Thursday, September 13, 2012

Consequences of elections, indeed:

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.

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

Looks like my earlier thought was right.
I HATE being right about shit like this


Sigivald said...

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I never, regardless of the side they're "on", trust unnamed blogs "spotted by" someone else.

Maybe the posts really exist.

Maybe they're even right.

But that post? Is hearsay of hearsay.

Luton Ian said...

If true it would fit a pattern.

have you read Bezmenov's "love letter to America" yet?

Differ said...

The embassy of any nation is sovereign territory of that nation. As such assaults on embassies constitute an invasion or act of war, whether perpetrated by state actors or by individual persons...use of lethal force to defend an embassy is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED. If it is true that the ambassador disarmed the US Marine Corps contingent guarding the embassy, then she should be relieved of duty.

BobG said...

All the older Leathernecks I've ever known would have just slapped on their bayonets and carried on.

Firehand said...

That's another question: did they HAVE bayonets?

I know they'd want to, but if they weren't allowed ammo, I can see the clown in charge deciding that 'carrying those knives would look inflammatory' or something.

Sigi, could be; I tend to think that if it was bull they'd have no trouble saying so; Deity knows that with everything else happening they'd love to be able to deny something like that.