Ambassador Stephens Death and the Coming Military Coup

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'

wow!
when you put it like that you make it seem like things are really bad over there!!!
seriously though,it doesn't seem like us civilians can do much but talk about it!
we probably will never know what exactly is going on over there,or even over here for that matter!
this truly is the age of ignorance and bliss!

You are missing a very important fact.

Troops today do not give a damn about Generals and Admirals anymore. The military isn't like it was even 50 years ago when Generals were idolized by their men. The days of Patten and Chesty Puller are over.

With maybe the exception of General Mattis, senior officers a just pains in the ass to be avoided whenever possible.

There will be no Coup.

Originally posted by watchitburn
You are missing a very important fact.

Troops today do not give a damn about Generals and Admirals anymore.

And you assume this why? When I was in the Army from 2004-2007 we all had great respect for our superior officers. People that didn't were seen as ragtag layabouts without proper training. The heirarchy is critical to military operations. They are more than just empty positions. The commanding officers make major logistical and tactical decisions and when they get it right we appreciate them.

Originally posted by watchitburn
You are missing a very important fact.
The military isn't like it was even 50 years ago when Generals were idolized by their men. The days of Patten and Chesty Puller are over.

Back in those days, it was the press that idolized those types of men, not the troops. Mattis is well respected by many servicemembers across the spectrum though.

I predict that he will be retired soon because of that.

The POTUS has weakened himself with the common soldier. In a Martial Law state they would no doubt lean more toward what they think is best for America vs what the Commander in Chief orders.

reply to post by jimmiec


Can't say I disagree with you. We already had 1 Marine punished for posting his thoughts about Obama on his Facebook and the presidential candidate who got the most contributions to their campaign from active duty service members was Ron Paul, although Obama was in second, a distant second and Romney somewhere huffing and puffing in 3rd place



Hell, even veterans are being targeted by DHS, as seen in the Brandon Raub case.

reply to post by watchitburn


I would have to disagree with you there. Though "good leaders" are few and far between they do exist.

I was sent on a detail to place sand bags around the commend tent. When I got there there were 6-7 guys all filling bags and stacking them. I jumped in and started helping. After about two hours the work was done and we all put our tops back on to go back to our "real jobs". My jaw hit the floor when I saw that the man I had been working with wore two stars.

Once in Iraq I lost two out of three trucks to a chained IED. I lost two men instantly and had four wounded. We came under concentrated small arms fire and were forced into a nearby house (anyone that has been to Iraq knows most houses are compounds). I requested support and extraction for over three hours. Nobody was willing to come into such a heavy fight (40-50 iraqi were attacking at the time). Finally three trucks came in and gave suppresive fire and got me and my men out. Was it a QRF? Was it the navy SEALS? No, it was a Sergeant Major and his security team. They had heard us on the radio and made a bee-line for us.

Sometimes such simple things earn the respect and admiration of the troops. So, no the days of "good" leaders that the troops would follow is not gone. They are just harder to find now.

reply to post by Socrato


You assume that I am assuming.

I am not. I am stating an observable fact..
Commanding officers and Generals are two different things. Commanding officers are always around and accessible to their troops. Generals rarely if ever interact with the men on the ground, when they do it is usually a very inconvenient and irritating event.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Well just a thought but maybe the idea to get rid of these two was timed to try and PREVENT, the 'big game' or at least try and hold it back, going into yet another war, this time with Iran, seems needless and stupid and very dangerous to me and from what I can tell many other Americans. Maybe these two were just so gung-ho on expanding into yet more areas that they were relieved. Does anyone know where these two stood on Iran?

For anything in the OP's claim to come true, it would have to be a true fact that anyone was fired. No one was, nor were they told to stand down or any other such nonsense. This wasn't a goddamn movie where a General defied orders to be the good guy. There were no orders for him to act upon, just on standby alert... he didn't go all cowboy and call the President or the Joint Chiefs and demand to be allowed to act. Generals don't get to be Generals by behaving like cowboys.

reply to post by Tecumte


Yes - Stevens would definitely have been in total support of the invasion of Iran - Keep in mind that Steven's actions and activities in Libya/Tripoli/Benghazi were in concert with the CIA to run guns, among other thing more nefarious deeds (shades of Fast + Furious), to Syria to aid the rebel forces (al Qaeda) in the overthrow of Assad, which is part of the plan outlined below.

He would have surely been on the side of the 'neo/crypto' neo-cons in the BHO administration that are going along with the Bush era plan to takeover the Mid - East completely..............i.e., the US (meaning the BHO administration) still has an active plan in place for the overthrow of at least seven Mideast countries - if not more.

see here for a more lucid understanding. --->
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK - on plans to overthrow seven Mideast countries


March 2, 2007, former 4-star General and US presidential candidate Wesley Clark was interviewed by Democracy Now.

