What's new

Venezuela

OK, here we go. Trump said a day or two ago, there would be no problem releasing the video of the second strike on the survivors, that it would be released.

Yeah, right! Not that I’m anxious to see people blown up, but sounds like it will not be released, if Pete Hegseth has anything to do with it.

So, what’s to review?! And no, Hegseth, they were not headed to the US by boat.


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday refused to say whether the Pentagon would release video of the early September operationthat targeted survivors of a strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean.

"We're reviewing the process, and we'll see," Hegseth said in a Q&A session after addressing a defense forum hosted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. "Whatever we were to decide to release, we'd have to be very responsible about reviewing that right now."

Eleven people were killed in the Sept. 2 missile attack on an alleged drug boat, the first of several such assaults off Latin America's coastal waters. The Trump administration has faced heavy criticism after the Washington Post reported last week that a second missile was launched on the boat, killing two survivors of the initial strike….

……Mr. Trump on Wednesday said he would support the release of all footage of the Sept. 2 strikes.

"I don't know what they have, but whatever they have we'll certainly release, no problem," Mr. Trump told reporters Wednesday.

However, the Pentagon chief on Saturday was noncommittal as he was asked multiple times whether the video would be released.

"We are reviewing it right now," Hegseth said.

During his speech Saturday, Hegseth insisted the strikes against the alleged drug-trafficking boats and their "narco-terrorists" will continue.

"We've been clear, if you're working for a designated terrorist organization, and you bring drugs into this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "...We are killing them. We will keep killing them so long as they are poisoning our people with narcotics so lethal they're tantamount to chemical weapons."
 
So they attacked a boat, there were a couple people who didn't die in the attack so they went back in to finish them off.

Orders to "leave no survivors" are ILLEGAL. It is a war crime by all definitions. Specifically, killing people whose boat/ship has been sunk is word for word prohibited.
The problem is there is no one to enforce it. The Hague can convict the US of the crime internationally, but no one can do anything about it other than us, internally. And with a stranglehold on the courts, nothing will happen. Until Congress and the Senate decide to impeach and change the presidency, nothing will change and the crimes will continue apace.
 
Sounds like the video of the second strike will not be released.


View: https://x.com/HotSpotHotSpot/status/1998129284486136288

To be fair they worded the question wrong, so they gave him the liar's wiggle room. They asked in the first place "will the video be released" and Trump said "I have no problem with that". Then they asked, in the 2nd place "I thought you said he [meaning Hegseth] would have no problem releasing the video" and Trump was able to say "I didn't say that", and he didn't. He said that HE personally (Trump himself) would have no problem releasing the tapes, not that Hegseth would have no problem releasing the tapes. Any snake wrangler will tell you that to control the snake and keep from being bit you have to pin him to the ground so he has no wiggle room. They didn't do that, so they got bit. Semantics, the liar's best friend.
 
To be fair they worded the question wrong, so they gave him the liar's wiggle room. They asked in the first place "will the video be released" and Trump said "I have no problem with that". Then they asked, in the 2nd place "I thought you said he [meaning Hegseth] would have no problem releasing the video" and Trump was able to say "I didn't say that", and he didn't. He said that HE personally (Trump himself) would have no problem releasing the tapes, not that Hegseth would have no problem releasing the tapes. Any snake wrangler will tell you that to control the snake and keep from being bit you have to pin him to the ground so he has no wiggle room. They didn't do that, so they got bit. Semantics, the liar's best friend.
“I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have, we’d certainly release, no problem” was his answer to if he would “release THAT video”, reporter’s emphasis, after she said “the second video”. She made it clear which video, and he said whatever they have they would release. “Whatever they have” has to include the video the reporter spelled out, and we already know it exists. “Whatever they have” includes what we already knew existed. I don’t think there’s wiggle room there, and it pisses me off more than the Epstein file run arounds.
 
“I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have, we’d certainly release, no problem” was his answer to if he would “release THAT video”, reporter’s emphasis, after she said “the second video”. She made it clear which video, and he said whatever they have they would release. “Whatever they have” has to include the video the reporter spelled out, and we already know it exists. “Whatever they have” includes what we already knew existed. I don’t think there’s wiggle room there, and it pisses me off more than the Epstein file run arounds.
Yes but allowing him to state "I would be fine with it" was all he needed. He can claim implausible deniability, and take advantage of the semantics of the questions to say "hey I am cool with it, I never said anything about Hegseth" and he has a ton of wiggle room when it comes to defining which "we" he meant. Easy to just say "we, as in the white house, have no problem with it, I never said anything about Hegseth". Slippery snakes need to be pinned down harder than @Rubashov at a pegging contest with a used goat as the main prize.
 
Yes but allowing him to state "I would be fine with it" was all he needed. He can claim implausible deniability, and take advantage of the semantics of the questions to say "hey I am cool with it, I never said anything about Hegseth" and he has a ton of wiggle room when it comes to defining which "we" he meant. Easy to just say "we, as in the white house, have no problem with it, I never said anything about Hegseth". Slippery snakes need to be pinned down harder than @Rubashov at a pegging contest with a used goat as the main prize.
I don’t hear him say “I would be fine with it”. I can’t find it. I hear him at the very end of the ststement today that “whatever Pete wants to do is OK with me”. But, we’ll have to agree to disagree, as I believe he indicated last week, in the earlier ststement, that yes, they would “certainly” release it. And besides, nobody is going to buy that he didn’t lie about what he said, I don’t believe. I assume nothing comes of it. The reporters original question was clear enough for any human being to know exactly what she was asking, and he said he’d release it. That said, it’s a Hegseth’s call, and he’s not going anywhere, so it won’t be released.
 
Who could have seen this coming? (Me, that's who)


And of course, like everything with trump, it's "a large tanker, very large," he said. "Largest one ever seized, actually."

Such a dumbass.
They filmed it.



View: https://x.com/BNONews/status/1998877532876321167
 
Back
Top