Admiral relieved of command. Makes me wonder more...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting that this Admiral was relieved of his command when Obama made statements

about his ordering the protection of those who died in Benghazi, isn't it?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/was-africom-general-replaced-for-his-efforts-to-save-benghazi-security-officials/

[DaveTN]

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.

You can't leave either in Command in a situation like that. The integrity of the Command has been compromised. I don't see where there was any other choice and I doubt it made it all the way to Obama before that decision was made.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I understand your statement, Dave, but I am using this as evidence of complicit actions against the statements

made by the President. There were military assets who were ready to act and were told to stand down.

I'm not blaming the actions of the assets to maintain their command authority or protocol.

[monkeylizard]

He's a general, not an admiral.

the article mentions an admiral being releived as well, but for entirely different reasons unrelated to Libya.

[leroy]

One of the potential problems with our system of military command is the precept of "civilian control of the military". If everyone in the chain of command is honorable; it works just fine. If the "civilians at the top" are rotten; the system can appear to be rotten. The last thing this stinkin administration is is "honorable and truthful". I have no doubt that these guys (...the admiral and general...) wanted to do the right thing here. I have every confidence that they were, in fact, sold out by those who could be bought both in the military and the civilian command structure. This one will be interestin to watch. Once these guys retire, the truth may begin to come out. The truth is that this is a big political issue and it wont soon go away.

leroy

Edited October 31, 2012 by leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There were actually two reports, one with an admiral and another being a general. One being AFRICOM and

another being the commander of the Stennis in the Mediterranean Sea.

I would like to know the reasons in both situations, wouldn't you?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

As usual, Leroy, you nailed it!

[MacGyver]

Leory, I'm guessing this is more a matter of, "keep your mouth shut and we'll let you retire quietly and collect your pension."

They had enough guts to take actions they likely knew would result in these consequences. Let's hope they don't back down now.

[monkeylizard]

I see a run for Congress in his future.

The person being relieved of command over Benghazi is a general. The admiral mentioned in the article is apparently unrelated to Benghazi. Since your OP linked the removal from command to ordering a response during Benghazi, I was just pointing out that the admiral isn't necessarily a part of that move, but the general is.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Tyrone Woods gave his life against the same orders. It will be interesting to see this blow up on Obama.

It better blow up because there were assets to deal with this.

Leon Panetta may have crawled under the bus for Obama, by his statements about Generals agreeing with him

to order the stand down, but Panetta doesn't have the authority to make such orders except on the direct order

from the President. I want to see the order and where it came from.

That will make someone a liar.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I see a run for Congress in his future.

The person being relieved of command over Benghazi is a general. The admiral mentioned in the article is apparently unrelated to Benghazi. Since your OP linked the removal from command to ordering a response during Benghazi, I was just pointing out that the admiral isn't necessarily a part of that move, but the general is.

Oh no, I understand. I was just expanding and displaying my disgust in the whole matter. What's that word? FAIL

[Defender]

Here's a very interesting thread on a different forum: http://chat.anncoulter.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=118450&p=2701814

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It appears to parallel us, doesn't it? I like Ann.

[Guest TNBrat]

My father retired as a Master Chief from the Navy. During his last deployment during Desert Storm he was reprimanded & taken 3 times before some board for disobeying a direct order that he felt was unlawful. They flew him to Italy along with the guy that gave the order, gave them lie detector tests. In the end he was exonerated, sent back to his carrier. They removed the officer from duty & sent him back to the States. This was a long drawn out incident during what was then considered a crisis in the Middle East.

People were being attacked & killed. I would have thought that Obama would have been more worried about taking care of the embassy's staff than a General trying to save lives. It's amazing how fast this particular General was relieved from duty when his actions make the O administration look bad. It's sad when doing the right thing turns into disgrace. They could have taken care of business first then looked at the General's actions. Prioritize.

TNBrat Hiding in the woods…

[jtmaze]

There are morally deficient people in all walks of life. I have a friend that is a retired navy captain that was on the short list for rear admiral went he retired because he hated his boss and couldn't work for him for two more years to request transfer after promotion. The good ole boy system doesn't work. Our government proves that you cover this up and I will do this. That is how we have gotten into the overbearing situation we are in now. Politicians must be held accountable by the people. It is a must. Rant off.

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

[DaveTN]

As much as I hate Obama I certainly would like to blame all this on him. However, my point was that in the case of the General it is implied that he was going to violate an order to stand down. His 2nd in Command more or less arrested him and took over Command. The men had to approve of that and go along with it. I have said before that the military and Police will not follow unlawful orders in any great number. That is what you have here; the men refused to follow the General when he refused to stand down. So much for the idea that the military will do whatever they are told; they wouldn’t follow an unlawful order even when not following it resulted in the death of Americans.

Now… if you want to blame Obama neither the General nor the CIA in the area should have been given the order to stand down.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Any order to stand down came from

Panetta(unlawful) or Obama, directly,

and it got people killed. Obama has

said to the contrary. Panetta said

differently, on the concurrence of the

military apparently.

That's what concerns me. The command was acting purely political

and got people killed. That's all I am concerned with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leroy]

I dont believe this one is near over; no matter the issue of "orders"; lawful or unlawful. This is a political and diplomatic action (...more correctly, inaction....) that cost the lives of American nationals. This aint goin to go away, and when folks find out the truth of the matter, they aint goin to like it. If this bunch will sell out a diplomat (....who are usually political cronies of those in power...), they will sell anyone out; and most folks understand that, no matter their political affilliation.

Contrast what Stupetta and Nobama did here with what the pesky jews did at Entebbe.

The military thing is a "red herring". It's disgusting and heinous to us lookin on; but it aint what will ultimately blow this up. The Senate will finally get all the documentation that goes with this and will wear Nobama and Supetta out with it.

Ya aint got to have a political science degree and fifty years in the foreign service to figure the thinking (...or lack thereof....) here: "....American lives are not as important to this regeime as currying the favor of our enemies...". The other calculation is just as bad: "...we were overwhelmed and just didnt know what to do...". The first one points to the treasonous and overbearing arrogance of this bunch of sons of satan and illustrates to everyone that at their core; these pukes are anti-american, anti american sovreignty, and anti everything else this country (...and most other countries...) understand to be the norm in international relations. The second (...and i think, most likely one....) illustrates that they are moronically incompetent and completely indifferent to protecting american citizens. Either of these issues will cost them dearly in the end.

Imagine what would have happened if this had have happened to the Red Chinese ambassador and a contingent of chi-com marines; or one of komrad Putin's hand picked children and russian marines.

This one will have consequences.

leroy

[leroy]

http://moonbattery.com/?p=20154

Thanks to Moonbattery blog.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You're exactly right, Leroy.

[eapking]

This story will go nowhere, just like F & F. The liberal media is giving Him his daily free-pass.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The media may, but may get him
impeached if re-elected. It should get
him thrown in jail, either way. He broke
his oath to protect and defend Americans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QuietDan]

[quote name='monkeylizard' timestamp='1351707018' post='836698']
He's a general, not an admiral.

the article mentions an admiral being releived as well, but for entirely different reasons unrelated to Libya.
[/quote]

It was the Admiral on the carrier task force in the Mediterranean off Libya, so it may in fact be related to the Libya debacle.

[DaveTN]

A President will never be impeached for not using the military against civilians of another country. All the people of this country can do is not reelect him on Tuesday.

[Daniel]

If you are hanging getting rid of President Obama on this you are wasting your time. Edited November 3, 2012 by Daniel