Author Topic: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?  (Read 3950 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2012, 11:43:36 AM »
Reminds me of the USSR, where every military unit had an undercover political officer from the KGB.  It's as if the regime has seeded commands with such operatives.  30 seconds?

Yes, the nefarious political officer/goon!

 ::asskicking::

We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2012, 12:14:34 PM »

Obama's man?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/22/washington-weighs-mcchrystal-replacement/

Officials in Washington are scrambling to scrub potential replacements should McChrystal's command prove unsalvageable. Apart from Mattis and Allen, attention has focused on Army Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, who currently runs day-to-day combat operations in Afghanistan while McChrystal focuses on strategic military-political issues.

Selecting Rodriguez, officials pointed out, would enable a seamless transition of command,


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/09/ap-army-armed-forces-command-david-rodriguez-troops-spread-thin-091211/

Gen. David Rodriguez, who took over as head of U.S. Army Forces Command on Monday, said that as troops withdraw from Afghanistan, one brigade may have to take over where two have been working. And he said they must be trained to coordinate and use the high-tech surveillance, communications, and command and control systems that are flooding into the war zone.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Rodriguez

Military History: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15402700/LTG-David-M-Rodriguez

Ending with:
US DECORATIONS AND BADGESDistinguished Service MedalDefense Superior Service MedalLegion of Merit (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)Bronze Star Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)Defense Meritorious Service MedalMeritorious Service Medal (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)Joint Service Commendation MedalArmy Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)Joint Service Achievement MedalCombat Infantryman BadgeExpert Infantryman BadgeMaster Parachutist BadgeAir Assault BadgeRanger TabJoint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2012, 05:05:01 PM »
"The Pentagon today denied the replacement of the AFRICOM Commander had anything to do with what happened in Benghazi on 9/11."  Just heard on the radio "news".

Riiiiight.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2012, 07:08:31 PM »
Leon the Liar, pants on fire!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2012, 08:34:16 PM »
So, let's see what General Ham is made of.

Unfortunately, it seems like brass often makes soldiers soft, and turns them into bureaucrats and political actors. If Ham was indeed relieved of his command because of something related to the murders in Benghazi, and he has information that would clarify this for the American people, let's see him dare to come forward with the truth, even if it places him at personal risk of either retribution from the administration, or culpability in the failure of security in Benghazi.

He could be an American hero, if he's willing to take the risk for the sake of his sacred oath.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline BigAlSouth

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1581
  • Who won't 'co-exist?'
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2012, 04:16:41 AM »
First thing: On Glenn Beck's program Monday (Glenn was out; it was Stu and Pat) it was stated that a confidential source told them that Gen. Ham was leaving to spend more time with his wife who is ill. Emphatically, they said Ham's removal had nothing to do with Benghazi.

Just throwing this out.

Nice compilation of "rumors" regarding Gen. Ham here at Red State

http://www.redstate.com/jamesmpratt/2012/10/27/breaking-africom-general-carter-ham-relieved-of-command-minutes-before-ordering-benghazi-rescue/
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living
are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
--------------
The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

Offline BigAlSouth

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1581
  • Who won't 'co-exist?'
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2012, 04:35:40 AM »
Quote
The questions concerning General Ham's role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R, Bolton also mentioned Mr. Chaffetz's account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta's statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. "General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways," Mr. Bolton concluded. "Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living
are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
--------------
The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

Offline BigAlSouth

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1581
  • Who won't 'co-exist?'
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2012, 04:53:01 AM »
From BlackFive, explaining Leon Panetta's pathetic explanation as to why military assets were not deployed in Benghazi:

Quote
    Leon Penetta is Either a Dumbass or a Liar
     

    The Secretary of Defense, in his most determined way, continues to try to protect the President from the fiasco in Benghazi.  So desperate to shield the President he announced what will be forever remembered as the Penetta Doctrine:
     
    “(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.”
     
    Of course, in the circles that I ran with, it will be forever labeled “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine”.
     
    To be fair to Leon, however, his audience for this ridiculous statement was not members of the military and especially not for those in the Special Operations arena who immediately recognized that the entire statement is not a doctrine at all.  It is horsesh*t, nothing more.
     
    The “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” was targeted toward civilians.  Read the doctrine carefully.  On the surface it makes a case for Force Protection being an overriding element of critical decision making and it should be and it makes sense.  The Secretary of Defense wants to ensure the safety of our troops and understands the value of “real-time information”.  Okay, makes sense, good job Leon, end of story, right?
     
    A couple of points however need to be made.
     
    First.  I am certain that Penetta realizes that we have very specially trained folks whose job it is to execute missions just like what was needed in Benghazi.  On the other hand, maybe he didn’t, since both of the Generals who he supposedly consulted with have a grand total of ZERO days duty in any Special Operations organization.  In fact, they are both old tankers.  The senior of which, General Dempsy, has a Master's degree in literature from Duke University, where he wrote a thesis on the Irish poet W B Yeats. He was a Captain then, and that thesis alone should have rendered him ineligible for promotion to field grade officer.
     
    Second, and this is very important. I don’t know what Penetta’s definition of “real-time information” is, but I suspect that, if Eisenhower had the same doctrine, we’d still be sitting in England waiting to invade Europe.
     
    Let’s review the real-time facts that we know so far.  The entire event was being streamed live to the State Department and, in all likelihood, the White House situation room.  That’s pretty “real-time” if you ask me, but it gets worse.  Not only were we watching the entire damn thing on expensive televisions; we had at least two highly trained special operators on the ground in direct communication!
     
    Do you think the whole Pointe Du Hoc event would have happened during the D-Day attack if Ike and boys had two Navy SEALs telling them that the artillery had been moved?
     
