It Wasn’t “A Mistake” – Drone Strike Kills Two Hostages….

President Obama said today the drone strike that killed one U.S. and one Italian hostage was “a mistake”. No it wasn’t. The drone strike was ordered; the drone strike was purposeful; the drone strike hit the exact intended target; there was nothing remotely a “mistake” about the operation.

Everything this White House does first and foremost passes through the political prism. Everything, every.single.pro-and-con, is weighed against the political cost vs. benefit considerations, period. So too is this story, and the aftermath of this story from January to the public release of the information today.

WASHINGTON DC – President Obama on Thursday acknowledged that the U.S. killed two innocent hostages in counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda.

Obama expressed his “deepest apologies” to the families of the two hostages, one American and one Italian.

“It is a cruel and bitter truth that in the fog of war generally, and our fight against terrorists specifically, mistakes, sometimes deadly mistakes can occur,” Obama said at a press conference at the White House Thursday morning. (read more)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A New America, Big Stupid Government, Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, Military, Notorious Liars, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Terrorist Attacks, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to It Wasn’t “A Mistake” – Drone Strike Kills Two Hostages….

  1. BobNoxious says:

    The WH intentionally “leaked” this story to the WSJ last night as part of the “roll out” of this information.

    Three hugely important points that nobody is discussing:

    Obama went to great lengths today to say that he DID NOT order this specific strike which means bureaucrats have the power to pull the trigger and kill Americans.
    This is the result of Obama and Brennan’s “signature strike” method- we have absolutely zero idea who we are shooting at; they are targeted based on signals intel, overhead surveillance and pattern of life characteristics that we assess to make them likely a terrorist. The result is a shoot first; worry about the details after.
    This proves that the “signature strike” method allows for a certain amount of collateral damage.

    Liked by 9 people

  2. cg says:

    Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses.

    Like

  3. Kin Mapper says:

    It was an accident per Obama and that was patently more b.s. from b.o. Of course it was intentional and only those killed who were not al Qaeda-involved were unintended.

    Obama needs to be impeached with intent with extreme due speed.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Les says:

    He only admitted it because of the Italian. If it would have been two Americans we wouldn’t know about it.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Sentient says:

    I admit I’m glad to hear that Adam Gadahn has met his reward.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. rashomon says:

    Oops a daisy.

    Idiot.

    Like

  7. Blonde in Red says:

    “It is a cruel and bitter truth that in the fog of war generally, and our fight against terrorists specifically, mistakes, sometimes deadly mistakes can occur,” Obama said

    Prove it then, Bozo and glass the Middle East where the nut-job extremists are taking over. Collateral damage, home-slice. Nuke ’em first before they can invade/rape/pillage/nuke us.

    Right, mom jeans prezzie?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      I’m with you Blonde, in fact I would ride that baby down, on Mecca! Does Obola look sick, not kidding, to you? Looks like Obola has loss 15-20 pounds. What do you think?

      Like

    • MattMusson says:

      To quote the Navy SEALS – “It sucks to be the hostage.”

      Sorry they are gone. But – it beats hell out of being decapitated on the internet.

      Like

  8. partyzantski says:

    A few observations about this knock out strike….. in the larger scheme of things, this is an international version of “Polar Bear Hunting”. BHO did not use the fists of an easily risable teen fool in an urban setting, he used his flying monkey brigade of drones and drone operators to deliver the lethal cracker smack down.

    At this point, what difference does it make if death comes via Hellfire missile, or some perpetually aggrieved, stunning urbanite with a nursed grudge and bones to make? End result is same-same. Only difference I see is that one requires human inputs for all mission phases, the other is a “set it and forget it” weapon system.

    If the clever bunnies in the DARPA were REALLY clever, they’d start finding a way to electronically tag all who might be taken captive to provide some really excellent terminal guidance. A rather Russian solution, but effective. If every aid worker potentially was a targeting beacon, I would bet a lot less would get grabbed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      I like it! Or the Bill “BJ” Clinton ear lobe chip.

