Obama Was Complicit In The Killing Of Americans in Libya

There's no other way to put it. He should be arrested and charged with treason. I hate this man more and more every day. And I hate the major, liberal-dominated media news outlets even more for not giving this the proper coverage. Where will it end?

Obama Fires Top Admiral For Advocating Libyan Rescue?

Quote:

---

According to this report, yesterday (27 October) Obama ordered the immediate removal of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East.

CSG-3 is one of five US Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the US Pacific Fleet. US Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles, which involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore.

The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) is the strike group’s current flagship, and as of 2012, other units assigned to Carrier Strike Group Three include Carrier Air Wing Nine; the guided-missile cruisers USS Mobile Bay (CG-53) and USS Antietam (CG-54); and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 21, the guided-missile destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108), USS Dewey (DDG-105), USS Kidd (DDG-100), and USS Milius (DDG-69).

US news reports on Obama’s unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouette’s removal was for “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East.

This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to “assist and provide intelligence for” American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.


General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders:

“The information I heard today was that General [Carter] 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.”

---

Also, interesting call to Limbaugh's show:

Sounds straight out of Red October.

Citizen's arrest? I'm in. You drive.

I wish.

Since when do military commanders expect to disobey orders of their superiors and get away with it? Was it an act of moral courage? I expect so. Can we let our military leaders get away with these types of actions? Not according to the oath we all took. Note that we don't have all of the information regarding the situation. But feel free to think so.

I'm sorry. I missed the part where someone said it was permissible for military commanders to disobey orders from the civilians appointed over them.

The point of the thread was that:

• Obama, the lying SOB that he is, knew what was going on and made a conscious decision NOT to assist American citizens in Libya.
• In addition, the major media outlets are completely in the tank for Obama and are refusing to cover the story in detail.

You can now go back to your regularly scheduled defense of Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I'm sorry. I missed the part where someone said it was permissible for military commanders to disobey orders from the civilians appointed over them.

---

Point granted. That said, do you feel that Obama was within his rights as commander in chief to remove a disobedient commander? Did you ever serve?

Quote:

---

The point of the thread was that:

• Obama, the lying SOB that he is, knew what was going on and made a conscious decision NOT to assist American citizens in Libya.
• In addition, the major media outlets are completely in the tank for Obama and are refusing to cover the story in detail.

You can now go back to your regularly scheduled defense of Obama.

---

Man, you jump to a lot of conclusions with the bare minimum of anecdotes. You don't know everything that was going on, and you never will, but please go back to your constant tin-foil hat persecution.

Here are some more exciting news stories from your source:

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1621.htm

“Dirty, Filthy, Christians”: Treatise On The Most Dangerous Death Cult In Human History
An unprecedented work detailing the agenda behind the greatest deception ever foisted upon humanity. (Continued)

Battle Begins For Throne of This World: The Return of the Einherjar Warriors
By: Sorcha Faal “The truest accounting of our World’s present state of Global Chaos, the ‘whys’ and ‘how’s’ are presented in this epic history of what has been kept hidden from humanity. (Continued)

Picking up the Pieces: Practical Guide for Surviving Economic Crashes, Internal Unrest and Military SuppressionBy: Sorcha Faal “In the span of less than 3 months gasoline prices will rise 500%. The prices of both food and shelter rise over 300%. (Continued)
Partisans Handbook: By: Sorcha Faal “Essential Survival Guide For Resisting Foreign Military Occupation, Escape And Evasion Techniques, Surviving Interrogation, Facing Execution, Wilderness Survival (Continued)
Code Red: The Coming Destruction Of The United States Limited release of the perhaps one of the most prophetic books of our time relating to the underlying causes, and history, of the downfall of America (Continued)

Obama would have been within his powers to remove a commander for disobeying orders - although its not clear to me that AFRICOM was removed for that. Still up in the air.

But Obama claims he didn't order any one not to respond.

If Obama did order no response, or ordered that no one answer the calls up the chain for air support, then he should be impeached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Point granted. That said, do you feel that Obama was within his rights as commander in chief to remove a disobedient commander? Did you ever serve?

---

Not that it matters but, yes...14 years in the AF.

Now to your direct question about Obama's authority to remove a disobedient commander: Yes. There's no question he has that authority.

But the real question is were those commanders removed for good cause or were they removed to protect Obama from the decisions he made re: the incident in Benghazi? I submit it was the later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Man, you jump to a lot of conclusions with the bare minimum of anecdotes. You don't know everything that was going on, and you never will, but please go back to your constant tin-foil hat persecution.

Here are some more exciting news stories from your source:

---

Nice attempt at deflection with your straw man argument. I don't recall referencing any of those other articles you posted. Rather than attack the sources I chose to use (especially with snippets from articles that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion) why don't you try to dispute the merits of the information given by those sources?

