>

Gates, Panetta & Ham – Loyal to a Fault?

By David Kraemer – ConservativeAmerican.org – Leading the way Right.

NYTBy now you know about former Defense Secretary Bob Gates’ book and how it is critical of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He’s revealing things now that would have been nice to know prior to Mr. Obama’s reelection.

Seems to be the trend lately.

James Rosen at Fox News got his hands on testimony that took place a year ago in which General Carter Ham told investigators that there was no belief ever, that the Benghazi attack was because of a demonstration or a video

“HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.” …  “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied. Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack.” 

The talk of a video was a lie created by the Hillary Clinton State Department with the blessing and gratitude of King Barack.  The same goes for the so-called demonstration which never took place.  The Hillary and Obama claims that they had NO REAL TIME INFORMATION were outright lies.  But, as Hillary puts it,What difference, at this point, does it make” if we democrats lie to the American people over and over again? We’re in charge! Not the people!  What the hell difference does it make if we lie about what really happened to the families of those killed?

Loyalty is a very good thing, especially in the military.  I get that. But, is there a point at which loyalty becomes a fault rather than a positive trait?

Did General Ham do a disservice to the nation by not going public with this information? Yes, he would have paid the price for doing so, but he loves his country.  He told the truth to the committee.

Did Leon Panetta do enough? He was not one who lied to the public for Obama or Hillary.  He passed on that request, to his credit. But should he have done more to go public with the truth about what happened instead of just going along knowing that at least he was not part of the big lie, designed to protect the White House chances of Obama 2012 and Hillary 2016?

What about Bob Gates? He’s a good man who loves the U.S.A. too.  Once he was out, should he have come forward with more direct information about the kind of Commander in Chief Obama is PRIOR TO the election? Gates maintains Mr. Obama was a man with no passion for the military and no belief in his own troop surge in Afghanistan.  Obama was not invested in victory and even said publicly the word itself, victory, made him uncomfortable.  How can a man like that be the Commander of the most powerful military on the planet?  Did Gates have a duty to come forward sooner?

Yes, this is the United States, but make no mistake… if these men had come forward they would have been punished directly and indirectly by the powerful people they would have ticked off.  I get that.

I’m just asking if they were loyal to a fault? Loyal to a man rather than to a nation?

Leave a Reply