#1 2012-09-13 16:32:37
According to the Marines, the personnel assigned to guard the embassy in Egypt were not allowed to carry live ammo. If this turns out to be true, ask yourself what kind of commander in chief would allow military personnel guarding an embassy in hostile territory on the anniversay of 9/11 to carry unloaded weapons. And, on that special day, why weren't there a hundred marines at each location? I was challenged for suggesting there were military haters in the Democrat party. Well, here's a little evidence for you. You can bet there will be much more coming out on these stories regardless of the efforts of the liberal press to cover up the stink.
Offline
#2 2012-09-13 16:45:36
The U.S. ambassador to any nation ultimately decides whether Marines are authorized to carry ammunition, according to a GOP national security adviser knowledgeable about American embassy protocols.
“In the end, the ambassador of any country has the final call on what to do in a country,” the source said. “The buck stops with you. You make every decision.”
Offline
#3 2012-09-13 16:46:31
Fortunately Anne Patterson is not our Commander in Chief.
Offline
#4 2012-09-13 16:54:51
opsec wrote:
Fortunately Anne Patterson is not our Commander in Chief.
Regardless of what this article says, she works for the Pres. He and his risk assessment teams make the final decisions. Even if that was her policy, the Marines should never have been unarmed on 9/11 in any embassy, let alone Egypt. By the way, she was in DC, and she is the one who issued the apology that the President walked back.
Offline
#5 2012-09-13 17:23:31
phreddy wrote:
opsec wrote:
Fortunately Anne Patterson is not our Commander in Chief.
Regardless of what this article says, she works for the Pres. He and his risk assessment teams make the final decisions. Even if that was her policy, the Marines should never have been unarmed on 9/11 in any embassy, let alone Egypt. By the way, she was in DC, and she is the one who issued the apology that the President walked back.
So, if you're dubious of the statements made in the article, why did you post to prove your point?
Offline
#6 2012-09-13 17:23:57
Sigh. It's been, as previously noted, "Amateur night in America" for the past two administrations... and we are now paying for it... in spades. Time for a change... it many not be any better, but what we have ain't workin'.
Offline
#7 2012-09-13 17:32:16
I do find it interesting that there's not a TRACE of that film on IMDB.
Offline
#8 2012-09-13 17:42:47
Taint wrote:
So, if you're dubious of the statements made in the article, why did you post to prove your point?
Because, first, I take the Marines at their word until proven otherwise. And, second, I find it appalling and irresponsible that the consulate and the embassy were not properly guarded on 9/11. The lowest grunt in the military would have known better. This is why I believe more will surface about this as those personnel involved leak the truth.
Offline
#9 2012-09-13 17:44:57
whosasailorthen wrote:
Sigh. It's been, as previously noted, "Amateur night in America" for the past two administrations... and we are now paying for it... in spades. Time for a change... it many not be any better, but what we have ain't workin'.
So, we should switch our Mad Dog 20/20 for moonshine which was stored in a car radiator, and has added methanol?
Offline
#10 2012-09-13 17:46:54
fnord wrote:
whosasailorthen wrote:
Sigh. It's been, as previously noted, "Amateur night in America" for the past two administrations... and we are now paying for it... in spades. Time for a change... it many not be any better, but what we have ain't workin'.
So, we should switch our Mad Dog 20/20 for moonshine which was stored in a car radiator, and has added methanol?
That's pretty much what I said when I heard the words "Hope and Change".
Offline
#11 2012-09-13 17:59:08
phreddy
Just for the fuck of it…
Have you been to any debriefings or do you have access to any after action reports in regards to these incidences?
Offline
#12 2012-09-13 18:54:58
Jeez phreddy, this is a new low. "Open source reporting"??? WTF, that's also known as the "rumor mill".
I guarun-fucking-tee that the 9mm's were loaded, but are we weapons free? No - Geneva Convention and Deadly Force rules still apply.
You don't break out the .50's for a few noisy protestors
Offline
#14 2012-09-13 19:04:47
Emmeran wrote:
Jeez phreddy, this is a new low. "Open source reporting"??? WTF, that's also known as the "rumor mill".
I guarun-fucking-tee that the 9mm's were loaded, but are we weapons free? No - Geneva Convention and Deadly Force rules still apply.
You don't break out the .50's for a few noisy protestors
I didn't report it as fact. I passed on information from websites hosting military blogs. The truth will out eventually. Regardless, the fact that the ambassador to Libya and the embassy in Egypt were not properly protected is inexcusable.
Offline
#15 2012-09-13 19:15:34
Tell us Phreddy, what kind of President would not allow the FBI to investigate a bomb attack on a US Navy warship? Since you love following links, doing try a search on "USS Cole", "FBI" and "Bodine".
Offline
#16 2012-09-13 19:42:12
phreddy wrote:
I didn't report it as fact. I passed on information from websites hosting military blogs.
Were you the chief of rumor control back in the day?
