‘Are General Ham and Admiral Gaoutte Obama’s political prisoners?’

Posted on May 19, 2013 by KG

Freedom Fighter’s Journal, which has more links:
‘…General Ham was head of AFRICOM and Commander of the 2011 US-NATO operation to depose Gadhafi in Libya. Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was in command of the Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3), then deployed in Middle Eastern waters during the attack on Benghazi.
Both Ham and Gaouette reported receiving the same desperate cables for additional security and backup that Obama administration officials received and ignored from Benghazi. They did not ignore those desperate calls for help ringing out from the Benghazi installation on 11 September 2012.
No, both Ham and Gaouette attempted to launch ready response teams in the region capable of provided the much needed assistance during the seven hour long assault on Benghazi. Both were then relieved of command for their actions, described by the US Military as “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.”
General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready to deploy to Benghazi. Then, General Ham received the order to stand down. His response was “screw it,” – he was going to help anyway.
Within minutes after issuing an order to deploy his ready response team, Ham’s second in command apprehended the General and told him that he was now relieved of his command. Ham knows who issued the order to STAND DOWN as well as the order to relieve him of his command at AFRICOM…’
Why have they not been called to testify?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to ‘Are General Ham and Admiral Gaoutte Obama’s political prisoners?’

  1. Carol-Christian Soldier says:
    May 19, 2013 at 23:12

    Both officers were adhering to their OATH -to protect and defend the Constitution–the officers’ oath does NOT include the word President–
    the Founders had a good reason for it NOT to include the word President–you all know what the reason is –don’t you!
    http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-didnt-founders-include-word.html

    AFA your question–because the elite Rsss are in on the tyranny going on in the U.S.
    Carol-CS

    • Ronbo says:
      May 19, 2013 at 23:23

      There are others besides Ham and Gaoutte who have disappeared in the aftermath of the massacre in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

      The only logical conclusion is that Obama has them in prison or under house arrest with no means of communication.

      This is Third Reich stuff, ladies and gentlemen :!:

  2. Darin says:
    May 19, 2013 at 23:36

    ‘Are General Ham and Admiral Gaoutte Obama’s political prisoners?’

    Absolutely,if it is proven that the military had resources in the area,which I believe they did,then Obama and Hillary should both be sitting in prison for life or if I had my way hanged for treason.
    hangman smiley photo: dead smiley hangman.gif

  3. Findalis says:
    May 20, 2013 at 01:41

    An RRT is always standing by, within a 3 hour window of deployment. Reagan put this in place to prevent another Embassy hostage situation. Obama sees people as tools. They have no feelings, no rights. Only King Obama has any rights.

    ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!!!!

  4. GW says:
    May 20, 2013 at 03:33

    I have been screaming for months that we need to hear from Gen. Ham, under deposition and then in hearings. I can promise you, any U.S. military commander is going to be trying to get ahead of events, not sitting with their thumb up their ass waiting for the State Dept. to ask them for military assistance. Knowing all that I know from being in the U.S. military, it is beyond inconceivable that the war fighters were not trying to move heaven and earth to respond to Benghazi before the politicians cut them off at the knees.

    Ham is going to be the one person who will tell us what was available, what AFRICOM tried to push down, and what he was ordered to do by CJCS and Panetta. I will be absolutely amazed if the decision to leave our people in Benghazi to fight for their lives on their own was anything other than a political decision made between Panetta and either Clinton and or Obama.

    FWIW, in the run up to the 2008 election, I did a long post positing that perhaps the biggest danger of electing an Obama or Clinton was that, in reference to wartime and national security decisions, everything would be weighed first on the scales of politics. There would be have been no more Iraqi surges, nor would their ever be a Trenton. There would, however, as I explained in detail, be more Blackhawk Downs were political decisions ultimately hung our people out to dry. I am considering announcing my status now as prophet.

    At any rate, your post is spot on. Serve up the Ham.

  5. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 06:19

    “I will not, however, ever be announcing my status as a proof reader.” :lol:

    I remember there was more than one post from you on this subject over at Wolf Howling, GW.

  6. Ronbo says:
    May 20, 2013 at 08:43

    ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!!!!

    I see more and more Hitler in him, as it would appear Obama has spent much time reading and up on old Adolf’s seizure of power from the Weimar Republic – and adapting it to contemporary America.

    BTW, there was no insurrection against Hitler, which is the reason he got away with his putsch of 1933.

    There is a lesson here.

  7. Peter says:
    May 20, 2013 at 09:22

    This is yet another Internet rumor, and utterly without foundation. I covered the facts months ago:

    http://bayorenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-malicious-stupidity-of-conspiracy.html

    Please investigate the facts before circulating such rumors. Most of them are baseless, and merely add to the already overblown conspiracy-theory paranoia that affects so many people.

