Defense Secretary Mark Esper Says He ‘Didn’t See’ Evidence Of Embassy Attacks

No, it's not.

So... no quote then?

 

You cant help me unless you can post a quote from someone saying they saw "no evidence".

 

Oh sorry, I was hoping you had already read the OP

SNIP
“I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is I share the president’s view that probably—my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country.”
ENDSNIP

1. Calling the President on his BS on "4 embassies"
2. Another "probably"... hardly inspiring confidence
3. A statement of ridiculously obvious fact about embassies in general....

 

Some of you really seem to be struggling with reading comprehension

Let's try one more time....

Defense Secretary Mark Esper: "....my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies."

 

Based on what, Mark??

PF.Com Poster Egoboy (and @Andrew Jackson ) - "my expectation was that Margot Robbie was going to show up at my house for a private bikini modelling session this weekend"

Based on what?

 

Still waiting for "no evidence".

If you cant provide the quote, then say so. Its not hard.

 

I think you need to take that up with the poster who started your "no evidence" record skip. Something to do with the briefing...

On THIS topic, clearly Esper said he didn't see any evidence of a tangible threat against 4 embassies, which shoots down Trump's BS.

That truly wasn't hard...

 

Then let him make the case that it doesn’t need to be imminent and let’s have that conversation. Instead they lie for a week then say who cares.

 

I'll make an even more poetic argument: Soleimani was an enemy combatant against the US. As is all those who uphold the tenants of "radical jihad", given that if said enemy is within our sights, we capture or shoot to kill. It's that damn simple. No threat need be imminent. Hostilities will exist until they sign a peace treaty, formally surrender and end all hostilities with US.

No more 9/11's, no more pub bar shootings. No more having to fear for our own lives in our own country.

 

Says who? Why do you suddenly trust the deep state enough to allow them to decide who lives and dies?

 

I don't trust the "deep state", government is an instrument of power in the hands of its wielder. And frankly, radical jihad doesn't care for our western politics, or our views on life and politics. That should've been made very clear with the way they've conducted the war against civilian casualties.

So frankly, if I were commander in chief that's my rationale. The enemy is the enemy until they formally acknowledge peace with the US and an end to their jihad.

 

Yet to know who the enemy is, requires trusting the deep state.

 

Not at all. If you're wearing a turbin, yelling "death to America" with even so much as the tiniest affiliation with ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nursa, or insert other name for their worthless organizations they're the enemy. All public information.

 

My bad... meant to respond to OP. Whether he agreed with the evidence that it was substantial or not, he saw evidence. He had to have.

So I was waiting for the OP to show me where he said he saw "no evidence".

 

You need to help yourself and figure out that what was said means "They saw no evidence" - and I can not help you to do that

 

I could look for the quote all day long and will never find it...

That's why I need you to point it out to me.

 

So, since GWB's orders, based on lies, resulted in the death of 10,000s innocent Iraqis and Middle Easterners, does that give them the right to assassinate GWB?

 

I gave you the quote previously "They don’t have any underlying facts to establish an imminent threat, the lawmaker said. -The information we got was no more detailed or revealing than what we’ve read in the news or seen on the TV.”

That you have been twirling around stating - "Show me where they say there was no evidence shown to them" and can't realize that the above means the same thing - is mindless silliness.

 

Well, that depends on if said Iraqis/Middle Easterners really want to call these groups their 'government'. But I've been consistent: If they targeted military targets and political personnel, I'd be okay with that.(Well, not 'okay' as in it doesn't matter, but okay as in its honorable on the battlefield.). But we both know those cowards will deliberately use civilian shields and attack US Civilians. As far as the military, it does a decent job at trying to prevent civilian casualties.

There's a difference in how our side conducts war. You'll recall that's why the universal uproar over Trump's calling for the terrorist families.

 

So you think when Defense Secretary Mark Esper said "my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies" and when National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said “we knew there were threats to American facilities, now whether they were bases, embassies—you know it’s always hard until the attack happens", you don't think their opinions were based on facts?

Are you saying the whole thing was just assumption and presumption? Like the impeachment hoax? Now lefties have a problem with assumptions and presumptions, LOL?

Not that leftie hypocrisy about assumptions and presumptions matters, because without a doubt both the Defense Secretary and the National Security Adviser were going on more than just assumptions and presumptions

 

What I said was that no evidence was given - and that given the track record of these pundits - be it Red or Blue administrations over the last 20 years - a track record of lies, false narratives and false flags - in particular with respect to Iraq/Iran/Syria/Yemen ... I would have to be an idiot to just assume they are not lying this time.

See above.

 

It's not silly...

I'm asking you to quote it and you cant. So either you lied, or you were intentionally misleading.

 

I did not mislead in any way - If you can't figure out that the quote "They don’t have any underlying facts to establish an imminent threat, the lawmaker said. -The information we got was no more detailed or revealing than what we’ve read in the news or seen on the TV.”

means the same as "no evidence of imminent threat was given" - I can't help you further. Go away.

 

“The worst briefing I’ve seen — at least on a military issue — in my nine years” in the Senate, said the Utah Republican.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/republican-hawks-trump-iran-conflict-096233

 

Do you want to go after people who have been complicit in the deaths of Americans over the last 20 years? Start with Saudi Arabia.