Last edited by MSG Tripps (2012-09-13 19:55:41)
Offline
#17 2012-09-13 20:07:57
phreddy wrote:
I didn't report it as fact. I passed on information from websites hosting military blogs. The truth will out eventually. Regardless, the fact that the ambassador to Libya and the embassy in Egypt were not properly protected is inexcusable.
Marine Corps' congressional liaison wrote:
The Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) detachment. The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons. The Ambassador and Regional Security Officer have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. Reports of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the Ambassador are not accurate.
Offline
#18 2012-09-13 20:13:03
Let's start here Phred:
If you haven't gotten the message let me state it for you loud and clear: No single political party, not any part or whole of one has ownership of patriotism in these United States. The American people as a whole are what makes this country great, not some political platform spouted by fat and balding blow-hards at a political love-fest termed as a "convention".
While conservative ideas and virtues are extremely important to the continuance of this great nation the Republican party itself, is not; promotion of radical fundamentalism here in America is completely unacceptable. Frankly the right-wing fundamentalist politics of degradation and intimidation are an embarrassment.
Ronald Reagan is crying in his tomb.
Offline
#19 2012-09-14 11:33:19
Em wrote:
No single political party, not any part or whole of one has ownership of patriotism in these United States.
Agreed. However, the parties are made up of individuals who may or may not be patriots. I have the feeling that Obama and his close advisors think that patriotism and national loyalty is passe' in a "one world" environment. When, in fact, it goes far beyond pledging to a flag. It goes to protection of our national interests.
Here is yet another development in the embassy story that really pisses me off. If only it were incompetence instead of willful negligence.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.
Offline
#20 2012-09-14 11:51:54
phreddy wrote:
When, in fact, it goes far beyond pledging to a flag. It goes to protection of our national interests.
Who gets to define our national interests? If it's up to the government to define them, then isn't it unpatriotic to disagree with which ever government is in power at the time? Is an American who loves his country unpatriotic if he disagrees with the dominant definition of our national interests?
Offline
#21 2012-09-14 12:12:04
Taint wrote:
phreddy wrote:
When, in fact, it goes far beyond pledging to a flag. It goes to protection of our national interests.
Who gets to define our national interests? If it's up to the government to define them, then isn't it unpatriotic to disagree with which ever government is in power at the time? Is an American who loves his country unpatriotic if he disagrees with the dominant definition of our national interests?
The government does not define national interests. The people do so and for the most part they are self-evident. When the government claims something is in the national interest and the people disagree, you get Vietnam. Right now Obama is ignoring our national interests by failing to reduce deficit spending, by presenting a weak foreign policy to those who only understand strength and lack of it, and by refusing to allow the US to become energy independent and tell the ragheads to go fuck their goats.
Offline
#22 2012-09-14 12:25:34
failing to reduce deficit spending: http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
dependence on foreign oil: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-2 … f-use.html
weak foreign policy: bin Laden and Kadafi dead at a fraction of the cost (lives, money, prestige) it took to get rid of Hussein in a war everybody agrees was a fiasco
telling ragheads to go fuck their goats is a fucking stupid approach to foreign policy as well.
Offline
#23 2012-09-14 12:43:36
phreddy wrote:
The government does not define national interests. The people do so and for the most part they are self-evident. When the government claims something is in the national interest and the people disagree, you get Vietnam. Right now Obama is ignoring our national interests by failing to reduce deficit spending, by presenting a weak foreign policy to those who only understand strength and lack of it, and by refusing to allow the US to become energy independent and tell the ragheads to go fuck their goats.
The government doesn't define national interests? Really? OK, then, can you identify five foreign and/or domestic policies that were defined by "the people?"
Offline
#24 2012-09-14 12:53:38
Taint wrote:
The government doesn't define national interests? Really? OK, then, can you identify five foreign and/or domestic policies that were defined by "the people?"
All of them. Whether the government acts in accord with the people is another matter, and that brings us back the the extant problems with Obama's policies.
Offline
#25 2012-09-14 12:57:01
phreddy wrote:
Taint wrote:
The government doesn't define national interests? Really? OK, then, can you identify five foreign and/or domestic policies that were defined by "the people?"
All of them. Whether the government acts in accord with the people is another matter, and that brings us back the the extant problems with Obama's policies.
Can you identify any of those policies?
Offline
#26 2012-09-14 13:20:57
Taint wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Taint wrote:
The government doesn't define national interests? Really? OK, then, can you identify five foreign and/or domestic policies that were defined by "the people?"
All of them. Whether the government acts in accord with the people is another matter, and that brings us back the the extant problems with Obama's policies.
Can you identify any of those policies?
Scroll up and read #21 again.
Offline
#27 2012-09-14 13:25:24
phreddy wrote:
Taint wrote:
phreddy wrote:
All of them. Whether the government acts in accord with the people is another matter, and that brings us back the the extant problems with Obama's policies.Can you identify any of those policies?
