Hypocrisy Bomb: When Obama or Clinton Bombed Power Grids, NYT Cheered. Trump Threatens It? “War Crimes!”

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
24,178
Reaction score
43,011
Points
2,430

Hypocrisy Bomb:

When Obama or Clinton Bombed Power Grids, NYT Cheered. Trump Threatens It? “War Crimes!”

7 Apr 2026 ~~ By Jeff Childers

The Times was definitely not reveling after reading a short but provocative Easter post from Trump directed at the Iranians. In three sentences, he dropped an F-bomb, called the mullahs “crazy bastards,” and most controversially, mockingly ended with “Praise be to Allah!”— on Easter. It was shocking, blasphemous in two religions, and painful to read, which is exactly what was intended.
But, rather than whine about presidential decorum, social media age restrictions, or worst of all, delve into why it might offend anyone, the Times complained about Trump’s threatened targets: power plants and bridges. “Their destruction by American and Israeli forces would in most cases be considered a war crime under international law,” the Times sagely opined.
In most cases! Not always, I guess. But as we’ll see, the words “in most cases” were doing a lot of work.
In 2015, Obama’s Pentagon updated the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual. Revised Section 5.6.8.5 said:
Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.
The section was revised three more times: in 2016 (Obama), and in 2023 and 2024 (Biden). Trump’s DoD hasn’t touched it. It says the exact opposite of the Times’s loopy pronouncement.
How quickly the Times forgets. In 1991’s Operation Desert Storm, George Bush’s military coalition bombed Iraq’s entire electrical grid on Night One. Power plants were designated as priority targets. But there were zero war crimes charges against Bush or any coalition partner nation. There weren’t even any “revels in war crimes” headlines in the New York Times.
There it was. Finally, late in the story, the Times revealed its whole vile premise: progressives are “worried” President Trump’s rhetoric might “translate” into war crimes. In the future. Even that premise was a lie. If you believe leftists ‘worry’ about war crimes, I’d like to sell you an Everglades wildlife retreat. The truth is, they are praying for a war crimes miracle.
~Snip~
Here’s your media reading lesson: Every ‘expert’ the Times picked to judge Trump’s Iran policy was already on record as branding him lawless. That’s who the paper presented as the voices of ‘neutral’ legal authority. The story erased the experts from Trump’s side. It didn’t even admit they exist. The Times used to be able to get away with it, because it was too hard to track down who all these crazy people are.
But now, we have AI. So they won’t get away with it for much longer.
The Times invested a whole article predicting Trump’s future war crimes, which is an implied admission he hasn’t done any war crimes yet. But how about Iran? Does the Times ever turn its gimlet war-lawyer’s eye toward the terrorist regime? Even a little?

Read more


Commentary:
That said. The fearmongers and hypocritical Democrats have short lived memories....
Not only Clinton and Obama have "committed war crimes" there are other Democrats presidents that preceded them that also caused the deaths of civilians.
Did Democrats complain when both the Brits and U.S. firebombed the cities of Dresden, Hambourg and Berlin, or our B-29's firebombing Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe?
These firebombings of cities caused the direct deaths hundreds of thousands of civilians directed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Then there's Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, targeting military and civilian sites in Hanoi and Haiphong from December 18 to December 29, 1972, during the Vietnam War.
Where were Democrats then as compared to now?
Is it Trump's responsibility to hold back because the Iranian regime, whatever is left of it, uses civilian hostages to remain on bridges and power grids that are to be bombed.
Iran is making sure the world sees these people in front of power plants and on bridges.
Unfortunately for them, Israel has already begun bombing infrastructure.
The USA isn’t planning on starting before 5 hours from now.
According to a few eyewitnesses some, maybe many of these people don’t even realize they are standing near targets.
We’ll see what happens after the first bridges and power grids get hit.
When it comes to helping terrorist regimes like Iran gaining power, influence, and the ability to spread fear and destruction worldwide, you can count on Democrats to be there to support them.
 
I condemned it all.
anchorman-ron-burgundy.gif
 

Hypocrisy Bomb:

When Obama or Clinton Bombed Power Grids, NYT Cheered. Trump Threatens It? “War Crimes!”