    • Ronbo says:
      May 20, 2013 at 10:37

      Okay…So General Hamm and the Admiral were not arrested… According to you….THEN WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY AND WHY WON’T THEY TALK?

      A reasonable person can only conclude that the stories concerning their sudden departure from command have merit.

    • GW says:
      May 20, 2013 at 11:53

      Okay, no conspiracy, just facts. For months, the State Dept. refused to increase security even though the security posture was going to hell. People on the ground have testified that there was a policy from above to “normalize” our security foot print. Who signed off on that policy – we don’t know.

      The Accountability Review Board wholly ignored the policy issue – nor did they interview Clinton or her inner circle. According to the Board, this was simply a series of questionable decisions made by mid level bureaucrats who did so because the Benghazi post was “temporary” and faced an “uncertain future.” Yet even that is contradicted by other facts. Hicks, the second in charge of the State Dept. mission in Libya, testified that our Ambassador was in Benghazi on 11 Sep. 2012 because Hillary herself had ordered months before that Benghazi be turned into a permanent post.

      As to the lack of any military response during the attack in Benghazi, we have been treated to a whole host of explanations from people with the most to lose in this scandal, none of which are consistent. According to Panetta, a decision was made to deny sending in more troops because there was insufficient intelligence – that despite having former SEALS on the ground and drones providing real time intel in the sky. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that nothing was sent because the State Dept. never asked for military assistance. Conversely, Hicks testified that Clinton phoned him during the middle of the attack and told him that no military help would be forthcoming.

      We do know that, within the first hour after the attack, the State Dept. decided not to activate the FEST unit which is specifically meant to respond to these types of attacks. We know that the White House did not activate the Counter-terrorism Advisory Group, a group explicitly designed to provide a coordinated response. We know that the White House has hidden the identities of the survivors of the Benghazi attack. We do not know what either Obama or Clinton did during the attack. We do know that our people were left to die.

      Would that be enough facts for you Peter. The problem here is not that I or any of the other posters or commentors on this site suffer from “overblown conspiracy-theory paranoia.” The problem is that the most reasonable explanation for what happened is that, one, our people died because of a policy as regards Islamacists and the Middle East that is completely out of touch with reality and two, because political considerations were deemed more important than their lives on 9-11. Now, I will be happy to be proven wrong. But among the many steps to that proof is that we hear directly from Gen. Ham.

    • KG says:
      May 20, 2013 at 20:56

      Commenter ‘Peter’ said
      “I covered the facts months ago:”
      No you didn’t. The facts weren’t known months ago and are still not known.
      Get yer hand off it.

  8. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 11:57

    Peter, I asked one simple question:
    Why have they not been called to testify?”

    As for circulating “baseless rumours”, a hell of a lot of what this Administration has done would have been “baseless rumours” had the facts not been subsequently uncovered.
    When you have a secretive, corrupt Administration which thumbs it’s nose at the American people and the rule of law, then rumours are going to become the currency of the day.
    I say keep the allegations, the rumours and the theories coming and force the bastards in the WH to deny them.

  9. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 11:59

    GW just said it far better than I could have. (as usual. :oops: )

  10. Peter says:
    May 20, 2013 at 16:46

    You’re completely avoiding the issue.

    It’s claimed that both General Ham and RADM Gaouette attempted to launch rescue missions during the Benghazi crisis, and that both were relieved of their commands for their efforts.

    THOSE CLAIMS ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

    It’s no good to say, “Well, that doesn’t matter because of these other points!” No – if false claims are exposed, that truth must be acknowledged. Right now the enemies of freedom are falling all over themselves with laughter at how conspiracy theorists are being side-tracked over a non-issue, rather than focusing on the real questions that might bring down a corrupt and nefarious Administration. By perpetuating falsehood, we do no service at all to the truth.

    That’s the way it is. I’m sick and tired of stupid conspiracy theories – and those who propagate and/or try to defend them. They need to grow up, get a life, and get with the FACTS of the matter, not waste their time on stupidity like this!

    • GW says:
      May 21, 2013 at 04:32

      Peter, until I hear from Gen. Ham, I am an agnostic about whether he was relieved of command. Given the circumstances – that he “retired” only a year into his command and that he has been completely invisible since, there is ample reason to be suspicious. We need to hear from Gen. Ham. And the first question to be asked is whether he is under any constraint preventing him from giving full, complete, and honest answers to what happened in Benghazi. At this point, I put nothing past the Obama administration, including cashiering Ham and threatening his retirement, if not freedom, should he speak, likely on the grounds that the administration has given a security classification to all relevant documents and actions.

  11. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 16:55

    No, we are not completely avoiding the issue.
    Now, after insulting us, how about you produce the evidence that we’re wrong? If you cannot, then – to put it as politely as I’m inclined to – fuck off.
    Dialogue on this site is almost invariably polite, and you just stepped over the line.

