Benghazigate: General Ham: “No Order to Protect Consulate” (VIDEO)

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.

  • John Svengali

    Caution should be applied in not jumping to conclusions and reliance upon internet rumors and conversations. That said, there is AMPLE information in plain view and not in dispute that points not only to a lack of leadership by Obama and his civilian chain of command but to a pattern and practice of lying to the American people, covering it up, and creating a straw man with the Mohammad film-maker.

    The administration's negligence is in at least two areas, preparation and failure to rescue. The hard part to believe about any presidential administration is that they would be so completely inept in failing to provide adequate security – even denying requests for security – but what's worse is that they knowingly denied help in the midst of an actual attack. How could anyone be so cold and insensitive to fly off to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser immediately after this attack and killings in Libya, as Obama did? It is not hyperbole to characterize the negligence – according to some – as criminal.

    The subsequent cover-up using high level officials and the president in his U.N. address and his interview double-speak to steer focus to an unrelated anti-Muslim film is completely over the top and sinister. People should be troubled by the ease and comfort the man has in lying and perpetuating the false film story over the span of two weeks, only ceasing when the story fell apart when fact was interjected. Obama still tries to hide behind the fig leaf of not commenting due to the matter being investigated.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Exactly right.

    • ktb

      I would think there was major prep in getting Osama. Whether I agree with Obama’s politics or not he will always have a place in my heart for giving the SEALS the “Go Ahead” to shoot that bastard between the eyes!! One of the BEST and PROUDEST moments in my life to b an American!!!

    • Maverick

      If you EVER want to know the TRUTH about Benghazi PLEASE READ

    • dustoff57

      I totally agree with you that this president and his administration have been all but transparent with the American people. His ROE in Iraq and Afganistan are outrageous and no doubt have caused unnecessary loss of American lives and Benghazi is a clear illustration and exclamation point of his policies. What scares the hell out of me and my wife is that 40% of the citizens of this country don't understand or don't care about the ideologies behind his decision making from the military decisions to our country's economic decisions. A socialist says what needs to be said at the time and to the audience at the moment just in different words….why don't we want all Americans to understand english…why have we dummy down the educational system, why are food stamps and govt relief so easy to come by…why is medicare and medicaid in bankruptcy and so on….so nobody cares about the big picture only their little piece of the world and how it will be effected.

      • frankep

        Yes dustoff we have starting with jr bush pushing for 2 separate wars at one time .Having no set goals as to ending these actions as his Dad did in 91. No exit strategy or time frame how to leave Iraq. Running a war on credit. IED killed American troops ,thats a military matter how to evade them, not the Presidents.The 40% are the Repubs that don't want to end this cash cow called war. So now your children and my grandkids are going to pay for these wars for there life times. Place blame where it started an inexperience President with very little military knowledge and oil buddies, chenay getting richer, by creating a war ware there wasn't one !

    • dustoff57

      We have become so dysfunctional as a nation and he has done an excellent job of dividing us, but the October surprise will happen on Nov 6 when he is dethroned. This guy has got to go or we will become a nation that cannot climb it's way out of the hole he has dug for us and he has done it on purpose!!!

    • Shaun

      How could you sit in a classroom after hearing the WTC was just attacked?

      • josper

        I know, Shaun. It's kind of like 'How could you go to Vegas after a U.S. Ambassador has just been murdered?"

    • birddogbjr

      If American military leaders are fired, retired or reassigned for attempting to rescue four distressed Americans, we have to know the details. This could be one of the most outrageous failures of an American president in our nation's history.

      Please sign and share!

  • jcsperson

    Can you imagine the furor in the press if this had happened in a Republican administration?

    • @undefined


    • BBB


    • Devon

      It happened 12 times during a Republican administration, and no one took notice. Embassies and consulates were attacked constantly under Bush; several soldiers and security personel from our country and the host have died in such raids. It is amazing that no diplomat has died until now, and also that there wasn't such an attack for almost 4 years under Obama. Why are you not enraged about the previous 12 incidents? You just like to pick apart this one because it is convenient to your ideology, without examining the facts or history about what you are saying.

  • Melissa

    Because the DHS would never lie to us…
    I don't know which to believe. I've met Gen Ham and he is NOT the type of leader to leave people hanging. That being said…I could easily believe the stories going around. However, if this version is true…take makes Gen. Ham the scapegoat. Either way, this administration is dead wrong and has got to go!

