Did President Obama Really Purge the Military?

Let me take you back to the heady days of October, 2013. St. Louis was playing Boston in the World Series. The US had yet to be inundated with the endless winter of the Polar Vortex. And a list was making its way around conspiracy theory and ultra-conservative websites: a list of generals and admirals President Obama had “fired” as part of a massive purge of the military.

The purpose of this purge tended to vary depending on what the source of the list was. For ultra-conservative websites like World Net Daily and Breitbart, it was because the officers had dared express dissent against a President who hates America, and in particularly, hates the men and women of the Armed Forces. For conspiracy-driven sites like Before It’s News and Infowars, it was because Obama was on the verge of declaring martial law and these officers wouldn’t participate in the killing of American citizens.


We’ve seen in many other circumstances how conspiracy theorists love to make lists of people related to some kind of catastrophe. And a President liquidating the leadership of his military to make way for a fascist takeover would indeed be a catastrophe. But is that what happened with these officers? Let’s take a look at the list, and the exact reasons each officer was “fired” – and indeed, if they were at all.

There are actually two lists that have been going around, one of nine officers and the other of over 200 supposedly fired by President Obama during his entire presidency. Any list of 200 people falls squarely in the Gish Gallop category, so we’re going to put that aside for now and just focus on the list of nine. Contrary to the allegations that the firings were covered up, I easily found information on each one from a mainstream news site.

Major General Michael Carey – As commander of the US land-based nuclear missile program, Carey was responsible for three units of ICBMs. He was relieved in October 2013 for his conduct on a July trip to Moscow, where he went on what news reports called a “drunken bender,” fraternized with local women and made inappropriate comments disparaging the Russian military. As a result, he was reassigned and made Special Assistant to the Commander of Air Force Space Command in Colorado.

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina – Giardina served as chief of staff of the US Pacific Fleet and was the number 2 officer of US Strategic Command (StratCom) until being relieved of duty in September 2013, following an investigation into his use of fake casino chips in a poker game. This is a class D felony in Iowa, where StratCom is located. He was already due to leave StratCom, and his bio currently lists him as “assigned to the staff of the vice chief of naval operations.”

Lieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon, Jr. – Huntoon was serving as the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy in West Point until June 2013, when a report of an Inspector General’s office investigation was released, which found that he had misused his position and forced subordinate officers to perform personal tasks. Huntoon was given a letter of reprimand, allowed to resign from his post and took his mandatory retirement the next month.

Major General C.M.M. Gurganus – This was one of two generals asked to retire early by the Commandant of the Marine Corps after a September 2012 Taliban surprise attack on a Marine airbase. Gurganus was found to have “not taken adequate force protection measures” at Camp Bastion, which led to the death of two Marines and the destruction of six Harrier jet fighters.

Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant – Sturdevant was the other general asked to retire in the wake of the Camp Bastion attack.

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts – The former commanding officer of Fort Jackson, the largest training post in the US Army, Roberts was suspended in May 2013 after an investigation into adultery and a physical altercation with a woman described as his mistress. Adultery in the military is punishable as an action that can bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Major General Ralph Baker – Baker was removed from his post as commanding officer of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, as well as fined, after an administrative hearing into alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct charges in April 2013.

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette – Gaouette held the position of commanding officer of Carrier Strike Group Three until a reprimand from the US Navy led to his removal. He was found to have used profanity in public and made several racially insensitive remarks. The origin of the complaint might have come from the captain of the aircraft carrier assigned to the Strike Group, who alleged Gaouette had humiliated him in public.

General Carter F. Ham – The commander of US Command Africa, Ham retired in the wake of the September 2011 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Though the attack itself generated enormous controversy and blame on the Obama administration, Ham himself was never reprimanded and served the entirety of his two-year posting in Africa, retiring as scheduled at age 62, after a 40 year career.

Obviously, the context of these nine “firings” puts the entire validity of the list into question. Many were removed for misconduct or violation of military protocol. Several were near or at the Army’s mandatory retirement age of 62. None were simply sacked willy nilly by President Obama. More than a conspiracy or purge, it speaks to a renewed lack of tolerance for behavior among senior officers that brings disgrace or embarrassment on the military as a whole.

The longer list comprises 200 names over the entire armed forces, from admirals and generals to individual ship commanders. It’s full of names, but no information as to why they were removed from their posts. As such, we can only look at it as a Gish Gallop, designed to overwhelm the reader with bits of data that are devoid of context. It’s also important to point out that military officers retire early, are reassigned or get removed from command all the time. It happens for numerous reasons, no matter who the president happens to be.

And if misconduct allegations are being investigated and acted upon with renewed vigor, which is clearly the case, it makes sense that lower ranking officer would feel the pinch in large numbers. Finally, the US is winding down two wars and engaged in a general drawdown of the military for budgetary reasons. So it’s possible that many of these officers were offered early retirements as part of this process. Without going through all of the 200 names, which nobody has time to do, we can’t know for sure.

So are these lists evidence of a conspiracy to bring fascism down on us, or evidence only of a lack of tolerance for unethical behavior among the leaders of our military? With no martial law, government takeover or coup having taken place since the list first circulated, my suspicion falls on the latter.

About Mike Rothschild

Mike Rothschild is a writer and editor based in Pasadena. He writes about scams, conspiracy theories, hoaxes and pop culture fads. He's also a playwright and screenwriter. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/rothschildmd.
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Did President Obama Really Purge the Military?