  12. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 17:00

    I’d also point out, as an aside, that leftists and this Administration both are utter strangers to truth and facts and immune to the use of them. You might be better employed attacking them on that basis. The illusion that facts alone will overcome evil is a juvenile conceit.

  13. Oswald Bastable says:
    May 20, 2013 at 17:44

    I often think that the heap of crazy conspiracy theories were put out there to smokescreen for a few very real ones.

    So often the truth is stranger than fiction- after all, good fiction has to be believable.

  14. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 17:56

    So–you wouldn’t regard a plot where the conspirators installed an undocumented communist in the WH, with the aid of a rich financier and terrorist cronies…as good fiction, then? :twisted:

    • Oswald Bastable says:
      May 20, 2013 at 18:02

      It is certainly believable. Don’t think I would call it fiction, though…

  15. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 18:04

    no…perhaps not.

  16. Oswald Bastable says:
    May 20, 2013 at 18:10

    I do believe that the spate of conspiracy theories out there were put out there to numb people to some very real ones.

    After years of alien abductions, contrails being chemical mass-medication, sinister alumni, mind control implants/drugs/vaccines, black helicopters and so on, it is easy to dismiss any REAL plots as more sci-fi drama from the tinfoil hat wearers.

    FAR too easy…

    • KG says:
      May 20, 2013 at 18:32

      Exactly. Which is why I think it’s perfectly reasonable to demand clear, unambiguous answers to a whole lot of questions about Benghazi. (and a few other things as well).

    • Ronbo says:
      May 20, 2013 at 20:49

      I’m not saying IT IS A FACT that General Ham and Admiral Gaoutte have disappeared into the Super Max federal prison at Florence, Colorado – they could be living large in their well appointed quarters on a military base somewhere under open arrest that includes no communication with the outside world.

      In any event, the burden of proof is on the Obama Regime to come clean about the real deal with Benghazi – and this would include testimony from these two stalwart troopers and the survivors of the massacre before The People’s House.

      So I say HABEAS CORPUS to President Obama – PRODUCE THE BODIES :!:

      • Ronbo says:
        May 20, 2013 at 20:56

        @KG:

        “KG says:

        So–you wouldn’t regard a plot where the conspirators installed an undocumented communist in the WH, with the aid of a rich financier and terrorist cronies…as good fiction, then?” :twisted:

        It’s true what you say my friend, the king is a traitor.

        …and so to the end of the play:

        LAERTES

        It is here, Hamlet: Hamlet, thou art slain;
        No medicine in the world can do thee good;
        In thee there is not half an hour of life;
        The treacherous instrument is in thy hand,
        Unbated and envenom’d: the foul practise
        Hath turn’d itself on me lo, here I lie,
        Never to rise again: thy mother’s poison’d:
        I can no more: the king, the king’s to blame.

        HAMLET

        The point!–envenom’d too!
        Then, venom, to thy work.

        Stabs KING CLAUDIUS

        All

        Treason! treason!

        KING CLAUDIUS

        O, yet defend me, friends; I am but hurt.

        HAMLET

        Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane,
        Drink off this potion. Is thy union here?
        Follow my mother.

        KING CLAUDIUS dies

  18. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 20:53

    Yep–let’s hear from them.

  19. KG says:
    May 20, 2013 at 21:01

    Harold Bloom (The Western Canon) was right–Bill Shakespeare said all that needs to be known about the human condition.

    • Ronbo says:
      May 21, 2013 at 00:28

      Hamlet is my favorite play by Shakespeare that was written around 1600, but I have to say the parallels between what’s happen in America today and old Denmark are striking :!:

      A Danish king come to power by murder…An American president comes to power means of a dark conspiracy that may include murder. Prince Hamlet (The Tea Party Movement) is told by the “ghost” (or his own conscience) that a traitor-murderer has seized the throne by foul deeds – and decides to remove the traitor from power.

      The kings of Denmark are elected, as is the case in America, and Hamlet cannot move directly against the king – He’s too popular with many Danes, and the king must move carefully against Hamlet, who has a considerable support in Denmark.

      However, by indirection both King Claudius and Hamlet, in a sort of dance of death, move closer and closer to their inevitable final and fatal conflict. Both men die at the end of the play, but Danish liberty is saved by the timely arrival of the Prince of Norway, who receives Hamlet’s dying nomination as the new Danish king.

      This is where we stand today in America – in a long drawn out “dance of death” with a traitor-president, who I firmly believe will not back down and take the “Nixon Option” of resignation, but will fight to the bitter end.

  20. The Gantt Guy says:
    May 23, 2013 at 18:46

    Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

    If true, this should be the end of both Barry Hussein Soetero and Hillary Rotten Clinton.