Tea Party Tribune ^ | 2012-10-29 11:25:35 | PinkTeaPatriot
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:12:26 PM by tselatysr
The official story surrounding the events of September 11, 2012 in Bengzahi, Libya which left four Americans dead, has now officially fallen apart.
After numerous flips and flops by the Obama administration, which originally attempted to paint the incident as a Muslim outcry over an anti-Islamic video, whistle blowers throughout the U.S. government, including within the White House, the State Department, national intelligence agencies and the U.S.military have made available stunning details that suggest not only did operational commanders have live visual and audio communications from drones overhead and intelligence assets on the ground, but that some commanders within the military were prepared to go-it-alone after being told to "stand down."
Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area.
According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.
"(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 question now is whether the American people will hold to account the chain of command responsible for leaving our people behind, fabricating a politically expedient story, and continuing to sell the now defunct lie(s) even after all of their variations of the story were found to be false and misleading.
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.
A
General who made the decision to assist diplomatic and intelligence
assets on the ground has been arrested and will likely be retired or
worse, while those who ordered the removal of embassy security details
and ordered U.S. forces to stand-down are left to go on about their
business and likely risk more American lives in the future.In some circles the actions of those at the very top of the command structure during the Bengzahi attacks would be considered traitorous.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by M. Frank Drover of The Daily Sheeple.
M. Frank Drover is a co-editor and contributor for The Daily Sheeple, an alternative media hub for leading headlines, head lies, opinion, and commentary. Wake the flock up!
This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.
2012-10-29 07:21:14
Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rogue-u-s-general-arrested-for-activating-special-forces-teams-ignoring-libya-stand-down-order_102012
Article shared using the Free Republish tool on Tea Party Tribune.Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rogue-u-s-general-arrested-for-activating-special-forces-teams-ignoring-libya-stand-down-order_102012
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: benghazigate; bengzahi; carterham; generalham; libya; socom; sof; teapartytribune
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-64 next last
To: tselatysr
I think the general did the right thing, but not sure the case
rises to the level where he should ignore the chain of command. I’m glad
there are still leaders out there willing to do the right thing.
2
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:19:12 PM
by DonaldC
(A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
To: tselatysr
3
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:21:03 PM
by Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: tselatysr
I salute you General Ham! You are one of the very few who continue to show the integrity and honor that is slipping away from our military!Duty, Honor, Country
4
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:21:40 PM
by The Sons of Liberty
( For AMERICA's sake: Vote for the Mormon, NOT the muslim; The Capitalist, NOT the Communist! FUBO!)
To: tselatysr
America needs to tell this General: “We got your 6.”
To: tselatysr
Sounds good.
But get back to me when there is documentation of an actual “arrest” of a U.S. Army General.
Under UCMJ disobeying orders would not cause an arrest of military personnel other than a superior officer ordering that the service member be relieved of duty.
But get back to me when there is documentation of an actual “arrest” of a U.S. Army General.
Under UCMJ disobeying orders would not cause an arrest of military personnel other than a superior officer ordering that the service member be relieved of duty.
To: tselatysr
“..against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
I hope our military in their various academies, learned what happened to Stalin’s top generals and that they have the vision (or sense of self-preservation) to keep it from happening here and now.
OTOH, a bullet to the back of the neck is at least quick and relatively painless, compared to being systematically starved to death like so many of Stalin’s Ukrainian farmers, or systematically beaten and frozen to death in gulags like so many of his academicians and intelectuals.
The rest of us might well end up envying our officers for their swift deaths.
I hope our military in their various academies, learned what happened to Stalin’s top generals and that they have the vision (or sense of self-preservation) to keep it from happening here and now.
OTOH, a bullet to the back of the neck is at least quick and relatively painless, compared to being systematically starved to death like so many of Stalin’s Ukrainian farmers, or systematically beaten and frozen to death in gulags like so many of his academicians and intelectuals.
The rest of us might well end up envying our officers for their swift deaths.
7
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:24:41 PM
by null and void
(Day 1378 of the Obama Regime - Barack Hussein Obama an enemy BOTH foreign AND domestic)
To: tselatysr
More conflicting (Lies) out on this situation. Reports indicated
that Africom did not have a special forces detachment which is given to
all four star commands. But this report indicates HAM was ready to
deploy a special forces unit.
8
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:26:44 PM
by 11th Commandment
(http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
To: tselatysr
>""(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."Well explain why we blindly armed the Sinola cartel in Mexico then, Mr Panetta!
9
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:27:43 PM
by rawcatslyentist
("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
To: theKid51
Ping
To: Windflier; All
To: tselatysr
“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.”
