Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has been under fire for a second strike ordered in the wake of an initial drug boat strike initiated on Sept. 2.
There have been mixed reports, even from the White House, about what really took place, so Donald Trump is now hoping to temper the outrage.
The president has ordered video of the strike to be made public, so we will soon see whether it helps or hurts Hegseth’s case.
One of the biggest problems in this entire mess has been the mixed messages coming out of the White House regarding the strike.
When reporting on the subject first emerged, Sec. Hegseth claimed it was all fake news, as did the White House, with Trump unreservedly backing the Pentagon chief.
About 24 hours later, the White House changed its tune on the strike, claiming that it was conducted in self-defense, but that really made no sense when you consider the situation (two alleged survivors hanging on to a boat that was just obliterated).
During a White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “[Admiral Bradley] directed the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat from narco terrorists was eliminated,” adding that he was “well within his authority and the law” when he ordered the strikes. She further stated that the strike “was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans” and “vital United States interests.”
Again, the confusion here stems largely from the initial denial from Hegseth and a subsequent statement that was taken by many as essentially hanging Admiral Bradley out to dry. Things were made even muddier when it was leaked what the Admiral planned to say when called before Congress.
On Thursday, Bradley was called to appear before Congress to discuss the strike, but his intended testimony had already been leaked.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Bradley believed that the two survivors on the boat were making every effort to continue their drug run, which, if true, would make them a legitimate target, but his testimony has the effect of complicating the matter even more.
So, at this point, we have a denial, we have a self-defense claim, and now we have a suggestion that the first strike's survivors were still a threat even though their boat had already been blown up. One more excuse was given, as it was also reported that the second strike was done to clear the waterways of possible navigational obstructions. Mind you, this was a small speedboat in the middle of the ocean.
It is bad enough that we are getting so many mixed reports, including from media outlets whose reports and sources contradict each other. But we are also getting excuses that just don’t make any sense. It just seems like the administration is throwing stuff out to see what sticks.
I have seen comments from some lawmakers who described the video footage of the missile strikes as horrific in nature, saying that anyone who saw it would likely consider what happened to be a war crime, but Trump plans to release the footage anyway.
When asked whether he would support the release of all documentation of the strike, Trump stated, "I don't know what they have, but whatever they have we’d certainly release. No problem.”
However this turns out, I am convinced that Admiral Bradley is being set up to suffer any consequences if any aspect of the operation is deemed to have been illegal. For instance, on Tuesday, when Hegseth was again asked about the strike, he responded, "Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.”
Honestly, so much information is out there on this right now that my head is spinning, so I am going to wait until after I see what Admiral Bradley said under oath, and I review the details of any investigation that takes place. But I still have the feeling that someone’s head will be served up on a platter over this incident, and I have a horrible feeling it will be Bradley's.
