Ship destroyed in double tap' attack was not heading to US, admiral reportedly tells lawmakers

Ship destroyed in 'double tap' attack was not heading to US, admiral reportedly tells lawmakers, 

Ship destroyed in 'double tap' attack was not heading to US, admiral reportedly tells lawmakers, "We're looking into it right now." US lawmakers are questioning the conduct. In the US, Democratic and some Republican lawmakers are calling for the firing of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after a series of scandals.

Let’s take a look at the controversial official and how he has held on to his post despite, or perhaps because of, the scandals. A television host with little management experience,

Suddenly found himself in charge of millions of employees and the world’s largest military budget. For Pete Hegsith, it’s been a bumpy ride. His confirmation hearings in the Senate were contentious.

Democrats called out Hegsith for his lack of experience and allegations of sexual harassment and alcohol abuse in the workplace. Hegsith was confirmed by a razor-thin margin in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Shortly after taking office, he became embroiled in a major scandal. Heath, I Heath. Signalgate was the nickname given to a leaked text chat where Heath and other top administration officials discussed an attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The chat was shared with a journalist by accident. A shocking security flaw. Heath responded to the outcry with accusations and a whiplash effect.

You’re talking about a fraudulent and highly discredited so-called journalist who has made a career of repeatedly lying to no one about war plans.

He aligned himself with Trump’s attacks on so-called awakening, insulted the media, and didn’t let the light of day shine between himself and his boss. And he enthusiastically publicized Trump’s decision to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War.

We’re going to go on offense, not defense. Maximum lethality, not legality. Violent impact, not politically correct. We’re going to produce warriors, not just guards.

Hegseeth has done it with a clean sweep of the Pentagon, firing senior officers, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the first woman to command the Navy.

He has invited hundreds of generals from around the world to hear him speak on the department’s New Outlook. We did it. For too long, we have promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons.

We have become a department that has been woken up by their race, by their gender quotas, by their historical so-called Firsts. But now the drug race is not far behind.

The US military has been targeted in the Caribbean. Legal experts have condemned the use of military force against criminals rather than the threat posed by the enemy.

Some have said the attacks may have been war crimes. Democrats and some Republicans have called for an investigation, with senior Republicans refusing to confirm Hegseeth. Hegseeth was again defiant. The American people are safer.

Because the North Korean terrorists know that if necessary, you can't bring drugs by water, and eventually by land. For the American people, we will eliminate that threat, and we are proud of that.

These scandals would have been enough to sink a normal cabinet member when Trump's approval rating was low, but they are not the kind of scandal that many would use to describe the Hexath administration.

He is a retired colonel and senior advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies and joins us from Arlington, Virginia. It's good to have you with us.

Um, it's only been 10 months, and already Pat Hexath has been embroiled in multiple scandals as Secretary of Defense. What do you think of his time in office so far? His experience has to be separated,

ending climate change and policies like DEI programs, the so-called Wake program, and raiding drug boats, which come from the White House, and he's aligned with them.

He may not like the policies, but he's following what the president has directed and what the president is driving within the department. He's talked a lot about the warrior ethic,

about focusing on combat, about excellence, about merit, and that resonates with a lot of soldiers. On the other hand,

You have these scandals that we just heard about, and they are troubling and could have been solved with a little more experience and a little more judgment, for example, at Signal Gate.

If he had just stood up and said, "I made a mistake. It will never happen again," that would probably have been the end of it. But instead, of course, he took this very Fox News combative stance.

And as a result, this issue has been hanging around. Um, Congress has seen a video of this attack. What do you think will happen next? Well, the second strike is much more controversial than the original strikes.

And while the legality may be the same or a lack of legality, attacking what looked like a helpless Marine struck a chord. Admiral Bradley's testimony,

Admiral Bradley, being the commander of the Special Operations Forces there, uh, yes, I'm just going to address this point because the general policy of shooting at these boats that has been going on for 3 months,

We've seen over 80 people killed. Certainly, um, I mean, with the questions about the legality of it, which is still an issue.

What's your opinion on how to deal with it? Well, the president's justification for the strikes is that they fall under the inherent powers of the president.

To defend the nation against foreign attacks. Oh, that's a long shot, and a lot of legal scholars think it's not sustainable. Uhit hasn't been brought before the courts.

Part of the problem is, you know, there aren't a lot of drug smokers in the United States. So, it would be difficult to have a case declared illegal before the Supreme Court.

The second strike is in a completely different situation. And very quickly, we heard that we saw Democrats calling or encouraging American soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

What did you make of that video? Well, two things. First, the members were within their rights to make that video. They were not telling service members to desert or mutiny or do anything illegal.

Uh, the idea that they were traitors and that was doable is ridiculous. On the other hand, I think that message hurt service members for three reasons. The first is that.

They imply that the president gave illegal orders, but they didn't give any examples. And even in follow-up interviews, they gave examples.

Second, they didn't help service members who disagreed with what they thought were illegal orders. If you're in the service, they teach you to ask for it in writing and get an attorney.

But there are six members out of 535. They can't protect anyone, right? So, okay, Mark Kenyon, thank you very much for your insight on this story.