The Stand Down Order Won’t Stand Down

[Flanders]

I’ll begin by repeating a critique I’ve posted 6 or 7 times in the past year:

While the attack in Benghazi was in progress nobody in the White House knew how long our people could hold out. In truth, it was possible for them to hold out for 24 hours or more.

Help would not arrive on time was the first lie told for abandoning the men under attack. “There wasn’t enough time for help to get there” still stands as the Administration’s excuse for not helping Americans fighting for their lives even though that lie has been disproved. The fact is this: Nobody knew how long the men under attack could hold out at the time somebody gave the order to stand down. So how could anybody in the Administration say that help would NOT have arrived in time to do any good?

Nor could anyone in the White House be certain the attackers did not plan for armed drones, and/or combat marines, arriving at some point. Logically, the attackers had to be thinking that help for the besieged Americans was on the way; so nobody in the Administration could possibly have known when or why the attackers might withdraw. Surely, the sight of jet aircraft, and/or helicopters, while our guys were still alive would have sent the attackers scrambling.

If you realize the importance of the mysterious “stand down order” you have to listen to Rush’s analyses at least TWICE in order to catch all of nuances should it turn out that the predictable death warrant was, indeed, issued by Jarrett:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwU8Zf5SVA&feature=player_embedded]RUSH: Did Valerie Jarrett Issue The Order To Stand Down In Benghazi? - YouTube[/ame]​

I’m not ready to eat crow just yet, but I will admit that I was certain the stand down order came from then-Secretary of State Clinton. Valerie Jarrett added to the mix makes it imperative for the public to learn who gave the order. In the unlikely event Hillary Clinton confirms that the order came from Jarrett the media must do what the public cannot do —— find out which high-ranking military officers obeyed the order? and why?

Incidentally, Valerie Jarrett is a shadowy figure in yet another possible scandal. See #4 permalink in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ous-money-changed-hands-for-incompetence.html

Here’s a thought. When Kathleen Sebelius finally testifies before a congressional committee ask her if Jarrett’s daughter and son-in-law work for CGI?

 

[Flanders]

An article by Arnold Ahlert over at Canada Free Press prompted me to put together a few facts and interpretations. Anyone interested in the topic can draw their own conclusions.

On September 16, 2012 Suzy Five Shows initiated the Benghazi cover-up. That left 50 full days of stalling and stonewalling before the polls opened on election day. After Barack Taqiyya was reelected, the Benghazi cover-up was fobbed off as nothing more than a campaign ploy to avoid embarrassing the messiah.

Incidentally, Benghazi demonstrated that early voting is a big mistake. I call it gimmick voting. Aside from an open invitation to engage in election fraud, a serious scandal can surface days before election day. Voters should have the option of factoring all information into their choice on election day. Basically, voters had no reason to turn away from Romney because of Benghazi, but how many Americans who voted for Taqiyya weeks before the election might not have voted for him on November 6, 2012? Gimmick voting can only get worse in the future.

The stand down order originating with Valerie Jarrett is yet to be proved; nevertheless, here are a few items for consideration.

This year alone, nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the administration, and retired generals and current commanders who have spoken to TheBlaze believe that political ideology is the primary impetus behind the effort.

For years I’ve saying the federal government and the US military were thoroughly infiltrated by the very type of person the country was warned about in the Army-McCarthy hearings (1954). That the three branches of government were infiltrated by Socialists who hate America’s sovereignty is beyond question. Many openly admitted as much. See #9 permalink in this thread for a small taste of anti-sovereignty cum treason:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/274356-obama-s-blitzkrieg.html

One type of infiltrator in the military escaped detection until recently. Nobody separated hardcore Communists from global government traitors who might not be Communists. Both types now populate the ranks of staff officers in every branch of the armed services. Both types are more loyal to the United Nations than they are to the United States.

I was never able to determine if global government type traitors in the military constitute the majority. These next quotes makes me think they are a majority. If not now they will be after officers loyal to the Constitution are purged:

“I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not toe the party line,” a senior retired general told website.

XXXXX​

The firing of military leaders goes much further than top generals, however. On its Facebook page, Breitbart.com compiled a list of more than 197 military commanders, mostly at the rank of Colonel or above, who have been purged by the Obama administration since 2009.

According to military.com, allegations of sexual misconduct account for the firing of 30 percent of military commanders over the past eight years. That figure that increases to 40 percent when “ethical lapses” such as sexual assault and harassment, pornography, drugs and drinking are lumped together. But there are other dubious reasons why these commanders have been terminated, ranging from unspecified dereliction of duty, to improper saluting.

One of the largest purges occurred on the last day of November in 2011, when the administration terminated 157 Air Force Majors, a move the Chapman University of Military Law and its associated AMVETS Legal Clinic characterized as illegal. They noted that the Department of Defense specifies that absent extenuating circumstances, service members within six years of retirement would ordinarily be retained, and allowed to retire on time and collect benefits.

Obama's Military Purge
By Arnold Ahlert Monday, October 28, 2013

Obama?s Military Purge

Combining these two items offers a plausible explanation for Barack Taqiyya purging loyal military officers:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y&feature=player_embedded]Obama civilian national security force. - YouTube[/ame]​

Page 1312 of the now signed-into-law Senate version of ObamaCare provides for funding of Obama’s private militia referred to as “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps” Sec. 5210.

Today’s New Atrocity: The Beginning of USA Disarmament
By Sher Zieve Friday, March 26, 2010

Today?s New Atrocity:* The Beginning of USA Disarmament

Finally, purging loyal officers is as effective as is disarming the military and surrendering military superiority.

Ultimately, the US military —— strong or weak —— remains the only thing standing between the American people and their foreign enemies. Nothing is standing between the American people and Taqiyya’s well-funded personal paramilitary goon squad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This issue is not an issue in the coming elections.

 

[9thIDdoc]

This issue is not an issue in the coming elections.

Wrong. The American people are not going to let this go before the people responsible for this clusterfug are identified and brought to justice. And that is exactly as it should be.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd....0x320/1375971_309898319151435_595102521_n.jpg

 

[Flanders]

This issue is not an issue in the coming elections.

To JakeStarkey: Why the military is deployed is always an issue, not only to the American people in general, but to veterans and the men and women on active duty looking for clarity on whether or not they are serving to protect and defend the Constitution? or are they being manipulated into serving a global agenda diametrically opposed to the Constitution? The conflict between Republicans and Democrats over the military’s role in America comes down to those unanswered questions.

Wrong. The American people are not going to let this go before the people responsible for this clusterfug are identified and brought to justice. And that is exactly as it should be.

To 9thIDdoc: Just so.

The problem is that capturing those Muslims soldiers who took part in the attack opens up a another can of worms the Administration would rather not open. Here are the largest worms; should captured enemy combatants be tried in a civilian court? or a military court? Will the death penalty apply in either court? In short: Capturing them is a bigger embarrassment for the Administration than is letting them get away with it.

Note that Joe Biden bragged about killing bin Laden, but he is as silent as the tomb when it comes to capturing the Benghazi attackers whose whereabouts are well-known.

Lawmaker: If CNN can interview suspect in Benghazi attack, why can't FBI?
By John King and Chelsea J. Carter, CNN
updated 12:58 PM EDT, Wed August 7, 2013

Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com

Incidentally, the Administration is more afraid of captured combatants talking than they are afraid of them pleading the Fifth. Suppose one them says the attack would have ended the minute help arrived!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This issue is not an issue in the coming elections.

The preceding was a paid political announcement from the Obama Administration.

"I'm Barack Obama and I approve of Jake Starkey"

 

[HenryBHough]

Shakey Jakey?

Oh!!!

You mean the President of Republicans for Hillary?

 

[9thIDdoc]

To 9thIDdoc: Just so.

The problem is that capturing those Muslims soldiers who took part in the attack opens up a another can of worms the Administration would rather not open. Here are the largest worms; should captured enemy combatants be tried in a civilian court? or a military court? Will the death penalty apply in either court? In short: Capturing them is a bigger embarrassment for the Administration than is letting them get away with it.

Note that Joe Biden bragged about killing bin Laden, but he is as silent as the tomb when it comes to capturing the Benghazi attackers whose whereabouts are well-known.
-----------------

Terrorists will be terrorists until killed. No surprise there. The people that must be held accountable are those in our government that left them dangling out there nearly defenseless and then failed to send help when it they were attacked. There is no reasonable excuse for that and none has been offered. Negligent homicide in my opinion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Val Jarrett might be running Al Qaeda

 

[Flanders]

The more I think about it the more I think purge might not be the right word:

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.

