Skip to comments.State Dept. Confirms: Marines on 9/11/12 Were Protecting U.S. Embassy--in Barbados
Posted on 10/12/2012 3:38:07 PM PDT by Perdogg
When terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 of this year and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, there were no U.S. Marines deployed in Libya to defend U.S. diplomats, diplomatic facilities and classified information and equipment.
However, says the State Department, a Marine Security Detachment was deployed on that day to carry out those duties at the U.S. Embassy in Bridgetown, Barbados.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Talk about the Fox guarding the hen house, the Muslim Brotherhood in the form of the Martyrs of Feb 17 were guarding the Embassy in Libya.
If it wasn’t so tragic it would be funny. What idiot thought that one up? Hillary?
This scandal and coverup is far worse than Watergate.
After the Obama/Clinton WAR for al Qaeda Libya,
did the State Dept really think there was no
need for protection?
Why? Which side are Clinton and Huma really on?
I’m sure that now we’ll hear there was a credible threat in Barbados so Marines had to be dispatched. /s
The Embassy in Vienna got new Chevy Volts while the Benghazi consulate got a reduction in security.
...plus a $100K+ charging station. But it was the REPUBLICANS that cut State's budget and THAT's why security was so lax.
Right. I forgot all about the charging station. Thanks for posting that.
>>>This scandal and coverup is far worse than Watergate.>>>
Yes, and President Nixon had to resign because of Watergate. Therefor, hmmm....
Many of our embassies are heavily fortified and easy to defend if our personnel are permitted to do so. In countries of dubious stability or a somewhat hostile government, the US is well within its treaty rights to equip our Marines with an assortment of weaponry that can be used on embassy grounds.
In this case, let us imagine how this should have happened.
Once the attackers attack the embassy grounds, just trying to get over the walls, the ambassador issues an instruction to the duty Marines: “Defend the embassy and its grounds.”
Then he and the other non-combatants, if they are unable or unwilling to assist the Marines, retreat to a very difficult to penetrate safe room with notification to the nearest US military base or duty station that they are under attack and request reinforcements.
The first thing the Marines do is to set up and man four M2 .50 caliber machine guns on the four corners of the roof of the embassy, in concealed and covered positions.
If the attackers initiate the attack by blowing out a section of wall with a car bomb, with intent to send a second car bomb through, the Marines will then engage the attacking vehicle with rocket propelled anti-tank weaponry.
During any of this they may feel free to send less than lethal projectiles, such as tear or vomit gas, over the walls into the riotous crowds without.
By the time four ma-deuce have had their say, as well as several RPGs, there will likely be a substantial number of deceased heathens within the walls of the compound. If they still have any fight left in them, the Marines should then downgrade to 7.62mm belt fed machine guns.
In all likelihood, the USAF should be enroute in force by this point, and if the heathen regroup there will be far fewer heathen.
Long after this successful defense, if the host country, which failed in its treaty obligation to protect our embassy, objects to our defending ourselves, we should invite them to sue us in the International Court of Justice, where by treaty, such disputes are to be heard.
Ottawa is a dangerous place, too. /s The Marine House is 10 miles away so if anything did happen at the Embassy, the Marine at Post One is on his or her own anyway. What’s the point at all there?
Also, Ottawa is 55 miles from the US border.
These people and their priorities (shaking my head in disgust, and wonderment)
I am really leaning towards that theory of Kevin Dujan, or whatever his name is at HillBuzz that this was a setup that blew up in the Democrat’s faces. Probably able to find his article still over at HillBuzz.
Right. If this were a Republican President the MSM would be asking if the President plans to resign.
I forget, how many people were murdered in Watergate?
...Which side are Clinton and Huma really on?
Well, dust off your prayer rug and adjust the blinders...
Both of those fair fillies are headed for hades....
Does that come under the same heading as, If Bin Laden is in Afghanistan, then invade Iraq?
Re my post #13 the link to that theory I mentioned:
and scroll down about the middle of the page. Title is “Did Obama deliberately try to stage a hostage taking in Benghazi as an October Surprise
Anymore I would believe he’s onto something.
What was the threat in Barbados? Ganja crazed reggae gangstas upset because someone made a You Tube insulting their dreadlocks?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.