    Maybe MacArthur should have cancelled the Inchon landings in Korea because having a live tv stream and two highly trained individuals on the ground just wasn’t quite enough “real-time information”?
     
    And this is why “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” is so ridiculous.
     
    The best “real-time information” possible is eyes on the objective.
    Even better is people on the objective with eyes on the enemy.
    Even better than that is people on the objective that are highly trained with years of special ops experience in direct communications.
     
    My God people, this was a perfect intelligence situation to execute a forced entry relief operation!
     
    I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions.  In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want!  Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!
     
    What more information do you need?  Or was this never about information at all?  Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?
     
    In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.
     
    And that pisses me off.

I think I'll spend some more time over at BlackFive.
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living
are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
--------------
The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2012, 07:27:32 AM »
From BlackFive, explaining Leon Panetta's pathetic explanation as to why military assets were not deployed in Benghazi:

Quote
    Leon Penetta is Either a Dumbass or a Liar
     

    The Secretary of Defense, in his most determined way, continues to try to protect the President from the fiasco in Benghazi.  So desperate to shield the President he announced what will be forever remembered as the Penetta Doctrine:
     
    “(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.”
     
    Of course, in the circles that I ran with, it will be forever labeled “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine”.
     
    To be fair to Leon, however, his audience for this ridiculous statement was not members of the military and especially not for those in the Special Operations arena who immediately recognized that the entire statement is not a doctrine at all.  It is horsesh*t, nothing more.
     
    The “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” was targeted toward civilians.  Read the doctrine carefully.  On the surface it makes a case for Force Protection being an overriding element of critical decision making and it should be and it makes sense.  The Secretary of Defense wants to ensure the safety of our troops and understands the value of “real-time information”.  Okay, makes sense, good job Leon, end of story, right?
     
    A couple of points however need to be made.
     
    First.  I am certain that Penetta realizes that we have very specially trained folks whose job it is to execute missions just like what was needed in Benghazi.  On the other hand, maybe he didn’t, since both of the Generals who he supposedly consulted with have a grand total of ZERO days duty in any Special Operations organization.  In fact, they are both old tankers.  The senior of which, General Dempsy, has a Master's degree in literature from Duke University, where he wrote a thesis on the Irish poet W B Yeats. He was a Captain then, and that thesis alone should have rendered him ineligible for promotion to field grade officer.
     
    Second, and this is very important. I don’t know what Penetta’s definition of “real-time information” is, but I suspect that, if Eisenhower had the same doctrine, we’d still be sitting in England waiting to invade Europe.
     
    Let’s review the real-time facts that we know so far.  The entire event was being streamed live to the State Department and, in all likelihood, the White House situation room.  That’s pretty “real-time” if you ask me, but it gets worse.  Not only were we watching the entire damn thing on expensive televisions; we had at least two highly trained special operators on the ground in direct communication!
     
    Do you think the whole Pointe Du Hoc event would have happened during the D-Day attack if Ike and boys had two Navy SEALs telling them that the artillery had been moved?
     
    Maybe MacArthur should have cancelled the Inchon landings in Korea because having a live tv stream and two highly trained individuals on the ground just wasn’t quite enough “real-time information”?
     
    And this is why “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” is so ridiculous.
     
    The best “real-time information” possible is eyes on the objective.
    Even better is people on the objective with eyes on the enemy.
    Even better than that is people on the objective that are highly trained with years of special ops experience in direct communications.
     
    My God people, this was a perfect intelligence situation to execute a forced entry relief operation!
     
    I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions.  In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want!  Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!
     
    What more information do you need?  Or was this never about information at all?  Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?
     
    In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.
     
    And that pisses me off.

I think I'll spend some more time over at BlackFive.

I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions.  In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want!  Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!   
What more information do you need?  Or was this never about information at all?  Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?
     
In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.
     
And that pisses me off.


And how!!!

“The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine”     


We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2012, 09:49:18 AM »
And from Miltrainer:
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7030.msg81316.html#msg81316

http://commotioninthepews.com/?p=1564

"With that in mind I can state, without reservation, doubt, or hesitation that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Leon Panetta have lied to the American public about the events in Benghazi. I know for a fact, not a supposition, that when that first message went out that the consulate was under attack it was given to the President within 10 minutes. I know this because I once had the authority and the burden of writing and verifying this kind of alert. There was no stopping it between me and the President once I pulled the trigger and the officer in charge of my detachment authorized it to go out. I would live or die by the results of that product and would face jail time if it was maliciously sent. It was an automatic wake up call to the President and the chain of command"


Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2012, 11:25:50 AM »
They can call Joe and everybody else a racist all they want, but it does not change the fact one bit that this regime is flat out lying to us for rank partisan political purposes!!!  And people were allowed to die for these evil people!  Watergate did not kill ANYBODY!  Obama & Co have dozens of innocent blood on thieir hands!

And American's are fricken OK with this?  The MFM is OK with this?

 ::gaah::   ::gaah::   machinegun
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2012, 05:14:03 PM »
At some point, media outlets are going to have to suffer the consequence of their enemy status.

Whatever that looks like, it needs to happen.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2012, 10:39:22 PM »
At some point, media outlets are going to have to suffer the consequence of their enemy status.

Whatever that looks like, it needs to happen.

I have been thinking the same for some time now. Like Pat Caddell has recently said, they are the enemies of the American people. I certainly do not mean to sound hyperbolic or provocative, but I can envision a scenario where prominent media figures simply start being taken out in a targeted fashion.

It's far beyond simple bias (intentional or otherwise), far beyond simply reporting things through a particular ideological lens. No they are active and willing participants in the effort to reduce us all under statist tyranny.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2012, 06:58:17 AM »
Our forefathers in the Sons of Liberty knew how to deal with this ilk.   ;)
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.