General Ham No Order to Protect Benghazi Consulate, Congressman Jason Chaffetz interview, Ham over AFRICOM, Forces available but no order to use them given

General Ham No Order to Protect Benghazi Consulate, Congressman Jason Chaffetz interview, Ham over AFRICOM, Forces available but no order to use them given

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“The question that I had in my mind, was why did we not do something to protect our forces?”…Charles Woods, father of slain Navy Seal

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”…Barack Obama

From Front Page Mag October 28, 2012.

“Benghazigate: General Ham: “No Order to Protect Consulate””

“We’re not dealing with anonymous sources here. This comes from an interview with Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz who sits on two Homeland Security subcommittees relaying the responses from General Carter Ham heading up the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) who had direct responsibility for the situation.

General Ham told Chaffetz that the forces were available, but that no order to use them was given. Defense Secretary Panetta had claimed that the refusal to use force had come from him, General Dempsey and General Ham.

General Ham appears to have broken with that story and is taking no responsibility for the decision not to bail out the consulate and the Navy SEALS. There have been rumors that General Ham has been fired or forced out. There is no way to confirm them at this point until they come from more reliable sources. Even major sites are running things based on internet forum rumors or speculation with nothing behind it. And that’s not the way to go. It’s the way to sabotage the investigation of this story which is to proceed from known information and tie it together with reliable reports.

That said, Ham’s premature departure raises certain questions, as does his willingness to dissent from the official story. Panetta tried to pass the buck to the generals. General Demspey only lightly touched it. Ham seems to not want to touch it all. Since the decision was made by Panetta and possibly Obama, that’s the right thing to do.

We are done with the narrative that no forces were available or could have reached the site in time. Generals Demspey and Ham are now both on record as saying that the forces were available, but did not get used. The fallback story is that there was a lack of intel, but there was actually plenty of intel from the consulate that had been there and even in declassified documents provided assessments of the Islamist militias, from the two SEALS in the fight and other consulate personnel. And during a rescue operation, intel is always going to be limited.

The issue was almost certainly a refusal to come in, guns blazing, into Benghazi, a Muslim city, for fear of destabilizing Eastern Libya and upsetting Muslims with an American show of force. The decision was made to rely on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Feb 17 Brigade to help evacuate the area, even though Ansar Al-Sharia, the militia leading the attack, was a splinter group of Feb 17 and serious questions remain about the complicity of Feb 17 personnel in the attack.

Benghazigate is now a focus, but it should be remembered that there have been countless Benghazigates in Afghanistan, where US forces were denied air and artillery support while under fire. That should be the real focus of this conversation. What happened in Benghazi is what has been going on in Afghanistan for some time. It’s the outcome of the Obama Administration’s CVE and Hearts and Minds program that puts Muslim sensibilities first and American lives last.”


Thanks to commenter Zach.


24 responses to “General Ham No Order to Protect Benghazi Consulate, Congressman Jason Chaffetz interview, Ham over AFRICOM, Forces available but no order to use them given

  1. When Ambassador Stevens was watching his Benghazi neighbors evacuate in fear, he didn’t run he requested more security….To who? Who received his request? Who denied his request? There IS a paper/electronic trail…No one this high up is going to take the hit for a failing/falling President…Like they say in Chicago, “don’t back no losers”…

  2. It appears I owe General Ham an apology. On the 26th of October, I took Mr. Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, at his word, when he said the following about Bengazzi;
    “(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.” at his word when he said this about the Bengazzi incident:

    IT NOW APPEARS THAT MR. PANETTA LIED…. JUST LIKE HIS BOSS, MR OBAMA, LIED…JUST LIKE MS. CLINTON, LIED…, AND MS, RICE, LIED…, AND MR.CARNEY, LIED…and everyone else in this adminsteration. They al, lied to protect their leader. Kinda like monkey see…monkey do.

    But it is now coming clear that General Ham is not willing to fall on Obama’s sword for him. Thank you General Ham for showing some backbone those above you have failed to show. It’s a shame a little of your courage hasn’t rubbed off on that wimp, General Dempsey. But I really don’t thin anyone expected that.

    My local newspaper didn’t have a word about Bengazzi yesterday, or today. I guess Sandy and the sports are more important.

    To our democrat press, Bengazzi and the unnecessary deaths of four brave Americans are of no concern.

    It’s like yesterday’s wine here in North Carolina today.

  3. Mission Accomplished: Obama Gets Americans Killed to Kill the Constitution
    By Stella Paul

    Are you surprised that Vogue’s Anna Wintour is squeezing fashionistas to go all out for Obama? It makes sense, since the icy-eyed editrix knows style, and Obama certainly has a presidential style that’s all his own. After all, Obama is the only commander-in-chief to ever manipulate Americans into getting killed so that he can kill the Constitution.

