let other members speak for themselves. Thanks. -- Majic

Admin Note: This is becoming tedious.. TOPIC ONLY. -- Majic

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Taiyed

 

H ere have at it and get back to us. I've spent hours on this already. The google search alone says something is up. About 30,300,000 results (0.25 seconds)

So if something goes viral and you get alot of google hits its an indicator that "somethings up" ?? Browsing those 30,300,000 yields little substance as Taiyed points out.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


Generally things go viral for a reason. Lots of military blogs are lit up like fire. People are asking questions and right now the answers are unsatisfactory. No wonder they want to censor the internet.

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by solarstorm
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Me thinks everyone higher than this General should be arrested and tried for treason.

edit on 30-10-2012 by solarstorm because: (no reason given)

Methinks on January 1, President Romney should select this general to fill the Secretary of Defense vacancy.

??? really ???
folks, this is a clear example of why we continue to relish in this romp of ridicule.

dear friend, on January 1, 2013, regardless who wins the election, the sitting POTUS (Obama currently) will be making the decisions, unless, for some reason (re-read topic discussion for a good one) the sitting POTUS is forcibly removed prior to inauguration.

fyi ... Jan 20 is the "turn-over" day, or inauguration of the newly elected POTUS, whomever he be. (personally, i'm no fan of Romney but Johnson would do)

unless some drastic action like impeachment or AG Holder filing charges of high treason or neglect of duty or even maladministration at this point , Obama will still be making decisions on Jan 1, 2013.

and, no offense to my fellow elders but ... could we please fill the SoD position with someone who possesses exuberant vitality ??
this dead fish syndrome is really starting to stink

I'm only posting here to make sure I can follow this thread.
I see one source. I need more.
Is this posted anywhere on Twitter or Facebook or any those such mundane sights so that the public can become aware since it will never hit the MSM?

reply to post by HomerinNC

since i'm not familiar with personnel, what makes you think Gen Ham is being replaced by his second in command ??

it's been made public that Gen Rodriguez has been appointed as Ham's replacement (Senate confirmation needed) but was he (Rodriguez) the second in command when GH was relieved ?
appointment announcement

If General Ham chose to ignore a "stand down" order and the statement was made by the deceased ex-seal's father: "Whoever gave the order to "stand down" killed my son." and nobody takes the blame for it - not Obama, not Panetta, then I think refusing to obey this "stand down" would make Ham a hero in the eyes of John Q. Public. I can't see him being censured for it publicly. I am inclined to think he may have refused the order and resigned his position right then and there.

Now, if General Ham had made the "stand down" order on his own he would be the one that would have gotten fingered so the heat would be off Obama. Same deal with the Fleet Commander who lost his command and is being investigated for improper judgement.

Obama Met With Panetta, Biden on 9/11/12 55 Minutes After State Notified WH Benghazi Was Under Attack
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 30, 2012
cnsnews.com...

This was a planned meeting entered on the official White House schedule - 5:00 P.M.

About 25 minutes after the attack started—at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time—the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon.

About the Benghazi attack and that Stevens and others were in the compound

Today (10/302012) CNSNews.com was told by a Defense Department spokesman:

“However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”

I cannot fathom that discussing this attack would not take precedent over any planned discussion. Panetta and Obama claim no involvement in the refusal to provide support for this attack. America isn't buying it.

Either Obama and Panetta were involved in the decision to "stand down" and won't admit it or these people are too incompetent to be holding the offices they have because they can't find anyone to blame. The latter is beyond belief IMHO.

Politics

edit on 10/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

Couple problems here. First, the SEAL that you mentioned. He supposedly asked for an F-35 strike right? Pretty sure I read that somewhere. Not 100% sure but hasn't that claim been disproved? Next I completely agree that he may have resigned on the spot, as soon as and if the order to stand down came. In fact, a general with his record would probably do just that.

Next is the timeline they are providing. This would have been a "flash" level message that would have reached POTUS in ten minutes. Obama was at the White House and probably had meetings about this before the other meeting took place. Your phrase "America isn't buying it" is inaccurate to say the least. I'm buying it for now, until I hear some hard proof or fact about what happened there.

Another note here, SECDEF was brought into the White House. Let's not forget that Panetta is the former head of the CIA. Again, I think that the CIA got caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. But it's all speculation about what really happened.

Originally posted by Resurected
*shrugs* 4 pages of nothing.. All we know so far is he is going into rotational retirment. The rest of this is nothing other then pure speculation brought to us by the best of right wing blogs. Until some facts hit the page, i dont have much to be bothered with on this one.

ok, so you say but here's the question ... WHY is he being placed on rotational when he's still a quarter term out ??
he assumed this position March 2011 ... he's not "scheduled" to rotate for another 6+months.
sounds more like some hearty back-slapping and hand-shaking going on ... ya know ??
they be making deals with the devil or his advocate.

there is no good reason for such an early rotation unless it's the result of a "deal" and most everyone knows it.

Dempsey: Africa Command change not tied to Libya

The top U.S. military officer is denying reports that Army Gen. Carter Ham's planned departure as head of U.S. Africa Command is linked to the Sept. 11 attack in Libya.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey issued a written statement Monday calling speculation about the reasons for Ham's move "absolutely false."

