Slightly more credible, but still an opinion piece and not reporting. Also riddled with outright lies and unsubstantiated claims. This piece does nothing to further prove your claims of a ideological purge of senior military leadership of Obama.
Your opinion piece:
"We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi."
Dead wrong:
"Ham was in overall command of military forces when the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks were launched on the American consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. According to his June 2013 Congressional testimony, Ham chose not to deploy close air support during the attack, based on a lack of situational awareness about the circumstances on the ground. He denied the allegation by some Republicans that President
Barack Obama or others in Obama's administration had ordered him to "stand down" a planned rescue mission that was ready to deploy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham
Your opinion piece:
"Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham."
Reality:
The Navy confirms Gaouette, who led Carrier Strike Group Three, had been accused of using profanity in a public setting, making derisive comments about a leader in the Navy, and saying at least two racially insensitive comments. No support for the accusation of a tie to Benghazi (you guys sure like flogging benghazi).
The U.S. Navy finally hints at why Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette was relieved of command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East and sent back to Bremerton.
mynorthwest.com
Your opinion piece:
Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles
Why was he removed?
The
Washington Post wrote that Carey drank excessively during his visit to Russia, and fraternized with foreign women.
[5] The New York Times claimed that Carey's behavior during the official meetings was not appropriate, including "interrupting speakers and correcting a Russian translator", and that he was over drinking during the visit, and once attempted to play with a restaurant band.
[6] Under the
Freedom of Information Act, American journalists filed a request and received a redacted copy of the official
Report of Investigations Concerning Major General Michael J. Carey. The report revealed that Carey's behavior was considered by his colleagues as rude toward the Russian hosts during the exercise and related briefings, especially, when he made comments about Syria and
Snowden.
[4]
en.wikipedia.org
You opinion piece:
Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.
Why was he removed:
In June 2013, Giardina was caught using three counterfeit
gambling chips in a Council Bluffs casino.
[5] Giardina was investigated by the Navy and suspended from duty in September 2013. Later investigation revealed that someone had altered several $1 chips into $500 chips with adhesive tape and paint. It was further alleged that Giardina would spend approximately 15 hours a week on occasion playing poker.
[6] In May 2014, he was found guilty of two counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." He reverted from
vice admiral to
rear admiral, was removed from his position as deputy commander at
Strategic Command, and was given a staff officer position in Washington, D.C.
[7]
en.wikipedia.org
Your opinion piece:
"From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."
My response:
That is a list of issues that will impact the career of senior military leaders, not proof of an Obama agenda.
Your opinion piece:
"Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.
"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."
My response:
This is one retired general's opinion. Vallely retired in 1992 (seventeen years before Obama took office) and is a far-right Fox contributor. He also has some rather radical ideas regarding "stealth jihad" in the US and is an admitted follower of Glenn Beck. He is welcome to his opinion but I am not sure why it should be given any particular credence. His views do not fall within what most would classify as the mainstream.