    We first saw Obama’s murderous stylings in Operation Fast and Furious, a brazenly criminal scheme in which he cuddled up to Mexican drug gangs, giving them thousands of state-of-the-art firearms. Obama’s narco-killer partners then obligingly used their new presents to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, as well as hundreds of Mexican men, women and children.

    The grieving parents of the four Americans just slaughtered in Libya might want to contact the parents of slain ICE Agent Jaime Zapata and get the name of their lawyer. Mary and Amador Zapata have filed a $25 million wrongful death suit against the U.S. government, claiming that Jaime Zapata informed his supervisors he had misgivings about the safety of his Mexican trip, but was ordered to go anyway. “All of these legitimate concerns were put aside… and agents Avila and Zapata were required to follow orders,” the lawyers wrote. Sources say Zapata was investigating Fast and Furious at the time of his murder.

    Sound familiar? It should, because Obama has now refined his Fast and Furious killing techniques into the wildly successful butchery of Benghazi. Let’s review what we know. First, Obama denied repeated requests for more security from the increasingly desperate Libyan ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Second, he blithely skipped 60% of his intelligence briefings, including every single one in the critical week leading up to 9/11. (Just to be consistent, he also skipped his briefing on 9/12, the day after the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other brave Americans.)

    Read more:

  4. Would Obama Incite Civil Unrest to Win?
    By Daren Jonescu

    Is President Obama willing to incite civil unrest to win re-election? As we have all been encouraged to wear our dog-whistle decoders these days, one can hardly be blamed for wondering. Worse yet, we know the answer. He is already doing it

    Read more:

  5. Orly Taitz site cannot be accessed, says “data base error.”

    My translation, “the usurper doesn’t like the info coming from her site”

  6. Insane Obama: Romney’s Policies Would Have Made My Birth Certificate More Expensive

    ObamaRelease YourRecords on 2:17 AM

    Insane Obama: Romney’s Policies Would Have Made My Birth Certificate More Expensive – Hat tip SA. – VIDEO HERE.

  7. RMinNC.
    Is your local paper the Charlotte un observer?

  8. ALLARD: Obama knew about the attack, ignored three requests for help

    Cold political play could cost him the election

    The Benghazi debacle may yet make Mitt Romney president.
    Barely 10 days before the election, the persistent whiff of scandal surrounding Barack Obama exploded into the banner headlines of a cover-up – at least among certain press outlets. Everything changed Friday afternoon with the stunning revelations by Fox News that CIA operatives defending the embattled consulate in Benghazi, Libya, called three times for emergency assistance while the attack was in progress. Each time, they were shamefully turned down. One of those defenders, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, was apparently able to use a laser designator to pin-point the location of the mortar that eventually killed him. It would have been an easy shot for American pilots had any been ordered to respond. Another new and critical detail: An American drone was overhead transmitting live video of the battle scene below.

  9. CW…We might have some misinformation here….perhaps there were more conversations with Gen Ham, but so far I have found none. Please read my prior posts from Oct. 27.

    HonorFirst | October 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Philo-Publius | October 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    I think it was the Hannity show a few nights ago…Congressman Jason Chaffetz was interviewed. He stated he went to General Ham personally at headquarters for Africom and asked him why they didn’t send forces to Libya. He stated that General Ham said, he wasn’t asked.

    HonorFirst | October 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm | I just read the letter Issa and Chaffetz sent to the pres. I think I misunderstood what chaffetz said re: Gen. Ham’s statement. Apparently, he stated he wasn’t asked for additonal security prior to the 9/11 incident, not during.
    Here is the relevant part of that letter:
    “Despite Embassy Tripoli’s request, the State Department continued to withdraw support. The SST’s presence was allowed to expire on August 5, 2012, despite US Africa Command Commander General Carter F Ham’s assurances that it would be available for as long as necessary. General Ham reasserted this commitment during a recent congressional delegation to Stuttgart, Germany. stating that he would have readily supported this
    request if he had been asked. Shortly after the SST’s left Libya, the last Mobile Security Detachment departed after having being prohibited from providing security since July, 2012. Instead, they were instructed to train locally employed staff to take their place.”

    Sorry for the confusion.

    I believe that Gen Ham was saying that he wasn’t asked about keeping the consulate secure after the SST was allowed to withdraw in August. Whether or not he was asked for military support during the attacks on 9/11 is not clear.

    You can read that above paragraph directly from the letter Issa and Chaffetz sent to the President on Oct 19, 2012 here: (it is on page 9)

    Click to access 10.19.12-Issa-and-Chaffetz-to-President.pdf

  10. The Caliphate building continues.

    Secret Obama-Iran Meetings Continue

    The United States and Iran are moving forward with secret negotiations, despite denying earlier meetings took place, according to a source highly placed in the Islamic government.