  1. John Denys says:

    Thanks for the article.

    When I read claims like these I ask myself what the numbers were for other presidents before I even look at the details. I don’t know how many officers get fired or retire early each year. According to Wikipedia there were 236,826 officers serving in the US military in 2010. Given this large number of officers even their Gish Gallop number of 200 fired doesn’t sound that high. How many people were promoted to these ranks in that year?

    BTW, if President Obama is going to impose martial law he sure is taking his sweet time about it.

    • Charles Eson says:

      He has to have a salable reason that the public and press can believe is plausible. Would a 911 attack committed by Islamic terrorists who entered the country via our Southern border be enough of a reason? Or how about a massive outbreak of mass hysteria due to a black flag event manufactured by the left? The executive order he signed allowing martial law used vague wording as to the reason for imposing it.

  2. Martin says:

    Fired for infringements, or fired for incompetence? You could be the worst gambler, misogynist, alcoholic, drug-taking ne’er do well and still do a good job militarily. Only two people on the list were fired because they ballsed it up.

    Good job Russia has no plans in Europe… oh wait.

    • John Denys says:

      If you think someone could be “the worst gambler, misogynist, alcoholic, drug-taking ne’er do well and still do a good job militarily,” then you need to study more military history.

    • Patrick Wirt says:

      A major part of a general officer’s duties is ensuring integrity and adherence to standards of conduct within his/her command. You can’t do that if you yourself are tainted.

      • Big B says:

        For sure, for sure. It’s just ashame that those same standards don’t apply to the top of the chain of command. Like to the commander and chief.

        • Snookybeh says:

          The term is actually, “Commander-in-Chief,” not “Commander and chief.” And I just love it when people make comments implying wrong-doing or improper behavior, then don’t explain. Okay, you hate Barack Obama for whatever reason – maybe you’re just a typical wingnut crackpot, or a racist, or whatever. Maybe you’ve convinced yourself that Barack Obama is a Secret Kenyan Muslim Nazi Communist who’s going to take your guns and throw you in a FEMA camp. Whatever. If you actually HAVE any “charges” against Obama, they’re probably right-wing bullshit fake scandals like BENGHAZI!! or FAST AND FURIOUS!! (caps and punctuation intentional). Unless you take the time to explain, you come off looking like an idiot, and I’m sure you’re not really an idiot.

          • nick says:

            Hillary got us involved in Libya, left an ambassador unprotected which resulted in his death, and finally Obama instructed his people to blame a movie no one has seen. He deliberately lied to the American people multiple times. The president that you love so much thinks of you as sheep.

          • Eric Holder was held in civil and criminal contempt of congress for impeding the Fast and Furious investigation. And the administration has repeatedly lied about Benghazi. Nonetheless, this is America and you are free to worship whomever you please.

          • @Cayce – What does Holder’s contempt charge have to do with President Obama “purging the military?”

            Also, there’s really no evidence anyone in the Obama administration lied about anything to do with Benghazi. And as much as conspiracy theorists want to believe Carter Ham was purged because of the attack on the consulate, he wasn’t. It just didn’t happen.

          • Jackie TreeHorn says:

            Why is it that you liberals always claim someone is a racist or crack pot if they do not agree with your opinion Snookybeh. Why do liberals always play the race card…oh you dont agree with me so you must be a racist…LOL WOW…that is typical Liberal talk, all you do is distract and tell people that they are crazy if they dont see things your way…the current Presidents own people(Gruber) has stated that they prey on the uneducated voters and that is who voted for him, the guy was recorded when talking about the “tortured” language they presented with ObamaCare and people like you eat it up

          • Roger Smart says:

            Yep, you certainly are very naive! Yes its coming and yes, obama was born in Kenya and yes he hates America and yes he hates our military. When are you bleeding heart liberals going to use your brain?

          • Eric Hall says:

            We are really still on the birth certificate thing? I know more than one person whose birth certificate said baby girl on them – and they certainly were not a girl. It required a few government forms to fix them in order to get a passport. So, if Hawaii is willing to issue the certificate, even if it is not original, I think it is reasonable to assume there was at least some level of proof.

            How would one measure “hatred for the military?” Is it the increased amount of funding they receive? Is it the continuation of the previous president’s foreign policy? I cannot imagine how one would find any measure by which he hates the military.

            And no, this is not coming from a “liberal.”

          • Jim says:

            anyone who will defend this demander-and-thief is the idiot in this conversation. I bet you will vote for that liar, communist and treasonous piece of crap Hillary as well. People like you don’t care about your country, it’s future or even your own children’s futures because, if you did, you would understand how this spiraling debt is going to entrap them into a life of misery.

          • Eric Hall says:

            Your comment looks almost like a cut and paste job from a conservative talking point generator.

            The point of this article wasn’t to defend the entire list of policies supported by the president, nor democrats in general. It was intended to debunk this one specific claim of purging the military. These type of things happen all of the time – like somehow making up lies or spinning political events into such a twist they go from a fact to a lie so far from truth it looks silly.

            If one does not support the policies of President Obama, you don’t need to use falsehoods, nor the silly rhetoric devices such as “communist” or “treasonous” to do it.

            You bring up the debt for example. The president does not make the budget. The president signs the budget. Congress passes the spending bills. The other major part has controlled the house since 2011. These are all facts. Blaming it on the President only is really absurd.

            So, after my little political lesson, can you find anything about the topic in the post specifically which is incorrect?

