• The Actual Order for the Bombing of Hiroshima (With Bonus Children’s Death Count!)

    June 10, 2017

    Tags: ,
    Posted in: Hooper's War

    Here’s the actual operations order that launched the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, along with a sample of the results: a compilation of how many school children the U.S. killed that day! (click to enlarge)




    And one lucky survivor!





    Related Articles:




    Copyright © 2017. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity. Follow me on Twitter!

    Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedin
  • Recent Comments

    • John Poole said...

      1

      PVB. I home recorded a song called Enola Gay circa mid 70s. That four track reel to reel is long gone. I remember a line. The pilot’s mom: “You were always my little boy….”. So proud of you now….”

      06/10/17 8:49 AM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...

      2

      And…. There are people running around who actually think Iran and North Korea having Nukes is Not a problem….. And the US… Russia….India…. Britain….

      M

      06/10/17 9:13 AM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...

      3

      PVB- one could riff on that Operations Order for weeks. Additions/corrections etc. Bombs needs to be made singular of course. “Very” would be a useful adjective before Special (bomb type).
      Shintoism was not included under religious denominations. There had to be at one Jap on Guam. It would have been a nice touch.

      06/10/17 11:11 AM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...

      4

      Damn Rich……

      This just HAS to piss you off……

      “James Comey raised quite a furor in his testimony on Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee—albeit not the kind the left had anticipated.

      The president’s political opponents had hoped that this hearing would finally give them what they needed to bring him down. They were sorely disappointed.  Comey, despite his obvious anger at the president for being fired and the scathing criticism he has received for his mishandling of the Clinton email scandal, completely punctured their fantasy that Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians stole the election. 

      Moreover, Comey’s own admissions, despite his “feelings” to the contrary, laid to rest the claim that Trump somehow “obstructed justice” in the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Russia’s election shenanigans. 

      Indeed the most damning revelation arising from Comey’s testimony concerned his own actions, not those of the president.  He admitted leaking internal FBI memos he had written about discussions with President Trump.  Leaking is not a desirable trait in the director (now former) of the chief law enforcement agency of the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

      Comey covered more ground than that, however. In several hours of testimony, here are the five most important things to come out of Comey Day at the U.S. Senate:

      There was no obstruction of justice under the requirements of the applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. §1503.  Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked if the president or anyone else working for this administration had asked him “to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections.” Comey answered “no.”  Comey claimed that while the Flynn investigation “touched” the Russia investigation, he considered them separate.  When talking with Comey on Feb. 14, the president said Michael Flynn was a good guy who he did not think had done anything wrong. He added that he “hoped” Comey could “let it go.”  That can be reasonably construed as the president thinking there is no reasonable basis to believe that there had been a violation of the law and thus no reasonable basis for the FBI to continue its investigation.  

      As Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) pointed out to Comey: people don’t get prosecuted for “hoping” something will happen in the absence of force or coercion or bribery, and Comey’s “feeling” that he was being asked to end the investigation is immaterial to what actually happened.  Comey said he had a further phone call with Trump on March 30 in which the president said that if any of his ”satellite” associates were involved, that would be good to uncover.  Those are not the words of someone trying to obstruct justice by ending an investigation.  Other than speaking to Comey on that one occasion about Flynn, Trump never discussed the Russia investigation with Comey other than to urge him to tell the public that Trump was not under investigation.

      The president was never under investigation in the Russia probe.  Comey told the president three different times that he was not under investigation, yet he refused to make that public.  His excuse, in response to a question from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was weak.  He claimed that he was concerned that if that was made public and “the boomerang comes back, it’s going to be a very big deal, because there will be a duty to correct.”  So the head of the FBI thought it would be better for a cloud of suspicion to hover over the president rather than lift that cloud because perhaps, maybe, at some uncertain point in the future, that status might change?  Heaven help Americans targeted in an FBI investigation from a director with such an attitude.

      There was no hacking or other interference with the voting, ballot counting, and administrative process of the election.  Although Comey said that it was the consensus view of the intelligence community that the Russians had tried mightily to influence the 2016 election, Comey said there was no evidence that any votes had been altered in the election. So Americans went to the polls and chose the president they wanted and there was no manipulation or alteration of the results.

      There is no evidence of any “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.  In a comment that created quite a stir, Comey said that a New York Times story on Feb. 14 entitled “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence” was “not true.”  When asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) if it would “be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong,” Comey said “yes.” 

      The New York Times and others who reported these stories were obviously conned by their anonymous sources into painting a nefarious picture of the Trump campaign and its supposed involvement with Russian intelligence officials. Per Comey’s testimony, it was a complete fantasy.  Comey also referred to many other media stories pushing the false narrative as “dead wrong.”

      Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered Comey to parrot the language of the Clinton campaign regarding the FBI’s investigation into the mishandling of classified material.  Per Lynch’s instructions, Comey was to refer to his agency’s actions in the case as a “matter,” not an investigation.  Comey said the order “confused” and “concerned” him, but he did as he was told.  This directive from Lynch wasn’t unlawful, but it seems to show that Lynch was trying to help the Clinton campaign at a time when the FBI, which is a part of the Justice Department, was investigating her for possible criminal violations of the law.  If Donald Trump talking to the FBI director about his views on Michael Flynn was somehow inappropriate, Loretta Lynch trying to help the public image of the Clinton election efforts is even more so.

      James Comey, despite his calling the president “a liar” and being obviously angry about his firing, in essence punctured all of the balloons President Trump’s opponents have floated to try to delegitimize his election.  This should be a lesson to the media in particular about the danger of using anonymous sources who have a political ax to grind. It gives them a powerful motive to simply make things up.  

      Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Justice Department official. ”

      M

      06/10/17 10:23 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...

      5

      Mitch- that always happens when you send out a doofus to try and slay a dragon. Remember it takes a weakling to recognize another weakling (Comey was Obama’s guy). It was the same botched campaign to take down Slick Willie. Papa Smurf (Ken Starr) never took down Clinton and now we have a Papa Smurf’s Elf (think a tall Will Ferrell) going after Trump. Comey’s puffy face suggests he is deep into meds. If one truly wants to slay Trump (not just injure him) it will take a pretty savvy team effort. This may sound insane but Trump could end up with two terms. The opposition is lame. It took a Trump to take down Hillary. We shouldn’t forget that. She was unstoppable- everyone had failed to bring her to justice. Trump will be historically praised for being the dragon who slew an even more vile dragon.

      06/11/17 8:45 AM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...

      6

      John…

      Agreed…… Although…… I figured Comey for a case of bottles in the closet type…..

      That….. And he really wanted to get elected to congress….

      The question I have about Comey’s statements….. He Admitted to leaking his memos…..

      Where I come from…. When some clown admits to something that Big…..

      He’s hiding something Way BIGGER !!!!!

      M

      06/11/17 9:56 PM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)

IP Blocking Protection is enabled by IP Address Blocker from LionScripts.com.