    • Tom Nally

      At least one person has claimed that Carter Ham was ready to send support to our people in Benghazi despite a "stand down" order. Shortly after expressing his intent, his second in command informed him that he had been relieved of command.

      If true, this shows that Carter Ham was one of the few players with cojones.

      • G Dub

        I find it intresting that the website that you cite here has been withdrawn.

  • riverboatbill

    They are playing musical chairs,each one trying to sit down and cover their ass.

  • fanlad

    Four Died, Obama Lied!
    While Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, other administration operatives, and the main stream news media ran cover for him.
    The true Leaders that showed courage, honor, and integrity in this story are Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. May God Bless them.

    • Mary Sue

      what I can't understand is why Condoleeza Rice of all people seems to be carrying their water, too. Or at least, being so "diplomatic" as to not appear critical in the least. It's mind boggling. I heard her stumble over her words on TV about this and I was like O.O



      • frankep

        hillary would never be elected as president. not a whole lot of americans trust her. impeach who and for what ? to satisfy you ,who are you ? first you don't invade a country, without a game plan ,something on paper. approved in advance by these 2 mystery generals that haven't said a word. believe the cia really and when the last time they came out with the whole truth ? how bout we just erase your bold print and stick your ass on the line to prove any thing you have said ?

    • Barbara Sullivan

      Absolute truth! Just a side-note, remember Obama did say he would 'bring those to justice', I guess we all thought it would be the Muslim's that killed our people! Romney will win, we the citizen's, will further our efforts and bring Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton to Justice after this election. Media is owned by 'banksters', you know the ones who along with the high officials in our administration that are being linked to the money-laundering scheme of $43 Trillion of taxpayers money. Maybe this is why there is so much chatter about Marshall Law being imposed. I can see why Homeland Security is preparing for 'civil unrest' in the United States.

  • Dhamm

    The bottom line is that help was ready to go and was then prevented from saving lives so as not to make a show of force. That' s just shameful. Obama does not deserve to be Commander of Anything.

  • skylarkva

    ONE QUESTION needs to be answered… only one…. "Who issued the order, three times, to Stand Down?"

    It doesn't take a lengthy investigation, culminating AFTER the election, to answer that question. The person who issued the order comes forward and takes responsibility for it. That simple. Done deal.

    Until that happens, Americans will draw their own conclusions and point the finger of blame at Obama. IF, as he claims, he is not responsible for the "Stand Down" order, he needs to name the person who issued it – ASAP. If he won't do that, BEFORE the election, we know he's guilty.

    • Elaine Langford

      O has never accepted responsibility for anything even though he postured and declared in the debate he is responsible…He should be taken at his word and arrested!

    • Debra

      I think Valerie Jarrette thought it was to politically dangerous for him to take action and they thought with a friendly press they could spin their way out of any backlash.

    • ladyjk

      I think it is plain that Obama issued the order with urging from Valerie Jarrett–that is how these decisions have been made in the past. Obama says he didn’t issue the “stand down” order three times, however, he could have overruled such an order just once and there would not have been any more requests. Either he issued the “stand down” orders because he has the final say, or he did not issue the orders to engage. He has a really poor argument.

    • joe

      the lop-eared half breed muslim commie,,,,who else???

    • Devon

      The most likely explanation is that we didn't have and couldn't get a sufficient force to the area without knowing what they would be facing, and didn't know the scope of what was going on. The Army will not engage unless they know they can overwhelm the opposition with minimal casualties. This requires something like at least a 4-1 ratio. The attack was committed by a group of about 150, armed with machine guns, rockets, and anti-aircraft weapons. This means the army would want something like 600 men with armor.

      Just to speculate, from the information we were getting, I believe that the people in Washington sincerely hoped and maybe believed that this was part of a protest and that the mob would dissipate. You had several other protests and demonstrations going on across the area at other embassies that did not turn out like this. It is also the duty of the host country to provide much of the security for an embassy. Think about this: if a (let's just say) German embassy in America were spontaneously attacked by a small army; would you expect American forces or German forces to be called on?