7 Apr 2026 ~~ By Jeff Childers

The Times was definitely not reveling after reading a short but provocative Easter post from Trump directed at the Iranians. In three sentences, he dropped an F-bomb, called the mullahs “crazy bastards,” and most controversially, mockingly ended with “Praise be to Allah!”— on Easter. It was shocking, blasphemous in two religions, and painful to read, which is exactly what was intended.
But, rather than whine about presidential decorum, social media age restrictions, or worst of all, delve into why it might offend anyone, the Times complained about Trump’s threatened targets: power plants and bridges. “Their destruction by American and Israeli forces would in most cases be considered a war crime under international law,” the Times sagely opined.
In most cases! Not always, I guess. But as we’ll see, the words “in most cases” were doing a lot of work.
In 2015, Obama’s Pentagon updated the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual. Revised Section 5.6.8.5 said:
Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.
The section was revised three more times: in 2016 (Obama), and in 2023 and 2024 (Biden). Trump’s DoD hasn’t touched it. It says the exact opposite of the Times’s loopy pronouncement.
How quickly the Times forgets. In 1991’s Operation Desert Storm, George Bush’s military coalition bombed Iraq’s entire electrical grid on Night One. Power plants were designated as priority targets. But there were zero war crimes charges against Bush or any coalition partner nation. There weren’t even any “revels in war crimes” headlines in the New York Times.
There it was. Finally, late in the story, the Times revealed its whole vile premise: progressives are “worried” President Trump’s rhetoric might “translate” into war crimes. In the future. Even that premise was a lie. If you believe leftists ‘worry’ about war crimes, I’d like to sell you an Everglades wildlife retreat. The truth is, they are praying for a war crimes miracle.
~Snip~
Here’s your media reading lesson: Every ‘expert’ the Times picked to judge Trump’s Iran policy was already on record as branding him lawless. That’s who the paper presented as the voices of ‘neutral’ legal authority. The story erased the experts from Trump’s side. It didn’t even admit they exist. The Times used to be able to get away with it, because it was too hard to track down who all these crazy people are.
But now, we have AI. So they won’t get away with it for much longer.
The Times invested a whole article predicting Trump’s future war crimes, which is an implied admission he hasn’t done any war crimes yet. But how about Iran? Does the Times ever turn its gimlet war-lawyer’s eye toward the terrorist regime? Even a little?

Read more


Commentary:
That said. The fearmongers and hypocritical Democrats have short lived memories....
Not only Clinton and Obama have "committed war crimes" there are other Democrats presidents that preceded them that also caused the deaths of civilians.
Did Democrats complain when both the Brits and U.S. firebombed the cities of Dresden, Hambourg and Berlin, or our B-29's firebombing Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe?
These firebombings of cities caused the direct deaths hundreds of thousands of civilians directed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Then there's Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, targeting military and civilian sites in Hanoi and Haiphong from December 18 to December 29, 1972, during the Vietnam War.
Where were Democrats then as compared to now?
Is it Trump's responsibility to hold back because the Iranian regime, whatever is left of it, uses civilian hostages to remain on bridges and power grids that are to be bombed.
Iran is making sure the world sees these people in front of power plants and on bridges.
Unfortunately for them, Israel has already begun bombing infrastructure.
The USA isn’t planning on starting before 5 hours from now.
According to a few eyewitnesses some, maybe many of these people don’t even realize they are standing near targets.
We’ll see what happens after the first bridges and power grids get hit.
When it comes to helping terrorist regimes like Iran gaining power, influence, and the ability to spread fear and destruction worldwide, you can count on Democrats to be there to support them.
Democrat Controlled Media is the Iranian Regime's greatest ally.
 
Yes, this is a ******* false equivalence.

First off, the Libya stuff was led by France. Obama was criticized by the right at that time for refusing to tae the lead in that one. Power grids and infrastructure can be bombed if it is determined that they ae part of the military plan. Trump appears to be talking about total destruction, not targeted strikes. Therefore, the claim being made here is indeed a false equivalence. If Trump was talking about targeted strikes, not complete destruction, then he would not be accused of war crimes.

So let's stop the MAGAT victimhood, and for those who call themselves neutral stop adding to the stupidity.

Because former military people who have participated in such things are saying this is a war crime.
 
//Let's hope to slow the TDS//

CNN reported that the United States and Iran are on the verge of closing a deal tonight, just hours before Trump’s self-imposed 8:00 PM ET deadline expires.
 
//Let's hope to slow the TDS//

CNN reported that the United States and Iran are on the verge of closing a deal tonight, just hours before Trump’s self-imposed 8:00 PM ET deadline expires.
After president Trump played hardball Iran choked and agreed to a 2 week ceasefire and caved on all 10 points of contention.

When Trump goes all general Patton on you, you cave!! :muahaha:
 
15th post
Pknopp,

You can disagee all you want but when members of the military say this is a war crime, I'm not giving credence to some bullshit article dredged up by some trump dick slurping moron.
 
