ABC’s Martha Raddatz quietly delivered a fact update that should make the media’s melodrama about the so‑called “double tap” collapse under its own weight. According to a source Raddatz cited, two survivors from the early‑September strike actually climbed back onto the damaged vessel and appeared to be salvaging drugs and communicating with other boats in the area, which is exactly the kind of hostile conduct that keeps a target “in the fight.” This revelation lines up with what Secretary Pete Hegseth and the White House have been saying about the incident all along.
For weeks Democrats and left‑wing outlets treated the story as proof of war crimes, pointing fingers and demanding resignations before the facts came in. The Associated Press reporting that the Pentagon knew there were survivors and still authorized a follow‑on strike only underscores the operational complexity here, while independent reporting showed the vessel had even maneuvered in ways consistent with a drug‑running mission. The rush to judgment by partisan critics ignored the realities of maritime interdiction, and that haste now looks politically motivated rather than judicious.
The administration has been explicit about treating designated narco‑terrorist organizations differently, and it told Congress that it views this as a form of armed conflict with transnational traffickers who flood our streets with deadly fentanyl. If cartel networks are operating like paramilitary terror groups on the high seas, commanders must be empowered to act decisively to protect American lives and sovereignty. That sober national‑security judgment is the very opposite of the performative outrage we’ve seen from some lawmakers and pundits.
Watching the liberal media scramble as ABC’s own reporting undercut the worst of the accusations has been instructive and humbling for those who still pretend the press is above politics. When Martha Raddatz noted the survivors’ behavior and the presence of JAG legal advice, it punctured the simplistic narrative that officials wantonly ordered the killing of helpless people. This is what honest coverage looks like: follow the evidence rather than the talking points.
There is legitimate room to debate the legal frameworks and the oversight questions that Congress rightly must ask, but those debates are not the same as presuming malfeasance before a hearing is even held. Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley’s forthcoming briefings and the classified sessions with lawmakers are the proper forums for resolving who made which call and why the commander judged a second strike necessary. Attacking the chain of command as a reflexive partisan tactic does real harm to morale and to the very institutions charged with keeping threats off our shores.
Conservatives who believe in law and order should welcome a thorough, transparent review — but we should also resist the reflex to hand moral cover to cartels and their enablers by assuming worst intent without evidence. The facts that have leaked out so far vindicate the hard reality that drug networks operate violently and will exploit any hesitation. Pretending otherwise because it fits a political narrative is a betrayal of the very people who suffer most from fentanyl and cartel violence.
If the media and congressional critics want credibility, they must stop treating every military decision as a scandal and start demanding the facts first. Toughness on cartels is not aggression for its own sake; it is a defensive act to protect communities from poison and chaos. Americans deserve leaders and journalists who put country over crowd‑pleasing headlines, and the new details reported by ABC make clear that sober judgment—not sanctimony—must prevail.
