Navy Admiral Relieved Day After Benghazi Attack

Well, lookey here...another one. The top two US military officials in the Middle East relieved within a day of each other, and the day after the Benghazi attack. Not at all related to each other, I'm sure.

This stinks to high heaven.

http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20121027/NEWS03/121027011/Navy-replaces-Rear-Admiral-Charles-M-Gaouette-pending-probe-outcome

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis' home port at Bremerton, Washington stae, in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.


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


The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of "inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.


The Stennis group deployed from Bremerton in late August and had entered the Navy 5th Fleet's area of operations in the Middle East on Oct. 17 after sailing across the Pacific. The Stennis made port visits in Thailand and Malaysia on its way to the Middle East.


It deployed four months earlier than scheduled in response to a request by the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, to maintain two aircraft carriers in the Middle East. The Stennis replaced the USS Enterprise carrier group.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited the Stennis and its sailors in Bremerton shortly before they departed. He thanked them for accelerating their deployment on short notice.


"I understand that it is tough," Panetta said. "We are asking an awful lot of each of you, but frankly you are the best I have and when the world calls we have to respond."

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Well, lookey here...another one. The top two US military officials in the Middle East relieved within a day of each other, and the day after the Benghazi attack. Not at all related to each other, I'm sure.

This stinks to high heaven.

http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20121027/NEWS03/121027011/Navy-replaces-Rear-Admiral-Charles-M-Gaouette-pend ...[text shortened]... ou, but frankly you are the best I have and when the world calls we have to respond."

However, Rear Admiral Gauoette’s dismissal does not appear to us to be related to Benghazi.

The timeline and geography simply do not support any circumstantial assertion that Gauoette was involved in any way with Benghazi. The Stennis group is in the Persian Gulf area. The most direct route to the Persian Gulf area from Bremerton, WA does not take the group through the Mediterranean. The Stennis operates with the Navy’s 5th fleet. It’s the 6th Fleet that normally stations in the Mediterranean. Further, the Stennis group did not arrive on station in the Persian Gulf region until October. It was not anywhere near Libya on the 11th of September. Gauoette would not have been in a position to have any influence on the Benghazi attack. Indeed, concurrent reporting indicates that Carrier Strike Force Three, with the USS John C. Stennis, was actually participating in the Operation Valiant Shield exercises near Guam in September.

http://blog.militaryauthority.com/blog-1/bid/237599/Was-the-Relief-of-a-Navy-Admiral-Benghazi-Related

Originally posted by vistesd
However, Rear Admiral Gauoette’s dismissal does not appear to us to be related to Benghazi.

The timeline and geography simply do not support any circumstantial assertion that Gauoette was involved in any way with Benghazi. The Stennis group is in the Persian Gulf area. The most direct route to the Persian Gulf area from Bremerton, WA does not take the gro ...[text shortened]... //blog.militaryauthority.com/blog-1/bid/237599/Was-the-Relief-of-a-Navy-Admiral-Benghazi-Related

Ship positions are classified. The top two military commanders in the Middle East are relieved within a day of each other, and within a day of the Benghazi attack. You're going to tell me that's not extremely unusual? Then, some reports (albeit conflicting, but of course they are) explicitly state that General Ham was relieved for disobeying orders.

There aren't any more dots to connect. I don't have to draw conclusions, they're out there.

Believe me - I don't want to believe it, I want to believe that the President of the United States, the Commander In Chief, and the leader of the free world is a competent, capable man, but this is the definition of cowardice.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Ship positions are classified. The top two military commanders in the Middle East are relieved within a day of each other, and within a day of the Benghazi attack. You're going to tell me that's not extremely unusual? Then, some reports (albeit conflicting, but of course they are) explicitly state that General Ham was relieved for disobeying orders. ...[text shortened]... er of the free world is a competent, capable man, but this is the definition of cowardice.

Your own link says that he didn't reach the Middle East until October 17th after sailing through the Pacific! How could his being relieved have ANYTHING to do with what happened in Benghazi on September 11th when the task force was thousands of miles away????

