Obama Fires Top Admiral, General, As Coup Plot Fears Grow

Relieved: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette

   Commander, Carrier Strike Group Three

 

  Relieved: General Carter F. Ham

 

 

Wowee! I can’t believe I just wrote that headline. Big Stuff Happening. Not Sure How Much of This is True. The almost complete absence of MSM hard news and straight talk from “our” government is disturbing, leaving things open to speculation. It does look as though “Obama” relieved several top brass, that this might be related to the Libyan Debacle and their protest of being told to “stand down” on rescue of the beleaguered Consulate and CIA “Safe House.”  This would make Watergate look like a school prank in comparison.  Great timing, huh?- G.M.

 

Per ABC News: “A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation said it involved allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment” and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.”

 

Supplemental Comments to the Sorcha Faal article below:

 

Read the article below with discretion – “Sorcha Faal” has been tagged as a possible disinformation site.

 

That said, something is very strange about the sudden removal a highly-regarded Carrier Strike Group commander, just weeks after his CSG departed its home port of Bremerton, WA  four months prior to its scheduled deployment.

Also noteworthy is the omission in this article of references to various reports that the Benghazi massacre may have been the unforeseen consequence of a breakdown, resulting from the untimely presence of two former Navy SEALs in Benghazi, of a scheme to set up the kidnapping of the U.S. ambassador in Libya. This  scheme is alleged to have been conceived in order to accomplish two purported goals of the Obama administration:

1. Create a cover story to allow a response, in the form of a trade for the kidnapped ambassador, to pressing demands from the Muslim Brotherhood for the release from federal prison* of the Egyptian Blind Sheik (Omar Abdel-Rahman), who was convicted in 1995 of plotting terror attacks throughout New York City and who was the spiritual adviser to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
2. Create an image of presidential statesmanship in a national crisis on the eve of the November presidential election in order to overcome the growing voter sentiment in favor of the Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

 

This firing of a high-level Navy commander, together with the simultaneous removal of the AFRICOM Commander, U.S. Army General Carter Ham, is extremely unusual but not unprecedented in U.S. military history. Historical examples include the firing of General McClellan by President Lincoln during the Civil War for poor performance, and the firing of General Nelson A. Miles by President McKinley during the Spanish-American War following disagreements over how to wage the war.

 

If it is true that General Ham and Admiral Gaouette had ordered tactical support for the besieged Benghazi defenders but were overruled by the White House, then the circumstances of this situation are not in any way comparable to those prior presidential dismissals. It is apparent that these new dismissals of high-level military officers could trigger a political crisis of a magnitude never before seen in this nation.

 

The only comparable crisis in recent memory is the firing of General Douglas MacArthur by President Truman in April 1951 at a famous meeting between the two leaders at Wake Island. Truman’s decision to relieve MacArthur was reported to have resulted from public statements made by MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of United Nations forces in Korea, relating to the strategy for prosecuting the war on the Korean peninsula following the entry into the war of Communist Chinese troops.

 

In this earlier case, the president flew half-way around the world in a piston-powered aircraft to meet with the general and to communicate in person notification of his relief.

 

Here is a brief description of the events leading up to MacArthur’s dismissal:

 

“In an attempt to slow the Chinese advance, MacArthur ordered the bridges across the Yalu River  to be bombed. After due consultation with his advisers, Truman declared that he would not approve of such an action, and the Joint Chiefs cancelled the order. When MacArthur protested, the President and the Joint Chiefs authorized the bombings, subject to the caveat that Chinese air space not be violated. Major General Emmett O’Donnellwould later cite this to the Congressional inquiry into MacArthur’s relief as an example of undue political interference in military operations. The Yalu River had many bends, and in some cases there were very restricted lines of approach without overflying the Yalu. This made life easier for the Communist antiaircraft gunners, but correspondingly less so for the aircrew. Within weeks, MacArthur was forced to retreat, and both Truman and MacArthur were forced to contemplate the prospect of abandoning Korea entirely.”

The British became alarmed in January 1951 when the Americans began talking of evacuating Korea. The British argued that to maintain European faith and unity it was vital to maintain some presence in Korea, even if it was nothing more than a toehold in the Pusan area… However, the alliance with Britain itself was unpopular in Congress House Minority Leader Joseph William Martin, Jr. slammed Truman for following Attlee’s Britain to “slavery to government and crippling debt.”

…There were genuine differences of opinion over policy between MacArthur and the Truman administration. One was MacArthur’s deep-seated belief that it was not possible to separate the struggle against Communism in Europe from that going on in Asia …

On 5 April, Martin read the text of a letter he had received from MacArthur, dated 20 March, criticizing the Truman administration’s priorities on the floor of the House. In it, MacArthur had written:

“It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomatic there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable; win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed out, we must win. There is no substitute for victory.”

Following his return to the United States, MacArthur addressed a joint session of Congress on April 19 where he delivered his famous “Old Soldiers Never Die” speech, in which he declared:

“Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said in effect that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me—and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes… But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there can be no substitute for victory.”

 

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Address to Joint Session of Congress, 19 April 1951

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur

 

 

In a later farewell speech to the Corps of Cadets at West Point on 12 May, 1962, MacArthur gave his famous “Duty, Honor, Country” speech in which he uttered the following words:

 

“Duty,” “Honor,” “Country” — those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you want to be, what you can be, what you will be… The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

 

But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the nation’s defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid.

