It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:34 PM
Wingnuts Falsely Claim Obama Administration Forbade Marines From Carrying Live Ammo

A new round of outlandish anti-Obama rhetoric is sweeping the Cons blogosphere, claiming that the marines on guard a the embassies in Egypt and Libya were prevented from carrying ammo by the Obama Admin.

Update, 2:30pmPDT: Mother Jones has obtained a memorandum from the Marine Corps' congressional liaison confirming that the Marine guards at the embassy in Egypt were in fact armed with live ammunition, contrary to the anti-Obama conspiracy theory du jour:

"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."

The false claims swept through the right-wing media as follows:

From "conservative" blogger John Podhoretz, to Breitbart editor Kurt Schlichter, to Glenn Beck co-host Michael Graham to various right-wing tweets, finally to the Washington Free Beacon and Fox Nation sites, despite never having been confirmed.

The sole source for this assertion was "Nightwatch"—a conservative "intelligence" blog written by former Defense Department analyst John McCreary and hosted by a subsidiary of a defense contractors' lobby group — which attributed the report to unnamed (and uncounted) "USMC blogs."

The original (and untrue) claim by McCreary is here.

The Marine Corps and the Pentagon quickly shot down the notion Marines at these locations were unarmed, or ever forbidden to carry ammo.

It's astounding how quickly even the most egregious and untrue claims made in the conservative blogosphere can be picked up and aired via Fox, Breitbart, Beck, et al, without any shred to truth to back up their claims.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:44 PM
Anyone with half a brain already knew this..Unfortunately the childish mind set of politicos couldn't figure this out themselves so they take any chance to act like high school children and start bad mouthing someone..Seriously, I've never seen so-called adults act more like school age children than when it comes to politics..Well religious people are worse, but that's a different topic all together..
edit on 13-9-2012 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:46 PM
It's not like there has not been a history of things like unarmed guards.

People are looking for an answer as to why we let our people get killed.

I don't appreciate the false reporting...But, there is plenty of that going around.

This is Jimmy Carter 2....I have seen how this movie ends.

And it's not good for the DNC.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:49 PM
I can see why they would think something like that though since they didn't entirely defend the embassies.

While I would not agree with the political implications or attempts to gain cred, it is good and healthy to bring into question whether or not they even have ammo so the government is forced to clarify.

Then everything is set straight and the people who used such actions for their own political agendas can be called out in retrospect.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:49 PM
I hear this stuff all the time, I have really learned how to check up on things. But both sides do it. My father always said that it wasn't what they were actually saying, many times its it about what is not being said. The 800# elephant in the room. On the other hand I have seen and heard things done by people in Congress and the Presidnets of every stripe that was hard to believe and it was actually true! Like the NDAA for instance. Who would have thunk?

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

It's good for business.

The way I see it, there is a certain percentage of the population in this country that really doesn't understand the issues and doesn't really try. They prefer to hear from a person who will stir their emotions rather than stir their intellect.

Because they have no intellect.

And there are people who know this and have figured out how to profit from it. I must confess, I myself have considered trying to be a right wing conservative pundit because I think I could make a lot of money. I understand the conservative mind. I may be a blowhard, but I really DO think I could do better than Rush Limbaugh. I'd be a complete phony (Limbaugh is mostly phony), but I'd make conservatives feel better every day on their way to work. I'd make them outraged and angry at Democrats and the left, filled with hate, but then I'd tell them we just have to laugh it off. Because we're so cool and REALLY know what's happening, but we can't stop those people from being foolish, phony, and having all sorts of covert objectives. They'd count on me for the latest dirt on Obama. They'd want to hear every single -NOT WIDELY CIRCULATED BECAUSE OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA- damaging story on any democrat. And I would oblige them. And make them even more certain that they were the only sane ones, and that people who took other points of view had a problem. Probably stupidity in most cases, but sometimes dishonesty, sometimes hating America, etc.

I could make millions. But it would feel weird.
edit on 13-9-2012 by ClintK because: Missed a word

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:56 PM
Why are there no dead marines who were defending the embassy? Or Islamists killed by them. I didn't read about the marines involved in a shootout. Were they fully armed? I don't know, but something is fishy.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:56 PM
Sorry for the double post.
edit on 13-9-2012 by strgzr because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by strgzr

Yes, indeed.... It smells like a fish market on a hot summer day.

Downright...ripe, I'd say. I would say, try protesting other major power's Embassies and see what happens when the first one actually goes over the wall and lands in the territory of the nation who's Embassy that is. It would get sticky quick and downright fatal with many, I'm betting.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by strgzr
Why are there no dead marines who were defending the embassy? Or Islamists killed by them. I didn't read about the marines involved in a shootout. Were they fully armed? I don't know, but something is fishy.

Because there were no Marines there. Libyan security guards failed, because they are Libyan security guards. These decisions came from the top. Obama left these poor Americans on their own on the anniversary of 9/11. Obama hung them out to dry.

The Marines with no ammo story came after someone belatedly thought it would be a good idea to get Marines involved with security. The story seemed true because it's the kind of decision that Obama would make. In fact I think the story started out true, and was quickly fixed.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:55 PM
There's nothing crazy about that assertion at all. STUPID! But not unprecedented.

Lebanon Marine Barracks anyone?


edit on 9/13/2012 by TTAA2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

What’s really stunning is the Muslim Brotherhood government installed by Obama allowed this incident to happen. Can you imagine the police response if that happened to a foreign embassy on US soil?

Whether the report is true or not, Obama’s clowns facilitated the attack by not adequately defending our diplomats. How is a small Marine Security Forces detachment going to defend against an attack of this size.

By the way, how many dead have been reported by the Egyptian authorities at the hands of those Marines?

edit on 13-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:22 PM
Clinton did the same thing.

Long before the bad guys bombed the military barracks in Saudi Arabia they were waving AKs at our military and threatening them. We had guys in the military over there screaming they wanted guns because the Sauds were waving guns at them and threatening them as they drove on the highways.

Clinton kept the military disarmed.....he WANTED dead Americans and lots of them to justify what he would do next. All those Americans who died in the Dhehran military barracks bombing......they all died in vain.

They had to stand there and literally watch the guy drive his big bomb truck straight through two fences right at them. Didn't matter if they ran inside, those still died.

Democrats WANT dead US military members.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by Pervius

I wouldn’t be surprised if these Marines weren’t provided ammo. After all, there is precedent for this level of distrust for those who serve this country by this administration.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:29 PM
False claim the Obama adminstration forbade Marines from carrying live ammo are "wingnuts" eh?

Latest news today is they knew what was coming on 9-11 which means those claims are likely to be true marines are stationed at embassies to provide security and that means what that means.

After the current adminstration came to power they immediately changed the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, and Iraq as to not incite "violence".

I also believe they got caught lying and "fixed" the story.

Those ROE's extend to "diplomats" and their security as well.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:46 PM
Posted earlier here:

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.

**Thread Closed**

new topics

top topics


log in