Chuck Hagel Opines on Syria: Is America's Secretary of Defense Also on Drugs?

More antics from the Obama cabinet, which consists of the worst and the dumbest:

A week ago, I wrote in a blog entry entitled "John Kerry Opines on North Korea: Is America's Secretary of State on Drugs?" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/john-kerry-opines-on-north-korea-is.html):

As reported today by Reuters (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-korea-north-usabre93c01z-20130412,0,5931545.story), John (Bashar al-Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry is now seeking to resolve America's brewing crisis with North Korea:

"'We are prepared to reach out but we need (the) appropriate moment, appropriate circumstance,' Kerry said, adding that North Korea had to take steps towards giving up its nuclear programs.

'They have to take some actions. Now how many and how much I want to have a discussion with folks back in Washington (about)... but they have to take action,' Kerry told a small group of reporters."

Sorry, but even with the words in parentheses used by Reuters to clarify Kerry's remarks, I still don't have a clue what he is trying to say.
 

Well, Chuck Hagel is not about to be outdone by John Kerry. Commenting on reports that John Kerry's "dear friend" Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons again rebels in Syria, Hagel responded (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hagel-US-judgment-on-Syria-chemical-arms-wont-be-rushed-310968):

"I think we have to be very careful here before we make any conclusions (and) draw any conclusions based on real intelligence."

Here, too, even with the parenthetical "and" added by Reuters, this makes absolutely no sense. We shouldn't "draw any conclusion based on real evidence"?

In case you were wondering, chemical weapons have been used in Syria. However, Obama has previously gone on record as saying that such use would cross a "red line" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/honoring-a-red-line-in-syria-over-chemical-weapons/2013/04/23/ce30c978-ac42-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html), and Obama, of course, does not want to be held to his word.

But imagine what Iran is reading into Obama's procrastination on this matter, given the president's purportedly unequivocal declaration that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to have nuclear weapons and his assertion that "as President of the United States, I don't bluff" (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/).

Now we'll just need to wait and see if Iran doesn't call Obama's bluff.

May God have mercy on us.