Democrats Side With Venezuelan Narco-Terrorists Over Americans

It’s that time again where Democrats throw their full weight behind a cause of absolutely no benefit to Americans for the sole purpose of placing themselves at odds with the Trump administration. This time they’re not only going to the mat on behalf of foreigners, but suspected drug traffickers too!

For almost a week Democrats and their content creator friends in the dying news media have been pressing the White House and the Department of War to lay out the second-by-second, word-for-word timeline of a military strike from months ago, in which a Venezuelan motorboat and crew suspected of transporting narcotics to the United States were targeted.

Based on anonymously sourced reports, congressional Democrats are accusing War Secretary Pete Hegseth and the admiral who oversaw the attack of potentially committing a “war crime” by hitting the target in a follow-up strike that killed two survivors from the initial hit.

If this sounds exceedingly trivial, that’s because it is. To spin this into a scandal, Democrats are simultaneously suggesting the administration might have attacked innocent fishermen; or might have violated rules of engagement by striking survivors who were effectively surrendering; or might have violated the law by conducting the strike at all because the U.S. is not in armed conflict with Venezuela.

All of those positions are laughable and not just because Democrats for the previous four years have exhibited nothing but bloodlust for international violence, regardless of whether America was a formal party to the conflict. But thinking through each scenario invariably leads to an absurd conclusion.

First, it’s not unheard of for our frequently incompetent government to kill the wrong person. It happens. But the chance that our military is unable to tell the difference between some country fishermen and designated narco-terrorists crossing the ocean with cargo is pretty remote. Venezuela is effectively a failed state, and the drug trade and other illicit activities account for around a fifth of its entire economy.

It’s not like smugglers traveling by boat are rare. We know how to find them, and in any event, President Trump was elected by the country to hold the very power that permits him to wage these attacks.

Second, even as there are rules that prohibit the execution of enemies who are surrendering or are debilitated, whether someone is indeed surrendering or debilitated is a judgment call, no less so when the attack is conducted by airstrike. If the mission is to destroy drug smugglers, why should the nature of it change because a first strike wasn’t entirely successful in completing that mission?

It’s arguably a problem that the administration is conducting this “war” in such a way that it’s nearly impossible to discern these things, but hey, that’s what elections are for. That’s what Congress is for. Change the people in power or change the rules at play.

Lastly, it isn’t up for debate that the president has the authority to direct military strikes on virtually anything or anyone he deems a threat to the United States. Former President Obama was practically a human drone machine, dropping bombs all over the Middle East throughout his two terms — and Congress did nothing. (“Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama is reported to have said.)

That’s an awesome power, no doubt, but we’ve decided it’s a necessary one and, again, we also decide who we want to hold it. Congress has the duty to conduct oversight of the executive, to be sure, but not everything overseen is a scandal. This sure isn’t.

But this is what Democrats do these days. They pick an unnecessary fight and defend the position that is, if not irrelevant to Americans, actively detrimental to their interests.