“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.

Obama 'gutting military' by purging generals
Intended to send message 'down through the ranks'
Published: 8 hours ago
F. MICHAEL MALOOF

Obama ?gutting military? by purging generals

Barack Taqiyya’s “purge” looks more like a:

putsch also Putsch (noun)

A sudden attempt by a group to overthrow a government.

My problem is finding a word that says the people running the government are overthrowing the government. Putschpurge has a nice ring to it.

When Taqiyya said he was going to transform America he never said he had to purge military officers loyal to the Constitution and the country in order to succeed. His pals in Congress gave him the ACA; so I’m betting that they are backing his purge, too; hence, it’s fair to call it a putschpurge.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Val Jarrett is behind the purge

 

[Flanders]

Val Jarrett might be running Al Qaeda

Val Jarrett is behind the purge

To CrusaderFrank: Jarrett’s name has surfaced in what could be termed two scandals in the making. Yet I have not heard one talking head refer to either. Had Sarah Palin’s name popped up in scandals of such magnitude the MSM would be speculating on her involvement from sunup to sundown every day of the week.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This issue is not an issue in the coming elections.

Of course it's not for you lock-step liberals.

But for the us rational people, it will be.

 

[Flanders]

On September 16, 2012 Suzy Five Shows initiated the Benghazi cover-up. That left 50 full days of stalling and stonewalling before the polls opened on election day. After Barack Taqiyya was reelected, the Benghazi cover-up was fobbed off as nothing more than a campaign ploy to avoid embarrassing the messiah.

John Hayward points to the true reason Suzy Five Shows started the coverup ball rolling:

“60 Minutes” ran a report on the Benghazi scandal Sunday night that confirmed its status as an enduring scandal with many questions still remaining to be answered. Good thing the media was willing to cover for Barack Obama until he got re-elected, because this is some really damning stuff. The video is about 15 minutes long, and well worth watching in full:

60 Minutes: yes, America, the Obama Administration lied to you about Benghazi
By: John Hayward
10/28/2013 09:27 AM

60 Minutes: yes, America, the Obama Administration lied to you about Benghazi | Human Events

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B_hQk8xRSgY]60 Minutes piece on Benghazi - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Flanders]

The president’s arrogance has been reported many times. Either the first president from the parasite class thinks he is a monarch, or his behavior is a Valerie Jarrett creation designed to mask his many inadequacies. As more stuff trickles out about Jarrett I’m partial to the mask. The king is actually an idiot strengthens the Jarrett-creation explanation.

If there is some kind of a perverted monarchial structure in place in the White House then Valerie Jarrett is more like Dumas’ power behind the throne version of the real Cardinal Richelieu than she is like Cleopatra:

Barack Obama is not the Emperor Without Clothes; he’s a president in a skirt.

XXXXX​

Many repeatedly ask why it is that Valerie Jarrett gets to travel, like a modern day Cleopatra, with her own contingent of secret service agents in tow, and why she is the only known person with 24-7 access to the Obama private living quarters in the White House.

America’s real president wears a skirt
By Judi McLeod Thursday, October 31, 2013

America?s real president wears a skirt​

 

[whitehall]

It seems we have a political conundrum. Only the president can order the US Military to "stand down" but it seems, according to the administration, that the president was unaware of the Benghazi crisis. Who ordered the Military to stand down?

 

[Flanders]

Who ordered the Military to stand down?

To whitehall: I fear that that question will never be answered truthfully because there is no good answer. Rush Limbaugh examining the possibility that the order came from Valerie Jarrett is the most distasteful answer if true. The order coming from Hillary Clinton is not much better. Note that military officers must be very carful in how they phrase any remarks:

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source told
WND.

XXXXX​

Boykin says that because of the fundamental civilian leadership over the military, McCrystal was “appropriately forced to retire.”

