The U.S. seized an oil tanker near Venezuela this week, all while the Democrats have been busy proving that another one of their top priorities is protecting narco terrorists running drugs by boat for the cartels. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner posts, "So they can seize an oil tanker, but not a drug boat?" He could have easily said, "So they can blow up a drug boat, but not an oil tanker," and looked just as stupid.
Warner was still butthurt on Friday over the United States blowing narco-terrorists out of the water. According to ABC News, Warner revealed that the ammunition used by U.S. forces was "anti-personnel" and meant so that no one would survive the strike.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner told reporters that the type of munitions used by the military in a Sept. 2 boat strike were "anti-personnel" and designed to ensure the people on board did not survive, not just stop the drug shipment. https://t.co/cHnyEkU8dq
— ABC News (@ABC) December 12, 2025
Anne Flaherty reports for ABC News:
Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Friday that the type of munitions used by the military in a Sept. 2 boat strike -- including on survivors in a second strike -- were "anti-personnel" and designed to ensure the people on board did not survive, not just stop the drug shipment.
In question has been whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's orders to the military was to kill the people on board, stop the drug shipment — or both.
Warner, who has received classified briefings on the strike, also said that U.S. intelligence identified all 11 people on board and each person killed was linked to the drug trade, although the level of their involvement was unclear.
"It's one thing to be a 'narco-terrorist' and another thing to be a fisherman that's getting paid 100 bucks [who a] couple times a year, runs on one of these boats to supplement his income," Warner said at a Defense Writers Group event, sponsored by George Washington University.
Recommended
So the military was supposed to have used munitions designed to destroy the drugs but leave the boat and the smugglers alone?
Who wants to tell him? https://t.co/Rnpyxoxndc
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 13, 2025
I can’t believe a mainstream press outlet posted this.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) December 13, 2025
This level of ignorance of munitions and military doctrine is like that reporter who thought ear plugs were bullets. https://t.co/15cD3ViBta
Democrats: “They could have had a social worker rappel from a helicopter onto the boat”
— Steph K (@Stephen20770029) December 13, 2025
If only we used those bombs that only destroys drug shipments, this wouldn't have been a problem!
— Just One Strawman (@JustOneStrawman) December 13, 2025
"they could just bomb them in the knee..."
— jim scott (bully,merchant of fear,peddler of lies) (@realdirkg) December 13, 2025
Remember when President Joe Biden suggested training police officers to shoot people in the leg?
I certainly hope we're not making "personnel safe" munitions for military use.
— It's Me, it's me, it's T.P.G. (@tpg031122) December 13, 2025
Having spent 20+ years of my life in the Infantry we were taught early on that 99% of all weapons created, invented, or imagined had one purpose, that is to kill the man on the ground regardless of it's stated purpose. All weapons whether a rock or missile are anti personnel
— DannytheGrunt (@TequilaVolare) December 13, 2025
And? Who cares. Why would we want to let drug traffickers live?
— Spitfire (@RealSpitfire) December 13, 2025
Pathetic.
— JWF (@JammieWF) December 13, 2025
Duh, when you bomb drug boats you do not expect survivors. That’s the point of bombs. No such thing as gentle bombs.
— “Scoop” Texas 🦅🇺🇸😎 (@VEtFeMaLE) December 13, 2025
The bombs are meant to blow up the narco-terrorists and their drugs. What kind of munitions does Warner suggest we use against these speedboats with between three and six outboard motors?
***