Skip to comments.Pentagon Denies Reports of No Live Ammo for Marines
Posted on 09/13/2012 4:15:06 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
A Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon denied reports that U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition in a statement to Fox News Thursday.
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.
The statement came in response to open-source reporting that U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
After reading the article, my nose tells me that someone is not telling the whole truth. Playing legal weasel words.
Of course there was ammo there. It was locked up for security reasons.
The DOD under this admin is not to be trusted by any liberty loving american...
If the standard policy is “No ammo” then it is accurate to say that no restrictions were placed on that policy.
This is doublespeak until someone in authority says “They had ammo and were fully armed with guns, ammo and the authority to use them”.
This is what I want to hear:
“Make NO MISTAKE! Every American Embassy world wide is well protected and our security forces are ARMED TO THE TEETH, and willing to use ANY FORCE NECESSARY TO PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS from ANY HARM! Go Ahead- Make our Day!”
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Yep, the verb tenses are definitely off. No restrictions have been imposed now—but had they been imposed at the time of the attack?
Ammo or not, two Marines isn’t much of any army against RPG’s and others with AK-47’s.
sounds like Clintonese speak!
DoD, CIA, State Department, Pentagon, ATF, FBI, IRS.. Nothing but Progressive Socialists with guns.
The lawyers are now advising.
First they came for the ammo of our Border Patrol....
If the Marines were locked, loaded and authorized to fire, where are the dead Libyans? ‘Cause Marines sure don’t go down without a fight. Could it be our State Department prefers four dead Americans to any dead or wounded Libyans?
I agree. The verb tenses are off and the statement sounds weasel worded to me.
Of course, it could be that either the reporter or the government spokesman doesn’t know how to speak English. That would be par for the course, too.
So what if the Cairo Embassy had ammunition under lock and key? Yes, it was secured. No, Marines could not defend the Embassy without ammunition in their weapons, unless you want them to use the weapons as inefficient clubs.
Yes, the response had a certain PRECISE, Clintonesque flavor to it.
restrictions = applies to weapons, not ammo
weapons = does not include ammo
weapons status = meaning "ability to operate properly," not "loaded"
have = not "were"
They have ammo. Under lock and key perhaps. Maybe they get beanbags like the US Border Patrol.