It’s bad enough when meddlesome, anti-constitutional busybodies like New York City’s Mike Bloomberg seek to disarm the citizenry through the application of a century-old corrupt law from the golden age of gangsterism.
It’s worse when American soldiers on an Army base are not allowed to carry live firearms and are thus brutally murdered by a “soldier of Allah” at Fort Hood.
Senior U.S. officials decline to discuss it, but it’s clear there were no U.S. Marines protecting U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and his beleaguered staff at the Benghazi consulate Tuesday night. Marines are routinely posted to U.S. diplomatic outposts around the world, but the “interim” facility in Benghazi apparently was defended only by a handful of U.S. security officers and local hires. The Marines have let it be known that the two unidentified U.S. officials who died at Benghazi were not Marines.
As any Marine’ll tell you, if there had been Marines at Benghazi, they’d be among those killed.
But what’s worse? No Marines or unarmed Marines?
There’s a disquieting report in Thursday morning’s NightWatch blog that claims the Marines 700 miles away in Cairo were barred from carrying live ammunition as the U.S. Embassy in Egypt came under attack:
Four decades ago, when the Iranians seized the American embassy in Tehran, outrage exploded across the country, crossing party lines and spelling an ineffectual Jimmy Carter’s doom; it was no accident that the hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated, and everybody — everybody — understood the cause-and-effect connection between those two events. The Iranians feared the Cowboy.
There’s nothing pitiable, however, about a country that allows itself to be forced into a suicide pact with itself. The word you’re looking for is “contemptible.”