Apprehended and relieved of command?
And yet somehow, today, he’s still the AFRICOM commander...
http://www.africom.mil/GenCarterHam.asp
If he were “apprehended and relieved of command” on September 11, then how has he been putting out press releases and statements on any number of issues for the last month?
Apprehended and relieved of command?
And yet somehow, today, he’s still the AFRICOM commander...
http://www.africom.mil/GenCarterHam.asp
If he were “apprehended and relieved of command” on September 11, then how has he been putting out press releases and statements on any number of issues for the last month?
12
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:29:37 PM
by Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: CheneyChick
America needs to tell this General: “We got your 6.”
****************
And actually follow through.
****************
And actually follow through.
13
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:33:02 PM
by Psalm 144
(Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
To: tselatysr
This will definitely create a whiplash against the Obama Administration!
To: tselatysr
General Carter Ham, thanks for trying.
15
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:35:23 PM
by Gator113
(I would have voted for NEWT, now it's Romney & Ryan.~Just livin' life, my way~)
To: TigerClaws
obama_takes_offense_to_accusation_that_he_has_not_been_truthful_on_benghazi.html And I take offense to the fact that he's not being grilled by Congress in an impeachment hearing.
16
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:37:09 PM
by Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: Marie; tselatysr
Agreed, Marie .. same info I've read over the weekend. This has 'article' has the whiff of 'left field' to it, which does our side no favors . . .
To: Marie
He was speaking to ROTC cadets in Washington on 24 Oct 2012 as the AFRICOM Commander?
http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=8397&;
http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=8397&;
18
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:43:21 PM
by PilotDave
(No, really, you just can't make this stuff up!!!)
To: rawcatslyentist
you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going onYes,
but we already had forces in harms way and the point was to get them
out - that other thing you must have read about never leaving a comrade
in arms behind on the battlefield.
To: tselatysr
Sooo what this article states to me, is that General Ham didn’t select a second in command that was loyal to him...
but instead was a drone in the collective..
Ham may have assumed democrat functionary’s can be loyal..
On the other hand Ham may be a democrat himself..
HAm was not in charge.. he didn’t know his men.. or HIS situation..
Seems pretty much the case with Petreaus as well..
Zero like Clintoon has seemed to salt traitors in the ranks.. maybe even George Bush.. Remember Bush KEPT most of Clintoons lawyers at the Justice Department..
Little doubt the Chiefs of Staff are functional Marxists too.. like the Cabinet..
Zero just may have critical mass met for a Coup D’Etat..
He also OWNS the FBI, NSA, CIA, and BATF... supported by a corrupt Justice Department.. Plus Zero OWNS the Unions meaning the Police, Firefighters and Teachers.. in most all States..
A Coup D’Etat is possible.. assuming it hasn’t happened ALREADY..
It’s possible Romney is the same cabals Plan “B” in case Zero totally screws up.. and causes the sheeple to STAMPEDE..
I am ready to stampede NOW.. in ways already have.. (metaphorically)..
but instead was a drone in the collective..
Ham may have assumed democrat functionary’s can be loyal..
On the other hand Ham may be a democrat himself..
HAm was not in charge.. he didn’t know his men.. or HIS situation..
Seems pretty much the case with Petreaus as well..
Zero like Clintoon has seemed to salt traitors in the ranks.. maybe even George Bush.. Remember Bush KEPT most of Clintoons lawyers at the Justice Department..
Little doubt the Chiefs of Staff are functional Marxists too.. like the Cabinet..
Zero just may have critical mass met for a Coup D’Etat..
He also OWNS the FBI, NSA, CIA, and BATF... supported by a corrupt Justice Department.. Plus Zero OWNS the Unions meaning the Police, Firefighters and Teachers.. in most all States..
A Coup D’Etat is possible.. assuming it hasn’t happened ALREADY..
It’s possible Romney is the same cabals Plan “B” in case Zero totally screws up.. and causes the sheeple to STAMPEDE..
I am ready to stampede NOW.. in ways already have.. (metaphorically)..
20
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:46:09 PM
by hosepipe
(This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
To: Pride in the USA; Stillwaters
This is one version of the back story that is being oft-repeated.
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it’s going to need irrefutable
documentation, or a formal, sourced statement from someone who was there
with General Ham and witnessed this.
