Monday, October 29, 2012

Admirals and Generals and Libya, Oh My!

I'm posting this for people to read and discern on their own.  This information has not been verified yet it seems to be very closely following the information we have already seen.  Even some of the liberal, main-stream media outlets have picked up on some of it but they will not report it honestly if it could in some way harm President Obama's chances of re-election.  In fact - they'll probably go out of their way to disprove it if they can.

What I find most curious (and disturbing) is the General and Admiral being relieved of command.  If these command officers attempted to take action to save the lives of Americans under attack, against the direction of the President, and they are being relieved of command because of it, then it means the President has not only lied about the entire incident but put his own political goals ahead of the lives of American citizens.  And if that's true it's not only disgusting but I believe it may be grounds for impeachment.

You can read the article and decide for yourself.  There are links included to give more information about each scenario.  Follow them to your own conclusions.

Where are Woodward and Bernstein when we need them.....?

Admirals and Generals Oh My… Are Being Relieved Of Duty

I will be updating this article as the information keeps coming in, so keep coming back to see if any new information has been posting.

I am not one to start rumors or spread them, but I find this very interesting considering the fiasco at Benghazi Embassy and our military being told to stand down. For the men and women in uniform, it mus
t have of been a hard thing to watch as former Navy SEAL’s are being murdered alongside our ambassador.

The stories that are now coming out;

Gen Ham was fired 30 seconds after deciding to intervene in Benghazi: I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The Scuttlebutt;

The information I heard today was that General 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 Africon.

That is true to some extent. Stripes confirmed that General Ham will be replaced by General Rodiguez but no explanation was given:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.

He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.

It also seems an Admiral in charge of a battle group in the Mediterranean Sea will also be relieved for “inappropriate judgement”;

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

I find both these stories very odd since I am a former military member. I have never seen an Admiral of an entire battle Group relieved of his command in my 10 years experience. I have seen Commanders, but never Admirals.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has picked up on it

UPDATE: BlackFive has a little “back and forth” with a legendary Delta Force Operator who said;

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

PJ Tattler has some more info

Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer allegely has documents that prove Obama held back security for the Embassy. She is witholding it incase Obama intends to throw her under the bus. If she decides to hold this from the American people, I will personally make sure the American people never forget that she put her career first before these Patriotic soldiers.

UPDATE: via GatewayPundit

On Friday former Assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West told Greta Van Susteren that if Obama gave the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi on 9-11 there would be a paper trail.

This morning on FOX News Bing West doubled down.  West does not believe there ever was a presidential order:

“In my judgement the audio track will show the White House knew that there was an attack going on. The real critical issue is the president says that he immediately ordered all available assets to help. The military would have put out an order from the president. There’s no question about that… What I’m asking is, “Show us the order!” Mr. President if you said use everything available and our military immediately sent out the order, simply show us the order. I have great reservations that there is no such order.“

Former Asst. Defense Sec. Bing West: There Was No Order to Secure Benghazi

Apparently Obama was also in the situation room when it was all going down, So he was directly involved.

UPDATE: I am trying to keep all the stories in one spot, so bear with me…

We have been hearing stories of Obama trying to pass the buck to different agencies. First it was the State Department, then it was the CIA and the military.

Michelle Malkin has info on CIA

CIA: We didn’t tell anybody not to respond to the request for help during the Benghazi attack

Also;  General Patraeus Throws Obama Under The Bus

UPDATE; Via National Review Online

Chris Wallace asked Virginia Senator Mark Warner, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on whether the American drones monitoring the Benghazi attack were armed.

I can understand how it would be politically embarrassing for the administration if it turns out those drones were armed and the weapons were not fired when those men, the Americans, were under attack for 7 hours. I can’t understand how it would give up valuable intelligence. Can you tell me directly, were the drones armed or not that were flying over Benghazi and were recording it in real time?

And he stonewalls:
Here's the shorthand of this story, General Ham was told to stand down. He said screw it and was going to send a QRF to aide the consulate in Benghazi. Roughly a min after this decision was made his second in command relieved him. An Admiral in Charge of the entire Battlegroup in the Mediterranean was relieved on the same night for "inappropriate judgement".

Here's the thing, now we can add the relieving of Generals and Admirals to the list of CIA assets that were on the ground being ordered to stand down 3 times. Which if they hadn't have gone out and relieved the consulate 30 more people would be dead right now. OH, almost forgot the firefight went on from 9:40 at night to roughly 4 AM. We had jets within 20 minutes, Ac130 within 1 hour and, Special forces and other ground assets within about 2 Hours. THIS IS NOT CONJECTURE, it is FACT. There was a LIVE FEED OF THE ATTACK, that much like the Osama Bin Laden raid was piped up to the situation room in the white house. Conclusion: someone watched people die, only one person has the authority to grant or stop a rescue mission in these situations. So there it is folks, take from that what you will.


Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used.

This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack.

You'll remember that in the second presidential debate, Obama said that as "soon as I was aware the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team." The not-so-subtle intimation is that Obama was stepping up to the protect the U.S. personnel who were in Libya. And in the wakes of their deaths, which weren't "optimal," we have been assured that stronger action wasn't taken stronger because those options weren't available.

Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta gave us another version this same excuse, saying: "The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over."

There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making.

1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area -- both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drones may have been armed.

2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel.

3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came.

Obama says he was doing everything he could, and Panetta says we didn't react more strongly because we weren't sure what was going on. Yet we now know two drones were sending back video of the attack in real time, and at least one of those drones may have been armed. We also know a massive AC-130 gunship could have been used for backup as well, but it was not. And we know that security was begging for backup and even marking targets with lasers for the drones and/or gunship so they could make quick work of the attackers.

Yet Obama chose not to respond, and that's the bottom line.

No comments:

Post a Comment