WEDNESDAY: What did he say and when did he say it?

WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 3, 2025

Here we go again: Did Pete Hegseth commit a war crime? We suppose it's certainly possible that he actually did.

That said, the knives are out for the highly erratic, widely scorned Secretary of Defense. In some quarters, that has produced a familiar type of chase, with creative paraphrase being widely applied to the several things Hegseth has now said about the events of September 2.

Full disclosure:

The analytical skills of mainstream journalists are frequently rather poor. When they settle on a group target, the embellishments and the slippery paraphrase are rarely far behind.

In the case of Hegseth, the current uproar about the second strike on the disabled boat (and on its two survivors) began with a rather fuzzy report in the Washington Post. Headline included, this is the way the current chase after this new target started:

Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all

The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack—the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere—ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

[...]

The commander overseeing the operation from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, told people on the secure conference call that the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo, according to two people. He ordered the second strike to fulfill Hegseth’s directive that everyone must be killed.

The chronology there is less than precise. We know of nothing Hegseth has said which is inconsistent with that first fuzzy account.

According to that account, Hegseth gave a spoken order at some unspecified time. "The order was to kill everybody," one person is said to have said.

(Would some such order be a war crime in itself? We have no idea.)

It sounds like the first strike on the boat came soon after that. (It sounds that way, but the Post's report doesn't explicitly say so.) According to Hegseth's latest statement, he then left the scene.

He says he did so before "the smoke cleared." When the smoke cleared (how long did that take?), that would have made it possible for Admiral Bradley and / or others to see there were two survivors.

Is that possible? Of course it is! But is that what actually happened? 

We have no idea.

That said, the Post account explicitly says that it was Admiral Bradley who decided to order the second strike. If Hegseth had still been present on the scene, wouldn't he have been the one to make that second decision?

(Maybe yes, maybe no. We don't know how these things work.)

The mob is now attempting to hang Hegseth high based on a comment he made about "the fog of war." All he seemed to saying was this:

The smoke from the initial strike obscured everyone's vision for a while. By the time the smoke had cleared, he had left the scene.

Has Hegseth described events as they actually happened? We have no way of knowing.

We do know that some of the semi-usual suspects are on the hunt again. (Joe Scarborough was horrendous on Morning Joe this morning.) 

Instead of waiting for audio / video recordings to establish what was said and done, the chase is on for the highly erratic man who prefers to call himself the Secretary of War. As this chase has moved through the streets, the attempts at paraphrase have been highly creative.

That said:

We know of nothing Hegseth has said which contradicts the initial Washington Post report. We know of nothing he has said which contradicts his own handful of statements.

We're simply going to have to wait if we want to establish what actually happened. In the meantime, a few of the jackals are back in the streets, advancing the versions of this story which they themselves prefer.

We've been on this beat for 27 years. Al Gore said he invented the Internet!

We've seen them do this before!


35 comments:

  1. Quaker in a BasementDecember 3, 2025 at 3:46 PM

    I expect that Your Gracious Host will have more to say on this matter in the days ahead. As it stands, this report offers little to support its primary assertions: that "jackals" are "paraphrasing" Hegseth to promote a preferred story.

    So far, the identities of said jackals and examples of their paraphrasing remain unsaid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hegseth gave an order to kill everybody. Why isn't he charged with murder is my question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ace of Spades covered this yesterday.

      https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=417536

      Delete
    2. CC - I read your link, but it doesn't even begin to answer Ilya's question: Why isn't Hegseth charged with murder for ordering everyone to be killed?

      Delete
    3. I mean, we're not at war and the victims were not convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death. What is the justification for their executions?

      Delete
    4. AKA DG, that argument would be prefaced upon the opinion that all the strikes were illegal. The Democrats have been arguing that and it hasn’t had a lot movement as in locking them up. The new outrage is that Hegseth didn’t just blast a motorboat full of people, he ordered his people to kill all the survivors in the water. The latter scenario is far less questionable as to being improper.

      Delete
    5. CC - That's a dodge, not an answer.

      Delete
    6. I glanced at the post, to which you have provided a link, Cecilia. Other than being incoherent, I don't see where it answers the question: why is an order "to kill everyone" not considered a crime.
      It's not Democrats who have been arguing that this is illegal. Every legal expert agrees on that account. Myself, I am ambivalent about a tack where you say: let's gloss over the underlying illegality of these strikes; let's just zoom in on the most egregious, flagrant violation of laws and norms.

      Delete
    7. IIya, I didn’t link it in order to convince you of anything. I linked it because it waged/reported the Hegseth explanation that Bob blogged on a minute an ago.

