No Live Ammo Allowed!!

[PoliticalChic]

1. "REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

2. Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo

3. U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

4. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch.

5. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

6. ...“Senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi,...

7. ...reports indicate that Patterson shirked her obligation to protect U.S. interests, Nightwatch states.

8. “She did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office,” the report states."
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/



And...in a possibly related story....


9. "The Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org is reporting that the murdered American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was raped prior to his killing September 11, 2012.

10. ...a pole or knife."

The Washington Times has posted a video clip (left) reportedly originating from the Libyan Free Press confirming the sodomization of Ambassador Stevens prior to his murder."
Lebanese report: US Ambassador raped before murdered - National counterterrorism | Examiner.com


The savages won't apologize....but how about the Americans who put this guy in the White House....??

 

[Katzndogz]

The woman ambassador was a good peaceful democrat who was convinced that if the people of Egypt knew we were unarmed they would never attack.

 

[RoadVirus]

1. "REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

2. Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo

3. U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

4. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch.

http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

Sounds like the restrictions the US Border Patrol is under.

 

[tjvh]

Well then I guess Anne Patterson bears some of the responsibility for choosing to allow sovereign U.S. Territory to go undefended... But we're supposed to believe it was because of anger over a Movie... Sure it was.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

2. Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo

3. U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

4. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch.

http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

Sounds like the restrictions the US Border Patrol is under.

Reminded me of this, as well:


"Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood,..."


Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[Paul25]

The actual, official statement from the USMC entirely contradicts the rest of the linked article. It is tucked away in one of the last few paragraphs and then contradicted by Free Beacon's anonymous sources.

A Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon denied the Free Beacon’s report in a statement to Fox News.

Pentagon Lt. Col. Chris Hughes told the outlet: “The ambassador and RSO (Regional Security Officer) have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB (American Embassy) Cairo.”

Several sources familiar with foreign embassies in international hotspots who contacted the Free Beacon said that the U.S. government often adheres to a policy of not permitting security officers and other personnel to carry loaded weapons.

Note that these sources didn't claim personnel were prohibited to carry live ammunition, as is claimed early on in the article, but rather that their weapons could not be loaded. Big difference between having live ammunition on your person, but not in your weapon, compared to not at all.

If all of this is to critique the lack of security in Benghazi, it should be mentioned that according to the NYT article there were no Marines at the consulate anyway at the time of the attack. I think things would have occurred differently if there were, though I don't know if there is anyone to blame for the lack of security. John Kerry said in the same article that the Ambassador was at that site by happenstance, making a pitstop along his travels.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The actual, official statement from the USMC entirely contradicts the rest of the linked article. It is tucked away in one of the last few paragraphs and then contradicted by Free Beacon's anonymous sources.

A Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon denied the Free Beacon’s report in a statement to Fox News.

Pentagon Lt. Col. Chris Hughes told the outlet: “The ambassador and RSO (Regional Security Officer) have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB (American Embassy) Cairo.”

Several sources familiar with foreign embassies in international hotspots who contacted the Free Beacon said that the U.S. government often adheres to a policy of not permitting security officers and other personnel to carry loaded weapons.

Note that these sources didn't claim personnel were prohibited to carry live ammunition, as is claimed early on in the article, but rather that their weapons could not be loaded. Big difference between having live ammunition on your person, but not in your weapon, compared to not at all.

If all of this is to critique the lack of security in Benghazi, it should be mentioned that according to the NYT article there were no Marines at the consulate anyway at the time of the attack. I think things would have occurred differently if there were, though I don't know if there is anyone to blame for the lack of security. John Kerry said in the same article that the Ambassador was at that site by happenstance, making a pitstop along his travels.

Welcome to the board.


While I can imagine the motivation for the official 'Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon' to 'contradict the rest of the linked article,'

...I wonder if you could conjecture as to why 'Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo.'

 

[Lakhota]

Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo | Mother Jones

 

[depotoo]

Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo | Mother Jones

Mother Jones? Seriously?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo | Mother Jones

Do you know the perspective of Mother Jones mag?


Think they would carry water for Obama?

Nah.....

 

[Papageorgio]

Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo | Mother Jones

News source?

 

[idb]

Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo | Mother Jones

News source?

Less credible than unattributed blogs?

 

[Paul25]

The actual, official statement from the USMC entirely contradicts the rest of the linked article. It is tucked away in one of the last few paragraphs and then contradicted by Free Beacon's anonymous sources.

A Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon denied the Free Beacon’s report in a statement to Fox News.

Pentagon Lt. Col. Chris Hughes told the outlet: “The ambassador and RSO (Regional Security Officer) have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB (American Embassy) Cairo.”

Several sources familiar with foreign embassies in international hotspots who contacted the Free Beacon said that the U.S. government often adheres to a policy of not permitting security officers and other personnel to carry loaded weapons.

Note that these sources didn't claim personnel were prohibited to carry live ammunition, as is claimed early on in the article, but rather that their weapons could not be loaded. Big difference between having live ammunition on your person, but not in your weapon, compared to not at all.

If all of this is to critique the lack of security in Benghazi, it should be mentioned that according to the NYT article there were no Marines at the consulate anyway at the time of the attack. I think things would have occurred differently if there were, though I don't know if there is anyone to blame for the lack of security. John Kerry said in the same article that the Ambassador was at that site by happenstance, making a pitstop along his travels.

Welcome to the board.


While I can imagine the motivation for the official 'Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon' to 'contradict the rest of the linked article,'

...I wonder if you could conjecture as to why 'Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo.'

Thank you.

I have no idea why Marine blogs would say that because the content of Nightwatch, from the link on Free Beacon, provided no sources or quotes. Even still, supposing it's true, is there anything wrong with the US Ambassador of a particular country's embassy having control over the details of the military personnel there? I think it's foolish to disarm Marines who are there to protect you, but civilian oversight of the military is essential to the way we do things. We can criticize those officials' decisions in hindsight but I assume most of us don't know the intricacies of the job of an American Ambassador in a supposedly friendly country composed of a hostile population.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The actual, official statement from the USMC entirely contradicts the rest of the linked article. It is tucked away in one of the last few paragraphs and then contradicted by Free Beacon's anonymous sources.

A Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon denied the Free Beacon’s report in a statement to Fox News.

Pentagon Lt. Col. Chris Hughes told the outlet: “The ambassador and RSO (Regional Security Officer) have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB (American Embassy) Cairo.”

Several sources familiar with foreign embassies in international hotspots who contacted the Free Beacon said that the U.S. government often adheres to a policy of not permitting security officers and other personnel to carry loaded weapons.

Note that these sources didn't claim personnel were prohibited to carry live ammunition, as is claimed early on in the article, but rather that their weapons could not be loaded. Big difference between having live ammunition on your person, but not in your weapon, compared to not at all.

If all of this is to critique the lack of security in Benghazi, it should be mentioned that according to the NYT article there were no Marines at the consulate anyway at the time of the attack. I think things would have occurred differently if there were, though I don't know if there is anyone to blame for the lack of security. John Kerry said in the same article that the Ambassador was at that site by happenstance, making a pitstop along his travels.

Welcome to the board.


While I can imagine the motivation for the official 'Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon' to 'contradict the rest of the linked article,'

...I wonder if you could conjecture as to why 'Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo.'

Thank you.

I have no idea why Marine blogs would say that because the content of Nightwatch, from the link on Free Beacon, provided no sources or quotes. Even still, supposing it's true, is there anything wrong with the US Ambassador of a particular country's embassy having control over the details of the military personnel there? I think it's foolish to disarm Marines who are there to protect you, but civilian oversight of the military is essential to the way we do things. We can criticize those officials' decisions in hindsight but I assume most of us don't know the intricacies of the job of an American Ambassador in a supposedly friendly country composed of a hostile population.

"I think it's foolish to disarm Marines who are there to protect you,..."

So....why have 'em at all?

 

[Paul25]

"I think it's foolish to disarm Marines who are there to protect you,..."

So....why have 'em at all?

Not sure. They can't do their job if they're disarmed, pretty much. The big question is, were they actually disarmed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I think it's foolish to disarm Marines who are there to protect you,..."

So....why have 'em at all?

Not sure. They can't do their job if they're disarmed, pretty much. The big question is, were they actually disarmed?

Any dead attackers?

 

[Paul25]

Any dead attackers?

Not that I know of, but that doesn't necessarily answer the question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any dead attackers?

Not that I know of, but that doesn't necessarily answer the question.

...but does suggest no ammo....

 

[tjvh]

Any dead attackers?

Not that I know of, but that doesn't necessarily answer the question.

Trained Marines with ammo defending themselves would have ensured some dead attackers... It answers the question for me.

 

[Moonglow]

No military personal are allowed ammunition unless in a combat zone or in training.
When I was on gaurd duty at the airport at Fort Hood, 1st cav, I was given two shotgun shell to put in my pocket in case I needed to use the shotgun issued to me, but, i could not keep it loaded.