          • Bob Taylor says:

            If you truly think Benghazi and Fast and Furious are fake then I truly feel sorry for for your lack of research. Perhaps you forgot what Truman said about the President…The Buck Stops Here. As the one at the top he is responsible for the actions of his appointed people. He himself said the video was the reason for the deaths. No I am not going to even waste any more time on someone as far gone as you.

          • Donna M Crane says:

            Well said.

        • My thoughts exactly.. HE is purposely destroying our military . If you do not think so you are a near sighted liberal with your nose up Obama’s azz. Yes, he has fired Generals on cropped up reasons because they disagree with him or he does not trust them to protect him on his actions of downsizing our military to a point it is unsafe for America… Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool!
          Time tells all things…

          • Patrick Moore says:

            Except, of course, that none of that is true, except in your fevered imagination. Yes, we all know you hate Obama. Congratulations. The end of Obama’s term is going to happen, and none of the nonsense you are spouting will have happened. It will be a perfect opportunity for you to engage in a little self-reflection, and perhaps learn a lesson about basing your opinion on what you have evidence for. But reflection is, no doubt, too much to expect from you. If Fox doesn’t command it, it won’t happen. It’s pretty pathetic, actually.

        • uspatriot says:

          His socialist agenda…do what I say…not what I do. This country is F*cked

      • Jackie TreeHorn says:

        Wouldnt you say the same thing about being a President? That they need Honor and Integrity???? A general was fired for cheating on his wife yet Clinton got to keep his job…….seems hypocritcal

        • Military officers agree to live their lives by a code of conduct, and adultery is verboten in that code of conduct. Presidents and politicians sign no such legal document.

          • Matt McIntyre says:

            …But they do promise once every four years, in front of a national audience, to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. This president has brazenly chosen not to enforce several Constitutional laws related to immigration and drug use. Additionally, while this president seems to be a loyal family man, a certain unnamed, potential first dude and his candidate wife have a looonnng history of lying to each other and the public. An ultra-liberal society that overlooks deceptive behaviors from its politicians and votes based on a coolness factor is doomed (as is a far-right society that believes deceptive reporting about fired military leaders). Question: while I feel your article is justified, isn’t it pretty easy for those who work behind closed doors to concoct “ethical breaches” in order to fire military leaders, and wouldn’t the highest ups know not to challenge questionable charges?

          • LAH says:

            Don’t be so willfully obtuse, this is ridiculous.

      • Juan Reynoso says:

        Obama’s moral leadership is trash, if we are to compare it to our Generals in the arm forces. Obama is a pathological liar, a sycophant and war criminal, because he is the one that give the orders to kill hundreds by the use of drones and also by the proxy army recruited by the CIA to undermind foreign governments.

    • Barton says:

      Strange you think that. Apparently you have no personal knowledge.

      Once a VERY long time ago I was a line officer in combat. It stuck me that great officers were very hard to find, good officers were aplenty, and there were way too many bad officers. The differentiating factors were honor, effort, and empathy. Schools meant nothing, smarts little more. Personal discipline which is honor and effort was paramount.

      In the forty plus years since it is the same in business.

    • Nathan says:

      Yeah it doesn’t work like that. Senior officerslike them have to have the highest security clearance possible. Part of the vetting process involves making sure you have nothing that can be used to blackmail you. “Oh, you’re a general with SAC? How about taking some photos for me or I’ll let it be known that you’ve been having an affair”. Not a good look

  3. Bill Swigert says:

    For something as important as this, why doesn’t anybody have the time to track down the “purged” military officers and see what the reasons were? I’ve seen the news media waste thousands of hours of reporters time on relatively minor events(read Hollywood and big time sports scandals).
    The media react to what sells newspapers and to the agenda of the owners/publishers.

    • Bill, investigating a list of 200 names is a massive endeavor. Spending even just 10 minutes on each one would entail over 30 hours of work. Do you have time to do that?

      Still, you’re right. Proving President Obama were purging the military in advance of a coup of some kind would be vitally important work – yet nobody has done it.

      • MIke, isn’t it your JOB to investigate these things? 30 hours isn’t that long, really. And almost all of these “random” nine officers were disgusting gambling drunken racists, were they?

        A conspiracy debunker named Rothschild. You couldn’t make it up.

      • Jackie TreeHorn says:

        30 Hours of work is nothing…those are part time hours. If you are an investigative report than you have time to do that, the people commenting on this article typically have full time jobs so no we dont have time to do that put people like you do

      • MadRabbit says:

        Hey Bro, I am a Veteran of 21 years, and now a licensed officer of the Merchant Marine of 15 more. You seem to have a lot of answers, please explain all the Muslims, especially Muslim Brotherhood, now in key positions of our government infrastructure. Please also explain the information contained in the website Investigate911.org thanks

        • Noah Dillon says:

          Who “in key positions in our government” is Muslim or in the Muslim Brotherhood? What evidence do you have?

          This post is about the claim that Obama purged the military. It’s not about the September 11 attacks, so there’s no reason to “explain the information” contained on that website, which is way beyond the scope of a comment thread or a blog post. I’ll explain this to you: a lot of the links on that site are dead because they’re done by fly-by-night ninnies. There’s no actual evidence of anything there, just a bunch of accusations and vague intimations about creepy things that are happening secretly. So why don’t you explain why any of that is relevant to this article or what evidence there is for it?

