The supposed justification for the U.S. military's deadly "double tap" strike on a small boat last month is rapidly dissolving. Initially hailed as a decisive blow against drug traffickers heading to America, exclusive reporting reveals the targeted vessel was actually en route to rendezvous with a larger boat bound for Suriname. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who approved the operation, now faces intensified scrutiny as the mission's objective morphs from a direct interdiction to a questionable interception.

This isn't just a minor detail; it's a gaping hole in the administration's narrative. We're told the strike was to prevent drugs from reaching the U.S., yet the boat wasn't even on a direct path. Then there's the horrific second strike on survivors. If the primary goal was to stop a drug shipment, why eliminate potential witnesses or survivors? This raises serious questions about accountability and the military's judgment. Are we authorizing lethal force based on shaky intelligence and shifting justifications?

We cannot simply accept such a dubious rationale for the loss of innocent lives. The repeated strikes on a disabled vessel, coupled with a questionable primary objective, paint a disturbing picture. Is this the kind of vigilance we can trust with our defense? Are you okay with the idea that American military action might be based on such flimsy pretenses, leading to potentially unnecessary deaths?