And to your point that I used a "bare minimum" of anecdotes, there's plenty of other information from various sources out there if you're of a mind to look. So how many should I have posted? 5? 15? 25? What's the appropriate number to effectively illustrate a point?

I guess I could've looked for something from a "credible" news source like the NYT ([ROFL1])...but that's part of the problem now, isn't it? The mainstream sources are protecting Obama.

The mainstream sources are protecting Obama.

PROTECTING??????????[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]
The MSM has made this Fact disappear better than Jimmy Hoffa.
%^&* How he gets away with this shit is beyond unbelievable. He gets re-elected and i doubt there will be enough lube for Americas anal raping by him, soros and that religion of peace.


Monky, your thoughts??

I have been stocking up on lube since 08 and I still don't think I have enough! I have paying so much damn money in taxes that my lube budget has diminished to a mere tube per pay check!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Giv

I have been stocking up on lube since 08 and I still don't think I have enough! I have paying so much damn money in taxes that my lube budget has diminished to a mere tube per pay check!

---

You poor bastard.. you don't get to use it.. just save it.. [ROFL1]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

If Obama did order no response, or ordered that no one answer the calls up the chain for air support, then he should be impeached.

---

Agreed.

I heard an interesting theory: Stevens could have been a pawn in a "swap" for the "Blind Sheik". It is pretty well thought that there have been negotiations for him for a while.
Arrainge a group of muzzies to "attack" the consulate, Stevens gets kidnapped, O negotiates a swap for him for the BS and O is a foreign affairs genius and American hero.
October surprise.
But they didn't anticipate two former SEALs and a contractor stepping into the mix and sending things afoul.
They watched it unfold and did nothing. Ham and Gouett(sp) probably knew what was going on and had assets ready to go but they either got no orders or were ordered to stand down as well. Probably doesn't set too well with them.
Blaming the youtube clip was a diversion tactic meant to pacify the unthinking masses. It has been confirmed apparently that prior to 9/11 it had only 17 views, and that it had been posted in June. 17 hits in 3 months?
Also the idea that they picked the most ridiculous thing they could, that way it would divert attention from some of the more legitimate radical films.
Now it is really unraveling on them.
Interesting thought.
Something definitely stinks.

If heaven forbid O gets a second, I would think it could get really messy for him with the continued birth certificate question, his former and current associations, F&F, Benghazi etc, etc..
It is in his best interest to be beaten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Since when do military commanders expect to disobey orders of their superiors and get away with it? Was it an act of moral courage? I expect so. Can we let our military leaders get away with these types of actions? Not according to the oath we all took. Note that we don't have all of the information regarding the situation. But feel free to think so.

---

We both know that the military can be as political as it gets. I believe if this turned out differently and this man's actions saved lives then he would be viewed as making the right decision. Unfortunately for the men killed and for him it didn't turn out that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Since when do military commanders expect to disobey orders of their superiors and get away with it? Was it an act of moral courage? I expect so. Can we let our military leaders get away with these types of actions? Not according to the oath we all took. Note that we don't have all of the information regarding the situation. But feel free to think so.

---

Quote:

---

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

---

Nothing in there about orders. The phrase "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" is in the Oath of Enlistment, not Oath of Office.

Military commanders are taught to obey all legal orders -- and to question unethical ones. In fact, disobeying an immoral order is something that is covered repeatedly in Professional Military Education although students are also taught to be prepared to suffer the consequences of such disobedience.

PME case studies frequently point out the problem with not having complete information and seemingly-suicidal orders may in fact be necessary for the greater good and to save more lives than are being sacrificed so there aren't any stock answers. At this moment, I can't fathom any set of information that would justify abandoning the ambassador or other Americans under the publicly available information so far.

The problem WE have is that we don't have all the information so we don't know why the admiral was removed from command and the firing of Gen Ham is simply unsupported speculation so far. The caller in this case is providing additional information that make it more plausible (but not certain) someone may have been removed because he decided to an order to abandon US citizens was immoral and potentially illegal.

Having said all that, I'm astounded at your readiness to defend an order to abandon fellow Americans in an attack like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Did you ever serve?

---

Did you? If you did, you are one of the very very few that have served (or is currently serving) in our great military that would vote for our current Commander In Chief.

Our current Commander In Chief would let thousands of infidels die, rather than piss off one radical muslim.

He's a fucking idiot!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

Nothing in there about orders. The phrase "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" is in the Oath of Enlistment, not Oath of Office.

Military commanders are taught to obey all legal orders -- and to question unethical ones. In fact, disobeying an immoral order is something that is covered repeatedly in Professional Military Education although students are also taught to be prepared to suffer the consequences of such disobedience.

PME case studies frequently point out the problem with not having complete information and seemingly-suicidal orders may in fact be necessary for the greater good and to save more lives than are being sacrificed so there aren't any stock answers. At this moment, I can't fathom any set of information that would justify abandoning the ambassador or other Americans under the publicly available information so far.