        • patrickdallas says:

          Interesting how some veterans love to imply that being a vet is some kind of trump card in a discussion or that it is somehow evidence for whatever assertion they make. It’s not, though it would carry some weight if you commanded an infantry platoon and we’re making an assertion about platoon-level combat tactics. But an assertion about Muslims in government? The fact that you are a veteran is irrelevant. And the fact that you start with it as if it were meaningful says something.

          Before anyone has to explain all these supposed Muslim Brotherhood members in government, you have to demonstrate that your assertion that they exist is true. And understand that an assertion by Bill O’Reilly or some retired general on Fox does not amount to evidence.

        • barbie says:

          Thank you.. You just said what I was thinking.. Why were they all replaced with Muslims? And Moscow? Really? We know they’d never lie right? Lol
          And someone could never hand you fake chips to set you up could they? This article is another insane attempt to hide the Jihad!

    • When they leave they leave with the threat of destruction on their lives. They are fearful for their families and reputation by lies and cropped up reason .. Think about it… Otherwise you would have heard plenty otherwise in a different situation… Obama puts the threats on people.. and believe me he is cold blooded and will not hesitate to carry them out.. Chicago style!

      • Sandie Williams says:

        I think you are EXACTLY right!!

      • Dana Wurster says:

        You have no idea how the military investigates these cases. There are standards of proof that must happen. As an officer, you must adhere to a code of conduct hence the term an officer and a gentleman. Officer know when something goes wrong under their command they will be held accountable for it. There are no cropped up or made up reason these officers or others are relieved of command. When you are in command you can disagree with orders but you must execute them the best and safest. As an officer you are not to discuss your political preferences. I know, my husband is an officer who has been investigated.

    • Jaleer says:

      Also who they were replaced with and what their apparent philosophy is regarding honor, color-blind justice, traditions of our military.

  4. Jason says:

    Hey Mike, just where did you get that list of 9 floating around. How convenient for you there was a list of 9 hand picked names out of 200. 200 names is just gish gallop “which nobody has time to do” how irresponsible. I would call picking 9 names that fit your agenda and leaving the other 191 names out gish gallop, 191 names that would overwhelm a reader to actual research and prove you wrong.

    • John Denys says:

      Read the article more carefully.

      “There are actually two lists that have been going around, one of nine officers and the other of over 200 supposedly fired by President Obama during his entire presidency.”

      Also, it might help if you look up Gish Gallop. It seems you aren’t clear about the meaning.

    • I didn’t pick the names. Whoever made the list did.

      As for the list of nine names itself, it can easily be found. Google “Obama general purge” and you’ll find it from multiple sources.

      • Johnny says:

        Who made the list mike?? And bill said they spend thousands of hours reporting on useless garbage,and you come back with ” it would take 30 hrs to investigate” give me a break. Why don’t you report the facts,and research it for yourself. Oh the CIA deputy director said “we own any one of any significance in the major media”. That apparently includes you. Economic collapse,it’s coming.

        • Lee says:

          Johnny – Perhaps you are being sarcastic to make a point, and don’t actually mean what you’ve written in your reply. Otherwise, your statements are just plain silly.

          About the statement of “it would take 30 hrs…” – the 30 hours was just an example of how quickly the time needed would accumulate – with the given investigation time being just 10 minutes each. So, imagine trying to contact just one person on the list. Do you think it might take you longer than 10 minutes to get in contact with that person (or an assistant), and ask them a few clarifying questions? It seems unlikely that the average time needed would be as low as 10 minutes.

          Regarding the CIA director quote – a quick search on the quote you left (“we own…”) shows that it has been debunked. There was no direct attribution to Colby for that quote.

      • Jim says:

        Google has one of its Vice Presidents working IN THE WHITEHOUSE side by side to aide the president and his party promote, hide or obscure any information he deems fit. To find out if a liar is lying, you don’t ask the liar or those who lie for the liar.

        • Eric Hall says:

          Yes, because secrets stay secret for so long – but somehow Alex Jones is able to find them out and expose them to the world…

          • That’s my favorite part of conspiracy theory mythology. You’ve got massive government and business entities concocting elaborate conspiracies to kill, destroy, rob, and subvert our freedoms. They involve thousands of people, massive falsification of evidence, the need to disappear endless innocent people, the involvement of countless news sources…a conspiracy that would involve layers, upon layers, upon layers.

            And it’s all uncovered by internet sleuths in a manner of hours, simply by means of “doing your research.”

        • That’s a heck of a conspiracy, Jim. Got any evidence to back it up?

  5. Dan in Ohio says:

    The fact of the matter is you can find any minor infringement if you look close enough. They use these as an excuse to fire decorated and patriotic military personnel. Even Stalin had excuses for all the ones he purged. So please folks – be a bit smarter than the state shill who wrote this article.

    • Some of these are pretty major. Which is beside the point. These are senior military commanders whose job it is to lead. If the military loses confidence in their ability to lead, then they have to go. This isn’t WWII anymore, we can’t have generals running around slapping soldiers and selling black market swag.

      • Jackie TreeHorn says:

        So when Clinton was caught lying and cheating on Hilary then by your own words he should have been impeached or are you only holding high standards to military personnel and not the President.

      • jrachelle says:

        There are three elements that must be met to be discharged for adultery under UCMJ. Having an affair is not a guarantee out.