    The source, who remains anonymous for security reasons, added that teams from both sides will resume the talks in the coming days with the hope of reaching agreement to announce a breakthrough before the U.S. elections.

    The source said the Obama administration seems to need a diplomatic victory before the elections in the wake of the attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans because the administration failed to adequately protect the Benghazi consulate.

    If President Obama is not re-elected, however, the source contends any agreement reached after the elections will be announced and enforced while he is still in office, once Iran’s supreme leader receives written guarantees from Obama.

    The source adds, on a related note, that President Obama chose not to destroy the American, sensitive-technology RQ-170 stealth drone, which was captured by the Iranian forces after it crashed in Iran in December of 2011, because he feared jeopardizing the ongoing secret negotiations.

    The negotiations to date have reportedly gone beyond the Iranian nuclear program to include such issues as South America, the Persian Gulf and Syria. On the latter issue, the U.S. has already stepped back from its demand that President Bashar Assad be removed. The source added that both parties have agreed on a broad range of incentives that have been offered to the Islamic regime and which will be revealed in time.

  11. Can the Military arrest it’s Commander if his actions are deemed traitorous?

    When does that oath kick in?

  12. Bob Strauss………………
    Bob ,the answer is yes, and in addition the military has an OBLIGATION to REMOVE a RENEGADE PRESIDENT, Just as did the military of Honduras, remove a RENEGADE from power there. The only difference is that they didn’t wat around, they acted and made the correction. Everything seems to still be holding together in that tiny country. Great example that they set,but don’t look for Congress to follow simple logic or have the balls to do anything except sit on their a$$es and collect inflated salarys. The senate hasn’t done anything meaningful for three years. Every Senator in the Senate needs to be faced with an alternative, either produce or face impeachment. Then if they stiill think they are above the law then you send in some FEDERAL MARSHALS to PHYSICALLY remove them. If Federal MARSHALS refuse to do it then it becomes the liability of WE THE PEOPLE to converge upon the WH,and do whatever is necessary to PHYSICALLY remove the cowardly a##holes, and after the cleansing of the Senate two term limits should be imposed just like the POTUS.

  13. Bob Strauss………………
    There is one overriding fact that cannot be changed. Soetoro is NOT the LEGAL POTUS therefore he cannot legally represent the US in any potential agreement with IRAN. Sadly the US government cannot seem to get this through their heads. Barry Soetoro is NOT THE ELECTED POTUS, the NAME Barack H Obama is the legally elected POTUS but he does not LEGALLY exist. Justice John Roberts ILLEGALLY swore a UNELECTED person into the office of POTUS. This is an act of TREASON by Mr. Roberts as well. I reiterate the fact that the Name BaracK H. Obama has NEVER been legally re instated, via adjudication of a petition for name change, and he could not file such a petition because a legally CERTIFIED copy of a legally valid BC MUST ACCOMPANY the petition…in all states.

  14. CW….how did you guess ?

  15. …………further after a year and a half of very painstaking research of ALL US databases, as well as the archives of ALL of the Superior Courts in the US, there is NO EVIDENCE of any legally adjudicated name change having been granted to Barry Soetoro, anywhere in the US. As for the premise that it was done in British Columbia, is also a falacy because the legal procedure in ALL of Canada is exactly the same as it is in the US,and also requires a CERTIFIED copy of a legally valid BC as well. I believe that he attended Occidental College at LA in 1980 using the name Barry Soetoro. Our search covered the interim period from 1980 to 2000. If he is legally married to Michelle he would have had to supply a certified copy of a legall valid BC reflecting the name Barack H.Obama. The only BC that is known to exist at present is the alleged CERTIFICATION of LIVE Birth bearing the date of 2007, instead of 1961. So the legality of the Certification is also deeply in question. I find it very doubtful that any marriage license would have been issued using the CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT. If this did occur then it is equally doubtful that he is even LEGALLY married to Michelle. Further if the Certification document was used as a basis for the issuance of a any legal instrument it is doubtful that much of anything he has become involved in is legal at all. That is to say…anything which requires a certified copy of a LEGALLY VALID BC as proof of his origin, and citizenship. To extrapolate further,I would also even question whether he is even a US CITIZEN or not, because there are far too many contradictions for that to be believeable either.

  16. …………in addition I find it really sickening that IMPEACHMENT has NOT BEEN acted upon. The Benghazi IGNORANCE is MORE than enough, after all Bill Clinton was formally impeached for just LYING to Congress, the ALLEGED POTUS has CLEARLY acted against the interests of the country he is supposed to protect,and it resulted in the deaths of 4 American CITIZENS. Soetoro has pertetrated a TRAITOROUS,AND THERFORE TREASONOUS ACT,and should now be impeached, and subsequently prosecuted for his crimes against the Republic of the United States.

