Ambassador Stephens Death and the Coming Military Coup , page 4

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

---

And again, nothing to back up your claims.

I've provided you with the source article from ABC.

You are claiming you have many other sources besides Fox News for your claims, yet you can't seem to produce any.

If nothing else, the administration has lied, repeatedly and done everything they could to deflect, disown and dodge criticism for it's handling of the death of Stevens.
Part 1 is 2 1/2 hours and not much to hear but watch part 2 and it will be obvious to anyone that we have been fed a load of horse manure by the white house.

reply to post by Honor93

---

Again, another BLOG.

Spare me the mumbo jumbo and learn how to quote legitimate sources.

It's getting even better.
It seems the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Rep. Buck McKeown isn't able to getting any answers from serving military personnel:

"We’re not getting anything. I have written to commanders in the field, 3-, 4-star admirals and generals, and the response I got out of the Department of Defense is that “we will not be able to answer your simple yes and no questions,” that I’m sure they already know the answers to. “We will not be able to answer them on your timeline (which was now a couple of weeks ago when I wrote the letter), and we do not know when we’ll be able to respond.”

"And the other requests that we’ve asked for briefings, “we will not be able to comply with.” This is the first time I’ve seen where the military has been basically silenced, when they could not answer a direct yes and no question from the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee".

"The one who knows it all, that could clear it all up, is out campaigning and is totally silent on the issue after telling us he wants us to have all the information as soon as he receives it".

blog.heritage.org...

Military under gag orders from who?
And why?

reply to post by Honor93

---

I, personally, realized that once the CIA was as deeply involved as it appears to be then we would never know exactly what happened to the extent that would suffice. I've generally given up on trying to find the who/what/where/why and instead focus on correcting or suggesting alternative explanations or factual occurrences. One example would be to squash the rumor that General Ham was fired for defying orders. It's a lie. So is the idea that the president sat and watched the incident play itself out over the course of 11 hours.

I already said that I'm going with Occam's razor on this, I don't believe in the deep, dark conspiracies but I also am sure we'll never know the full-extent of what occurred or didn't occur in Benghazi.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

---

bush lied about iraq, many men died or is it that to many died in iraq as opposed to the embassy where only a handful died... that is a tragedy and iraq was just a statistic i see.

reply to post by votan

---

What's Bush got to do with this?
Or Iraq for that matter?
I still think Bush/Cheney/Powell should all be tried for war crimes over their role in Iraq so don't think this has anything to do with partisanship on my part.
I loathe both parties equally!

reply to post by ipsedixit

---

MacArthur jumped on a plane and left his second in command to surrender the Philippines. He left the men under his command to walk the Death March, while he hightailed it to safety. Was it the right thing to do? From a tactical stand point yes. But, soldiers don't care about the tactical stanpoint when they are abandoned by their leadership. Something this administration might want to think about.

+edit - and if I'm not mistaken he was awarded the MoH for his defense of the Philippines. He ran and then received the nations highest honor for bravery? That should be a thread by itself.

reply to post by votan

---

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.

Known by many civilians, loved by many soldiers. He was a senior commander and a "soldier's" soldier. If anyone would be at the head of a coup, he would have my vote.

reply to post by Kali74

---

Not you, or anyone else publically, know whether or not the military was ordered to stand down. Without an investigation, we will never know. What facts are known:

The most powerful commander of American forces in the MENA was suddenly announced to be stepping down early from the position and putting in early retirement, weeks after the Libya fiasco.
An admiral was relieved from duty in mid-deployment at one of the most dangerous places on earth. Something that hasn't happened in twenty years.

The president, and his staff have been caught flat out lying over what they knew and when they knew it. Claiming to be in the dark over a spontaneous mob action when in fact they had received prior warnings an attack was coming, and had watched the attack unfold live on drone video for SEVEN HOURS. Rather then admit it was a planned terrorist attack, they spent weeks scapegoating a dupe, who was jailed, not to mention tried to springboard it into an excuse to shutdown free speech on the internet. After the fact, BHO tried to say he had ordered all available forces to respond, yet BHO's own Panetta said no action was taken because it was too dangerous.
These are the admitted facts and documented events.