        You are right, senior military leaders are there to lead. They should be allowed to. They hold the entire body of knowledge of military events throughout history. They are the best strategists of the World’s finest military forces. Yet, the CINC and the SecDef think their judgement about how to do the job is better. Our military leaders don’t need anyone to tell them how to do their job, just tell them what you want and get the hell out of the way.

        • LindaBeale says:

          Civilians should never “just get out of the way” for military leaders to do whatever they want to do. That is why we have a CIVILIAN commander-in-chief in the President. It is because there are matters beyond the purview of the military that need to be taken into account.

          I am amazed at the number of people on this site who continue to make bald assertions about both President Obama and Hilary Clinton that are simply unfounded in any fact, including that Hilary Clinton is responsible for the Benghazi deaths or that Obama is a Muslim or that Obama “hates” the military or that Obama has been weak (stated, always, without specifics so that it usually means that the writer thinks anyone who doesn’t talk tough and use the military is “weak”). Check the facts on funding for the military, on the results of diplomacy, on the number of military who are fired or removed or demoted or encouraged to retire each year by every President. These conspiracy theories that seem to create a foundation for hate and hostility to government (and in particular to government by a Black intellectual or potentially by a woman) have been fostered for four decades by right-wing billionaires who own most of the public media that is strongly biased in favor of the right-wing and who use them to get people to support a Congress that will pass laws that benefit the very wealthy.

          • jrachelle says:

            I did not said, nor did I imply that civilians should “just get out of the way” and let military do what they want. I did say, “our military leaders don’t need anyone to tell them how to do their job, just tell them what you want and get the hell out of the way.” Our military leaders must have control over the how in a military operation. The CinC identifies objective and gives the order. That has not happened during President Obama’s presidency.

            Hillary Clinton has shown serious disrespect of our Office of the Secretary of State, congress, judicial procedures and the American public. She and President Obama have shown blatant disregard to the peoples inquires and shrugged off issues that are important to large portions of our community. It’s disgraceful treatment to the very people who they are supposed to be representing. These offenses would still be offenses if they were committed by anyone. They are not offenses just because of color, gender or political affiliation. Accusations like that only prevent us from looking at the situation objectively.

            Doing a quick numbers count and comparison of past events is, for the most part, useless. These two people must be evaluated on their own merit, their true accomplishments, of which Obamacare is not. How do their actions effect our Nation, economy and the people. What progress have we made with this president?

  6. Sharon O'Donnell says:

    Jason stop asking for actual research in this fluff piece . This obvious useless tool, has again seen no corruption – don’t confuse liberal reporters with facts. The only people fired around Obama is the military and ummm for Fake poker chips ?191 never mind first they heard of it. . Hillary wants to be president losing 6 billion dollars and failing to protect embassy staff is NOW Presidential material? yuck. .. Look for more excuses and corruption from this stinky White house Administration . Obviously the people who need firing are not…. Actually Lois Lerner and Eric Holder should not only be fired they should be JAILED.

    • Like I said in the piece, using fake poker chips in a casino is a felony in Iowa.

    • Patrick Wirt says:

      Integrity and setting an example for your subordinates are not small things when talking about general officers. This offense would be grounds for at least a reprimand and usually relief under any president. The killer here is that it became public knowledge. Thus known to all soldiers under his command, public officials in the communities surrounding his post, and probably many parents of the junior soldiers in his command. The fact that it is a criminal act in Iowa just makes it worse.

      • jrachelle says:

        It’s illegal most places. It’s called fraud. If there were an investigation to find how the information got out, there would be disciplinary action because that too is against the code of conduct.

        I agree with you about upholding standards and the importance for integrity. We did have a president that committed these same offenses yet couldn’t be held to the same standard. A standard that a 21 year old is expected to uphold, but not the president. The republican party became laughable, ridiculous and the bad guys because they thought the President of the United States shouldn’t be screwing interns in the Oval Office during duty hours. That ordeal did some serious damage to our troops morale and maintaining discipline.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          What’s your evidence that the Lewinsky scandal damaged soldier morale? What about Tailhook? What about the Aberdeen scandal? What about the ongoing rampant accusations of sexual assault in the military? How do those not affect morale more than the president having an affair? I mean this separate and apart from Bill Clinton. I mean this just as a question of how you came to that conclusion and why.

          • jrachelle says:

            I don’t know how Aberdeen or any of the other sexual offenses affected moral. I didn’t notice an effect. The effects of President Clinton’s actions were palpable. Respect for rank and position in the military is paramount. President Clinton was the CINC, the pinnacle position. Soldiers strive everyday to maintain the values their leaders instill in them, of which are honor, integrity and respect. Bill Clinton did more than sully the position, he undermined the structure, and disrespected what every military member was working to achieve. His actions shattered the esprit de corps. I know because I was there as an XO for a HHC.

  7. This is an obvious fluff piece meant to give the Obama regime coverage. You can find the listing of who was fired and from where, as of 2013, at http://conservativeangle.com/disturbing-the-complete-list-of-purged-military-high-officers-under-obama/. Pres. Bush fired two officers during his tenure. Those are the facts, you decide.

    • Do you understand that by itself, a list of people is just a list of people?

      There’s no context there as to WHY these people were reassigned or relieved of their commands. Until you provide that, which, given the size of the list, would take the better part of a work week, you’re just repeating the same conspiracy blather that others are.

      • sooper noob! says:

        Ok so let’s entertain, for argument’s sake, that the coup scenario is plausable. “The better part of a work week” qualifies as “nobody has time for that”? Isn’t that the exact job description of an investigative reporter? And considering the potential damage…i would like to think that most of a work week wouldn’t be too much to ask for such a revelation as this.