You and your right wing blog sites are either complete idiots or shockingly dishonest or both.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your own link says that he didn't reach the Middle East until October 17th after sailing through the Pacific! How could his being relieved have ANYTHING to do with what happened in Benghazi on September 11th when the task force was thousands of miles away????

You and your right wing blog sites are either complete idiots or shockingly dishonest or both.

I think it is more shocking dishonest. They are really trying to fabricate some sinister issue here,

Originally posted by moon1969
I think it is more shocking dishonest. They are really trying to fabricate some sinister issue here,

What? Obama did an interview with CBS where he said it was a terrorist attack. Then that explanation disappeared for twelve days. Susan Rice, Obama, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton all went on the road to tell the world that the attacks were the result of a video (as if that makes them acceptable).

I've got another 'd' word for you. Delusional. You won't look at a single thing that puts your guy in a negative light. That's craven partisanship. Craven.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
What? Obama did an interview with CBS where he said it was a terrorist attack. Then that explanation disappeared for twelve days. Susan Rice, Obama, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton all went on the road to tell the world that the attacks were the result of a video (as if that makes them acceptable).

I've got another 'd' word for you. Delusional. single thing that puts your guy in a negative light. That's craven partisanship. Craven.

You do realize that those explanations are not mutually exclusive?

BTW, was October 27th the "day after the Benghazi attack"?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
What? Obama did an interview with CBS where he said it was a terrorist attack. Then that explanation disappeared for twelve days. Susan Rice, Obama, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton all went on the road to tell the world that the attacks were the result of a video (as if that makes them acceptable).

I've got another 'd' word for you. Delusional. ...[text shortened]... single thing that puts your guy in a negative light. That's craven partisanship. Craven.

As if you're immune from 'craven' partisanship. Give me a break.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
What? Obama did an interview with CBS where he said it was a terrorist attack. Then that explanation disappeared for twelve days. Susan Rice, Obama, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton all went on the road to tell the world that the attacks were the result of a video (as if that makes them acceptable).

I've got another 'd' word for you. Delusional. ...[text shortened]... single thing that puts your guy in a negative light. That's craven partisanship. Craven.

There was a lot of information coming in, and nothing stated was radically deceptive. Moreover, it is typical for the intelligence community to hold back publicly some in the beginning while assimilating information. Further, the information till this day is still fluid. A lot of different witness testimony. There was nothing radically sinister about what the President or State Department said, or the time line.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Ship positions are classified. The top two military commanders in the Middle East are relieved within a day of each other, and within a day of the Benghazi attack. You're going to tell me that's not extremely unusual? Then, some reports (albeit conflicting, but of course they are) explicitly state that General Ham was relieved for disobeying orders. ...[text shortened]... er of the free world is a competent, capable man, but this is the definition of cowardice.

Treasonous.

Originally posted by moon1969
Moreover, it is typical for the intelligence community to hold back publicly some in the beginning while assimilating information.

Especially since the CIA was involved. The CIA was using the diplomatic mission in Libya as a cover, and apparently security issues slipped through the cracks between the two organizations. And yes, there's a lot of stonewalling and tight lips about all this right now, but it is highly unlikely that it's due to some fault of Obama's. The president wasn't there, and he does not manage the day-to-day operations of these kinds of undertakings. The reason for the tight lips historically turns out (later) to be due to one of two things:

1) Saying too much to the press now will put U.S. operatives on the field at risk.
2) Saying too much to the press now may tip off the perpetrators of the attack that they're in danger and cause them to go deeper underground.

The dumbasses on Fox "News" can't let the issue go. They're desperate to bring Obama down before the election, whatever the cost. In any other year people would be content to let the investigation take its course for six months or more before going off half-cocked about "cowardice", "incompetence", and "treason". But this is an election year, and the right-wing bloggers have nothing to offer the nation but snake oil, mendacity, and scumbaggery.