You remember last week’s Washington Post report, the one with two anonymous administration sources claiming that in September, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered a second missile strike on a drug boat to ensure that any survivors were killed, “EVEN IF THEY’RE BABIES OR PUPPIES!”
I might have made up that last part, but according to a New York Times investigation, WaPo might have made up the whole thing.
To be clear, the New York Times report did not directly accuse the Washington Post of lying. But the New York paper did sic no fewer than four DC-based reporters on the story and failed to find even one anonymous source to back up WaPo’s claim.
Here’s what the NYT’s team found, directly contradicting the WaPo report — and please forgive the lengthy excerpt, but the details matter.
According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.
But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.
Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.
Everything I emphasized contradicts the WaPo’s sensationalist claims from last week. And, in journalistic terms, those three paragraphs amount to the NYT calling WaPo liars. I’d add that “sensationalist claims,” in VodkaPundit terms, amounts to “WaPo either lied or was lied to and didn’t care.”
Shout-out to reporters Charlie Savage, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and John Ismay for doing solid work.
Whatever the case, good on the New York Times for doing their own work, and reporting what they found — even if not everybody at the paper got the memo. Check out these dueling headlines from this morning’s edition, stacked one on top of the other, exactly as you see below:
In other developing news, I broke out in hives after praising the New York Times.
Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal, they’re still writing headlines giving Hegseth the presumption of guilt. Monday night’s late-breaking headline reads: “White House Defends Hegseth Over Strike on Alleged Drug Boat That Killed Survivors.”
Re-read that. Perhaps it’s unintentional, but that headline implies that the boat was only alleged to carry drugs but that the order to kill survivors (since disputed by the NYT) is factual.
But then you get to the subhead and realize there was nothing intentional about the headline. The subhead reads, “Press secretary says admiral who ordered second strike, which killed survivors of initial attack, was acting under Pentagon chief’s authority.”
Maybe the folks at the Journal ought to read the crosstown competition and find out what the news is.
Recommended: Oops, Russia Has a Teensy Little Rocket Problem — and So Do We
Want more narrative-busting columns like this one? You’ll also get exclusive columns, podcasts, and video live chats with your PJ Media VIP membership — now 60% off during our FIGHT promotion.