      Most likely, Ham's retirement was planned well in advance. He may have said that they can get the forces to the area, or he may have said they couldn't. Then the decision whether to act would be up to those above him. Viewing the situation at the beginning, the administration probably believed it was a protest and not a well planned siege, and also placed too much faith in the local military. By the time they realized it was much worse, it was too late, but at the same time, killing a mob of people, armed or not, before they had taken action against the embassy would have been disastrous for our relationship with Libya.

      I'm not saying no one is to blame; it was an awful thing that happened. I'm saying stop jumping to conspiracies when there are much more reasonable answers.

      I will also say this again:
      Embassies and consulates were attacked constantly under Bush; several soldiers and security personel from our country and the host have died in such raids. It is amazing that no diplomat has died until now, and also that there wasn't such an attack for almost 4 years under Obama. Why are you not enraged about the previous 12 incidents? Why aren't you asking who is to blame for all the other times this has happened?
      The problem is not just with this administration; it is with the idea that we can bring peace and stability to other cultures through violence. No one in the current or previous administration wants to admit that the war on terror does not work, and that ultimately there is more resentment against the U.S. now in a lot of areas than there was 14 years ago.

  • Frank Orlando Wilson

    That mission was put in place by the State Department with CIA support. This whole thing appears to be a massive operation involving the Government of Turkey to facilitate supplying arms through Turkey to Syrian rebels, et al. Russia has warned against this and Department of State has put out a statement denying it. Somebody decided to shut it down and Russia wouldn't risk involvement,(Iran?). Make no mistake Obama or no, we are still their common enemy.

    • Lena Tawlks

      I agree with your assessment. I believe the Embassy was a front. Why did we need one there anyway since there was an Embassy in Tripoli? It sounds as if there were no other employees, such as a staff, there at the time. What happened to the guns which the British left behind when they moved out? What were all of those CIA people doing at the Annex? It is unbelievable that our Government sent the FBI there 2 weeks later, had them wait in Tripoli for 2 weeks, then spent only a few hours investigating. If anyone is interested, research the Caliphate of Turkey and his future plans. He is the current head of the all Muslims.

  • Heidi Regan

    My husband I have known Gen Ham and his family for over 15 years. He is a man of integrity and has a history of putting soldiers and their families first. I don't believe for one second he wasn't prepared to do whatever was possible to assist in this situation. Somebody higher up the food chain had to be calling the shots. Things just don't add up!

    • Lauren Koury

      So…. he if General Ham ( a Hero) cannot defend our embassy – do you think our militray can defend us? I fell that our Military knows that their power resides in the USA not a dictatorship. I don’t think they need a “plan” to defend the Capital, the presdient, etc… besides I would expect a “plan ” be in place at all ebassies, consulltaes, etc.. throughput the world on 9/11 – but hey skip briefings cause Whoopie and Joy Behar are calling – but I think it’s plausible deniability. What you don’t know right??

      • That Guy

        I think you need to learn to spell before your start questioning someone’s logic/point in written form, it will give your argument much more credence.


      That Dirty Miserable Communist Muslim living in our White House was surely the last word!! he stood by and watched our people die! He is the worst President in American History, and must himself be destroyed on November 6th, 2012!! (((MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012)))

  • Rogue Rose

    I don't understand how it can be considered a rumor that Gen Ham is out when the information that he is being replaced by Gen Rodriguez was put out in an official press statement on Oct 19th.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Ham's departure isn't a rumor. That he was removed over this or even forced to stand down because he attempted to intervene is the rumor.

  • Jean Lee

    The current President through his Secretary of Defense in an unprecedented move, has announced three major changes in the command of European and African forces generals/admirals. General Carter Ham of Africon (U.S. Command in Africa) and Admiral James Stavridis, Commander, U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Not only were Africon assets available,our forces in Southern Italy (Adm. Stavridis's command) did not get orders either. Amd. Stavridis is reportedly retiring. The third commander, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette is the Commander of the Stennis Strike Group that is currently stationed in the Middle East. This carrier group does not currently have a commander since the Navy re-called Adm. Gaouette from deployment (highly unusual). He is currently "under investigation for questionable judgement".
    ODD and alarming that all three had command of those that could have provided aide in the Benghauzi attack and now (or soon to be) two are relieved of command and the third under internal Naval investigation. It seems to add up that they did not agree with the White House and have been replaced.