  17. A Crazy Old Coot

    Not sure of this but it is possible.

    “Rogue” U.S. General Arrested for Activating Special Forces Teams; Ignoring Libya Stand-Down Order


    Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area.

    According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.

    This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to

    2012-10-29 07:21:14


  18. Once again people, I say instead of TALKING about it, get off your backsides UNITE then CLEAN HOUSE. Housecleaning day is nearly here.It serves NO USEFUL PURPOSE to sit and repeat the same information OVER AND OVER. You know what to do……….so when the hell are you going to act. If Americans are so weak,and afraid to do what is necessary then GOD HELP all of US. Nobody seems to understand that the ONLY control Soetoro has over Americans is his LYING MOUTH. The mentally,physically,and morally WEAK, who along with the criminal deviates, are those who believe every word that Soetoro utters. The enlightened Americans know better,but sadly they too are AFRAID even to unite. So, DIVIDED they will FALL. At least General Hamm seems to have intended to do what he thought was MORALLY RIGHT. He should have SHOT his second in command immediately,because the second in command was in all probability a Soetoro plant,who was put there in case Hamm got out of line. Easy to figure out! If Hamm did have a trained force who knew how to neutralise mortar positions, he could have been quite effective. The hand held range finders are really tiny radars that pinpoint a mortar placement within inches. You then send them a surprise air mail gift of a GUIDED mortar. One shot one kill!. In ten minutes 10 shots and 10 kills. If Hamm had that capacity it is easy to see why the IMPLANT arrested him. I am only guessing but the second in command may have ILLEGALLY arrested Hamm, since Hamm had not yet done anything. If his second in command arrested him BEFOREHAND then it was an ILLEGAL arrest,and the perpetrator himself now needs to be brought to justice. This is another case exactly like the medical doctor who was ILLEGALLY tried and convicted. You must first break the law before you can be legally arrested. I hope that the scum bag who took out Hamm can prove that it was a legally executed act. If he cannot prove it then he is a candidate for Leavanworth himself. Just my view point! No offense to anybody. What say you COLDWARVET?

  19. I would strongly suspect that the second in command was put there either by Soetoro’s upper echelon GOONS at the Pentagon,or possibly by the UN. If the second in command was a UN plant then it all makes even more sense. But at the moment I tend to think that he was picked by the upper echelon Soetoro A$$ lickers at the Pentagon. I think that if George Patton,Omar Bradley,or Douglas MacArthur were still alive ALL three would have long ago SLAPPED THE WHINING,CRINGING FACES of ALL of the JOINT CHIEFS, and then put a size 11 footprint on the rearends of ALL of them. I also think that all three would have long since acted together to rid the WH of the ILLEGALLY elected CINC……exactly as was done in Honduras. THREE CHEERS FOR THE HONDURAS MILITARY!.

  20. A Crazy Old Coot

    Oldsailor, you sound an awfully lot like Oldsalt. I miss him.

  21. Lame Cherry suggests a POTUS takedown with blackmail over false narratives on bin Laden and Benghazi. The truth is stranger than fiction.


    By Roger L. Simon
    October 29, 2012 – 12:01 am

    “Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.

    Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

    When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

    How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

    Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

    As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

    It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

    Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

    But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

    Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times,

    …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.”

    Continue Reading The Entire Here:

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



    By Kelly OConnell
    Tuesday, October 30, 2012

    “Whatever happened to Barack the world’s smartest leader and incomparable statesman? Those days are gone forever. Instead, it would be impossible to catalog the staggering list of ill-advised, mistaken, foolish, naive and utterly inane decisions by Obama and his administration. So, instead—let us use a single Obama catastrophe, the events of Libya—to critique and symbolize his failed tenure. This is reasonable because every bad Barack habit and evil instinct is represented in this new American disaster.

    In the November 2012 presidential election, America is given an opportunity almost no other country suffering under tyranny is offered—the chance to wake-up and toss out a despot before he fatally damages our noble Republic. Let us pray Americans will cast aside sentimentality and act as true patriots and save America from a crafty and utterly immoral, power-mad demagogue. For if Libya is not a wake up call for the average American, we may not be able to stop the implosion. But we must believe we can halt the rot if we act now.

    I. Benghazi

    It is obvious now that a tremendous and sadly avoidable tragedy struck Americans in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of 9/11. Has such a deadly lack of leadership ever emanated from the White House? Further, what impact will such brutal official indifference make upon the American psyche if this event is not harshly sanctioned at the voting booth?

    A. Benghazi 9/11 Overview:”

    Continue Reading Here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s