Where’s the cite: Hagel’s exact words would be nice.
The cite I gave quoted his exact words.
where’s the link to it?
She said they were not deliberately delaying. Hagel said, in effect, that if they weren’t deliberately delaying, then they were probably incompetent. And by “incompetent”, I’m sure he meant “masterful”, by your logic.
Wrong Thread…
Dude, read my post. The link is there, the cite is there and the exact quote is there. IT’S ALL THERE.
But it’s not the exact quote itself.
Ha ha - you can’t come with a single fact to refute me. I win!
Regards,
Shodan
So J.Mace thinks that asking “if” means that it is.
because we all know how difficult it is to load a vehicle. might take an entire hour with union breaks.
Maybe the Russians sent trucks built to SAE specs and the forklifts are metric. Or the chemical drums have multiple “up” decals pointed in the opposite direction and they’re confused. Or the door to the warehouse is locked and they lost the key and all the locksmiths are on vacation.
More likely all the scoffers will be laughed at last. Then this will be called a zombie thread and nary a scoffer will return.
Hagel wasn’t “asking if”. He was making an observation. If you can parse his observation as meaning “masterful”, let’s see it. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you attempted to do that. If not, then you cannot deny that you are wrong.
if the civilians who will continue to die in the future manage to rise from the dead that may occur. But there are quite a few people who don’t routinely buy bridges from 3rd world despots. If Assad wants to have CW’s, then CW’s he’ll have and there isn’t a damn thing Obama can do about it. One of the signs that he’s not talking it seriously is that it only takes a few minutes to load a truck. It’s now been months.
I scoff in your general direction.
Hagen did not ask if the inspectors were incompetent. He was wondering if Syria might be incompetent. Any way you look at it you lose.
I’m also glad you and Magiver are together on this. That ought to tell you something about how wrong you are.
As noted, you have an uncanny ability to unite people who rarely, if ever, agree with each other.
But I have presented nothing but facts as for how the masterful Secretary of Defense disagrees with your opinionated opinions. You cannot deny that this has now been proven in reverse accord to the manifold posting you have posted on this subject.
Are you going to explain how Obama is responsible for civilians that die.
Post what I’ve written and the post what Hagel ever said that disagrees with what I wrote. You can’t. That would be dealing with facts. You can’t do it.
Mace & Magiver, would either of you support Obama giving heavy weapons to trustworthy Assad opposition militias?
Already done, and I’m not doing it again. You have this habit of thinking that just because you disagree with what was posted that it wasn’t actually posted*. People prove you wrong every day, and all you do is ask them to repost what was already posted.
Not going to do it. As I’ve noted before, I’m not debating with you, so I don’t care what you think. People reading at home can come to their own conclusions.
*Or if you change your mind about something YOU posted that somehow your original post never existed, even though we can all read it in plain text in the thread.
You need to ask him: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,”
So it’s not a hard dot to connect. Obama is spending hard earned tax dollars to do this as well as arming rebels because:
A: Chemical weapons are bad for the ozone
B: Chemical weapons were used to kill people
Whatever that means? When are you going to tell us why you think Obama is responsible for Syrian civilians being killed?