Democrats: Party Of National Security Weakness For Another Generation

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, October 26. 2012

Democrats: Party Of National Security Weakness For Another Generation

The cumulative evidence is now evident to all with even bad eyesight that Benghazi is sad proof of what conservative critics have been saying for the past four years, that President Obama, his appointees and administration lack the dedication, insight and guts to defend the United States honorably or resolutely.

Democrats were known as the Party of national security weakness for a generation after their betrayal of South Vietnam and Jimmy Carter’s callowness in the face of the Iranian radicals. Aging memories, war tiredness, and big lies from the Obama administration managed to recover some national security credibility.

Now, it’ll take another generation for Democrats to, depending upon circumstances, recover some national security credibility. How focused and resolute Republicans behave will be important. Otherwise, abandon all hope for the US.

The latest revelation of betrayal of the men on the ground fighting desperately in Benghazi makes every veteran I know furious, makes every conservative voice howl in anger, but has yet to break the silence at Yahoo News, Washington Post, New York Times. They may be trying to run out the clock to November 6. That finger in the dike will not hold, possibly before November 6 and certainly after. The maggots in the chain of command in the White House, Pentagon, State Dept., and CIA responsible deserve to have their names engraved on a prominent monument to cowardice.

UPDATE: Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus That's where he and his minions who sent the American heroes to their desperate death belong, literally. Obama Ducks Questions On Why Help Wasn't Sent To Benghazi Maggot-in-Chief

A old, experienced friend emails me this:

When you are fighting for this country, you run to the sound of the fire and the calls for help. If someone tries to tell you not to go, and you know people are dying, you go anyway. If you don't know all the facts on the ground, as Panetta claimed, you go anyway. You go because the rule has always been that when you are in trouble and call for help, help will get there as quickly and overwhelmingly as humanly possible. You go for them because you know they would come for you. If it ever becomes known that the cavalry will not be coming to your rescue, then you will tell them where to stick it when they ask you to put your butt on the line. When the day comes, and now it may have, when it is known that we are not willing to sacrifice more casualties in an effort, no matter how futile it may be, to respond to pleas for help from the men on the line, we will no longer have men willing to put themselves on that line. Fix it now, before those men, in whom so much confidence is placed, lose confidence in us.

Posted by Bruce Kesler in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 16:33 | Comments (42) | Trackbacks (2)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.bookwormroom.com
Tracked: Oct 26, 18:10

PingBack

Weblog: www.bookwormroom.com
Tracked: Oct 26, 18:10

PingBack

Weblog: radiopatriot.wordpress.com
Tracked: Oct 26, 23:40

PingBack

Weblog: radiopatriot.wordpress.com
Tracked: Oct 27, 00:04

PingBack

Weblog: www.ruthfullyyours.com
Tracked: Oct 27, 08:30

PingBack

Weblog: www.ruthfullyyours.com
Tracked: Oct 27, 08:30

PingBack

Weblog: www.ruthfullyyours.com
Tracked: Oct 27, 08:30

PingBack

Weblog: www.ruthfullyyours.com
Tracked: Oct 27, 08:30

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Bruce Kesler: The cumulative evidence is now evident to all with even bad eyesight that Benghazi is sad proof of what conservative critics have been saying for the past four years, that President Obama, his appointees and administration lack the dedication, insight and guts to defend the United States honorably or resolutely.

Must have bad eyesight, then. We haven't seen any information indicating anything other than the usual fog of war. There may be something there, but it has hardly been demonstrated. It certainly should be investigated, because something obviously went wrong that led to the death of four Americans.

Bruce Kesler: Aging memories, war tiredness, and big lies from the Obama administration managed to recover some national security credibility.

Thought it was the debacle of Iraq under a Republican Administration, and the Democratic Administration finally bringing bin Laden to justice.

#1 Zachriel on 2012-10-26 17:44 (Reply)

Zachass, your tired and lame excuses are just parroting the scrotums of this administration. If they or you were in front of me right now, a black eye would be your deserved gift. Just go away Zachass.

#1.1 Bruce Kesler on 2012-10-26 17:47 (Reply)

That only undermines your position.

#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-27 09:13 (Reply)

ZACHASS

That's all the reply you'll get every time you appear. Your own personal marking. No longer wasting time to identify you.

#1.1.1.1 Bruce Kesler on 2012-10-27 10:42 (Reply)

"We haven't seen any information indicating anything other than the usual fog of war."
Really? Then you haven't been looking very hard. It's disgusting to have someone genuflect to their political party rather than look for the truth. Start with http://www.ace.mu.nu/ where a lot of links are going up. This isn't just smoke, the heat is burning off people's apathy about this. Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is immoral.

