Ambassador Stephens Death and the Coming Military Coup

General Ham was never arrested and/or relieved of command after Benghazi. That point can easily be proven by seeing the general still giving speeches and interviews for days after the incident. At least one person, either the CJCS or the SecDef mentioned that general Ham's departure has been planned since June.

The idea that the general was told to stand down and defied the order is absurd and completely made up. The general was never told to do anything. The CIA wasn't able or capable of developing a strike force in the timeframe needed. The CIA was responsible for the protection of the Benghazi consulate and failed. They're the CIA though, so you'll likely never, ever see anything unclassified saying so or describing exactly what happened.

I've seen the movies and TV shows just like all of you have, where a small group of super-elite soldiers are on the ground in a firefight within minutes of an incident. Having lived the reality though, it takes days, if not weeks to plan for such offenses.

reply to post by links234

Links, why would the CIA be responsible for a State Department Outpost??
you refer to it as a consulate, however, technically, it isn't even that.

so, before you're so sure, perhaps you should learn first.
as for advance planning, they certainly had advance warning so what's the problem ??

reply to post by watchitburn


you're both missing the most important fact, they both disobeyed a direct order from their commander in chief.

to stand down.

in the past and in some places around the globe, present day, both would have faced a firing squad.

it is not the duty of a soldier to question a superior commander unless the order violates the laws of the u.s., the constitution or treaties the country is bound by.

standing down is not one of them. the president is not only commander in chief, every decision can't only be the militarily correct one.

an army can't function if the commanding officers are doing whatever they please and don't trust the presidents motives.

reply to post by Honor93


I can't even begin to pretend to know why the CIA does what it does.

I think that's the greatest problem with debating this incident. You even had congressmen freaking out because they were shown a satellite photo that they were told wasn't supposed to exist outside of closed doors.

If I'm going to pass judgement on something I'm not sure about, which no one here is, I'm going with Occam's Razor. Nothing dramatic about how I believe everything occurred.

reply to post by Vitruvian

From your link...

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.

Thats the scariest thing I've read on here. So we are going in to Syria and Iran (the Superbowl) aren't we?

I been saying all along that they are waiting for the elections to let slip the dogs of war.

Almost there.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Yes, a source that is more credible than Fox's came out and disputed Fox's "unnamed source on the ground".

I notice you NEVER try to back up your baseless claims, you just spin in circles. Face it, you believe in baseless crap and you create your fantasy world with rumors and lies, as long as it agrees with your world view.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

You're right in that I cannot find any mainstream media sources reporting that Gen. Ham was arrested. I think we can agree that he somehow disagreed with an order or the head of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Mc Keown wouldn't be writing such letters to the administration.

No, I only agree with facts, not speculation on anyones part, even a US Representative.


You are free to speculate all you want, you are free to build up a scenario in your mind based on rumors and proven lies. But I will stick to the facts that come from official sources.

Sorry, off topic...

Coup, huh? Why am I not surprised at conservatives threatening violence if they don't get their way? Don't they call for a military coup, well, basically any time a Democrat (even a pragmatic, center-right one like Obama) is within sniffing distance of the White House?

Also, wow, people really won't let this Benghazi thing go, huh? At least, conspiracy theorists won't. Thankfully most everyone else has already moved on from this non-story.

I guess I really need to learn to stop being taken aback by the levels of petulance, fantasist machismo, and willful ignorance that goes on around here.

It is nice to see Taiyed taking people to task in this thread, as well. Not sure how you have the stamina to keep going, but kudos.

EDIT: Also, I'ma go ahead and LOL at ManBehindTheMask, cause dude just never learns.

Sorry, off topic...

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Honor93

 

I can't even begin to pretend to know why the CIA does what it does.

I think that's the greatest problem with debating this incident. You even had congressmen freaking out because they were shown a satellite photo that they were told wasn't supposed to exist outside of closed doors.

If I'm going to pass judgement on something I'm not sure about, which no one here is, I'm going with Occam's Razor. Nothing dramatic about how I believe everything occurred.

any chance you have a link for the highlighted part ?
i have no idea what that is in reference to, please share.
(no videos please, can't view them)

i'm not inclined to venture a guess either.
besides, even if i did know, that knowledge wouldn't be much good tomorrow

however, the only "side" i'm on (and will remain on) is the one of truth.
good or bad, i want the truth.

i agree it's not our place to pass judgement.
however, that opinion shall not diminish the duty of asking questions and seeking the truth.
I am an American, and as such, i deserve to know.

if you accept the story being told as sufficient, that's entirely up to you.
at this point in time, i don't.

reply to post by Honor93


Letting us in on a secret via Washington Post

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. “We’re getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.”

“I totally object to the use of that photo,” Chaffetz continued. He went on to say that “I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here today.”

