Benghazi Consulate Massacre: they were unarmed

Posted by: Phineas on December 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm

**Posted by Phineas

Unarmed.

Imagine you’ve just helped overthrow a “repressive, but no threat to you” government in a far-off country, but it turns out that many of the residents –your erstwhile allies– are themselves sympathetic your deadly enemies, who’ve proven themselves to be very much a threat.  And now imagine you’re going to establish a diplomatic mission in the heart of the area most aligned with said deadly enemies and from which they’ve drawn many recruits. Could be a bit dangerous, no? But, naturally, you’re smart enough to make sure your people at this new Ft. Apache are well-armed at all times, especially when a VIP like the Ambassador comes calling. Right?

RIGHT??

As the great Strother Martin once said, “Morons! I’ve got morons on my team!

A source with personal knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi told Breitbart News that Senators who listened to closed door testimony about the Benghazi attack were shocked to learn State Department security personnel agents were not immediately armed.

Additionally, agents separated from Ambassador Chris Stevens left to retrieve their M4 weapons in a separate building. Only one returned to protect the Ambassador, while the other two hunkered down in the barracks, the source relayed.

“From the accounts I read, those guys were not ready. When the attack came that night, they had to go back to the other room and grab their weapons. Then the worse part about it was they never even returned to be with the Ambassador. One returned to be with the Ambassador with his rifle. The other two went back to where there were [sic] barracks. And two stayed in that same building where there were radios and other weapons and the safe and other stuff was there.

There were no shots fired in return. On the embassy property, just the embassy property, none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle at all in defense of the Ambassador—nothing.

(Emphasis added)

And there there’s this:

According to the Breitbart News source, the State Department security agents are “six week temporary duty assignments.”

The source explained, “When they’re there, they are not working together. They don’t know one another. They probably all got there and one guy had been there for two weeks another guy had been there for four and then another three came in from Tripoli. None of them ever worked with each other before. So when a shooting incident occurs, they hunker down and hope and pray that it goes away instead of reacting like a military trained force.”

In other words, they were no better than mall cops sent by a temp agency. To guard an ambassador, the protocol equivalent of a four-star general. In an area rife with our enemies, and after the embassy had been begging the State Department for added security for months in the face of increasingly violent attacks. Meanwhile two former SEALs not even attached to the mission rushed to the sounds of battle and gave their lives trying to make up for State’s incompetence.

Secretary Clinton is scheduled to testify on Benghazi before Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s (R-Fl) House Foreign Affairs Committee. I can’t wait to see her try to explain this one away.

Morons.

RELATED: Earlier posts on Benghazi.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 Responses to “Benghazi Consulate Massacre: they were unarmed”

Comments

  1. Drew the Infidel says:

    security–”Freedom from risk or danger; safety.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

    Security with no weapons or with unloaded weapons? In a hostile environment on the anniversary of 9/11? As the legendary Casey Stengel asked, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

    As noted above, it would be interesting just to be a fly on the wall to watch Shrillary try to weave fact from fantasy on this score, especially when we suffered four deaths of innocents and absolutely no casualties among the jihadists have been reported.

  2. Carlos says:

    Well, just wait. When Zero gets his way, the ENTIRE military will be disarmed!

    And if the libs have their way, will have to have bake sales to afford all their toys, too!

    Yep, no doubt about it, there’s nothing like living in unicorn fields to make one’s ideas sound like they could really work…

  3. Lynne says:

    And this is who the libs want for their next president?

  4. Kate says:

    Yeah…and now we are backing the Syrian rebels after they most likely have become radicalized! I bet we gave them weapons!

  5. Carlos says:

    Unconfirmed reports are, Kate, that’s what was happening in Benghazi when our citizens were murdered there and our government tried to cover it up.

  6. Polly says:

    To say that they were UNarmed isn’t quite true. The fact is they were DISarmed. Exactly who gave the ‘Stand Down’ order?

    Personally I do not believe for a moment that this event was an accident, a random happening or even incompetence. I believe it is part of a greater plan that we little people do not yet understand.

  7. Kate says:

    @Carlos…which makes perfect sense as to why they have been dragging their feet about all the facts of the situation leading up to the attack! I remember the Iran-Contra hearings and all the vitriol poured out on Ollie North and Reagan! This is so much worse I can hardly tolerate it!

  8. what happened to that investigation the obama administration was going to have to find out what they watched live.