    • Jim

      All of these rotations are normal, the EUCOM and USAREUR commander's were scheduled months ago. With these assignments typically being 2 or so years in length, it ins't a conspiracy

      • Dutra

        As they say in show biz, “Timing is everything!”

      • Charles

        I call bulls*it. So a commander is rotated out at 10 pm their time by a subordinate officer in the middle of an attack on our consulate. Really???.Open your eyes and answer your phone reality is calling

      • Alexander the Great

        Uhm I don’t think so Jim .Carter Ham had seved less then 18 months of a 2 1/2 year rotattation. All his reviews had been excellent.This is very unusual ,if you know military rotation procedure .This looks and smells really bad.

    • birddogbjr

      If American military leaders are fired, retired or reassigned for attempting to rescue four distressed Americans, we have to know the details. This could be one of the most outrageous failures of an American president in our nation's history.

      Please sign and share!

  • HCQ

    Yeah, but st. Barry/Barack is black and the American Bolsheviks and the criminal internationalist banking syndicate want him in place to continue demoralizing and undermining the U.S. which they plan on scuttling with the destruction of the dollar. The NWO has plans within plans within plans…

  • curmudgeon

    our noble leader did not hesitate to bomb libya when the goal was to convert a dictatorship into an islamic theocracy ruled by islamic monsters. but when the lives of americans were at stake, any move to protect those lives would "destabilize" eastern libya, and "upset" muslims. too bad we werent concerned about destabilizing libya when we were helping the "arab spring" monsters to seize control of libya. kadaffy was bad, but not bad enough. we had to use our armed forces to ensure that libya is ruled by far, far worse than khadaffi. put it into perspective: if obama were not a traitor, he would never have sent diplomats to libya. the american people are getting what they voted for in '08. his islamic sympathies were no secret then either.

  • BlueStarMom

    Please, of course assets were available! They have teams ready 24/7 for this type of situation world wide and you can bet those guys were chomping at the bit to get in there and rescue them!

    And don’t forget, when that chopper of SEALs and SF were sent to help in Afghanistan back on Aug. 6, 2011 there was an AC-130 above that was told not to fire on Taliban during an attack and the chopper was shot out of the sky killing all on board.

    It is standard operating procedure for this administration to stand down!

    • wayne

      do you know any persons who were present or family members of the aug. 6 2011 incident that could talk to me for some background? Im researching some of the issues that may correlate to the current situation. wrw

  • Bill Grimes-Wyatt

    Congres has to require General Carter Ham and his second in command appear this week to be questioned!

  • bigmouthpatriot

    Aid denied to combat troops in a forward area is different from a refusal to help civilian representatives of this country. They both are harmful to the administration, but there are commanders on the ground who have tactical knowledge and reasons why to deny that aid. Watching men get slaughtered and choosing to do nothing for no plausible tactical advantage is quite another.

  • Dick Bass

    Wow…. FUBAR

  • David Palmer


  • Henry Thoreau

    I don't think I could join the military knowing that I report to a Communist out to destroy the Country. But that's just me I suppose.

  • Burlington

    We need to demand a congressional investigation and put these parties under oath. I would crawl on my hands and knees to get to Washington if I could get into the hearing room and listen to Gen. Ham testify under oath with Gen. Dempsey and Panetta in the room. Have the impeachment bill at the ready.

    What about David Petraeus? What happened to the Academy oath, "I will not lie cheat or steal nor will I tolerate those who do." Gen. Powell broke that oath long ago.

  • Ike Isaacson

    Now there saying neither drone was armed. The second drone was launched after the call for help and after the president said he gave the order to help. Why was that drone not armed, after all the president has no problem taking out terrorist with drones, yet has a problem helping Americans in need.

    • DSW

      No doubt Obama knew about attack…I'm sure he can be reached 24/7 REGARDLESS of where he is.
      But you don't willie-nillie start authorizing attacks..armed drones…without getting itel/info, AND following up on such info.itel. I've read the newspaper "CIA/Washington" accounts & timeline. General Ham?
      Interesting……..something sounds fishy…..and to get full and complete details BEFORE the election is nil.