General Clark: About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and W. Secretary (Paul D.) Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the Generals called me in. He said, Sir, you gotta come in and talk to me a second. I said, Well, you're too busy. He said, No, no. He says, We've made the decision. We're going to war with Iraq. This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, We're going to war with Iraq? Why? He said, I don't know. He said, I guess they don't know what else to do. So I said, Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaida? He said, No, no, there's nothing new that way; they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, I guess it's like, We don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments. And he said, I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail. So I came back to see him a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, Are we still going to war with Iraq? He said, Oh, it's worse than that. He said -- he reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper. He said, I just got this down from upstairs (meaning the Secretary of Defense's office) today and this is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven (7) countries in five (5) years starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran. (End of General Clark's statement.)

Why are people still trying to spread the lie of General Ham being arrested?

Where is the proof of that?

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why are people still trying to spread the lie of General Ham being arrested?

Where is the proof of that?

Please read the first post in the thread more thoroughly along with many other verifiable news sources - thank you. The good General was taken into custody. Doesn't "taken into custody" imply that Rodriguez arrested Gen Ham? All reliable reports state that "General Ham was arrested by his deputy commanding officer, General Rodriguez."

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.

You might want to Google it too........

i'm unsure of the details pertaining to these firings but i don't think they apply to the thread anyway. my view is that it's a moot point anyway, since there will be no big game to speak of. one thing i actually like about obama, is that he continues to stay out of another war, despite the plethora of people who wish it to happen.

people have to fight the delusion that iran would be religious enough or dumb enough to go that route, when in fact even their leaders know a nuclear war would just eliminate all of them. there might be fundies left and right in iran, but even fundies have no desire to go extinct.

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why are people still trying to spread the lie of General Ham being arrested?

Where is the proof of that?

How about here - armedservices.house.gov...

I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.

This from the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. I posted comments similar to the OP several days ago here www.abovetopsecret.com...
and www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have we forgotten how the Obama administration leaked info about the Bin Laden killing resulting in the loss of many members of Seal Team 6? Also, not so long ago Panetta had soldiers disarmed before landing in Afghanistan and somebody may have taken a potshot at his plane. Also, Gen McChrystal was fired for "comments critical of the commander in chief". There is much more going on behind the scenes.

Bottom line for me is I really don't believe this going to just "blow over"
I think it's going to "blow up" instead.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why are people still trying to spread the lie of General Ham being arrested?

Where is the proof of that?

How about here - armedservices.house.gov...

I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.

This from the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. I posted comments similar to the OP several days ago here www.abovetopsecret.com...
and www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bottom line for me is I really don't believe this going to just "blow over"
I think it's going to "blow up" instead.

very interesting, do you feel this is part of something much larger, say an awakening within the military ranks perhaps?

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

very interesting, do you feel this is part of something much larger, say an awakening within the military ranks perhaps?

This has to feel like a turning point for the top brass when theater commanders are being thrown under the bus to protect political interests. There is no precedent for this. The military must be feeling directly threatened by the actions of Obama, Panetta and Clinton.
If they don't put up a united front (the military) they know any of them could be next on the chopping block.

I'm not too familiar with what is going on here, but I can assure you there is no coup about to take place.

The government is already controlled by a cartel of military, corporate and banking elites, that coup took place a long time ago and is firmly installed behind the façade of the white house.

Also, the analogy of a football game is simplistic in the extreme. You are not on the cusp of war, you are present in several nations, most with minimal forces. However people want to spin it, you are not moments away from being at war with Russia or China, the fact that this is even suggested displays a kind of historical American "commie fear" common with the right wing fogies who probably should have retired a decade ago.

There is a threat of war, in the future, when the battle to become the next super power really kicks off. But we are far from that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a hot war either.

I think, in all honesty, we get far too many stories like this on ATS, with military bigging themselves up as supposedly unhappy with government. Most of it seems to be politically motivated BS, aimed at giving the impression of the "democrats" being "loathed" by the military.

It always comes across as a few crazy Republican radicals in the military mouthing off about a president they don't like.

Note that there are stories like this every month, and nothing happens. It's just more pointless noise by a small group of ranting Republicans.

reply to post by detachedindividual


I think you are a bit more on the money here than the rest. If there was anything done it would simply be a bullet in the head of the puppet in chief. There is no basis to think the public would support the kind of actions being discussed here. But this is Redstate junior so I expect no less of ATS.