When you are white an want to give yourself credit for the creation of civilization, you must also take credit for the problems you created.

Do you understand stupid white ---?
There's no need to get racist, buddy. I know you can't help yourself. :slap:



I think we're all related as far back as Babylonia. You and I may have the same ancestors.

But far as I know....I didn't create any civilization. Did you??
 
After president Trump played hardball Iran choked and agreed to a 2 week ceasefire and caved on all 10 points of contention.

When Trump goes all general Patton on you, you cave!! :muahaha:
No they didn't. Just be glad Trump chose not to do this and quit pretending Trump played tough guy. Trump bullied a smaller nation that doesn't have nukes. That is not hardball. Hardball would be blasting Putin until he stopped trying to take Ukraine.
 

Hypocrisy Bomb:

When Obama or Clinton Bombed Power Grids, NYT Cheered. Trump Threatens It? “War Crimes!”

7 Apr 2026 ~~ By Jeff Childers

The Times was definitely not reveling after reading a short but provocative Easter post from Trump directed at the Iranians. In three sentences, he dropped an F-bomb, called the mullahs “crazy bastards,” and most controversially, mockingly ended with “Praise be to Allah!”— on Easter. It was shocking, blasphemous in two religions, and painful to read, which is exactly what was intended.
But, rather than whine about presidential decorum, social media age restrictions, or worst of all, delve into why it might offend anyone, the Times complained about Trump’s threatened targets: power plants and bridges. “Their destruction by American and Israeli forces would in most cases be considered a war crime under international law,” the Times sagely opined.
In most cases! Not always, I guess. But as we’ll see, the words “in most cases” were doing a lot of work.
In 2015, Obama’s Pentagon updated the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual. Revised Section 5.6.8.5 said:
Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.
The section was revised three more times: in 2016 (Obama), and in 2023 and 2024 (Biden). Trump’s DoD hasn’t touched it. It says the exact opposite of the Times’s loopy pronouncement.
How quickly the Times forgets. In 1991’s Operation Desert Storm, George Bush’s military coalition bombed Iraq’s entire electrical grid on Night One. Power plants were designated as priority targets. But there were zero war crimes charges against Bush or any coalition partner nation. There weren’t even any “revels in war crimes” headlines in the New York Times.
There it was. Finally, late in the story, the Times revealed its whole vile premise: progressives are “worried” President Trump’s rhetoric might “translate” into war crimes. In the future. Even that premise was a lie. If you believe leftists ‘worry’ about war crimes, I’d like to sell you an Everglades wildlife retreat. The truth is, they are praying for a war crimes miracle.
~Snip~
Here’s your media reading lesson: Every ‘expert’ the Times picked to judge Trump’s Iran policy was already on record as branding him lawless. That’s who the paper presented as the voices of ‘neutral’ legal authority. The story erased the experts from Trump’s side. It didn’t even admit they exist. The Times used to be able to get away with it, because it was too hard to track down who all these crazy people are.
But now, we have AI. So they won’t get away with it for much longer.
The Times invested a whole article predicting Trump’s future war crimes, which is an implied admission he hasn’t done any war crimes yet. But how about Iran? Does the Times ever turn its gimlet war-lawyer’s eye toward the terrorist regime? Even a little?

Read more


Commentary:
That said. The fearmongers and hypocritical Democrats have short lived memories....
Not only Clinton and Obama have "committed war crimes" there are other Democrats presidents that preceded them that also caused the deaths of civilians.
Did Democrats complain when both the Brits and U.S. firebombed the cities of Dresden, Hambourg and Berlin, or our B-29's firebombing Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe?
These firebombings of cities caused the direct deaths hundreds of thousands of civilians directed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Then there's Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, targeting military and civilian sites in Hanoi and Haiphong from December 18 to December 29, 1972, during the Vietnam War.
Where were Democrats then as compared to now?
Is it Trump's responsibility to hold back because the Iranian regime, whatever is left of it, uses civilian hostages to remain on bridges and power grids that are to be bombed.
Iran is making sure the world sees these people in front of power plants and on bridges.
Unfortunately for them, Israel has already begun bombing infrastructure.
The USA isn’t planning on starting before 5 hours from now.
According to a few eyewitnesses some, maybe many of these people don’t even realize they are standing near targets.
We’ll see what happens after the first bridges and power grids get hit.
When it comes to helping terrorist regimes like Iran gaining power, influence, and the ability to spread fear and destruction worldwide, you can count on Democrats to be there to support them.
Is that all you have, what about Clinton and Obama?!
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Back
Top Bottom