    • birddogbjr

      If American military leaders are fired, retired or reassigned for attempting to rescue four distressed Americans, we have to know the details. This could be one of the most outrageous failures of an American president in our nation's history.

      Please sign and share!

  • montanamiles

    MUST WATCH: Rush military caller says beyond shadow of doubt Obama knew about Benghazi attack and ordered no response

  • Iowa48

    Interesting that during the VietNam war when an American pilot was shot down, we would immediately deploy search and rescue elements with air cover to attempt the recovery of the downed airman. This was in the face of a well-organized, well-equipped NVA enemy with its own air force and anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missle batteries. This was done immediately and with some urgency, despite not having all the best intel regarding the target. Juxtapose this with Panetta's lame statement regarding not committing a rescue attempt to Benghazi due to imperfect intel regarding the situation on the ground, while facing a small bunch of rag-tags. This despite the fact that they had drones overhead relaying real-time intel, as well as experienced SpecOps veterans on the ground giving updated real-time intel and situation reports. Apparently Obama and Panetta have substantially degraded our military if we are unable to engage today in what was routine back in the VietNam era. It seems all the high-tech gear which gives us such great eyes and communications on today's battlefield is wasted if you don't have competent leadership to employ it and do what needs to be done.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Interesting that during the VietNam war when an American pilot was shot down, we would immediately deploy search and rescue elements with air cover to attempt the recovery of the downed airman. This was in the face of a well-organized, well-equipped NVA enemy with its own air force and anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missle batteries. This was done immediately and with some urgency, despite not having all the best intel regarding the target"

      Those were the days when we acknowledged who our enemies were. Today we acknowledge none.

    • birddogbjr

      If American military leaders are fired, retired or reassigned for attempting to rescue four distressed Americans, we have to know the details. This could be one of the most outrageous failures of an American president in our nation's history.

      Please sign and share!

  • Carle Riley

    Does anybody small a raccoon sized RAT? What's the ONLY reason that a 4-Star General would leave someone behind? In this case 4 Americans. It would have to come from the President. But he won't leave anyone behind that's suffering from the aftermath of "Sandy". Yah, right! God help us.

  • Shell

    Clearly I am no diplomat, but is appears if we send troops, and other state department personal, into a country to defend that country from invasion from another country or other subversives we simply must have the power to defend ourselves or we should NOT GO! No American life is worth getting “MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD” on some foreign land trying to bring a better solution to the people there and then have those we train to defend their homeland to turn the guns on our soldiers, ambassadors, etc. Time to cut the foreign aid out COMPLETELY. No, I am not a diplomat just a damn mad AMERICAN.

    • Dick

      Yes 3wars that's enough. Do you remember!

  • robertsteele

    Excellent article, cross-posted to Phi Beta Iota the Public Intelligence Blog by Mini-Me, our most experienced contributing editor, which brought me here.

    The political decision to not rescue while seven hours lapsed from the first alarm to the first two deaths of US citizens, is the nuggest, as best I can tell. The departure of Panetta will be sooner than later. A number of veterans have put together a map of available DoD assets, and a number of posts, all of these are clustered in one place, here is the short URL:

  • ike

    It looks like people are losing interest in 4 dead Americans and are only looking at gun control, what a shame.Even fox reporters have said we the news has spent too much time on 4 Dead Americans. A past congressmen that is on the 5 said on Oreilly " you are wasting my time discussing Benghazi". So the Constitution does mean anything and they are above the law.

  • Richard S Monroe

    it came from obama get over it he is your lord and savior

  • Mike

    The most important question regarding Benghazi CANNOT be answered unless General Ham can freely testify as to which of the numerous enemies within this administration issued the stand down order.

    Anything else is kabuki theater, which seems to be the style of the current government of the USA.

    To the lying politicians and media whores on the left, there is nobody on this planet who knew, when the fighting started, how long the fighting would take place. Therefore, there is no human being who could have known we would not have the time to respond.

    We are nothing but chum to be thrown in the water so our ruling elite can live their pampered lifestyle protected by the very same arms they want to remove from our cold dead hands.

    Every day that passes is one more day for the Red Diaper babies in the Obama and Clinton gestapo to formulate lie number 84 on Benghazi.

  • Terry Tate

    Obama has been behind this from the beginning and he’s behind all of the other coverups, IRS, Fast and Furious ect.