      Liked by 1 person

    • czarowniczy says:

      DARPA’s bogged down with finding foolproof ways for DoD bureaucrats to find their parking spots in the Pentagon parking lots – their stuck on the ‘foolproof’ requirement. As for tagging captives we already have a tested and fully function ‘tag’ for that purpose – the M855. They stay right where you drop ’em.

      Like

      • Col.(R) Ken says:

        Amen, little hole in, big hole out. Just like that 25mm uranium tip rounds. Make’s them glow in the dark!!!

        Liked by 1 person

        • czarowniczy says:

          I mean, why all the fuss? Let’s play THEIR game by THEIR rules – no captives unless you need a few for propaganda purposes. Russians had the right idea in Afghanistan, they just didn’t have the whatever to completely follow through.

          Like

  9. Father Paul Lemmen says:

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.

    Like

  10. czarowniczy says:

    As I watched the POtuS’s speech regarding the deaths of the AQ captives Weinstein and Lo Porto I was struck by the textbook structure of the speech – it contained everything that a bureaucratic apologist trying to defuse a volatile situation would use, nothing was left out.
    The POtuS took responsibility as the boss while his Greek chorus whined on elsewhere about how this wasn’t his decision it was the decisions of others empowered to carry on counterterrorism operations (death from above). It wasn’t a drone strike, it was a counterterrorism event. Deep decision making processes went on before the strike was ordered and it wasn’t know that there were American hostages in the compound – he knows about the decisions that went on but not about the events. And it goes on, you can, if you’ve seen enough/helped write ‘so sorry we screwed up’ letters, instinctively know what he’s going to say next.
    He delivered the speech with the expressed compassion of that parking meter lady writing a ticket and did a half-assed job of explaining why the attacks/deaths were delayed over three months. Also took no questions. He gave all of the impression that some trusted dawgz had once again peed in his pool and now he has to tell all of the swimmers.
    The only thing that really struck me was when he called the attacks a mistake instead of an accident – would one of his handlers and editors actually let him say ‘mistake’ as in a misguided action that is wrong and not ‘accident as in an unexpected or unintended occurrence without a deliberate plan or cause? That one word jarred me out of my bureaucratic déjà vu state.
    I sort of don’t believe that he didn’t know, if the plan were to pop a Hellfire cap in the asses of two American AQ primaries you’re telling me that they wouldn’t go running to the Big Dawg for high-fives and atta-bros all around? If you have a couple of US AQ members who are that high of a profile and you get one or two on the target you aren’t going to light ‘em up and tell the boss a few days later during a break in The Voice.
    There’s also the issue of no one ‘knowing’ that AQ would be securing hostages inside of their compounds to discourage US attacks. With all of the HUMINT and SIGINT that goes into targeting AQ positions, looking for hi-valu targets vice pool boys and pizza delivery guys – no one thought that there’d be hostages there if they were relatively sure that major players were in the house? Or was the desire to pop some US turncoats so high that the hostages were reclassed as acceptable civilian casualties’? I mean, if these positions are deep in the Tribal Areas wouldn’t you suspect that a US, English-speaking, Jewish hostage just might be co-located with the likes of Azzam the American? Just sayin’.
    Let’s see how this plays out- somethin’ jes don’t smell right.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      Czar “it the fog of war”. The only fog this asshole knows is the smoke from one of his blunts. Does ValJ role those blunts now?

      Like

    • manickernel says:

      What bothers me is we will trade 5 known terrorists for 1 traitor, but will not negotiate for the release of hostages proffering to use special missions to rescue. This shows a total disconnect between agencies involved. That is the mistake.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/23/an-american-mom-and-her-baby-are-being-held-hostage-by-the-taliban.html

      By the way, the couple in the article above were total idiots, but it still shows a total clusterfrack in Obama’s policies.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        The trade was a purely political thing – I’m almost 100% sure it was done to boost the POtuS’s popularity rating with the groups most likely to kiss his…rather, vote for him. Problem is that when your handlers are almost as divorced from functional reality as you are things have a way of backfiring and you have to waste precious resources burying mistakes.
        I heart a lot of remarks about those who voluntarily go to hostile areas as having deserved what happens to them. A lot of people feel that if you go into nasty areas in Pakistan/Afghanistan, especially if you are Jewish, you shouldn’t complain when reality bites you in the parachute pants. Just because that lion thing worked for Daniel don’t mean it will work for you. I’m betting that reasoning played into the decision to whack the AQ guys regardless of collateral damages. It’s a problem – I have some issues with the hostages being killed but I can’t shake that ‘lack of common sense’ issue with the hostages being there in the first place.