#1.2 Daddio on 2012-10-26 18:14 (Reply)

Zachass is right - all available evidence at this point in time demonstrates a clear and unequivocal act of cowardice on the part of the Administration and the President in particular. The facts ARE that there were Delta Force operators within two hours of Bengahzi, there had to be at least one, maybe two armed Predators circling and obsreving, there are accurate reports that one of the former SEALS, who disobeyed stand down orders and came to the aid of their fellow citizens, was using a laser designator to pick targets for a AC-130 Spectre gunship which could have turned the tide of the battle in short order and other military assets could have been dispatched in the first 50 minutes to arrive in time to maybe save lives.

Fog of war my ass. I've been through the "fog of war" - it ain't all that mysterious and only an idiot who has never been in combat would use that phrase as an excuse.

#1.3 Tom Francis on 2012-10-26 20:03 (Reply)

Tom Francis: The facts ARE that there were Delta Force operators within two hours of Bengahzi, there had to be at least one, maybe two armed Predators circling and obsreving, there are accurate reports that one of the former SEALS, who disobeyed stand down orders and came to the aid of their fellow citizens, was using a laser designator to pick targets for a AC-130 Spectre gunship which could have turned the tide of the battle in short order and other military assets could have been dispatched in the first 50 minutes to arrive in time to maybe save lives.

Perhaps, but it only suggests an ordinary snafu, not some grand conspiracy.

#1.3.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-27 09:17 (Reply)

I hate tying the Benghazi debacle to politics. This isn't about presidential politics. It's about malfeance on a gigantic scale. If these latest stories are true, then there will be hell to pay. The MSM may be able to stay quite until the election (although I doubt it), but this is so outrageous that if only half of what we know know is true then truth lovers will not rest until it all comes to light. If liberals thought they were dogged about Watergate, wait until you see ex-military of all politics hammer the truth out of those hiding it.

#2 Daddio on 2012-10-26 18:02 (Reply)

The lesson I have taken from this sorry, tragic episode is that the lives of Americans mean nothing to this administration.

They did nothing to protect them and then nothing to defend them.

When the 3 a.m. alarm sounded, 0bama responded by hitting the snooze and going back to sleep.

Americans were dying and he went to sleep! He obviously just didn't care.

The outrage is white hot and justifiably so.

#3 feeblemind on 2012-10-26 18:11 (Reply)

When I saw the reports (which apparently are very accurate) that they had armed Predators in the area and Delta Force operators less than two hours out form Benghazi, I got even madder than I was when it all started.

There are those who run towards the sounds of battle and those who run from it. I think we now know what the President and his Administration would do.

#4 Tom Francis on 2012-10-26 20:08 (Reply)

92 killed at American embassies under Reagan.
33 killed at American embassies under Bush.
4 killed at American embassies under Obama.

You folks are hilarious.

#5 Not Likely on 2012-10-26 20:09 (Reply)

You forgot under Clinton, Haven't looked it up but I suspect its a few more, didn't the Cole and the Embassy bombings happen on his watch?. Its more than the casualties, never heard Reagan or either Bush call dead Americans "bumps in the road".

By the way why did the President need to get involved in this. shouldn't this have been solved much further down??

#5.1 grant1863 on 2012-10-26 20:42 (Reply)

Are you a moron. When you go out into the world and stand tall for America there is a chance you may be killed.

It isn't the body count, you moron, it was when Americans were in harms way, when their backs were being pushed against the wall, when Obama and the other worms in his administration knew what was happening via realtime reports and images, they not only denied them help, they interfered with those who would answer the call.

This coward of the county routine from Obama, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, from the Secretary of Defense has no place. You scramble everything in your capability. You might have to turn it back before arrival as new information is received but the first and only thing you do is go!

#5.2 JKB on 2012-10-26 21:24 (Reply)

Not Likely: You folks are hilarious.

Not to mention 3000 civilians under Bush.

#5.3 Zachriel on 2012-10-27 09:19 (Reply)

"their betrayal of South Vietnam"

... under Democrats Nixon and Ford

#6 Joe on 2012-10-26 20:42 (Reply)

No, under a Democrat Congress that cut off aid.
Where do you troll maggots come from. Friends of Zachass no doubt. Or, Zachass using pseudonyms. Regardless, certified members of the jackass club.

