New Reporting Casts Doubt on WashPost Narrative About Hegseth's Deadly "Second Strike," w/ Brian Cox

You read this Washington Post report that hit on Friday.

>> Um the headline of which is uh hold on.

>> Hexath order on first Caribbean boat strike officials say colon kill them all. Yeah.

all. Yeah.

>> The subhead as two men clung to a stricken burning ship targeted by SEAL team 6. The joint special operations

team 6. The joint special operations commander followed the defense secretary's order to leave no survivors.

Now we have the New York Times weighing in saying basically that this was wrong that that there was one order by Pete Hgsth. It was before the mission and

Hgsth. It was before the mission and said take out these boats and there was no issue order saying kill them all. Um,

but he wanted these boats destroyed and that there was no subsequent communication between Pete Hexath and the admiral who was on scene making the calls saying, "Kill those survivors who

were clinging for life to this partially destroyed boat." That's that is not what

destroyed boat." That's that is not what happened. According to five sources in

happened. According to five sources in the New York Times, we'll see what the Washington Post does.

>> Um, but you before you even knew about the New York Times reporting were saying, >> there are enough holes in that WAPO report to drive a truck through. I do

not trust this and I actually don't think any war crime has been stated.

Why?

>> So, there's just so much speculation that's going on. So, we don't know. It

was um two anonymous um sources who were uh reporting um you know the quote from uh from Secretary of War Pete Hexith.

And we don't know for sure. Well, first

of all, they're anonymous reports, anonymous sources. So, there is that.

anonymous sources. So, there is that.

But even the quote from the story, uh, it's not clear whether this was a direct quote from, you know, Pete Heg Heath saying, "Kill everybody the way that

it's worded in the Washington Post story, or whether the anonymous sources are basically paraphrasing what uh what Secretary War told to, you know, whoever

the audience was." And so that was the first element that, you know, that I'm concerned about. And then even if let's

concerned about. And then even if let's say it was directly before the mission and the secretary of war directs you know whatever the commander is involved

to kill everybody that still isn't necessarily in order to like take no prisoners right so uh we are trained that if somebody is out of the fight due

to sickness illness injury um or detention in this case shipwreck that we don't continue the attack and so if it's if you know if troops are given in order

to you kill everybody. Um you can reasonably interpret that to be kill all the enemy you know so you know attack the enemy uh but at the same time if you do end up encountering someone who is

out of the fight um in this case due to shipwreck then you don't attack them.

>> Exactly. So what the New York Times is reporting today it hit last night is that uh again five US officials who spoke separately on the condition of anonymity um said Mr. Hegsathth ahead of

the September 2nd attack ordered a strike that would kill the people on board the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs which would be a standard order. I mean you

don't order these boats destroyed and not expect the people on board are going to die. You take them out, take out the

to die. You take them out, take out the boat, take out the drug cargo on board.

And that was it. Not not what the Washington Post reported, which was as these two survivors are clinging there, Pete Hgsth called up and said, "Take them out."

them out." >> That's what the Washington Post went with. It's what NPR is going with still

with. It's what NPR is going with still today, even in the wake of late late night's New York Times drop.

>> Yeah. And it's just completely speculative. And, you know, I understand

speculative. And, you know, I understand the need to rely on anonymous sources at times when we're reporting, you know, stories, especially when we're dealing with the government. But we still need

to u assess you we need to engage in a bit of media literacy and say okay well these anonymous sources are saying that Pete Hegsth said this um and there's

just so much um you know ambiguity there which you know ambiguity is fine we're going to have that in reporting but then to take that and run with it and

essentially accuse the sitting secretary of war of being a war criminal based on you know this u basically double hearsay that's being reported from anonymous

sources is just, you know, it's it it doesn't make any rational sense.

>> Well, and on top of everything, so now you tell me, let's deal with what we believe is the reality here cuz Wo suggested that Hegath gave a spoken order right?

>> A spoken order saying kill them all, right? Like take kill everyone who is

right? Like take kill everyone who is still in that water. Now, we believe that's not true. that the Washington Post had that wrong. Um, so let's deal with what we believe actually happened.

Pete gave the the okay for the mission.

Take out the boat, strike it, you know, uh, everybody on board's going to die and take out the cargo. Then they they dropped their first strike, >> right?

>> And the boat was, according to the administrative administration's critics, they say it was destroyed.

>> Excuse me. It was destroyed. and you

have these two clinging to life and the rules of law pro prohibit you from striking them. Now let's talk about the

striking them. Now let's talk about the admiral because the admiral, this guy Mitch, um, forgive me, I can't find his last name in front of me. Um, he did say Bradley yeah

>> let's have a second strike. Right.

>> He is the one who said, "Let's we need a second strike." But that too is not a

second strike." But that too is not a war crime because you point out in your piece the difference between destroying a boat and damaging a boat. Can you

explain that?

>> Absolutely. So assuming that the boat itself originally is a military objective. So by definition uh in the

objective. So by definition uh in the law of armed conflict this is something that's by its nature, location, purpose or use in this case purpose makes an effective contribution to military

action such that you know capturing it or destroying it um gives an uh definite military advantage concrete direct military advantage under the circumstances ruling at the time. So

that's the the standard that's what we apply in practice. That's what we're trained on. And so the boat to begin

trained on. And so the boat to begin with assuming that law of armed conflict applies and there's a lot of discussion about whether it should or shouldn't and you know that's something we could get into. Uh but for purposes of the

into. Uh but for purposes of the operators who are involved in this strike they are applying the law of armed consulate because they're told that they're in an you know an armed conflict. So, you know, this boat

conflict. So, you know, this boat originally qualifies then as a military objective by definition that I just uh suggested and it will no longer be a