Links, why would the CIA be responsible for a State Department Outpost??
you refer to it as a consulate, however, technically, it isn't even that.

In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that there was a seven-member “rapid response force” in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that “not necessarily all of the security people” at the Benghazi compounds “fell under my direct operational control.”

There's a lot of super-secret stuff involved with what happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks. I know to keep well enough alone to the point that what conservative media insists is a failure of the administration is something much, much deeper than we're ever going to know.

reply to post by links234


I personally think they are covering a gun running op to Syria as Stevens himself was former CIA. His job before he took his post was arming rebels in Libya. The U.S. has been accused of arming Syrian rebels by funneling weapons through Turkey. A hour before the attack began Stevens was actually concluding a meeting with the Turkish Consul General (who is actually from the province the U.S. is accused of smuggling weapons through). This is why it's all smoke and mirrors. It's not to protect the president, it's to save the CIA.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


From the sounds of it, it doesn't seem like something you can pin on Obama alone.

I would say that the past 9 years of "leader#" from Washington have been proof that our troops are being used as pawns and discarded when they are no longer relevant. This I believe is a holdover from the Bush administration and their neo-con agenda.

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Yes, a source that is more credible than Fox's came out and disputed Fox's "unnamed source on the ground".

I notice you NEVER try to back up your baseless claims, you just spin in circles. Face it, you believe in baseless crap and you create your fantasy world with rumors and lies, as long as it agrees with your world view.

Actually I do, and have actually posted links several times....you just find excuses NOT to watch the information, or an excuse why you think its invalid...........

Thats not my fault........thats your own.....

Anyone can go through my posts and see it for themselves.........then they can go through yours and see what nonsense it is .....

Its pretty simple really........

Youve proven time and again you have an issue with reading comprehension......

So the fact that you cannot seem to grasp what im telling you is of no surprise........

But i do find it makes debating with you futile........

reply to post by links234

ugh, i forgot to say thanks for the link
i hadn't seen the hearings but read the report.

yeah, ok, that's old news ... so what is the point exactly ?
the site designation determines which agency(s) are responsible for security.
a CIA operation at the site doesn't magically change it's designation as a State Dept outpost.

as much as i agree the worm hole is collapsing around itself, i've already read the Oversight Committee's report, have you ?
OCR - oversight.house.gov...

so, are you suggesting that because it was a CIA op that we should just go back to business and accept the losses as an operational expense ?

IF you are indicating this is a failure from the top, down, i would agree.
why then should any of it be kept hush, hush ?
if there are existing assets that would be jeopardized, remove/replace/relocate them.

this is also old news but some may have missed it ... www.westernjournalism.com...

i'll admit, i have reservations about discussing the topic of a military coup.
i suppose it's always a possibility ... although, in my lifetime, i never dreamed it could be a probability.

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...

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.

edit on 4-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

Had to come in from lurking for this.

Your right.

BTW, SEAL 6 were murdered/assassinated. PERIOD.

My ex-brother in law just got back from several tours in the sand...thankfully in one piece.

Morale is pretty much crap. Weird thing is that the ones coming home are the ones that will keep the others ALIVE!

Noncoms are top of the list for being not just sent home but flat BOOTED! Makes no sense.

They will not be bringing home too many more guys imho. They will leave them there to rot.

Remember Rome rarely garrisoned a soldier in his home area.

The DHS and FEMA have their little "Youth Force's " going now to "keep us safe".

Nothing to worry about. No correlation to Hitler Jungen.

What youth forces?

You're not making any sense here. Either that or the hours spent browsing WND have gone to your head.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


NO bs ... read it for yourself ... also old news (early October)

www.whiteoutpress.com...
Regardless of their name, the Dept of Homeland Security has just graduated its first class of 231 Homeland Youth. Kids, aged 18-24 and recruited from the President’s AmeriCorp volunteers, they represent the first wave of DHS’s youth corps, designed specifically to create a full time, paid, standing army of FEMA Youth across the country.

ETA: in case anyone needs a .gov link before you'll believe it ... here ya go.

www.dhs.gov...
Vicksburg, Miss., Sep. 13, 2012 -- FEMA Deputy Administrator Rich Serino gives the keynote address at the Induction Ceremony for the inaugural class of FEMA Corps members

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


And here's one more from FEMA itself....

FEMA Corps

The page has a video right on top.

It talks about the " induction ceremony "........

On March 13, 2012, the White House announced an innovative partnership between the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to establish a FEMA-devoted unit of 1,600 service corps members within AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) solely devoted to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. This partnership builds on the historic collaboration between the two agencies and will enhance the federal government’s disaster capabilities, increase the reliability and diversity of the disaster workforce, promote an ethic of service, expand education and economic opportunity for young people, and achieve significant cost savings for the American taxpayer. When the program is at full operational capability, and in an average disaster year, we expect to see a savings of approximately $60 million in a year.