Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Rear Admiral before the Mast? Insubordinate to Obama?


Photo of
Gary Robbins
8:25 p.m., Oct. 28, 2012
Updated 1:18 p.m. , Oct. 29, 2012

Follow »

Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette
Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette — US Navy
       Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, a San Diego native who has climbed the ranks of the Navy over a long career, was unceremoniously removed as commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group in recent days. His removal comes while the Stennnis CSG is deployed in the Persian Gulf region.      The Navy did not give a clear explanation for the change, other than to say that questions had arisen about his leadership judgment. He has been sent back to his homebase in Bremerton, Washington, to await the outcome of the investigation.
(We incorrectly reported in an earlier version of this story that Gaouette was commander of the cruiser Mobile Bay.)
It is very unusual for the Navy to remove such a high ranking person from his post in the middle of deployment. The Stennis Carrier Strike Group, which features several surface ships from San Diego, has been operating with several San Diego-based vessels, including the cruiser Mobile Bay and the destroyer Dewey.
     The reports that, "Vice Adm. John Miller, commander Naval Forces Central Command, made the decision to reassign the commander of Carrier Strike Group 3, even though it’s deployed to the Middle East."
Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette
The cruiser Mobile Bay operates out of San Diego Bay. US Navy
     NBC News interviewed Neal Zerbe, a retired Navy Capt., who told the news organization that, “The particular commander being relieved, and you know translating that to just moving him back to a continental U.S. base while the investigation continues, is unlike anything I've ever seen before.''
The strike group's vessels include the San Diego-based Mobile Bay, which has had a mixed record in recent years. The cruiser was awarded the coveted Battle "E" in 2006. But in 2011, the ship failed a major inspection, due primarily to problems with her propulsion system, aviation, operations and communication.
     We are viewing this issue and the possible scapegoating of Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette with some consternation.   As NBC News...(proud partner in the Obsolete Marxist Press) pointing out, with the referral point being a retired Navy Captain (colonel in the real military) ...the transfer of a battle group commanding officer to Stateside during deployment for an "investigation" .....according to that Captain, "....unlike any I've ever seen before."
      In that this is a minor league blog, published in the outback of the American frontier and in Mexico, we can afford the luxury of stating things more firmly and dabbling a bit in the conjectural.    Everything we publish is true to the best of our knowledge.  Conjecture we identify as such.  Quoted material we try to cite with identification of the original authors. And by saying that it is true to the best of our knowledge, we do not mean that we conveniently failed to check on the veracity of our knowledge or our sources.   We do more checking than Bill Moyers or Mr. Press or anyone on MSNBC or in the leftist press.
      The main thing that troubles this writer at this time is the fact that this commander at the tip of the arrow that the American Eagle holds within his talons has been rumoured to have had a melt-down because he had assets ready to respond to the Benghazi situation and pilots and deck crews burning with hatred and adrenalin ready to risk all .....and nothing happen'd.

     El Gringo Viejo, at the risk of burdening the OROGs, feels compelled to submit the following inclusion as a "fair and balanced"  summary of the issues leading up to the betrayal of American personnel on the ground in Benghazi...a procress that took about 2 months and culminated with the deaths of at least four Americans and various loyalist Libyans, as yet unrecognised in any way.    Some of this information, in fairness was derived from an assembly of "all facts"  done by a pacifist group  up North,  United for Peace, Pierce County, and in deference to their honesty in reporting some devastating truths about the preparations and realities on the ground, we are including some of their material as part of the whole.    If the OROG reads through the entirety of what we are including here, the reader will be in the 96th percentile of knowledge and comprehension of the Benghazie issue.   Suffice to say, if Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush had done what Barak Hussein Obama, Panetta, Petraeus, or Clinton have done in this issue ...those Republicans would have been facing impeachment and certain conviction within weeks.   The Obsolete Press would have spied, fried, lied, and and dumped them into the nearest Dempster Dumpster.


General Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) and a key figure in the Benghazi-gate controversy, is leaving the Army.

     On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had announced that General Ham would be succeeded at AFRICOM by General David Rodriguez. Later speculation tied this decision to the fallout from the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. However on Monday October 29 a defense official told the Washington Times that "the decision [to leave AFRICOM] was made by General Ham. He ably served the nation for nearly forty years and retires after a distinguished career." Previously all that was known was that General Ham would be rotating out of AFRICOM at some future date, but not that he was leaving the service. General Ham is a few years short of the mandatory retirement age of 64, but it is not unusual for someone of that rank to retire after serving in such a significant command.

The questions concerning General Ham's role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R. Bolton also mentioned Mr. Chaffetz's account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta's statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. "General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways," Mr. Bolton concluded. "Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh."

No word yet on when General Ham's rotation or retirement take effect.

Bermerton (WA) Patriot
October 30, 2012

The Navy has approved a request by Vice Adm. John W. Miller, commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command to temporarily reassign the commander of the USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group.
Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, commander, Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 3, will return to the strike group's home port of Bremerton pending the results of an investigation by the Navy Inspector General.
The John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group is currently deployed to the Middle East.
Gaouette's Chief of Staff, Capt. William C. Minter, will lead the strike group until the arrival of Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the matter is resolved.
Shoemaker has served as Commander, Carrier Strike Group 9 and deployed with the Abraham Lincoln Strike Group.


By Craig Buchanan
Walla Walla (WA) Union-Bulletin
October 30, 2012

Commander-in-Chief Obama is no leader and fires those who lead.

He fired Adm. Charles Gaouette, commander of the USS John Stennis (aircraft carrier) Strike Group (Mediterranean), for moving the fleet closer to Libya during the Benghazi consulate attack and launching armed aircraft to orbit for close air support. Also fired was Gen. Carter Ham, commander of African Command, for preparing ground forces to go into Libya to protect the consulate.

These officers had received messages that this was a terrorist attack and were reacting accordingly. Commander-in-Chief Obama's conscious decision to do nothing because of political concerns was a disgrace to all who defend or have defended our country. He will never be respected by our military.

Apparently, President Obama had access to the massacre in real time and then fled the White House to fund raise in Las Vegas. The two former SEALS were ordered to "stand down" but ignored the order. General Ham's quick reaction forces were ready to deploy and was ignoring Department of Defense standdown orders when he was relieved of command during the battle.

Why does President Obama continue to lie to the American people about the Benghazi consulate massacre? Perhaps, because this situation is worse than what happened to two earlier presidents.

President Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for Watergate. President Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal judge. President Obama's decision to deny the consulate's request for additional security before and during the massacre and write-off the deaths of four Americans for political purposes, make Nixon's and Clinton's actions appear as misdemeanors.

President Obama was derelict in his duty as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and should be impeached. Incidentally, Obama's cohorts in the American press are co-conspirators for failing to expose these actions.

Craig Buchanan
Walla Walla


By Bred Knickerbocker

** Fox News and others report that military help was available during the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, but denied. CIA and Pentagon officials strongly deny the claim. **
Christian Science Monitor
October 27, 2012

Citing “sources who were on the ground” in Benghazi, Libya, Fox News is reporting that an urgent request for military help during last month’s terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate there “was denied by the CIA chain of command.”

The attack, on the anniversary of 9/11, killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy personnel, including two former Navy SEALs working as security contractors.

Among other things reported in some detail, Fox asserts that a Special Operations team had been moved to U.S. military facilities in Sigonella, Italy -- approximately two hours away -- but were never told to deploy.

“The fighting at the CIA annex [in Benghazi] went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.”

This latest report comes as the Obama administration continues to fend off criticism that it misunderstood (or deliberately misled in its public statements) what was happening in Benghazi, including the extent to which al Qaeda or its affiliates were involved in the attack.

Writing last week in the conservative *National Review* online, former Marine Corps officer and Reagan administration senior Pentagon official Francis “Bing” West outlined much the same scenario as Fox News, including a timeline of events in Benghazi.

“Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours,” Mr. West wrote. “If the attackers were a mob, as intelligence reported, then an F-18 [Navy fighter jet] in afterburner, roaring like a lion, would unnerve them. This procedure was applied often in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Conversely, if the attackers were terrorists, then the U.S. commandos would eliminate them. But no forces were dispatched from Sigonella.”

“For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve,” writes West, a Vietnam combat veteran who has reported extensively on U.S. combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Secretary of State Clinton has said the responsibility was hers. But there has been no assertion that the State Department overruled the Pentagon out of concern about the sovereignty of Libyan air space. Instead, it appears passive groupthink prevailed, with the assumption being that a spontaneous mob would quickly run out of steam.”

CIA and Obama administration officials have been quick to rebut such critical news reports.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied to Fox the claims that requests for support were turned down.

"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night -- and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."

At a press conference this week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, reports the Associated Press.

"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," Mr. 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."

Panetta was referring to Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are pressing their case for more information.

In a letter to President Obama Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner questioned whether the White House considered military options during or immediately after the attack, and he questioned what the president knew about the security threats in the country. He said that the national debate over the incident shows that Americans are concerned and frustrated about the administration's response to the attack.

"Can you explain what options were presented to you or your staff, and why it appears assets were not allowed to be pre-positioned, let alone utilized? If these reports are accurate, the artificial constraint on the range of options at your disposal would be deeply troubling," Rep. Boehner wrote.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 04:34

     In the above inclusion, that part that has been coloured in red has been found to be, through deceit or incompetence, untrue.  It is all part of the septic mess this entire Benghazi situation has become.   It is of interest that classified material can pour out to the public about the Usama bin Ladin take-down as if it were a Niagara Falls of information....much of it classified and needlessly released....within minutes and hours of the event.    It is also of interest that we have pictures of the president in the "situation room" helping all of the victims of the Storm Sandy....within minutes and hours of the president's gracing a chair in that room....but about Benghazi...nothing....we are waiting for the results of the investigation that will never be released unless it can prove that everything was George Bush's fault or an error on the part of the military.
We commend this information to the the interest of the OROG.   Thanks for your attention and time invested with us.   Your numbers grow daily, and we are humbled by your kind interest.
El Gringo Viejo