        • Yet no reporter has investigated this “potential bombshell.” Why do you think that is? Because they’re all shills for Obama? Or because there’s nothing there?

          • sooper noob! says:

            Again…the potential fallout of this bombshell (if were’re assuming it’s possible) SHOULD make it worth looking into. But yet their not…how can you be sure there is nothing there without even taking a look? And after the death of that reporter that had big info on burgdahl they’re probably too scared to dig on it…so they are either shills…or scared shitless. This country was not designed in such a way that we were meant to be terrified of our elected officials

          • I did look. I examined nine high profile names and found nothing unusual, using publicly available information. And nobody has come after me.

          • sloper noob says:

            9/200? Yeah that seems like a reasonable sample size! And BTW…even Obama isn’t stupid enough to allow somebody’s cause of termination be “refuses to fire on American citizens”. So looking into all 200 really is as you said a moot point…but not for the same reason. Any employer can find a reason to fire somebody if the real reason they want them gone is against the law! So even if it is unprovable…it seems to me that along with other aggressive moves against the American populace (the DHS ammo and MRAP purchases for example) getting rid of officers who would not follow disputable orders (from a provably despicable President) is at the very least plausible!

          • Roger Smart says:


      • Johnny says:

        If you’re a writer mike,then YOU research your facts before writing your opinion. By the way anyone here should look you up and do a little reading on you.after doing that,I can see why you attack any one who doesn’t agree with you

  8. Rob says:


    GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH vs AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT which is a registered corporation – http://truth-now.net

    Corporations Masquerading as Government (Part II): Which “Government” Can We Trust?
    17th December 2012 – Originally posted at Wakeup-World. It appears that Corporations are masquerading as government in countries around the world – for profit and not for the purpose of governance. We know the role of true government is to act as trustees for the people… to provide services to the community,…

    What if the Government, appointed as Trustee, where forced to serve another master? What if the actions of Government were benefiting others – like shareholders? Would you trust them enough to appoint them your Trustee?

  9. Jim Wagner says:

    The military is being ” purged” its a fact anyone who disagrees with open homosexuality is punished, persecuted, demoted or ” purged” Obama has been hosting homosexual pride parties in the WH since the first year he was elected. He intention is to root out anyone who thinks a man is designed to be with a woman not another man.

  10. Bob says:

    I was hoping you’d find all 200 had been fired and it had to do with the massive amount of child pornography being bought/ downloaded by the pentagon.. It still baffles me that those downloaders of kiddie porn were never investigated or prosecuted.

  11. John Denys says:

    Here’s an article from the AP that shows an example of how officers get demoted one rank. After reading the article the punishment seems reasonable and I still don’t see any big conspiracy to purge the military. At least this piece of data leads me to think people who were fired deserved it.

  12. okmike says:

    Most presidents do not even fire ONE general or admiral, so having fired dozens of each, there is clearly something off. You can always find a reason to fire someone if you look closely enough. There are no generals or admirals who have never made a mistake of any kind.

    • John Denys says:

      Do you have a source for writing most presidents don’t fire generals or admirals? If that is true then I would think those presidents were not doing their job properly. Lincoln canned Meade and Truman canned Dugout Doug. Both deserved it.

      One person I looked into, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, certainly deserved to be fired if not serve some jail time.

      Since the founding of the United States it’s been the job of the president to command the military. The military has always accepted this subordination to civilian control. That may be one reason we’ve never had a military coup in the US.

    • John Denys says:

      Sorry, in my previous comment I meant to say George B. McClellan not Meade. Too much wine I guess.

  13. Devin Adint says:

    Interesting though I didn’t see any stats on high ranking officers being fired during other administrations to see what the actual protocol is. Other sites I’ve read have indicated that high ranking officers are more likely to be let go due to battlefield failures and more likely to get a second chance with other charges… The article on Front Page mag gives a different perspective on this… Also just dismissing a longer list because its a longer list isn’t really credible.


  14. John Denys says:

    Here’s an article from Militarynews.com that describes how officers get fired.
    Note that it is not President Obama but other Air Force officers that are carrying out the investigations and punishments. Also, Militarynews.com is quite pro-military. Many of it’s articles deal with how to join and day to day matters for service members.

    • vihell says:

      It is Obama’s administation. He has publicly said he would like to make big cuts in the military. Air Force officers have been quitely told not to speak up against Obama, and several of the officers are actually going to court againt congress because they were fired for bougus reasons. Like thats gonna grow a root.
      Maby 2 were fired for good reasons, but thats no excuse to replace the whole military in ‘peace time’. That is never a good sign. Being replaced by loyal puppets.

