Wingnuts Claim Obama's Ambassador to Egypt Forbid Marines From Carrying Live Ammo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Early this morning, conservative military bloggers began to float reports that the US ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, did not permit US Marine security guards to carry live ammunition. Within hours, this "no ammo" rumor in response to the embassy attack in Cairo lit up right-wing social media, with the allegation unquestioningly blamed on the White House. Conservative thought-leaders and pundits led the charge:

From a neocon torch bearer:

So Marines in Benghazi like Bobbies in London. Very leading-from-behindish.

Obama's World of Appeasement: Cairo embassy Marines not allowed to carry live ammo. bit.ly/Pme6nI #caring

Under orders from Obama administration--NO AMMO for Marines at Cairo Embassy freebeacon.com/reports-marine…

OBAMA sends Marines but tells them no use of LIVE AMMO ..like sitting ducks..who the hell is this LUNATIC in the WH #p2 #ocra

Marines not allowed live ammo at US Embassies?freebeacon.com/reports-marine… why not arm them with bean bags or feathers? Obama unelectable

Marines under fire w/no ammo Worst Thing I Have Ever Heard. I am in a Rage. Obama is what US Marines scrape off bottom of their boots.

The "commander in chief" must think these are war games--->"@Fritzster: Marines not permitted live ammo shar.es/u5YCX"#tcot #lnyhbt

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." According to McCreary, Patterson—a career foreign service officer who was not a political appointee, and who served George W. Bush as an ambassador to the UN and to Pakistan—"did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office." And: "She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines."

These claims were quickly perpetuated by the right-wing Washington Free Beacon and Fox Nation sites, despite never having been confirmed—and they are highly unlikely to be true. Patterson was in Washington at the time of the protests, leaving the deputy chief of mission in charge, and he would have had responsibility for issuing orders to guards, along with the embassy's regional security officer, a specially trained State Department official. State's own guidelines for Marine security guards (PDF) require that any duty assigned to them "shall not contravene established Department or Marine Corps policy and shall not unduly jeopardize the safety or well-being of any Marine." That's a pretty straightforward way of saying Marines don't lay down their arms if danger is imminent, no matter what a diplomat says. Unless, of course, you're willing to believe the worst about POTUS and his diplomatic corps.

Pentagon spokesman George Little dismissed the allegations Thursday afternoon. "With or without a weapon, Marines are always armed," he told Time's Mark Thompson. "I've heard nothing to suggest they don't have ammunition."

I reached McCreary by email but haven't gotten any answers from him to my questions about where his information comes from; if he provides answers I'll add an update. (I've also contacted the US embassy in Cairo for a response.)

Indeed, this appears to be the latest incarnation of a pervasive myth that military "rules of engagement" under Barack Obama have limited soldiers' ability to defend themselves and defeat enemies—which is itself a variation on the old conservative canard that we'd have won Vietnam if only liberal peaceniks hadn't gotten in the way of the warfighters. (In fact, therewas some grumbling among troops about restrictive Afghanistan rules of engagement in 2009-10 under Gen. Stanley McChrystal—and his replacement, Gen. David Petraeus, reviewed the ROE and clarified them for rank-and-file combatants. In other words, while the president may call the strategic shots, the generals take care of frontline tactics.)

McCreary and his followers are playing to emotions surrounding the four American deaths in Libya, but they don't bother to consider how the Marines might have actually used steel-jacketed, high-powered .223 rifle cartridges in Cairo, which was a different situation involving street protesters. Should they have gunned the protesters down? About the only thing the conservative blogosphere knows for sure is: Whatever happened, it must be the president's fault.

http://www.stumbleup...rines-live-ammo

[mawilson 2,133]

These claims were quickly perpetuated by the right-wing Washington Free Beacon and Fox Nation sites, despite never having been confirmed—and they are highly unlikely to be true.

But they haven't been confirmed to be untrue? Interesting.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So much denial, it must be true!

1. Wait for allegation.

2. Post response.

3. ??????

4. Profit!

[Penny Lane 8,159]

But they haven't been confirmed to be untrue? Interesting.

The burden of proof should be on the accuser. They're the ones stating it as if it's fact.

[SMOKE 1,426]

The burden of proof should be on the accuser. They're the ones stating it as if it's fact.

like romney being a tax cheat? or is that different?

[mawilson 2,133]

The burden of proof should be on the accuser. They're the ones stating it as if it's fact.

They have a source. If the source is wrong, someone should rebut their claim.

I'm not saying the claim is true or false, but usually when an outrageous claim is posted, the burden of rebuttal is on those who use words like "neocons" and "right wing media". Surely they can do a better job of rebutting the allegations than "the claims have not been confirmed and highly unlikely to be true". That sounds like "we have no clue if it's true or false, but it can't be true, no, no, it can't!!!"

What happened to Obama's "truth team"?

Edited September 13, 2012 by mawilson

[JohnR! 5,495]

So much denial, it must be true!

like romney being a tax cheat? or is that different?

You do the math.

[SMOKE 1,426]

You do the math.

i have no right to and no desire to violate his religious privacy.

[JohnR! 5,495]

i have no right to and no desire to violate his religious privacy.

You answered your own question then. Comparing this to Romney's tax issue is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You do the math.

Let's see, dead Americans = Romney is rich. Gotcha.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

like romney being a tax cheat? or is that different?

I don't think that's a fact either, and you will not find a single post of mine claiming that Romney's cheated on his taxes.

All I have said, time and time again, is that he should release the information because if he doesn't, it LOOKS like he's hiding something.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think that's a fact either, and you will not find a single post of mine claiming that Romney's cheated on his taxes.

All I have said, time and time again, is that he should release the information because if he doesn't, it LOOKS like he's hiding something.

Maybe he is. Taxes reveal a lot of personal information - something he might not want to share with the world.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Maybe he is. Taxes reveal a lot of personal information - something he might not want to share with the world.

Quite possible. If that's the case, then he shouldn't demand the same of others if it's not something he's willing to do himself.

[mawilson 2,133]

Quite possible. If that's the case, then he shouldn't demand the same of others if it's not something he's willing to do himself.

He is demanding that others share tax returns or other personal information?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The burden of proof should be on the accuser. They're the ones stating it as if it's fact.

As n ex-Ninja I would guess there was a SOP for when and when not to carry Ammo. Probably more USMC SOP than Obama directive. Not saying they did or did not have live Ammo. May depend on timing.