The Economist put him on the cover dressed in Bush's flight suit.
"I can't be another Bush---I'm a Nobel Peace Laureate."
Posted on 09/28/2014 11:25:47 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
"I can't be another Bush---I'm a Nobel Peace Laureate."
I’m certainly no expert on what took place, but it seems to me that those compounds would have served as barracks as well as meeting places. It would seem to me that you could catch a sizable number of people in one place if they were sleeping on site.
I think the guest is trying to address what he sees as a valid point, one that we would agree with if he is right. I’m just not convinced he is.
West Point graduated this one a little slow on the uptake.
Here is my comment on an earlier FR thread discussing the bombings;
The missiles targeted training camps, a bomb factory, a communication building, and command-and-control facilities belonging to what Washington calls "the Khorasan Group".
That should read: The missiles targeted empty training camps, an empty bomb factory, an empty communication building, and and empty command-and-control facilities belonging to what Washington calls "the Khorasan Group".
After all we wouldn't want to actually kill these people. -tom
Night attack minimizes risk to aircraft. I have no idea if ISIS is suffering loses or not.
I recall that Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles into an empty Iraqi military building at night in response to some event that Saddam did. It could have been the assassination attempt on former President G. H. W. Bush, but may have been something else.
Does anyone else remember that?
I didn’t graduate from a military warfare college but it seems to me if you telegraph you are only bombing at night that maybe they would be able to hide better
In fact this was reported at the time
The Iraqi ambassador told [one of the UN arms inspectors] following the raids, "If we had known that was all you would do, we would have ended the inspections long ago."
Night flight minimizes risk to cruise missiles too.
I don’t know, I feel that since airstrikes are such an old tactic, members of ISIS may very well have gotten into tunnels and underground shelters like the Vietcong did.
Go back to night one videos and look at the parking lots around those big “headquarters”
EMPTY
not even cabs loitering, no one outside smoking, nothing
Peters is right on
the MEdia bought it hook line and sinker
the photos of bombed buildings published by the administration has empty parking lots around the buildings.
This stuff is only too obvious to me. They want to fight a war, but they don’t want to hurt anybody. As if fighting a kinder, gentler war will accomplish anything. If anything, we have to fight a harder, more brutal war. If you start a war, you have to be made to pay a price. Otherwise, nothing will change.
#1) ISIS accountants would love this because of the unused or unspent portion of the card would remain in the control of ISIS.#2) Real payroll costs will come in way under budget. #3)Obama can't bomb empty buidings just to diminish their call-in centers and AS-400 servers doing automatic batch runs at midnight. Hellfire missiles @ $5,000 per copy will actually kill the enemy instead of punch holes in the roof of their empty office buildings.
The Allies did successive 1,000 bomber raids on Nazi Germany during WWII.
The strategy of night airstrikes is old, and repetitive by this point. We used night bombings during WWII. We also used it in Vietnam. The NVA and Vietcong adapted well by having a vast tunnel network and sticking to caves and basements so that even if the airstrikes happened at night, not that many were hit.
The strategy of night airstrikes is old, and repetitive by this point. We used night bombings during WWII. We also used it in Vietnam. The NVA and Vietcong adapted well by having a vast tunnel network and sticking to caves and basements so that even if the airstrikes happened at night, not that many were hit.
Remember Clinton's Afghanistan bombing? It failed to do damage bin Laden or his organization. George W. Bush characterized cream-puff Clinton's bombing: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent, and hit a camel in the butt.
=================================================
====================================================
AS Freeper MACEMAN INSIGHTFULLY POSTED: then-pres Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security.
On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that day’s grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese “chemical weapons factory,” and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development."
Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization.
As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clinton’s action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clinton’s pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they weren’t a total loss.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.