  15. peter goose mcallister says:

    I’m from Scotland(land of the killer wild haggis) and me and everyone here I talk too sees only one reason for the birther and other conspiracy crap around Obama is racism either actual or latent no other president has been put upon with so much silly(birth certificate) nonesense

    • Jackie TreeHorn says:

      Some pay disagree with him because of that but most people could care less about his skin color, I am latino and I dont like Obama because he is a liar and has caused a divide in the country and the liberal media wants people to think if you do not agree with him than you are some how a racist. He was not qualified for the office of President and he used race to get people that normally dont vote, to vote for him because of the color of his skin yet if you look into the black community he has done nothing to help them, all he has done is created a biiger gap between the haves and have nots…i ask people to tell me one policy he has enacted that has helped the country and in his over 6 years none of his supportors can name one thing that has helped the country

      • LindaBeale says:

        You ask what Obama has done to help people. I’ll name two. 1) He undid the top part of the Bush tax cuts which had given extraordinarily huge benefits to the wealthiest people in the country. 2) He got Congress to pass and signed a reform of the health care laws which meant that millions of Americans have protection they did not have before (and which would have provided universal coverage if the right-wing dominated Supreme Court had not ruled–erroneously, I think–that the Medicaid portion couldn’t be upheld). These two actions, in and of themselves, were highly significant in supporting the have-nots rather than the haves. And a third–He established, with various government agencies, economic policies to get us out of the Great Recession that was due, in part, to the deregulation pushed by Republicans and the ‘winner-take-all’ approach to the economy that underlies the failed”trickle-down” theories of the radical free market theorists (Milt Friedman, etc.).

        IN contrast, the George W. Bush administration, the Reagan administration–all were extraordinarily friendly to the wealthy and the US had WORSE economic growth during those presidencies than during democratic presidencies. Reagan, for example, cut taxes in 1981 (with the biggest benefit going to the rich) and then raised taxes every other year he was in office in ways that caused the have-nots to bear the most burden and the rich to have the most benefit. George W. Bush pushed through tax packages that were extraordinarily beneficial to the wealthy and only marginally helpful to the poor while getting us into disastrous wars that cost lives, careers, and trillions of dollars that should have gone for infrastructure and education needs.

        In what way was Obama not qualified for the presidency? He was a lawyer trained at one of the top law schools in the country. He had worked in community services in ways that meant he got to know and understand problems of those who are less well off. He had been a United States Senator so he knew something about the legislative process and the people who are “movers and shakers” within it. He was an intellectual like the best of our presidents, including Theordore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson–meaning that he read a great deal, enjoyed talking policy with other smart people and learning from them. He was perhaps a little young and less experienced than some but more experienced than others. He certainly was qualified to be President and, in the view of many people, much more qualified than the Republican candidate Mitt Romney who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth (as the saying goes) and added to his inherited advantages by working in private equity (mostly buys companies, fires workers, then sells the companies for profit, and the partners get taxed at a very low rate because of something called “carried interest” so that while ordinary people earning wages might pay around 20-25% in taxes, Romney ended up paying less than 15%).

        One reason people tend to connect criticisms of Obama to racism is that those who criticize him pick things that are irrelevant (the fact that his middle name connects with his Kenyan father) or fabricated (the idea that he wasn’t born in Hawaii–even though there were two contemporaneous newspaper announcements of his birth!) or explicitly bigoted (calling him a Muslim–even though religion ought to be irrelevant to office). Every human being is flawed and every president makes mistakes. But the kind of vitriol towards Obama exemplified by this idea of a military purge in order to institute fascism seems likely to be sourced in some kind of deep-seated antagonism that is embued with notions of (traditional) white privilege. The same people that run Obama down for trying to bring ISIS to heel with fewer lives lost let George W. Bush get by with staging a fabricated justification for invading Iraq, when Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney and others in the White House had been talking about finding grounds for an invasion long before 9/11 happened. That’s hard to view as rational.

        By the way, I met Barack Obama personally in 2004 when he was running for the Senate. He is very evenhanded in person–not the type of person who runs his mouth and says nothing but someone who is thoughtful and considerate in what they say.

    • Tami says:

      Really? How about Cruz, Rubio, Trump oh I forgot they are Republicans and only Dems get away with crimes simply because it is expected of them.

  16. Earl Miller says:

    Are these just cases of, contempt breeds contempt? In any case, a huge number of Flag Officers dismissed for cause. Following their leader? I don’t buy it.

  17. Jim Harrison says:

    How do I know these guys weren’t framed? Just asking.

    • John Denys says:

      Keeping in touch with reality. That’s how you know they weren’t framed.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      You can’t prove a negative. If there was some evidence that they were framed, then we could examine that evidence and make some determinations about its truth, its usefulness, and so on. But if there’s no evidence for it, then the null hypothesis is that there’s no reason to suspect it. And none of them have claimed they were framed, so why should we begin to presume it?

  18. Fredrick Roswold says:

    Jackie said: “the current President’s own people(Gruber) has stated that they prey on the uneducated voters and that is who voted for him”.

    OK, let’s spend some more money on education and get more educated voters, who, presumably would then vote for Republicans.

    Oops, we forget that the college educated elite are mostly likely to be liberal. So that approach won’t work either. Well dang!

  19. Fabio says:

    Did you pick the list of nine because it would suit your agenda and you could spin the stories without asking them why they retired if they did so? Why does everyone that leaves tell a story contrary to yours? Do you know more than they do? Are you tight with the Military like the Obama Administration? So why don’t you do a real report where you ask these people and others what is really happening? No you won’t do that because just as before FOX the Press like you have told the truth as they wanted the public to know it! The ends justifies the means! Isn’t that right Lord Rothchild?

    • We need to have a “Five Stars” rating system for Skeptoid comments.

    • Fabio – If you search for “Obama military purge” you’ll see numerous versions of the list of nine officers that I wrote about. I didn’t decide this was a meme, conspiracy theorists who think Barack Obama is purging the military of dissenters did.

      The officers who were dismissed or retired aren’t telling stories different from these. Again, the only ones who are telling different stories are conspiracy theorists who think Barack Obama is purging the military of dissenters.

  20. Barbara says:

    What I find most interesting is how many of you must sit in at meetings at the White House or with Congress or any other meeting the government holds. You all seem to positively know what goes on, what is said, why it was said and you all table pound your comments as absolute fact. I didn’t realize there were so any “insiders “. Actually you all sound like idiots.

  21. A Reader says:

    It would be nice to have some numbers for comparison. How many or what percentage of generals and high ranking officers have been relieved of duty during past administrations? During this administration it looks like it averages out to about 1 to 2 a year.

    There are roughly 400 active army and marine generals. So at the rate of 1 to 2 a year, if this is a purge, it is not going very well. And since replacements aren’t political appointees, it begs the question how is the replacement a better “fit”.

    It does seem like there is less of a tolerance nowadays for transgressions involving sex, alcohol, gambling in the military, but that’s also the case in the private sector as well. Perhaps with a GOP administration there would be more looking the other way or just a slap on the wrist for these sorts of transgressions compared to the current administration. But I expect going forward, even with a GOP administration, tolerance for this sort of behavior won’t be as high as it once was. Attitudes towards standard old misappropriation of funds and services as well as failure to perform military duties and responsibilities probably haven’t changed as much.

  22. Polly says:

    Nice smear campaign.

  23. Tami says:

    And the list of Obama’s illegal activities goes on and on and on…. Who’s going to fire him?????

  24. Ronald Smith says:

    Thank-you, I heard these claims at lunch from a man who was extremely irate and agitated over it. I knew it didn’t make sense from my understanding of how the military promotion/assignment/retirement system works. It just goes to show that the assault in this President is unrelenting.

  25. Jack says:

    LOL…it figures a Rothschild would be trying to disprove conspiracy theories. Too funny….

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Yes. He has the same name, therefore he must be related. He’s so powerful he writes for a blog. What a silly argument.

  26. jrachelle says:

    How naive. You wouldn’t expect these high-ranking officials to be shoved aside or ousted based on “I don’t like them.” Of course there is a ‘good reason’ documented to justify the action. You find it, by all means possible. But when somebody gets written up for having an affair, it’s laughable. The only time it’s used is when someone is looking for ammo. By no means am I suggesting that high-ranking officers don’t mess up because they do, just as much as the rest of us.

    But, it is indeed significant that these Generals speak out because they can be court marshaled, even after they retire. They can be called back to duty at any time. They can lose everything they have worked for their entire lives and their is absolutely no benefit to them.

    The total number of General Officers allowed in the Army is 231. In July 2016 there were only 40 four-star Generals.

  27. Charles says:

    Gotta hand it to ya for a calm defense of your leader in the destruction of Constitutional government in the USA. So, since you have obvious intelligence, the question remains as to why you take such a position…which surely precipitates from your personal animosity to the Biblical tenets which our Constitution is built upon, confirming the warning from our founders that it is completely incapable of governing any other people except those who govern themselves according to Biblical precepts. Is it really because the exisrence if God is so hard to accept…or more along the lines that your self will is more important? When I was a lost sinner (as opposed to the forgiven sinner I am today who accepts the Truth) that was the way I rolled. It’s just not about us at the pinnacle…whether we admit it or not, all of us SERVE either God or his enemies. Period…and God still has the final say on who will live in His Kingdom past the brief period of sorting the children of light from darkness that this life equates to. YHWH has done all the work and paid the Abrahamic blood covenant price for our redemption, all we must do is choose to accept and follow the Truth! Otherwise, we are 2Thes2:9-11 delusional. A promise God keeps like all the rest! Shalom b’shem Yeshua.

    • Charles
      I am not mocking here just trying to get a grasp around this concept. God has Enemies? How can they possibly win? I mean even if the whole world goes atheist or demonic and thereby no one else gets to go to heaven isn’t there a big enough party there now? Can’t he just change the rules start over again? I am using the male pronoun but just being sloppy. Who can hurt god? If a bad movie is upsetting me I can just hit the remote. Does the Almighty lack this ability? Seems to me that if the story is going bad for him/her he can just say cut that’s a wrap…. And start over.
      What does it matter to you if I know the truth or not? I doubt that we would be hanging out in the afterlife so why do you care what happens to me? For that matter I would like someone to explain this to me. Lets say I was devout and was admitted to heaven how could it be heaven for me if they don’t let my kids in? Seems to me if you have one really devout person in the family they should be able to vouch for you, otherwise how could it truly be heaven for them?
      Sry Rambling out some long unanswered questions for me since you took this down the religion trail

      • John Denys says:

        Since Stephen brought heaven up, I’d like to ask how old everyone would be there? Maybe my grandmother thought she looked he best at 27 in low cut dresses. That’s not something I would be comfortable with.

        Will people be married? Let’s say I had a bad childhood but my wife had a great one. Maybe she’s happy now but the absolute best years of her life were between 5 and 10 but the best years of my life were between the ages of 40 and 50. How about a man who was a great husband but married again after his wife died. Both his first and second wives experienced the best years of their lives with him. Who would he be married to?

        Will I be able to eat steaks in heaven? For a lot of people that is cruelty to animals. For me it is a delicious dinner.

  28. What is amazing is that most of the comments come from people that have not served one hour in the military. Most know nothing of honor, duty, respect, the sacrifice of Americans that serve. These opinions are meaningless, I just needed to read them to validate my premise, O’s. Obama was the worst POTUS in modern history without question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *