Himes Accuses Hegseth of “Zero Credibility” in Boat Strikes Controversy

UPDATE: Rep. Jim Himes has just declared that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth possesses “zero credibility” regarding the controversial September 2, 2023 strikes on a vessel linked to alleged drug trafficking. This explosive statement follows a series of shifting explanations from the Pentagon concerning a second strike that has drawn intense scrutiny in Congress.

Himes, who leads the House Intelligence Committee, voiced his deep concerns after a closed-door briefing with military officials last week. He described the footage of the second strike on a purported Venezuelan drug boat as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.” This incident has become a flashpoint as lawmakers grapple with the implications of military actions taken without clear congressional authorization.

In the briefing, lawmakers were shown video evidence revealing that the follow-up strike killed two survivors from the initial attack. Himes emphasized the urgent need for transparency, stating, “It’s really important that this video be made public,” and urged the American public to form its own judgment based on the evidence.

“The public needs to see what it looks like when the full force of the United States military is turned on individuals who are clinging to a piece of wood,” Himes added, expressing that many Americans may support actions against drug traffickers but must understand the gravity of such military decisions.

The U.S. military has conducted over 20 strikes in a campaign against alleged drug traffickers in the Southern Hemisphere, resulting in more than 80 fatalities. These operations are controversial, particularly as they are being executed without explicit authorization from Congress. The administration argues it has the legal authority to act against drug cartels labeled as terrorist organizations, despite a lack of evidence proving these vessels are operated by such groups.

In a contrasting viewpoint, GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who also attended the briefing, defended the military’s actions. He stated, “The survivors were not incapacitated in any way,” asserting that the second strike was entirely justified. Cotton claimed that the individuals were “sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat,” challenging Himes’ characterization of the situation.

Responding to Cotton’s comments on “Face the Nation,” Himes reiterated that the context of the individuals involved is crucial. “If they are outside of combat, attacking them is a violation of the laws of war. These guys were barely alive,” he stated, reinforcing the need for public scrutiny.

Military leaders, including Gen. Dan Caine and Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, were behind the controversial mission. Himes reflected on the moral dilemmas faced by leaders in such contexts and questioned the integrity of decisions made under pressure, suggesting that even honorable men may make regrettable choices when placed in challenging situations.

Hegseth, during a recent talk at the Reagan National Defense Forum, explained his rationale for the strikes, asserting that there were ongoing threats that justified the reattack. He stated, “From what I understood then and what I understand now, I fully support that strike.” However, Himes challenged the clarity of Hegseth’s role and credibility regarding the operations.

The unfolding controversy highlights the growing divide in Congress over military engagement strategies and the legal authority under which these actions are being conducted. As Himes calls for transparency, the American public is left to grapple with the implications of military actions that may shape U.S. foreign policy moving forward.

What’s next? Lawmakers are expected to continue discussions about military actions against drug trafficking, with public sentiment likely influencing future decisions. As this story develops, the call for accountability and clarity in military operations remains louder than ever.