LF: Pentagon Denies Claims General Was Fired Over Benghazi Attacks

On Monday, U.S. military officials denied claims from a Washington Times blog that Gen. Carter Ham, former head of U.S. Africa command, may have been fired due to an intent to disobey defense secretary Leon Panetta's order to "stand down" while the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi were underway.

This story is gathering steam as Charlie Woods, father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, went on the Glenn Beck show this past weekend to claim that President Barack Obama had shown no remorse for his son's death during their meeting. (YouTube Video)

Over the weekend, a source inside the Pentagon informed Times reporter James Robbins that Gen. Ham wanted to send special forces units to help Americans under siege in Libya despite orders from Sec. Panetta to stand down. Ham was supposedly relieved of his command by a junior officer just before Ham was to order the rescue mission.

Cover-up, fake, fraud, coercion, lies, bribes, and BS! Meanwhile they're holding Gen. Ham in the stockade, and pumping him full of "joker" drugs, to shut him up!

I don't know where you got that from,but they are lying. General Officers are not treated that way,and if one were you can bet your bippy it would be prime time news because the other Generals wouldn't stand for it.

Just because these people take a oath to remain subservient to the political leadership doesn't mean they will or should take that kind of abuse.

At MOST he would be relieved of his command and put on immediate administrative leave until his retirement papers could be processed.

One obvious example is hippies have no interest in obtaining total control over anything,much less everything.

These lowland coastal areas that just got hit by Hurricane Sandy are now permanently blighted. If they had flood insurance, surely they can rebuild, but the likelihood of getting insurance again at any reasonable cost, just went to nil. And without insurance, good luck selling those properties. Which just means that all lowland areas along the coastal U.S. in the potential path of hurricanes are likely to be eventually blighted as investment capital dries up. Then of course, there are the impacts of rising sea levels which will obliterate those low lying areas not directly impacted by hurricanes.

Like all other aspects of comfort seeking reality denialism, the noose is getting tighter as mother nature demands amounts well past due.

Once again you prove you are clueless. You do NOT need insurance to sell property. You don't even need insurance to buy property.

Which just means that all lowland areas along the coastal U.S. in the potential path of hurricanes are likely to be eventually blighted as investment capital dries up. Then of course, there are the impacts of rising sea levels which will obliterate those low lying areas not directly impacted by hurricanes.

As we consider the middle [IPCC] scenarios AIM 6.0 and MiniCAM 4.5, we must bear in mind this very important point:

All other things being equal, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a proxy for economic growth *

* "a proxy for" in this context means "provide an alternative measurement of", or "stand in for"

As things stand, and in the foreseeable future, anthropogenic emissions from burning fossil fuels will rise if and only if the global economy is growing. "

“It is beyond imagination,” Ellis said. “The only safe thing to do is shut down the system.”

Tell me which of the Above that you disagree with so we can settle Exactly where on the POlitical Spectrum you lie.....;}

The lake's draining and the car wrecks, old tires, and skeletons are coming into view.....lulz....;}