I saw Rep. Jason Chaffetz on Greta’s show in the past few days. Chaffetz went on a fact-finding mission to Libya a week or so after the Benghazi murders, accompanied by General Ham. Chaffetz stated that he personally asked General Ham if there had been assets under his command that could have responded to calls for help from Benghazi during the 7+ hour assault. According to Chaffetz, General Ham said that, yes, there were assets under his command who were in a position to help, but that help had never been requested.
It sure seems to me that if General Ham was prepared to “go rogue” and had been relieved of his command on the spot, he would have told Rep. Chaffetz that fact.
I saw Rep. Jason Chaffetz on Greta’s show in the past few days. Chaffetz went on a fact-finding mission to Libya a week or so after the Benghazi murders, accompanied by General Ham. Chaffetz stated that he personally asked General Ham if there had been assets under his command that could have responded to calls for help from Benghazi during the 7+ hour assault. According to Chaffetz, General Ham said that, yes, there were assets under his command who were in a position to help, but that help had never been requested.
It sure seems to me that if General Ham was prepared to “go rogue” and had been relieved of his command on the spot, he would have told Rep. Chaffetz that fact.
21
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:46:37 PM
by lonevoice
(Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived)
To: Windflier
I like the image, but it will never happen. Not unless there is a
collapse of both parties and the Washington government. THEN there
could be a LOT of tribunals.
22
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:50:38 PM
by Psalm 144
(Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
To: tselatysr
Everyone wants to believe that our admirals and generals are not
political and have great moral courage. The truth is, our admirals and
generals come from the farms, towns and cities of The United States.
They are not gods. They have families to take care of. They have a
reputation within military circles to protect. Most of them are still
young enough to want to have a good job after they retire. Let me give
you an example. Bill Clinton was the Commander In Chief. He was
impeached for lying. Many people believed he would resign. Not slick
Willy. Trust is essential in the military. If you are given an order in
combat, your Commander has to trust that you will execute that order.
The whole battle may hinge on you being trustworthy. When Clinton was
impeached, how many generals or admirals retired over it? They could
have. Their retirement is a comfortable one. They told the Democrats
that they were willing to look the other way about Clinton’s lying.
Something they would never tolerate from even a Second Lieutenant. Now,
the argument they make is that if they embarrass the Democrats, then the
Democrats will get revenge on them by cutting the military budget.
Well, guess what, the Democrats will cut the military budget anyway.
Obama can count on our admirals and generals looking away. He saw the
precedent set during the Clinton administration.
To: rawcatslyentist
Panetta’s comments are cowardly. Risk is INHERENT when deploying
forces into “Harm’s way”. He is a fool and dishonors every American
soldier when he says that. The 0bama regime has ripped the spirit
straight out of our soldiers by their cowardly actions. Who wants to
fight for a coward? NOBODY. I guess that’s the goal here; To demoralize
our fighting forces. Soldiers should WANT to go into a situation like
Benghazi that night. Putting their training to good use, to KILL the bad
guys and to SAVE AMERICAN LIVES. This is a dream mission for most
soldiers but 0bama didn’t want his Muslim brothers to be hurt or killed.
0bama is the enemy.
To: AndyJackson
>"we already had forces in harms way and the point was to get them out "Only an Executive order would stop that!
0m0slem sided with his slime brothers over the lives of US citizens, patriots, and ambassadors!
Domestic ENEMY!!!!!!!!
0m0slem sided with his slime brothers over the lives of US citizens, patriots, and ambassadors!
Domestic ENEMY!!!!!!!!
25
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 3:51:37 PM
by rawcatslyentist
("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
To: rawcatslyentist
" '(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." But within 30 seconds, Panetta concluded that the General
in charge of our forces in the region did not know what was going on!
Panetta is not that gifted, folks. This is an outrageous act--and I am
not referring to the General who was clearly aware of the emergency
involved.
If after taking emergency action, the General would have been shown to have been mistaken in his assessment, he would doubtless have been subject to discipline for haste. But that is not the situation. This sort of interference--deadly interference--with your commanders in the field, is the sort of thing that loses wars. If Panetta didn't understand what was going on, that is no reason to remove the general.
William Flax
If after taking emergency action, the General would have been shown to have been mistaken in his assessment, he would doubtless have been subject to discipline for haste. But that is not the situation. This sort of interference--deadly interference--with your commanders in the field, is the sort of thing that loses wars. If Panetta didn't understand what was going on, that is no reason to remove the general.
William Flax
To: tselatysr
He may have been threatened, but he was never relieved or arrested. When an Officer is relieved, he doesn’t get to stay there.
To: Marie
"Apprehended and relieved of command? And yet somehow, today, he’s still the AFRICOM commander..." There are certainly a lot of rumors swirling around out there...
