I ran across a story on FB that is admittedly hearsay at this point, but it would indicate that Gen. Ham actually attempted to DEFY the “stand down” order to provide air support, but within a minute of that decision was apprehended by his second in command, and relieved of his duties.
If that story is true, it could shed some light as to who made the decision at that point to call off the air support. If Ham actually managed to get the order out in defiance of the “stand down” order, then it would make sense why the strike was called off AFTER the C-130 was in the area.
Following is what I read, and shared over on FB. Like I said - I realize this is hearsay right now, but thought it perhaps may shed more light on the truth...
RE: General Ham, former head of Africom - word is he was ready to defy orders, and send a rapid response team to assist, but was apprehended and relieved of his duties by his second in command within 30 seconds - 1 min. after he made that decision. We need to know what General Ham’s side of the story is... (Ken DeWitt is the person who originally posted this at FB, I received it through a “share” from a friend...)
Ken DeWitt
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.
quote:
“(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 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.
I found this story when I got home after hearing this story.
quote:
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.
As I was typing this I heard John Bolton on Greta say that there are conflicting reports of General Ham’s comments on this tragedy and why a rapid response unit was not deployed. Bolton says someone needs to find out what Ham was saying on 9/11/12.
One must wonder if there was some sort of mass mutiny going on relative to the rescue of our people in Bengazi - Coincidental to General Ham’s firing:
Navy replaces admiral leading Mideast strike group
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. 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.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Washington stae, in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of “inappropriate leadership judgment” that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy’s chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.
The Stennis group deployed from Bremerton in late August and had entered the Navy 5th Fleet’s area of operations in the Middle East on Oct. 17 after sailing across the Pacific. The Stennis made port visits in Thailand and Malaysia on its way to the Middle East.
It deployed four months earlier than scheduled in response to a request by the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, to maintain two aircraft carriers in the Middle East. The Stennis replaced the USS Enterprise carrier group.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited the Stennis and its sailors in Bremerton shortly before they departed. He thanked them for accelerating their deployment on short notice.
“I understand that it is tough,” Panetta said. “We are asking an awful lot of each of you, but frankly you are the best I have and when the world calls we have to respond.”
Wanted to direct your attention to the (admittedly hearsay) story I posted in #194 on this thread.
[MM - feel free to copy and paste to the Threat Matrix if you think it worth it to do so... I don’t want the story getting “lost”, but don’t think I should post it as it’s own thread as I don’t have clear citations.]
Also note that there is an Admiral who is being replaced as well (see a response to the post a little above this one - or follow the “replies” link). A huge shake-up at the top of ALL of these command posts that were in a position to act on orders to HELP the men in Benghazi.
I’ll be doing some research later tonight into the UCMJ and provisions for relieving a 4-Star General “on the battlefield” by his second-in-command. Just so I’m aware of the official laws that cover this specific circumstance. If either of you know exactly where to look, I’d be grateful for any assistance. I’m aware that the President is the ONLY one who can officially relieve the General - however, there have to be contingencies in regards to being on the battlefield and perhaps not in communication directly with the President or the Pentagon at that precise moment.
I have a ton of military-connected friends, active duty and vets on my profile over at FB, but they are - understandably - quite mum on the topic right now, and I don’t want to push by linking them by name to the posts over there as I don’t want anyone getting into trouble over answering these questions, or commenting.
It IS looking like the “story” I shared in post #194 may indeed be the “real truth” behind why the gunship was purportedly “in the air over” and why men on the ground were already painting targets, but those targets were never fired upon.
NOTE: I “spoke” with Navy Seal Woods mother last night on FB, and have made a promise to do all within my (admittedly little) power to make sure the truth comes out and these people are brought to justice - both those who committed the terrorist act, and those who stood by and watched. I intend to keep that promise to her, but I’ve got a lot of “catching up” and research to do in order to do so to the best of my ability... Please keep in mind - EVERYONE on this thread - that these men’s families are EXTREMELY grateful for everyone’s efforts to expose the truth. And, please keep them all in your prayers - especially Tyrone’s family as they are taking the lead in speaking out.
On a personal note: BDZ, and MM I hope you are both doing well, it’s been a while since I’ve been a “regular” around here... just busy...