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Oct. 18 that Gen. David Rodriguez is being nominated to succeed Ham. The Africa Command is responsible for U.S. military operations and relations in much of Africa.

Last week, Panetta said he, Dempsey and Ham all felt very strongly that it would have been a mistake to insert U.S. forces into Benghazi during the attack, which killed four Americans.

Dempsey said Monday that Ham's departure is part of "routine succession planning."


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

BostonHerald - Gen. Dempsey: Africa Command change not tied to Libya

Yahoo News - Dempsey: Africa Command change not tied to Libya


Army FORSCOM chief tapped to lead AFRICOM

Staff report
Posted : Thursday Oct 18, 2012 16:55:21 EDT



Gen. David Rodriguez, commanding general of Army Forces Command, has been nominated to lead U.S. Africa Command, the Defense Department announced Oct. 18.

Rodriguez would succeed Gen. Carter Ham, who has commanded Africa Command since March 2011.

Ham’s next assignment has not been announced.

Africa Command, headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, is the newest of the Defense Department’s nine unified combatant commands.

It was created in 2007 and is responsible for U.S. military relations with 54 African countries.

As commander of FORSCOM, the Army’s largest organization, Rodriguez is responsible for manning, equipping and training 265,000 active-duty soldiers, and training and readiness oversight for 560,000 reserve component soldiers.

Before FORSCOM, Rodriguez led the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command in Afghanistan. The 1976 West Point graduate also commanded in the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division, and the 75th Ranger Regiment.

He has extensive combat experience, from Operation Just Cause and Desert Shield/Desert Storm, to Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Afghanistan.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

howdy Ms A ... just wanted to add a bit of fuel to this fire and fix one thing you said (since "facts" are so important and all)

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

YES we do and guess what else about those 3 citizens ??

-- wait for it ---

aside from providing insufficient intel as has been stated by Panetta ... these fine men were x-SEALS.
specialized training of which Obama will never understand.
refined skills but "not providing good enough intel"
under seige on video relay ... but still, only providing poor/incomplete intel
and above all, saved the lives of 20 others, but couldn't get a doggie bag on request.

yes, the lives lost are a tragedy but the BS being dished out to the public by the likes of Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Dempsey and others is just plain propaganda of the highest order.

A guy on my facebook wrote this up on the foxnews report www.foxnews.com... that was almost all false. Thought it was pretty good to bring up here, but I won't use his name:

While the facts may have some validity, we all have some military experience, and those with secret squirrel stories should know better than anyone, that the media will always try to turn a tragic event into some kind of conspiracy. We all know the 10% rule, and I believe that applies to this entire article. The, "Within 30 seconds/ c-130 airstrike/ f-35, f-22 missle strike" comments are what completely lost its validity with me. Someone with no CAS experience probably was overheard after the fact, asked really dumb questions about why an f-22 didn't drop a bomb, someone else was overheard explaining the concepts of CDE, and BAM! "Navy seals request for an airstrike denied!" is the headline.

"Arrested in minutes...." Was his second in command briefed before the incident?
By whom?
Was it expected?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
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!

? ... you guys need to read this one.
it's not long but there's alot of meat in it that y'all seem to be missing or think is just cheese.

the gunning running operation --> why Feb 17 protections ~~ which ones bailed rather defended and how the SEALS collected their discarded weapons and took 60 attackers with them -- KUDOS seals.
the Panetta Doctrine 1st issued, before it became side-commentary, one of the seal's father's commentary ... real meat, not cheese.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

Except it would make a lot more sense for them to announce his retirement within a couple of weeks of the incident, not a month and a half later. Or even to announce that he was moving to a different position, or any of a number other excuses that could be used, instead of leaving him where he is the most highly visible person in theater.

now, why would they hurry such a process when the public sale was "anti-muslim video sparks deadly attack" ??
that was the sale ... we almost bought it, didn't we ?
however, someone decided selling this BS to the public wasn't best for all and here we are.

ETA: btw, the appointment occurred 5 wks post incident, not months later.
surprisingly, within 2 wks of the first info being leaked and the seal's father talking to the media, this appointment was initiated. seems pretty fast-tracked to me.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Not just the general of Africom was fired but so was the Rear Admiral in charge of carrier strike group 3 in the Med. I called the office of the head of Senate Armed Services committee to relay my disgust that such good servicemen acting to save American lives should be commended, not fired.

We the people need to let our congressmen know how we feel about this or it will only get worse with military leaders being fired for political reasons.

Carrier Strike Group 3 is the Stennis group and they aren't in the Med. At the time of the Benghazi attack they were transiting the Pacific. They did a port call in Malaysia Sept 30-04 Oct.

They only arrived on station in the AOR on 17 Oct.

Now he could've been overly vocal about the Benghazi attacks and got in trouble for that. Or it may be for something totally unrelated, just happening during the same time frame.

reply to post by Zaphod58

not sure which source you are having problems with but here's one i haven't posted before ...

www.sodahead.com... page=5&postId=96643399#post_96643399

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.

perhaps arguing semantics is what the administration wants ... however, whether the term is arrested, apprehended, relived of command, fired, retired or whatever else can be conjured --> the "conspiracy of being relieved forcibly vs voluntarily" should not be the focus of discussion.