Scroll up and read #21 again.
I love you Phreddy. Don't ever stop being you.
Offline
#28 2012-09-14 13:29:33
Taint wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Taint wrote:
Can you identify any of those policies?Scroll up and read #21 again.
I love you Phreddy. Don't ever stop being you.
Thank you Taint. I love you too, but not in that carnal sort of way. By the way, I should have added the latest Real Clear Politics poll which shows that 60% of the American public believe Obama is steering the country in the wrong direction. I would say that pretty much answers your previous question.
Offline
#29 2012-09-14 14:58:12
phreddy wrote:
Thank you Taint. I love you too, but not in that carnal sort of way. By the way, I should have added the latest Real Clear Politics poll which shows that 60% of the American public believe Obama is steering the country in the wrong direction. I would say that pretty much answers your previous question.
Oh looky, someone found a poll on the internet to support their argument.
The Farce is strong within this one.
Offline
#30 2012-09-14 16:48:59
Emmeran wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Thank you Taint. I love you too, but not in that carnal sort of way. By the way, I should have added the latest Real Clear Politics poll which shows that 60% of the American public believe Obama is steering the country in the wrong direction. I would say that pretty much answers your previous question.
Oh looky, someone found a poll on the internet to support their argument.
The Farce is strong within this one.
If you knew anything about polls you would have noticed that this is Real Clear Politics average of all ligitimate polls on the subject. I could have chosen ABC News/Washington Post poll which shows closer to 70% of Americans think Obama is driving us over the cliff.
Offline
#31 2012-09-14 17:48:55
phreddy wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Thank you Taint. I love you too, but not in that carnal sort of way. By the way, I should have added the latest Real Clear Politics poll which shows that 60% of the American public believe Obama is steering the country in the wrong direction. I would say that pretty much answers your previous question.
Oh looky, someone found a poll on the internet to support their argument.
The Farce is strong within this one.If you knew anything about polls you would have noticed that this is Real Clear Politics average of all ligitimate polls on the subject. I could have chosen ABC News/Washington Post poll which shows closer to 70% of Americans think Obama is driving us over the cliff.
Look - all I really have to do is repost Boehner standing up and openly stating that they would do whatever it takes to make Obama fail, the hell with America or their sworn duties - it's been all about thwarting each and every thing the opposing party tried to do. Even to the point where they voted against their own proposals.
If the Republicans ever get around to pulling their heads out of their asses (and shake off the religious nutjobs) I'd be right back in rank; however they have obviously lost their way and I refuse to be part of that cluster-fuck.
So they've managed to convince some people that this is all Obama's fault; nice PR work - it doesn't change the reality which is that he's done a pretty good job. Not great, but still better than everyone since Reagan. (not that it was overly difficult to do that bit)
But since we're playing the blame game, let's talk about Romney and his time as Chief Executive of the State of Massachusetts...
Offline
#32 2012-09-14 18:25:15
The thwarting and shit brings up a point that's been bothering me: People say "all these parties are the same--nobody wants to cooperate."
This is false.
Look at republican primary campaigns--how many people describe themselves as the "true conservative"? You see no such emphasis on purity in Democratic campaigns. Republicans put up attack ads against incumbents: "John Smith voted with Obama 5% of the time." That's still too cooperative for them. Who signed a pledge never to raise taxes (i.e., never to compromise)? Which side offered 10$ in cuts to 1$ in revenues? NO, SORRY DEMS--THAT'S NOT REAL COMPROMISE.
Offline
#33 2012-09-14 19:00:09
phreddy wrote:
The government does not define national interests. The people do so and for the most part they are self-evident.
If The People were to define national interest we'd get things like Mop N' Glo, Pet Rocks and cigarettes. Top foreign policy goals would include forcing the French to eat Velveeta and the Czechs to brew Coors Light. Daily intelligence briefings would last thirty seconds on the breaks in Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and we'd all legislate on Face Book. What is it about representative democracy that you hate so much? Personally I'd rather find someone smarter and more honest than the average idiot, someone with some guts and intellectual curiosity to take care of the national government. That person would no doubt have to be hustled into the White House at gunpoint but so be it.
phreddy wrote:
Right now Obama is ignoring our national interests by failing to reduce deficit spending, by presenting a weak foreign policy to those who only understand strength and lack of it, and by refusing to allow the US to become energy independent and tell the ragheads to go fuck their goats.
Failing to reduce deficit spending? Please! Congress handles spending, not the president. The Republican mantra for 'energy independence' is and always has been more dependence on coal and petroleum and outright banning of solar power, so please find a new argument about that.
Weak foreign policy is for those without nuclear missile submarines and B-52s on 24 hour deployment, Phred. If people raised children in the same way you seem to want foreign policy to operate parents would need shotguns and thumbscrews. I'll leave unprovoked invasions, holding hands with Saudi depots and blowing Netanyahu on demand to the Neocons.
Offline