The problem WE have is that we don't have all the information so we don't know why the admiral was removed from command and the firing of Gen Ham is simply unsupported speculation so far. The caller in this case is providing additional information that make it more plausible (but not certain) someone may have been removed because he decided to an order to abandon US citizens was immoral and potentially illegal.

Having said all that, your readiness to defend an order to abandon fellow Americans in an attack like this leads me to believe you made the right decision to separate.

---

^ This is the most credible post in this thread. That said... The whole situation stinks of coverup. If you don't think that the administration and MSM is purposely avoiding it and giving it little consideration because of the election, you're an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote, own a gun, or drive because you're a hazard to yourself and others around you, not to mention the gene pool. Knowing how these things work, we're going to have to wait for these to General Officers to retire before we'll get the truth, and even then, it may never happen. CNN is running some bullshit story that an unnamed CIA spokesperson told them there was never a standdown order. If that were true, why were the two G.O.s releved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colorado Luckydog

Did you? If you did, you are one of the very very few that have served (or is currently serving) in our great military that would vote for our current Commander In Chief.

Our current Commander In Chief would let thousands of infidels die, rather than piss off one radical muslim.

He's a fucking idiot!!

---

You'd be surprised how many young dems there are in the military. The wifey and I argue with them every other day. Some of them are my friends, others are just coworkers. I will not be voting for him, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAFGopherMike

You'd be surprised how many young dems there are in the military. The wifey and I argue with them every other day. Some of them are my friends, others are just coworkers. I will not be voting for him, that's for sure.

---

True Story

As this story continues to unravel, what is amazing is the facts are being uncovered by Jennifer Griffin and Catherin Herridge of Fox News. This is investigative journalism at its finest, and something we rarely see these days. What passes for journalism these days is a joke, by and large.

The latest yesterday was a letter from Ambassador Stevens to Hillary Clinton on 8/16 detailing the identified terrorist elements in Benghazi, stating the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack, and requesting additional security to protect the consulate. Lots of questions should also be directed to the Sec of State.

The Dems have a lot to lose here. Not only blowback on Beeho as commander in chief, but also Clinton, who many dems are trying to position for a 2016 run at the white house. If investigation turns up she specifically denied security to the consulate, that could be potentially devastating to 2016.

Singlestack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singlestack

Not only blowback on Beeho as commander in chief, but also Clinton, who many dems are trying to position for a 2016 run at the white house. If investigation turns up she specifically denied security to the consulate, that could be potentially devastating to 2016.

Singlestack

---

God, I hope so.

I've done a little data mining and sifting through (I was an analyst after all) what has been reported and/or "uncovered." I'll say this: Something effing stinks.
-Amb. Stevens did report that security was a concern back in March/April/May timeframe.
-Calls for help were sent out from both Tripoli and Benghazi to Washington, D.C.
-Two former SEALs were in Benghazi and attempted rescue of Amb. Stevens.
-Assault on US Consulate lasted between 5 and 7 hours.
-MQ-1 Predator UAV on station in Benghazi for at least some of the attack.
-The Attack was perpetrated by trained operatives (reasonably believed to be AQ).
-Obama knew about the attack as it was happening in real time.
-Sec. Panetta knew about the attack.
-CJCS Gen. Dempsy knew about the attack.
-One report indicates that Obama told Panetta and Dempsy "Do what you have to to save those Americans."
-Same report states Panetta told Obama "Gen Dempsy, Gen Ham, and myself have decided insufficient intelligence to deploy In Extremis force."
-Another report states that Gen Ham was ordered to stand down (not by POTUS- possibly Dempsy or Panetta), refused, and was relieved of command before he could deploy IE.
-14 Days after the attack Obama admin. finally announces the assault was an act of terror- before that- YouTube video blamed for "protest."

Two conclusion can be drawn from all this:
1- This sounds eerily familiar to what happened in Rwanda during the Clinton years- They knew what was going on and chose not to get involved.
2- This also sounds like they took the wrong lesson from Operation Eagle Claw.
Any surprise that Rwanda, Eagle Claw, and Benghazi all happened under a democrat? Granted Op Eagle Claw was weather related, but still, it changed the way Special Operations forces are rapidly deployed.

Solution: Impeach Obama, or if he loses the election, put him on trial and level charges against him. [Mad]

More Info Obama may have committed treason (not suprising)

Questions for White House Over Benghazi Just Beginning
http://pjmedia.com/blog/questions-fo...inglepage=true

Read this regarding SAMS: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ened-benghazi/

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Read more: LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2B7DCtS9P
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Good reads Hugh, even though it makes me want to puke.

Thanks for posting that stuff. Only serves to confirm what we already know. I wanna know who ordered the stand down... and I want them held accountable.

One more reason we to vote our Communist in Chief OUT! Get a REAL American in the office.