They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.

They give you a temperate will, a quality of imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, an appetite for adventure over love of ease. They create in your heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and the joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be an officer and a gentleman…

Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.”

http://www.keytlaw.com/f-4/general-macarthurs-duty-honor-country-speech/

 

Now ask yourself – How would General MacArthur have responded upon receiving word of the desperate pleas for assistance from those beleaguered former SEALs in Benghazi?

Would he have refused their calls for support, and abandoned them to certain death, as did our putative president?

Or would he have acted as we are learning that General Ham and Admiral Gaouette did?

Finally –

Are the qualities required of a leader as articulated by General MacArthur in his farewell speech to the Corps of Cadets present in our current Commander-in-Chief?

By the way – as far as is known, there was no personal communication from the current “president” to the U.S. Army and Navy officers who were relieved of their commands by Obama.

  

 President Truman is greeted by General Douglas MacArthur on his arrival at Wake Island, April 1951

 

*  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/eyes_blind_sheik_release_0MFMrnamOFxtIJKJLpTQNL

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Obama Fires Top Admiral As Coup Plot Fears Grows

“A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation stressed it was not related to personal conduct.”

By Sorcha Faal

October 28, 2012

 

 

      Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette

   Commander, Carrier Strike Group Three

 

Rear Adm. Gaouette assumed command of Carrier Strike Group Three, April 5, 2012. He most recently served as Deputy Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, U.S. Central Command.

Gaouette grew up in San Diego, and graduated from the University of California, Davis in 1981. He entered the Navy under the Submarine Strategic Weapons program and was commissioned at Officer Candidate School in April 1982. He is a qualified submarine officer and served as communicator in USS Gudgeon (SS 567) and combat systems officer in USS Lapon (SSN 661).

Gaouette transferred to Surface Warfare in 1987. He served as navigator and damage control assistant in USS Arthur W. Radford (DD 968), combat systems officer in USS Fletcher (DD 992), commissioning combat systems officer in USS Port Royal (CG 73) and executive officer in USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60).

 

Gaouette is a graduate of the Air War College, where he earned a concurrent master’s degree in Public Administration from Auburn University.In 2003, he was awarded the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership in recognition of the hard work by the crew of USS Oldendorf, which he commanded from 2001 through 2003. He is the recipient of various personal decorations and unit awards.

 

 

A shocking new report prepared by the Foreign Military Intelligence Main Directorate (GRU) of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, and circulating in the Kremlin today, states that President Obama has fired one of the United States Navy’s most powerful Admirals over growing fears the US Military is planning an overthrow of his government.

According to this report, yesterday (27 October) Obama ordered the immediate removal of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette[photo 2^nd left] from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) [photo 3^rd left] 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.

      General Carter F. Ham

  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.”

GRU analysts in this report state that Obama’s “greatest fear” during the 11 September terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi was that a strong US Military response would hurt his reelection chances as the American peoples appetite for war has all but disappeared, and he would, also, be open to attacks from his far-left base who remain firmly opposed to further US military actions in the Middle East.

As we had, also, reported in our 17 September report “China Warns World War III Being Planned To Oust Obama,” White House fears are growing by the day that Obama is being pushed into a “Total War” scenario by the Pentagon in an action not unlike the situation faced by President John F. Kennedy when he faced off with against the powerful US Air Force General Curtis Lemay during the October, 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Known well to Obama, this report continues, was the 1962 Pentagon proposal to Kennedy named “Operation Northwoods” that called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in US cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.

Fearing his being faced with a similar Pentagon threat, GRU analysts say in this report, Obama’s reluctance to allow a US military response to the 11 September attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi was due to his not knowing who was really behind it, or what their ultimate objective really was.

Obama’s fears, apparently, were confirmed by the Federal Security Service (FSB), and as we reported on in our 9 October report titled “Monsanto “War” Kills US Ambassador To Libya” which blamed the Benghazi attack on the shadowy Italian eco-terror group Il Silvestre.

Following the attack on Benghazi, this FSB report further states, the eco-terror group Il Silvestre brutally assassinated British oil executive Nicholas Mockford, 60, who worked for the US oil giant ExxonMobil, two weeks ago on a street in Brussels, Belgium.

Though the links between either the Pentagon or CIA relating to Il Silvestre have yet to be firmly established, this GRU report concludes, it can not be ruled out that further attacks against Obama’s interests by the US Military are not in the offing.

Most cryptic in this GRU report, however, was its noting, that based upon the 1962 American movie titled Advise & Consent, and the 1962 novel Seven Days in May (made into a movie in 1964), the warnings to President Kennedy about any American leader daring to challenge the Pentagon would be met with swift and harsh punishment. Kennedy, however, failed to heed these warnings and suffered the consequences.

To what Obama’s fate will be, especially should he continue to be in conflict with the Pentagon, it is not known.  What is known, though, is that the American people themselves continue to remain ignorant of the dangers they face as the world around them continues to spin out of control as they continue to rely on lies and half-truths spoon fed to them by their vast mainstream propaganda apparatus designed to keep them from knowing any truths at all.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/

 

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

Stennis Group in Persian Gulf, not convenient to Libya, but the Admiral might have also objected to the stand-down.

Source: