Times are not as good as they once were for the White House Press Secretary and the Biden Regime. They are starting to take hell from the press on both sides as their incompetence collapses all around them.
This past exchange was with Gray TV’s White House News Correspondent, Jon Decker, who pushed her buttons on Team Biden’s provisions of weapons being shipped to the Ukrainian military.
Giving weapons to a country fighting Russia could and should be considered an act of war by the Russians, but the mental midgets in the White House could care less. Because after all, if a massive World War breaks out, they aren’t sending their sons and daughters, they’re sending yours.
The list of weapons sure to anger the Russians included grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, and even armored drones. It’s very obvious these aren’t just “defense weapons” these can easily be used as “offensive weapons,” even though the White House claims they’re for defense only.
Well, Decker was more than willing to ask Psaki about that. He began by pointing out the list of weapons, saying “Thank you, Jen. You put out a list of all of the military equipment —
At that point, he was interrupted by Psaki, who just said “Yeah.”
Then, Decker, trying to make his point, plowed onward, saying “ — included in that $400 million — $800 million —“, at which point he was interrupted again by Psaki saying “Yeah.”
Once again ignoring her and pressing on with his question, he got to the point that firearms can be used offensively, saying:
that’s being provided to Ukraine. Among those items — let me read them to you: 100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns, and 400 shotguns. Are you saying those items are not offensive weapons?
Psaki, doing her usual thing and not answering, said “They’re weapons that help the Ukrainian people fight against an invasion by a foreign country.”
Well, yes, but that wasn’t the question. So, Decker followed up, saying “They can be used offensively, can they not?”
Still Psaki didn’t answer. She said:
“Again, they are weapons. What I’m talking about is weapons that can be used to fight —”
At that point, she was cut off by Decker, who spoke the truth, saying:
“The answer is “yes.” The answer is “yes.” I mean, although you don’t want to say it, that answer to that question is “yes.” And so, obviously, you’re trying to make this distinction between offensive and defensive weapons —”
At that point, Psaki, forgetting her earlier interruptions of Decker, said “Well, what we’re talking about — let me finish. Let me finish.”
Decker, echoing her, said “Well, let me finish, because I give you my point —”
Psaki went back to her line, saying “Let me finish my answer.”
After a bit more back and forth, Decker finally got to ask his question and make his point, saying:
“All right. You’re making this distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. Anybody that looks at that list of weapons that I just mentioned, they would say, clearly, they’re offensive.
If a Ukrainian military officer or someone who is enlisted has one of these weapons, they can take out a Russian military official of some sort with these weapons. They’re offensive in nature. So, why not provide more offensive weapons like this to the Ukrainian military?”
Psaki, as could be expected, didn’t answer. She just said:
Well, first of all, we are providing a range of rifles, et cetera. There is a difference between a plane and planes and massive military systems — I think anybody would recognize this — and what we’re talking about, which is giving rifles and pistols to many of them farmers and people living in countrysides to defend themselves. I think there’s a difference that most people recognize.
Watch the awkward bickering here: