Posted on 06/22/2025 6:12:58 PM PDT by FreedomPoster
1) As I like to do, I wanted to wait til some of the Iranian Fordow dust settled. It will be weeks before anyone knows for sure how much damage was done to the Iranian nuke program, but suffice it to say that when combined with the earlier Israeli attacks . . . heap big damage.
2) The extent of this damage was seen in the Iranians' response, which was "WE'RE GOING TO SUE!" Yeah, that's a real deterrent there!
3) A word on the attack itself. It was carried out with precision not seen since Schwartzkopf's "Hail Mary" in in 1991.
4) The intricate coordination of so many aircraft, cruise missiles, all working with the Israelis, and ALL done in secret---boo hoo little Jennifer Griffen---that it will be studied for years just as the Israeli raid at Entebbe or their attack on the Osirik Iraqi nuke plant.
5) Again, while VERY EARLY, it speaks not only to the Punisher Pete Hegseth's team and capabilities, but Susie Wiles' grip on loose lips in the White House.
6) Most important, this attack occurred after several in the administration spoke up and stated their case against.
7) As best we can discern, both J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard opposed---yet were 100% on board after the attack started, exactly as it should be.
8) My take is that this will be more like Grenada than Iraq. I would wager a burger that Trump will NOT put boots on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
And chances are fair to outstanding there were a whole bunch of folks with “R” on their nametag who didn’t get briefed either.
Had to look it up.
If IIRC, our landing troops on the beaches were met by the press as they came ashore?
Isn’t that the enemy as well?
they are currently shopping for friendly judge
Yes
I’d wager none.
Thanks.
Anymore and the island could’ve flipped over.
Agreed—Trump 1.0 had leaks all over the place.
It looks like they have finally been plugged.
I cannot think of one Democrat officeholder I would trust—on anything.
Ever.
7) As best we can discern, both J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard opposed-—yet were 100% on board after the attack started, exactly as it should be.
Did the oppose? Or did they play a key role in misinformation and help in deceiving the enemy as to what was happening?
When you see the wide receiver attracting attention to himself, the play just might be a run up the middle.
Very possible, especially the way this has played out.
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.