#6.1 Bruce Kesler on 2012-10-26 20:51 (Reply)

the so-called ''Watergate Congress'' --a flood of democrats coming in off the 'scandal' (yes, it was, but not the way we think). Cut-off ammo to ARVN armies in the field, in contact with the Paris Treaty-breaking NVA, also ruined the American intel services (see Church Committee) and did a thousand other things to enable and encourage the 1975-1980 outbreak of communist territory-grabbing and peasant-slaughtering wars in Cambodia (the genocide, 4 mm killed), Africa (several, Angola prominently), Latin America (the isthmus, near the Canal, Nicaragua and El Salvadore), central Asia (USSR invasion of Afghanistan, attempt to control Persian Gulf, 1mm Afghans killed), the middle east (Iran, overthrow of longtime US ally the Shah, for the mullah terror govt now about to get the atomic bomb), and so forth, just off the top of my head.

The so-called 'trolls' here have a word-association tactic that means absolutely nothing in terms of real world history. They ought to be ashamed of themselves --i know i would be.

#6.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 02:57 (Reply)

Bruce Kesler: No, under a Democrat Congress that cut off aid.

Did you forget? We had this conversation before. Nixon and Kissinger had already determined the South Vietnamese government was doomed, but continued the war for political purposes.

QUOTE:

August 3, 1972:

Nixon: because I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway…

Nixon: It’s terribly important this year, but can we have a viable foreign policy if a year from now or two years from now, North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam? That’s the real question.

Kissinger: If a year or two years from now North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam, we can have a viable foreign policy if it looks as if it’s the result of South Vietnamese incompetence. If we now sell out in such a way that, say, within a three- to four-month period, we have pushed {unclear} Thieu over the brink– we ourselves– I think, there is going to be– even the Chinese won’t like that. I mean, they’ll pay verbal– verbally, they’ll like it–

Nixon: But it’ll worry them.

Kissinger: But it will worry everybody. And domestically in the long run it won’t help us all that much because our opponents will say we should’ve done it three years ago.

Nixon: I know.

#6.1.2 Zachriel on 2012-10-27 09:23 (Reply)

Are you making a dispositive motion, Zach?

If so, then anything that does not appear in those tapes must by your motion have had nothing to do with Nixon.

If not, then you are deliberately perpetrating a fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Is there an undistributed middle? No, if every utterance by every person becomes that person's permanent policy. Yes, if there exists something called ''informal conversation'' --which often includes the devil's advocate position being taken by both parties, in exploration of the various matters which may or may not become policy.

Uncertain as to the bit you relate --is it the only VN ref on the tapes? Even if not, then your comment is still misleading via the missing middle of history between Aug 72 and the events of 1975.

Put a tape recorder in the hut of George Washington during the Valley Forge winter, before he crossed the Delaware and whupped the Hessians. Record the conversations with Billy Lee. Will you hear such talk as you offer dispositively? Of course you will, and you know it.

If folks here used your tactics on your AGW position, there wouldn't be enough bandwidth to carry the word flood of flotsam and jetsum. But they do not do that to your comments, because it's just a cheap trick, and they are above such things.

#6.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 10:49 (Reply)

buddy larsen: Are you making a dispositive motion

We provided evidence to support our position. You could have responded with additional evidence. Instead you pounded the table.

#6.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-27 11:03 (Reply)

No, your evidence does not support the argument against the watergate congress having entered, via an abrupt change of US policy upon which ARVN had built its defense, into a de-facto alliance with the enemy.

That's my point, tho you may not be up to deciphering it.

Does your evidence-game extend to my 'pounding the table'? If not, then the phrase is simply more of your fitting everything that challenges your propaganda into the 'right wing table-pounders' narrative.

#6.1.2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 11:13 (Reply)

buddy larsen: No, your evidence does not support the argument against the watergate congress having entered ...

If the war was already lost, per Nixon and Kissinger's assessment, then cutting losses is the appropriate response.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-27 16:49 (Reply)

buddy larsen: No, if every utterance by every person becomes that person's permanent policy.

No, but it's hard to misread this:

QUOTE:

Nixon: because I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway…

Followed by a discussion of how to avoid the political fallout. This supports our original claim above.

#6.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2012-10-27 11:09 (Reply)

Shall i search for Nixon and Kissinger utterances that post-date the morose gloom of your cite, and prove that the two parties directly contradicted your conclusion?

No need, as you know, because what you present as conclusive is not conclusive.

Now, i'm going on to try to lend a hand to the questions opened up below from actual interest in what's happening in our world --adios --

#6.1.2.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 11:22 (Reply)

Bruce-
Your thoughts on the "confidence issues" are spot on and this clusterf****is a feature, not a bug to the administration and the Dem Party in general.

I believe they would welcome a neutered military.

Who would volunteer to join the armed forces if they thought they might be the ones left behind.

Thus the draft is re-imposed...to be fair and inclusive don't you know.

#7 Browndog on 2012-10-26 22:19 (Reply)

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AT6lYtwq

===

Two odd blurbs i recall reading --drudge or google news aggregator --one was just a few days before 9/11/12, an announcement by the Kremlin --and iirc a similar from the Chinese govt --regarding 'looking into restricting harmful youtube content'.

The other was during the fight to depose Qaddafi, and involved the 'anti-Qaddafi rebels' taking control of govt armories and despite diplomatic protests, removing and disappearing the arms, including thousands of shoulder-fired SAMs'.

===

Whoever in this WH brane-trust liked F&F as an anti 2nd Amendment 'legend' might also have liked, sometime back, when O seemed invincible for re-election to a leftist-drool-inducing 'katy-bar-the-door' final term, an anti-1st Amendment legend to tout in concert with Eurasia and Eastasia.

Not to say WH would've done anything more active than to've anticipated something sharp would result as the man-pad hunters advanced to contact, and had had someone like Jarrett pop up with the notion to segue that certain coming fight into a propaganda spin of opportunity.

There's been an awful lot of semi-logged visits to WH by muz leaders of uncertain jihadiness, check it for yourself. something is being discussed.

Could it be WH felt it had to stand back and let the 'rebels' grab the Qaddafi weapons depots, and then later have realized that 20,000 of 'em meant that likely someday one of them is gonna take down a civilian airliner flying out of JFK or LAX?

O and gang are very clever in some ways, but incredibly stupid in others. The deal they have with the MSM houses is the problem --both entities depend on each other not to do more than the other can cover-up and/or otherwise enable, but neither has any recourse to correct the inevitable problems in any partnership. Can't go to the press, can't go to the cops, can't leak without getting wet, can't whistleblow without getting whistleblown.

Must really suck to lose this election --hundreds have criminal and civil liabilities only suppressed by official crony protocols --could go to plata o plomo in a hurry, and a Romney reform effort would run into forced plays very quickly.

Danger out there.

#8 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 01:55 (Reply)

Sorry, forgot to indicate, the first two paras above (above the Fox data) are quotes from BK's 'latest revelation' link.

===

Now this --note date --it's just one of many hits on search terms [ rebels capture qadaffi weapons depots ].

Note the other-worldly quality of the reporter's attempt to keep from screaming ''what UTTER bullshit --AS IF this operation ever had a single thought about the ramifications of its games''.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/now-to-secure-qaddafi-s-weapons-stockpiles-20110823

.

#9 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 02:24 (Reply)

excerpt from Nat'l Journal article:

[url]The bloody months of fighting -- and NATO attacks -- has left much of the country’s ammunition storage areas unsecured and open to looting, the Obama administration said in a notification to Congress to May; it announced at that time it was obligating $1.5 million to collect, destroy, and reestablish control of Libyan surface-to-air missiles, small arms, and light weapons. "It is critically important not only to [protect] the Libyan population, but to counter the threat of proliferation into neighboring regions that work begin immediately to collect, control, and destroy conventional weapons and munitions, and reestablish security at these storage sites,” the notification said, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. “Terrorist groups are exploiting this opportunity, and the situation grows more dangerous with each passing day, a situation that directly impacts U.S. national security.”[/url]

Notice anything strange? The thundering rhetoric vs the Dinner-with-Beyonce funding?

Cover your own ass in the usual way, with the rhetoric, while sticking America's ass out into the wind, with just enough funding to ... what -? Launch a little opportunity-triggering intrigue? buy a crony or two in to some F&F/Chiquita banana weapons-running?

#10 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 03:13 (Reply)

Questions:

Why was the original Fox report, which stated the second request made by the team at the CIA annex was made an hour after they first heard shots from somewhere at 9:40 pm, changed to read "a short time after" with no explanation?

Did the Libyan attackers know the location of the CIA annex prior to Sept. 11? Many news accounts have referred to the annex as a safe house; does that imply its location was meant to be secret?

When the team left the mission (it was not officially listed as a consulate) were the attackers waiting to ambush them at the annex or did they follow the team there?

What assistance did the US-friendly Libyan militia that arrived at the annex at 3 am provide?

Was the fourth mortar, fired at 4 am, the cause of the death of Woods and Doherty?

I've got more, but can anyone help me with these?

#11 abguy on 2012-10-27 10:22 (Reply)

--i may can help a little --the convoy between the first and second buildings was a single armored SUV and it was taken under automatic weapons fire along the route. This according to Brett Baier's report --the Part 1 of Fox's 'special report' aired some days ago.

Part 2 BTW is coming up at 1PM EST --an hour and a half from now. It'll be re-broadcast twice more today and again tomorrow.

#11.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 11:34 (Reply)

IIRC, that 4AM fire killed one of the two --i believe it was Doherty. His sister was interviewed on the previous Fox special report. She said something about the 'very accurate' mortar fire in that phase --then she choked up a bit --i believe the question had been about precisely what when had her brother died. Don't take my fuzzy word for it tho --

#11.2 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 13:02 (Reply)

This is interesting too.

In case you missed it:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/26/are_some_in_the_chain_of_command_still_haunted_by_carter_s_failed_rescue_in_1979

#12 feeblemind on 2012-10-27 10:43 (Reply)

That call was a setup.

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2012/10/26/who-made-the-benghazi-decision/#comment-511567

Rush knew the script in advance.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/26/are_some_in_the_chain_of_command_still_haunted_by_carter_s_failed_rescue_in_1979

Check out paragraph 4 below the picture. Rush says:

“Look, I believe you. You’re talking about watch desks. That tells me you know what you’re talking about.”.

The caller had not mentioned watch desks.

#12.1 Roy Lofquist on 2012-10-27 11:09 (Reply)

I just listened to it again. You're right, the term appears for the first time spoken by Rush, and he seems to be alluding to the caller having mentioned the term previously in what would have had to've been a prior conversatioon --before the video commences with what purports to be the initial contact between Rush and the caller.

However, what if the term came from Rush for the first time, in response to the 'desks' (the official gates) that the caller was describing functionally --for the radio audience's benefit --without use of the jargon, and Rush merely introduced the jargon from his own knowledge, as a way of moving the caller along and getting him past un-needed detail?

The later seems to me to be the case --and not to support my politics but because, it has the ring of truth --maybe need to watch it again with that latter interpretation in mind. See what you think after, and come back --if you don't mind --

#12.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 11:49 (Reply)

I tend to agree with you Buddy, and I would pose this question:

Even if this was a scripted set up, does that somehow make the caller's commentary less credible? If so, why?

#12.1.1.1 feeblemind on 2012-10-27 11:56 (Reply)

I don't keep up with Rush enough to know if he does it, but it wouldn't be all that rare i'm sure, that an initial call to a live-call radio or TV show --a call that may be worthwhile but the caller's presentation is confused and jumbled and difficult to follow --might be rescheduled with a ''Sir, can you organize your story a little better and then call me back?''

Altho that would for a fact open up the 'manipulation' charge --so, i just dunno what to think --other than Rush survives in a hellhole of enemies, so they must have nothing on him, credibility-wise --they'd have finished him off by now if they had any way to.

#12.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 12:19 (Reply)

You are correct that the reference could have been an association Rush made on his own. However, in light of Dinocrat's post I still believe that it was a scripted call.

Flash messages are extremely rare. My outfit was the subject of two of them in 1963. From what I understand there was a total of five that year. If there was indeed a flash then the whole ignorance thing is a bald faced lie.

#12.1.1.2 Roy Lofquist on 2012-10-27 12:06 (Reply)

That's a pretty significant witness statement right there, Mr. Lofquist. I hope folks will disseminate it, and plenty of interest will accrue on the unanswered question, if and when there is ever a certain answer.

"Was there a Flash Message?" the senator asked the WH staffer....

#12.1.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 12:38 (Reply)

First of four weekend airings of Fox Special Report --a few minutes from now --

#13 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 12:55 (Reply)

beats me what happened to that special --it was replaced by a smorgasbord of Romney speech, part of Baier's earlier special, other bits n pieces. Now it's being promoted as airing on Sunday. Maybe there's new stuff coming in that trashes what was already 'in the can'. Fast moving.
===

Meanwhile,

(snip)

"It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment"

http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-1.194780

===

...and Instapundit just linked to,

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/37144547/Interesting-Rumor-Concerning-General-Carter-Ham-and-Stand-Down-Order.aspx

(snip)

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 Thursday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Rodigues Nominated as Head of Africon

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.

Interesting to say the least.

===

...back to me, buddy larsen. All i can say is, that's the top command echelon in the theater, land, sea, air, that just got the sack.

Stay tuned --as if you could not --

#14 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 15:25 (Reply)

Seventeen days in October . . . . This will make a movie soon.

#15 Claritas on 2012-10-27 17:57 (Reply)

Burt Lancaster playing those guys getting fired --

#15.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-27 22:30 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, October 26. 2012

Democrats: Party Of National Security Weakness For Another Generation