XXXXX​

Nevertheless, Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

One thing appears certain. The order to stand down did not originate with a military officer more loyal to the Constitution than to the “commander-in-chief”:

. . . U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

Top generals: Obama is 'purging the military'
Describe president's actions as 'emasculating,' ranks now lack 'will to win'
Published: 9 hours ago
F. MICHAEL MALOOF

Top generals: Obama is ?purging the military?​

 

[Flanders]

The putschpurge continues:

Tilley is to be replaced by Col. Joy Curriera.

Tilley’s dismissal is only the latest in what retired Navy Capt. Joseph John refers to as a “bigger picture” in which some “135 senior officers have been purged.”

“The ‘bigger picture,’” John told WND, “is that the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

'Purge surge': Obama fires another commander
Naval commanding officer alarmed by 'relentless' attack on Armed Forces
Published: 9 hours ago
F. MICHAEL MALOOF

?Purge surge?: Obama fires another commander​

Has anybody in Congress asked about the first loyalty of those officers replacing those officers being putschpurged out? The administration is not going to replace officers loyal to the Constitution with officers loyal to the Constitution. See #2 permalink for the type of military officer Congress should be worrying about.

Note that every scandal except Benghazi serves to keep the putschpurge out of sight.

 

[gipper]

In a sane nation, Benghazi would have lead to dismissals of those who failed to do their duty...including the POTUS. But sadly, the US is INSANE.

Lets see now....Obama is claimed to be amazingly intelligent, yet whenever a scandal arises, he is unaware of it. It is claimed he was uninformed of NSA spying, IRS scandal, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare, etc..................

This quote clearly reflects the absurd elitism....BO knows best for all of us. INSANE!

“I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability — the extraordinary, uncanny ability — to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make sense out of them, and I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.” —Valerie Jarrett

 

[Flanders]

The latest report about the Benghazi investigation is stunning. The Pentagon, and the Department of Defense, are mentioned in passing:

The Obama administration has been dogged by complaints that the White House, Pentagon and State Department may not have done enough before and during the attack to save U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, and by accusations that it later engaged in a cover-up.

One allegation was that U.S. officials told the CIA to “stand down” and not go to the aid of the Americans. Top CIA and Defense and State Department officials have denied that.

There is no mention of the US Military, or of high-ranking military officers. The entire investigation appears to be zeroing in on the CIA:

One allegation was that U.S. officials told the CIA to “stand down” and not go to the aid of the Americans. Top CIA and Defense and State Department officials have denied that.

The testimony from the CIA officers and contractors who were in Libya on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, bolster those denials, but also shed light on what may have led to the delay of up to 30 minutes to respond, according to the varying accounts.

None of those who testified said a quicker response would have saved the lives of Stevens and communications specialist Sean Smith at the temporary diplomatic facility.

‘Stand down’: CIA Benghazi team clash led to controversial order
By Kimberly Dozier - Associated Press Saturday, December 14, 2013

'Stand down': CIA Benghazi team clash led to controversial order - Washington Times​

The order to stand down originating with the CIA, the US Military, or Valerie Jarrett does not change one fact:

While the attack in Benghazi was in progress nobody in the White House knew how long our people could hold out. In truth, it was possible for them to hold out for 24 hours or more.

Help would not arrive on time was the first lie told for abandoning the men under attack. “There wasn’t enough time for help to get there” still stands as the Administration’s excuse for not helping Americans fighting for their lives even though that lie has been disproved. The fact is this: Nobody knew how long the men under attack could hold out at the time somebody gave the order to stand down. So how could anybody in the Administration say that help would NOT have arrived in time to do any good?

Nor could anyone in the White House be certain the attackers did not plan for armed drones, and/or combat marines, arriving at some point. Logically, the attackers had to be thinking that help for the besieged Americans was on the way; so nobody in the Administration could possibly have known when or why the attackers might withdraw. Surely, the sight of jet aircraft, and/or helicopters, while our guys were still alive would have sent the attackers scrambling.

Then there is from #17 permalink:

One thing appears certain. The order to stand down did not originate with a military officer more loyal to the Constitution than to the “commander-in-chief”:

. . . U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.​

Top generals: Obama is 'purging the military'
Describe president's actions as 'emasculating,' ranks now lack 'will to win'
Published: 9 hours ago
F. MICHAEL MALOOF

Top generals: Obama is ?purging the military?​

It’s starting to look like military-hating Democrats might be covering up for their kind of officer.