...This morning on Beck, Pat and Stu were discussing this and stated they had been told by (I don't recall the exact words, but it was something along the lines of:) "..a reliable source who would be in a position to know," that Ham was stepping down early to be with his wife who is critically ill.
Of course they didn't name the source, but given that Beck has had a standing friendship for some time with MG (RET) Gerry Boykin, I would suspect it's him.
...This morning on Beck, Pat and Stu were discussing this and stated they had been told by (I don't recall the exact words, but it was something along the lines of:) "..a reliable source who would be in a position to know," that Ham was stepping down early to be with his wife who is critically ill.
Of course they didn't name the source, but given that Beck has had a standing friendship for some time with MG (RET) Gerry Boykin, I would suspect it's him.
To: KeyLargo
Under the UCMJ, “arrest” is not the same as “apprehension”, what civilians normally think of when they hear the word arrest.
RCM 302, “apprehension is the taking of a person into custody”.
RCM 304(a)(3) “Arrest is the restraint of a person by oral or written order not imposed as punishment, directing the person to remain within specified limits; a person in the status of arrest may not be required to perform full military duties such as commanding or supervising personnel, serving as guard, or bearing arms...”
Per the definition above, the actions of the Vice Commander in “relieving” the Commander may be properly defined as “arresting” him.
Colonel,USAFR
RCM 302, “apprehension is the taking of a person into custody”.
RCM 304(a)(3) “Arrest is the restraint of a person by oral or written order not imposed as punishment, directing the person to remain within specified limits; a person in the status of arrest may not be required to perform full military duties such as commanding or supervising personnel, serving as guard, or bearing arms...”
Per the definition above, the actions of the Vice Commander in “relieving” the Commander may be properly defined as “arresting” him.
Colonel,USAFR
To: tselatysr
This story is completely bogus. GEN Ham has not been relieved.
His replacement (GEN Rodriguez) was nominated on 18 Oct, but will not
take command until confirmed by the Senate, sometime after the election.
Until then, GEN Ham remains in command.
Find some FACTS that say otherwise.
Find some FACTS that say otherwise.
To: PilotDave
Yup. Not what you’d expect of someone who’d been apprehended and relieved.
31
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 4:01:47 PM
by Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: tselatysr
If this is true, and I have reservations, then they cannot
prosecute General Ham without admitting that everything the
Administration has said for the past six weeks is a
lie......catch-22..........
32
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 4:05:40 PM
by Red Badger
(Why yes, that was crude and uncalled for......That's why I said it..............)
To: Marie
Keep trying. Eventually more will listen.
33
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 4:11:28 PM
by TigersEye
(dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
34
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 4:15:21 PM
by RedMDer
(https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=om93destr)
To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
What does America expect from a man who did not have to courage to follow up his rhetoric as a state and US senator with so much as his vote? This
man wouldn't even risk his political future by going on the record as
was his job - who thinks he's going to show any amount of courage in
this instance involving life & death?
He is a effing coward and he's our president.
He is a effing coward and he's our president.
To: tselatysr
This man was actually arrested? What do the Congressmen that had
spoken with him say about this? Good grief:(( What has happened to our
country:( I know...Obama:(
To: TigersEye
I just don’t think that the average civilian ‘gets’ the language of this rumor.
There would be no coverup of something like this. A general being relieved of duty would be widely known - not circulating as a rumor. His picture would be taken down at every military headquarters in his command. The average soldier would know what’s going on. His replacement would be chosen immediately. He would not be speaking and making statements. His bio wouldn’t still be up at the AFRICOM website. This would be reported in the Army Times.
A four star being relieved of command is a BIG DEAL and not something that can be swept under the rug. There is no way that he’d still be giving statements and lectures with something like this happening.
The fact that people knew he was on his way out months ago doesn’t seem to register with these people either. For some reason, the drumbeat continues.
Now the *conditions* of such a thing can be foggier. But the *fact* that he’s still a commander is plain as day.
There would be no coverup of something like this. A general being relieved of duty would be widely known - not circulating as a rumor. His picture would be taken down at every military headquarters in his command. The average soldier would know what’s going on. His replacement would be chosen immediately. He would not be speaking and making statements. His bio wouldn’t still be up at the AFRICOM website. This would be reported in the Army Times.
A four star being relieved of command is a BIG DEAL and not something that can be swept under the rug. There is no way that he’d still be giving statements and lectures with something like this happening.
The fact that people knew he was on his way out months ago doesn’t seem to register with these people either. For some reason, the drumbeat continues.