military objective if it is completely destroyed. Right? So if under the

destroyed. Right? So if under the circumstances no longer by its use makes an effective contribution and even with the facts that the the Washington Post

is reports in that initial story there's an indication to me at least when I read this that you know the the commander involved must have assessed that it still qualified to use the legal term

still qualified as a military objective because he suggested that it could still uh radio for assistance and another boat

could come and capture, you know, retain regain control of the cargo and then uh continue mission. Almost said Charlie

continue mission. Almost said Charlie might cuz that's what we call it in the military. Um continue mission. Um and so

military. Um continue mission. Um and so if that's the case, then it's my impression from reading that is that the commander must have assessed that this

boat still qualifies as a military objective such that it can still be attacked. Uh which would also mean

attacked. Uh which would also mean incidentally that the the personnel that are on board are not shipwrecked because you and if they were shipwrecked let's call them or to come by so out of the

fight due to the shipwreck. So we should not attack them in that case. But if the vessel that they're on still qualifies as a military objective, then they're not but they're by definition they're

not shipwrecked and you know the the commander could order subsequent strikes to finish the you know the mission to complete the mission to ensure that the boat is no longer serviceable that no

longer is a military objective.

>> So if the boat is not destroyed and the mission is to destroy it >> and you have two survivors who are floating on the boat or holding on to the boat in the water, >> it's fair game. you they're they're going to go if the mission is take out

that boat.

>> That's right. So, and that this is a difference between whether the boat was disabled or destroyed. And so, if I mean if it's destroyed, we can think of, you know, pieces of boat floating around in

the water. Um, you know, and you know,

the water. Um, you know, and you know, maybe a survivors with a life vest on or clinging to it or whatever, that's a destroyed boat. And if that's the case,

destroyed boat. And if that's the case, then there would be no reason to reattack it. But if the boat is

reattack it. But if the boat is disabled, and again by the initial report from the Washington Post, it's what it sounds to me like the the commander involved assessed that the

boat was disabled rather than destroyed, then you know there's no it still qualifies then that by legal definition by the law of armed conflict as a military objective such that it can be, you know, it can be attacked until

>> that makes perfect sense. The the

mission is destroy it. You've only

disabled it. So you need a second strike to destroy it. That's what this Admiral Bradley saw and did. And those two guys who survived the initial blast were taken down in the second strike. And now

not only do did we have uh the suggestion that it's possible the two survivors might have been able to coordinate with other narot terrorists.

We actually in the New York Times report have this is on the record now. One of

the officials that spoke to the Times is quoted as saying the US military intercepted radio communications from one of the survivors to what the

official said were narot traffickers.

>> I mean, now that's as clearcut as it comes. Any any military commander would

comes. Any any military commander would order those guys taken out.

>> Absolutely. Because at that point, if that's the intelligence that they have, at that point, it absolutely still does qualify because again, by definition, something an object that by its use makes an effective contribution to

military action. And so, um, you know,

military action. And so, um, you know, if the there's and so it was it was kind of implied by the way that the Washington Post reported it that, you know, the commander believed that they

could radio uh for assistance and have someone come and get the cargo and uh and continue with the mission. But with

the, you know, with going on record now, uh, establishing on the record that yes, there was in fact a radio transmission that was intercepted, then, you know, that basically supports the conclusion

that that's exactly what the commander believed at the time. And, you know, the commander ordered subsequent strikes to destroy the boat because it wasn't destroyed to begin with.

>> This is so amazing to me. This all makes perfect sense. the it's it's a left-wing

perfect sense. the it's it's a left-wing Trump-hating narrative that we have these military commanders who are just these rogue agents who have thrown caution to the wind who, you know, are

just out there for blood lust trying to take down anybody that they see in the seas as opposed to rational, thoughtful, considered leaders who understand the

the rules of military combat a lot better than the Washington Post or some armchair pundits who want to jump all the way all over them. And it there's it also seemed clear in the way the

military was very careful in its wording about this. You you know you had Trump

about this. You you know you had Trump saying Hegathth told me he did not give that second order that he did not give a verbal command to kill all the people.

And they're still denying that.

>> And then Hegsth sent out a tweet saying, "I stand behind Admiral Bradley. He's

done nothing wrong." Which seemed to be a way of saying here's the guy who gave the order, but he did nothing wrong. was

a way of sort of clarifying it wasn't me and now we know it wasn't him. But that

we also want to find out whether Admiral Bradley did anything wrong and the answer is no. He had a partially destroyed ship from which according to this one official to the times the

radiocoms were still possible and one of the survivors was using them to call in backup.

Ever read the label on a typical bag of chips? It's often a science experiment

chips? It's often a science experiment of seed oils, MSG, artificial dyes, and mystery ingredients. Masa is part of the

mystery ingredients. Masa is part of the growing movement to bring back real food. Masa chips contain just three

food. Masa chips contain just three ingredients: organic corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow. Not only do

these chips avoid the bad stuff, they also taste delicious, too. Snacking on

Massa chips is nothing like eating regular chips. With Massa, you feel

regular chips. With Massa, you feel satisfied, light, and energetic with no crash and no bloat. And if you love Massa, then you will love Vandy crisps.

Vandy, which is Massa's sister's sister company, makes the most delicious threeingredient potato chips, too. Ready

to give Masa or Vandy a try? Use code MK for 25% off your first order at masachips.com or vandy crisps.com

or simply click the link in the video description or scan the QR code to claim this delicious offer. Don't feel like ordering online? Masa and Vandy are now

ordering online? Masa and Vandy are now available nationwide at your local Sprouts supermarket. Stop by and pick a

Sprouts supermarket. Stop by and pick a couple of bags up before they're all gone.

Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.