      Delete
    8. DG, it’s not a dodge,. I haven’t come to a conclusion. If I had I would have linked the article yesterday or made a pitch for it based upon the “fog of war”. I linked it today because Bob brought up the brouhaha over the order.No seemed to know anything about it here. Go sit on your quiver or something.

      Delete
  3. I’ve known a few Somalis. They seemed nice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have that weird head shape.

      Delete
    2. Their heads seemed OK.

      Delete
    3. Broad foreheads. Attractive on Somoli women, not so much with Somoli men.

      Delete
    4. 4:10 and 5:24 you're an idiot.

      Delete
  4. The mob is now attempting to hang Hegseth high based on a comment he made about "the fog of war." All he seemed to saying was this:

    The smoke from the initial strike obscured everyone's vision for a while.

    That's not what the "fog of war means". It is possible that Hegseth, being a moron that he is, doesn't know that. However, if we take Hegseth at his word, it's a confession. There's no fog when two helpless people are clinging to the wreckage.
    More importantly, as I mentioned above, and as Bob points out himself: the order to kill everybody seems to be very adjacent to a war crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IIya, it’s also possible that Hegseth was using well-known trope - the fog of war” as a means of ironically emphasizing that war is fraught PERIOD.

      Delete
    2. Why are you skipping over the original crime? Who cares about the second tap, the first was a crime. Idiots used to scream about a tyrannical deep state killing people without due process. Now that it is happening they are all in on it, because it is happening to those people. Cultists suck.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 4:42pm, why are you chiding me for addressing a point of contention that was raised by IIya?

      Delete
    4. Except that there's no war. Apparently, you can be in "the fog of war" and commit war crimes without an actual war.

      Delete
    5. Ironically? You need to elucidate that a little more. I don't see what the irony is here.

      Delete
    6. IIya, that’s your opinion. We know that Hegseth has said that the USA is at war with these drug runners. Hegseth used the figurative “fog” trope ironically as real smoke and also as real confusion that lead to the mistaken response to his order.

      Delete
    7. Irony is in the eye of the beholder.

      Delete
    8. It makes not a bit of difference what Hegseth says. The only entity whose "opinion" counts is the US Congress, and it has not declared war with Venezuela or Columbia, the two countries whose citizens we're wantonly killing. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 5:12pm, so? Iiya mentioned the context of the original quote and I replied in turn.

      Delete
    10. IIya, where did I challenge your argument?

      Delete

  5. "Did Pete Hegseth commit a war crime?"

    Did Barak Obama commit a war crime, killing thousands of perfectly innocent people, including hundreds of children, including American citizens?

    If you didn't question Obama's kill-lists and drone-killings then, you have no business questioning Hegseth now.

    Well, without turning yourself into a super-partisan asshole hypocrite, that is. And once you are a super-partisan asshole hypocrite, no one cares who you're questioning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why'd you skip the original sin of Dubya?

      Delete
    2. Obama committed crimes. Therefore Trump can commit crimes.

      Delete
    3. Good point by @anon@4:43.
      Secondly, as opposed as I was, to the strikes conducted by the Obama administration, they were contextualized very differently. There was congressional approval and vetting by the legal establishment. On the one hand, it is a distinction without any difference to the people who were killed incidental to the strikes. On the other hand, it does not reek of arbitrary, capricious, king-like authority displayed by Trump.

      Delete
  6. People throw the term "war crime" around as if they knew what it means. Most of us don't know.

    -- What law book defines "war crimes"?
    -- Does that law book (if it exists) apply to US action against Tren de Aragua drug smugglers in the open sea?
    -- If there is such an applicable law book, precisely what does it say?

    BTW An example of the ignorant use of the term is Israeli attacks on hospitals that Hamas is using for military purposes. Many people wrongly think this is an Israeli war crime. It isn't. But, the use of civilian human shields IS a Hamas war crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tren de Aragua is made up. No, we didn't execute members of the Italian mafia in the open see. In general, regardless of whether you call them a gang, they are still civilians.
      Maybe you don't know the legality of these strikes, but every legal expert/historian that I have listened to calls these strikes "lawless" at best.

      Delete
    2. I know that there are critics of the legality of Trump's military actions, Ilya. Still, I would like to see for myself the facts and all the laws and make up my own mind.

      Past examples don't prove anything, but I believe we did execute pirates and suspected pirates on the open seas at various points in time. Was that legal? Are there laws that specifically differentiate suspected pirates from suspected cartel members?

      Delete
  7. "We don't know how these things work."

    Obviously

    ReplyDelete