Now the *conditions* of such a thing can be foggier. But the *fact* that he’s still a commander is plain as day.
37
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 4:27:33 PM
by Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: DonaldC
Seriously? People are about to be slaughtered and you are not
sure that rises to the level that would warrant a man ignore a stand
down order? What then pray tell would?
To: Marie
I know, the wind is in your face right now and it seems like
you’re pushing a rock uphill, I’ve been there many times, but don’t give
up. I think the result will be worth it. Be calm and persistent and
post strategically and the tide will shift.
39
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 4:43:32 PM
by TigersEye
(dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
To: blueunicorn6
That is so sad and pathetic:(
To: tselatysr
Are they reporting the rumor or do they have someone to back this story up yet?
To: TigerClaws
So Mr. Obama takes " Offense " of the American people questioning
his honesty on what happen in Benghazi ? are we hearing him clearly ?
Sorry Mr. Obama, the American people take offense that you have lied to us over this and we are your boss... not the other way around.
We own this country, not you.
Sorry Mr. Obama, the American people take offense that you have lied to us over this and we are your boss... not the other way around.
We own this country, not you.
To: tselatysr
I want Gen. Ham re-instated of his command or promoted to either Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of Defense...
To: Marie
No way he could be releaved of command in 30 seconds. That
doesn’t pass the smell test. Of course, nothing from the WH passes the
smell test either.
To: 11th Commandment
Not necessarily...There are always Special Forces teams in the
Africa theater. Maybe none were assigned to him on paper but I guarantee
you if any were in the area they would volunteer in a minute!
To: tselatysr
General Anthony Clement "Nuts" McAuliffe
"To the American Commander at the Pentagon and In the White House or Las Vegas"
"NUTS!"
"To the American Commander at the Pentagon and In the White House or Las Vegas"
"NUTS!"
To: jagusafr
Yes sir!
U-da man.
U-da man.
To: DonaldC
I think the UCMJ says we are to report unlawful orders to our
superiors. It doesn’t address what happens when the unlawful orders come
from the highest authority.
48
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 6:35:37 PM
by rabidralph
(I passed Tagline training on the third try. Ask me how!)
To: blueunicorn6
Once you get into the upper ranks of the Military, you would be
SHOCKED at how political it actually is. As long as you have a “good
enough” record, it’s not what you know, but who you know. Some
“Generals” are groomed all along the way because of who their Daddy was,
and some just catch the right eye at the right moment to acquire a
powerful ally. Bottom line -— you don’t get to be a General unless you
are an astute political beast.
49
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 6:49:05 PM
by LTC.Ret
(You'd think I would know better than to volunteer!!! www.sendmetocongress.us)
To: hosepipe
This is me theorizing: What most likely happened was
the General looked at his XO and told him he [the 2nd in Command) had a
responsibility to take the con once the orders were disobeyed [by Ham].
Ham put the men in motion and the XO stepped up. This way Ham
covered his XO and if he [Ham] was relieved he could ensure his
competent XO would be able to take charge without being relieved as well
(if it came to Ham being relieved); however, at least some attempt to
save the personnel at the embassy was already in play.
Removing a CoCom is a huge ordeal; these guys are kings of their kingdom - following post as Combatant Commanders they would probably go be their service Commandant, have a seat as a Joint Chief of staff, or retire and do something on the outside.
Once it was realized Ham would not be actually relieved, the CYA was no longer needed.....Ham is on his way out anyway; his relief is on the way in. Actually relieving him of his duties and command would be very public and negatively add to the already growing scandal in a very big way. I don't know General Ham, but if I had to guess if he was going to fall on his sword he would make sure it didn't stab his XO in the process. I doubt he would make it that far and not know if he could trust his XO.
Removing a CoCom is a huge ordeal; these guys are kings of their kingdom - following post as Combatant Commanders they would probably go be their service Commandant, have a seat as a Joint Chief of staff, or retire and do something on the outside.
Once it was realized Ham would not be actually relieved, the CYA was no longer needed.....Ham is on his way out anyway; his relief is on the way in. Actually relieving him of his duties and command would be very public and negatively add to the already growing scandal in a very big way. I don't know General Ham, but if I had to guess if he was going to fall on his sword he would make sure it didn't stab his XO in the process. I doubt he would make it that far and not know if he could trust his XO.
50
posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 6:56:05 PM
by Repeat Offender
(Why do cops have more lenient ROEs when facing us than troops in combat facing suicidal islamists?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-64 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
|
Free Republic Browse · Search |
No comments:
Post a Comment