If this is true, Panetta should resign

[Peach]

Yes, thank you for admitting it's idiotic to disarm on-duty marines.

And MG Gurganus will be VOTED out, for his ridiculous disarming of the MARINES in a TENT with Afghanis..............................

 

[The T]

marines,, won't like this.. none of them will. they probably will get their ballots late again this year.

Ot they will be turned in on time but lost or not counted...

 

[Peach]

marines,, won't like this.. none of them will. they probably will get their ballots late again this year.

Ot they will be turned in on time but lost or not counted...

The explanation for the decision, kg:
**************************************************
The order to disarm came from Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, who commands troops in Helmand province.

Asked about the move, Hall told the New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller: "Somebody got itchy, that's all I've got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust."

 

[koshergrl]

I know that. I read the article.

 

[Gadawg73]

We have concrete evidence that when you disarm Marines in tense situations where they are likely to get targeted, people die.

So this is proof that it was a good idea to disarm Marines? Is that what you're going with?

No, my conclusion is the Major General should be trusted with the DECISION.

And it was the Major General Marine that did just that as I saw him today interviewed.
His call and of course we have the chicken hawks here Monday morning QBing him.

 

[Papageorgio]

when was the last time you heard of terrorists hijacking a plane and flying them into buildings?
***************************************************
BUT, the MARINES are not going to "LET" an Afghani take a gun from them..................................

With a room full of armed Marines, he wouldn't get far if did. It is a silly assumption, to say the least, maybe we should disarm those protecting the President, someone might grab their guns.

Why then did Gurganus make the decision to DISARM the Marines?

I don't know, to me it is a stupid decision in not wanting to hurt the Afghani's decisions, we tiptoe all the time, maybe we need to get out if those in charge can't handle it.

 

[paulitician]

Our Soldiers have lost faith in their Commander in Chief and his entire Administration. The Longest War is over. Time to wrap it up over there.

 

[Emma]

Agreed that if Panetta made this request something needs to be done about it but your link suggests otherwise.

Afghan guards in the room, along with other foreign troops, were also unarmed during Panetta's address. A defense official told reporters there was no heightened threat, but that the order to disarm was done to be "consistent" so that Americans troops wouldn't be the only ones carrying weapons. The request reportedly did not come from Panetta or his team.

The order for the Marines to put down their weapons came from Major Gen. Mark Gurganus, according to a press pool report.

Gurganus said that since the Afghan soldiers were unarmed, he did not want them treated differently, but said it was not because of the shooting this weekend.

Well so much for the fauxrage.

 

[paulitician]

Looks like even the MSLSD nutters are having a problem with this one...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTFOcoYS_HY]Wow! Leon Panetta does't trust the Marines - Makes them disarm! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bodecea]

Yes, thank you for admitting it's idiotic to disarm on-duty marines.

And MG Gurganus will be VOTED out, for his ridiculous disarming of the MARINES in a TENT with Afghanis..............................

And yet, the guy in charge of the ROE in Beirut wasn't.

 

[Peach]

And yet, the guy in charge of the ROE in Beirut wasn't.
*********************************************
Marines don't sleep I gather; they cannot do so and be without their weapons ready to stop hostile action.

 

[The T]

Looks like even the MSLSD nutters are having a problem with this one...

Wow! Leon Panetta does't trust the Marines - Makes them disarm! - YouTube

When don't the MSLSD 'nutters' not have a problem with anything unless an issue looks good for them and thier agenda?

 

[whitehall]

True to form when the going gets rough the administration gets going. While moderately under fire Panetta decided a trip to Afghanistan might be a good idea. The administration released a strange story which they connected to Panetta about some car hijacking in Afghanistan which ....gasp ....happened while Panetta was in country.

 

[gallantwarrior]

marines,, won't like this.. none of them will. they probably will get their ballots late again this year.

You assume that their absentee ballots will be counted? It didn't happen in the last election, why should their votes count this time?

 

[The Gadfly]

Once upon a time a fucking Iraqi journalist threw shoes at a sitting President of the United States during a state visit!

I kid you not.

The notion that someone might grab a weapon is hardly the biggest stretch in the world.
__________________

Yes, Bush was President. al Qaeda sympathizer in the room? Always a possibility.

Once again, when was the last time someone stole a Marine's weapon and hurt anyone with it?

I'll wait.

I can remember when Marines were set out on post with unloaded weapons and an explosive-filled truck was driven by them into a Marine Barracks.

So can I , Bod, and I also remember the result. Wasn't exactly a good idea, now, was it?

Two things disturb me about this: first, the slap in the face to the Marines, and second, doing it to appease a nation of uncivilized, uneducated, seventh-century tribal savages. "Hearts and minds" is useless with people like that. We ought to have let the Russians have them years ago; they deserve each other. Those savages invented the Taliban and sheltered Al Quaeda. What we should have done, is bombed everything in the place bigger than a mud hut, taken out every bit of infrastructure, killed as many of the scum as we could, burned everything we could, poisoned every opium field. In other words, we should have laid waste to the place to make an example of it, and then left, after advising them, "Don't make us come back here and do this again!" IMHO, that would have been far easier, cheaper, and quicker, and would have accomplished as much, and probably a good bit more, than the failed policies we are pursuing there at present. It's not like they don't hate us anyway, so we might as well have the satisfaction of giving a considerably smaller number of them an actual reason to. Soldiers and Marines are not intended for diplomacy, policing, or nation building; their sole purpose is (or should be) to wage war, break things, and kill people.

 

[Liability]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

 

[The T]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...

 

[Liability]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...

A U.S. serviceman just committed (allegedly) a grisly set of murders over there.

Again, we don't know what info they had -- but we do know that some folks had the responsibility to protect Secretary Panetta in a very dangerous arena.

This suggests that no situation is ever entirely fool-proof or entirely secure.

Even professional efforts at vetting could have come up short.

I can't wait for the Obama Administration to come to its end, but I cannot say (at least based on all we know and all we so far don't know) that this particular decision demonstrates a failure of the Administration to do its job properly.

 

[Peach]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...
__________________
Bush didn't "vet" well either, or the shoe throwing in Iraq would not have happened. Perhaps the VETTING was keeping guns out of the tent Panetta was in.

 

[The T]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...

A U.S. serviceman just committed (allegedly) a grisly set of murders over there.

Again, we don't know what info they had -- but we do know that some folks had the responsibility to protect Secretary Panetta in a very dangerous arena.

This suggests that no situation is ever entirely fool-proof or entirely secure.

Even professional efforts at vetting could have come up short.

I can't wait for the Obama Administration to come to its end, but I cannot say (at least based on all we know and all we so far don't know) that this particular decision demonstrates a failure of the Administration to do its job properly.

It in my mind demonstrates thier continued ineptness.