        Like

  11. Nanny G says:

    Even though you point out that EVERYTHING Obama does is for political reasons, you fail to connect the dots as to WHY he made this statement (in April) about a drone strike that killed civilians (in January.)
    Here’s why:
    The Saudis, the Jordanians and the Egyptians have been successfully going after the Houthis and al Qaeda in Yemen.
    Obama (and Iran) want that to stop.
    Just as Hamas trots out so-called civilian dead when Israel’s IDF finally starts going after Hamas and rocket launchers in Gaza, so, too, Iran and Obama are making the false claim that these bombing runs are killing massive numbers of civilians.
    Truth is, those civilians have all fled.
    Obama’s ploy led to a nearly 24 hour cease-fire by the Saudis against targets inside Yemen.
    Obama says he is OK if the Saudis merely try to protect their border.
    But the Houthis and/or al Qaeda took advantage of this Saudi mercy and attacked.
    So, the strikes are back on.
    Now, the Jordanians say this is until they win.
    Now, the Saudis say one free Bentley for each pilot involved in the battle.
    Now, the Egyptians say to Israel, if you need fuel to go and bomb Iran we will supply it.
    Obama’s ploy to appeal to the Islamic shame culture didn’t work.
    But that’s why he broke the news this week.

    Like

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      A free Bentley, maybe an old Apachee pilot can suit up, put my Spurs on, and get a few Bentlys’ shipped home. Where do I sign up!

      Like

  12. Brett says:

    If he accepts full responsibility, when can we expect him to go to prison for murder? Never? I figured as much…

    Like

  13. cali says:

    One thing really, really bothers me about this: Bergdahl was held at this same area as Weinstein was held – by the Haqqanis at the border side of Pakistan.
    Yet, Bergdahl was the tool used to justify the release of dream team 5 and the 5 millions dollars attempted bribe paid to these same Haqqani’s which caused someone to snitch and bring that to the surface.
    Also, was Weinstein and others really killed due to a ‘mistake’ or was that intentional as well as a message to Bergdahl and his upcoming military trial to basically tell him to keep his mouth shut about ‘details” – since Bergdahl did NOT wanted to be rescued?
    Just wondering – and very suspicious to me!

    Like

  14. This was released now to distract from the Hillary debacle- on the one hand, Valerie Jarrett released all this info- and on the other hand Obama pretending to help her- it’s a whole lot of twisted intrigue! Two of the biggest crooks in the world going at each other and we are right in the middle!

    Like

  15. LEE JAN says:

    O moved hell and high water to ‘free’ a deserter. He freed five vicious terrorists who murdered Americans. Couldn’t find five minutes to review intelligence showing where ISIS was holding our innocent hostages. This man will surely reside in he(( forever.

    Like

  16. 12simi12 says:

    You republicans fail to understand that drone strikes have to be taken with caution. There could be hostages or a just a random civilian’s compound/home. Remember when they plotted a drone strike to kill Osama? They weren’t 100% certain whether the intel of his presence in Turkey was legitimate. However, they were ready to take a risk and decided to send SEALs instead. That is a thing you have to take in consideration from a military perspective. Obama had to do so and I am certain some of the smartest generals in the army, air force, and marines said the exact same things that I am.

    Like

  17. thesitrep says:

    What people seem not to consider is this:
    We are not at war (we have not declared that we are at a state of war)

    If we were “at war” then these drone strikes would be understandable and even the collateral damage would be acceptable.

    But I say again, we are not at war (we have not declared that we are at a state of war)

    These drone strikes are nothing more than assassinations by, get this, a Nobel Peace prize winner.

    Headline should read
    Nobel Peace Prize winner kills two innocent hostages while assassinating foreign citizens abroad.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s