Which is it? knew it was terror or not? issued orders or no orders given? The most powerful military on earth took no action even though BHO said orders were given. Because they were incompetent? insubordinate? because orders were never given? or because the orders were to stand down?

The whole dog ate our homework excuse has been blown to pieces. BHO knew what happened, while it was happening. The question is what did he do, or not do, and why. If this is a conspiracy-truth site, why are you waving the big "move along, nothing to see" sign?

The whole situation based on the known facts stinks. The only question is whether its coming from incompetence, or conspiracy.

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Ambassador Stephens Death and the Coming Military Coup
November 3, 2012 - Dave Hodges

This will be a classic example of "blow-back" and I think the content of the enclosed article goes well beyond mere conjecture and idle speculation. Some predictions as they relate to momentous events such as Benghazi-Gate oftentimes bear a sense of the ominous - of foreboding. The predicative speculation contained within this article certainly fits the description of an omen; a prediction, or a presentiment of great import, especially of a coming political and military upheaval - possibly even the portent of martial law.

Dave Hodges - The Common Sense Show
Opening paragraph(s)

November 4, 2012 - The United States military is in a state of war in the Middle East and President Obama has committed the unprecedented action of firing two senior level command officers for what would comprise the leadership of an attack force against Iran and potentially China and Russia. This action is so unprecedented, so reckless, that it is difficult to comprehend. Please allow me to offer a sports analogy in order to explain the magnitude of this action. Imagine that your favorite football was on the eve of the Super Bowl and the owner of your team fired both the head coach and the quarterback the night before the big game. Wouldn’t this throw your team into a state of disarray? Of course it would, and subsequently your team would face annihilation. This is exactly the case with our forces in the Middle East after the firing of these two military leaders at this critical point in time. The deposing and subsequent arrest of AFRICOM commanding officer, General Carter Ham, and the firing of Carrier task force commander, Admiral Charles M. Gayouette is an irresponsible move by the Obama administration and has left a leadership void in the Middle East that has needlessly put the lives of our military at risk.
The positions held by Hamm and Gayouette are so powerful and so sensitive, their replacements will require approval from the Senate. Why would Obama engage in such a reckless act when the country is so close to war? Very simply, both men were jointly attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards, despite being told to stand down by Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta. There is now proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.

General Ham and Admiral Gayouette

Admiral Gayouette

See also this related post and the important breaking story - --> MOTHER OF SEAL: 'I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA MURDERED MY SON'

edit on 4-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

If there is a Coup coming, it will only be if Obummer wins the POTUS vote again. He is not a Leader of Men, but a Destroyer of Righteousness and Bringer of Chaos. As Commander in Chief, he failed to provide protection of our Constitution, our People and our Country. He has committed treason in my opinion by giving aid and comfort to our enemies, by consorting with those who seek to destroy America and its way of life. This in the eyes of any military man or woman is not right. That is not what we took an oath to give up our lives for in defense of our country and its principle beliefs.

reply to post by robobbob

---

The most powerful commander of American forces in the MENA was suddenly announced to be stepping down early from the position and putting in early retirement, weeks after the Libya fiasco. An admiral was relieved from duty in mid-deployment at one of the most dangerous places on earth. Something that hasn't happened in twenty years.

It was announced in June that General Ham would be replaced. As far as the Admiral? We have not heard anything other than 'well so and so said'.

The president, and his staff have been caught flat out lying over what they knew and when they knew it.

That was part of the initial intel and not an unreasonable assumption IMO. This part is the least important in my opinion. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack.

and had watched the attack unfold live on drone video for SEVEN HOURS.

A drone was not capturing live video for the whole 7 hour ordeal.

not to mention tried to springboard it into an excuse to shutdown free speech on the internet.

Free speech on the internet has been and will remain under threat but it has nothing to do with that video. Obama and anyone else from the adminstration that have spoken of it, have specifically stated that the video is protected speech and the video should not be used as an excuse to commit violence nor would such an excuse ever be justified in 'our' eyes.

After the fact, BHO tried to say he had ordered all available forces to respond, yet BHO's own Panetta said no action was taken because it was too dangerous.

Do you have a quote for that?

None of us were there on the ground in the area or in any rooms where decisions were being made. I'm not a fan of Obama but I'm not willing to believe FOX tripe to justify my anger with our President. I believe it probably would have been a much bigger disaster had we sent a military response. Instead of four Americans dead at the hands of terrorists we may have had dozens as a result of friendly fire.

If this is a conspiracy-truth site, why are you waving the big "move along, nothing to see" sign?

This site is much more than a conspiracy site, and regardless that is no excuse to swallow BS just because it appeals to some conspiracy fantasy. However, the fact that this consulate was being used by the CIA tells me two things. One, we will never, ever know what the hell was going on there and two it was probably kept to skeletal security for a reason.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Honor93

---

Again, another BLOG.

Spare me the mumbo jumbo and learn how to quote legitimate sources.

what ??
i should know better than to feed a troll but what about dhs.gov is a blog ???
what about FEMA is a blog ?
please pick a source and i'd bet i can find a story about it.
you really need to learn how things work around here.

reply to post by links234

---

not sure where the 11hrs comes from but he sure had a minimum of 6.5hrs, as it's been reported the drone was onsite at 5:11p EST.

as for Gen Ham, he was relieved of duty, that's a fact.
i'm not arguing the arrested/apprehended part cause we'll never know.
i can say this, it doesn't appear Gen Ham was planning his abrupt departure.

as for how the ball bounces ... you might want to review [url=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/02/Ex-SEAL-Obama-Never-Gave-Cross-Border-Authority-Orders-To-Aid-Americans-Under-Siege-In-Libya]this[/ url]
since i don't recall ORs opinion, would you mind linking it ?

i accept your opinion, although, i don't agree with it, k ?

reply to post by robobbob

---

i'm still not sure if there will be enough reprocussions over this incident, however, rather defending any aspect that says Obama gave an order (stand down or not), perhaps we should be considering the opposite instead ?

as i am not military or privy to such policy, i was advised of "standing orders" vs CBA (cross-border authority) which can only be provided by POTUS and appears to be absent in this incident.
for those who want to know more, read [url=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/02/Ex-SEAL-Obama-Never-Gave-Cross-Border-Authority-Orders-To-Aid-Americans-Under-Siege-In-Libya]this[/ url].

As soon as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya, dozens of headquarters -- including AFRICOM and EUROCOM -- are notified so they can begin their planning for rescue operations, but, as Braken writes, [color=amber] "there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission." [/color]
- snip -

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more.

- snip -
Americans on the ground were ready and able to help Stevens and the other Americans who were under siege in Libya, but Obama never gave them the "cross-border authority" required for them to do so, which meant U.S. resources stationed on the ground in the region -- and U.S. drones and gunships in the area -- were never used.

do i trust the word of an x-seal over a politician or reporter ???
yes and on any day of the year.

reply to post by reficul

---

Actually, Ham is a really good man, according to my husband, who actually worked under him at one point. Yes, he will be missed.

This...man...in the White House is NOT a friend of the military, no matter what he claims in his speech tonight. Military families struggle to get by, and he claims they won't have to. The military has been weakened by his policies, and he claims to make it stronger.

Yes, the writing is on the wall, and NOTHING he does would surprise me at this stage. Expect something big, and nothing good for this doomed nation.

Ron Paul: My Revolution is Not Over: (Give \'em hell Ron!)
  Posted 16 days ago with 81 member flags

Paul Delegates Claim 5 State Plurality & Will Nominate Ron Paul From Floor
  Posted 14 days ago with 55 member flags

Lawyers for Ron Paul threaten to arrest Romney in tampa
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

Don\'t attack Iran, Russia starkly warns Israel and U.S.
  Posted 2 days ago with 43 member flags

Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats
  Posted 4 days ago with 38 member flags

TEXAS Billboard: \'SEALs Removed One Threat To America, Remove The Other In November\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 33 member flags

Israel is thinking of using EMP / nuclear weapons against Iran
  Posted 1 days ago with 28 member flags

DNC Proceeds With 2-Hour Islamic \'Jumah\' Prayers After Rejecting Cardinal\'s Blessing (And You Won\'t
  Posted 14 days ago with 24 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: