Jack, I knew yesterday when the admiral said kill them all was not given. I knew that was a bold face lie. After reading your article, about piss drunk Pete yesterday. I now believe he won’t be long for this job.
Jeff, your instinct isn’t wrong. When an admiral denies the phrase...but Congress walks out looking rattled...something deeper is off. Bradley’s statement didn’t clear Hegseth...it exposed how bad ...the situation really is.
And you’re right...a guy this radioactive...doesn’t last long!
Bullseye Jack!...this is but a singular battle in a revolution not of violence, but clear eyed determination. We have an administration taking orders from Oligarchs; we have a corrupt and inept DOJ and FBI; we have masked thugs roaming our American cities under color of law, and now we have a scandal of murder running from the bottom to the top of our armed services and civilian counterparts of the Department of Defense. Instead of "the buck stops here" we have a merrygoround of finger pointing; we are ass deep in the Big Muddy and it's way past time for Congress to pull their head out of their asses and take care of the American peoples business!!
You nailed the larger truth, James. This isn’t one scandal...it’s a pattern...a government stumbling deeper into its own rot....while pretending everything is fine.
When you’ve got oligarch fingerprints on policy...federal agencies tripping over their own contradictions...masked tactical teams...acting without real oversight...and now a military-civilian scandal stretching from the deck plates to the E-Ring… you’re not looking at coincidence. You’re looking at SYSTEMIC FAILURE.
The buck absolutely isn’t stopping anywhere...HELL no...it’s bouncing around like a damn pinball.
And you’re right...Congress needs to quit performing outrage...and start doing the job the Constitution actually assigned them!
Clear-eyed determination...is exactly what this moment demands.
Wait, wait, wait. All this may be true but please analyze Bradley's response in the way you counseled us to do: he did not say there was no order from Hegseth. He said no "direct" order.
He was asked the wrong question, which ought to have been along the lines of, "Did you know that DOD policy for this mission was to kill everyone on the boat?" and "Please state each and every reason why you believed your were authorized to kill or order the killing of the two people who survived the initial attacks?" or "Would you have killed the two men if you had not thought it was in accordance with DOD policy? If so, under what authority would you have killed them."
Christine… thank you. THIS...is exactly what I want from longtime subscribers; you’re ENGAGING in the kind of thinking I hammer on constantly. That’s how you know two things:
The writing is hitting its mark...and...readers are actually absorbing it...processing it...and folding it into their own decision-making. YOU...spotted something incredibly important...and it didn't have to be pointed out to you. Bravo!
You’re exactly right to zero in on that word...“direct.”
That wasn’t an accident. That was a lawyered-up escape hatch the size of an aircraft hangar.
Bradley didn’t say:
“There was no order.”
He said:
“There was no direct order.”
In Washington-speak...that’s the difference between “I wasn’t told to do it” and “I knew damn well what outcome was expected.”
And you’re absolutely right...Congress asked the wrong question.
The real questions were the ones you listed:
*Was DOD policy, command climate, or mission framing understood to mean “leave no survivors”?
*What made you believe killing the two men was authorized?
*Under what authority did you carry out that second strike?
* If you didn’t think this was policy, why did you do it?
THOSE questions would have ripped the veil off the real issue:
Implicit orders...operational expectations...and the command climate Hegseth created.
Because in military operations...explicit orders are rare.
Command intent is everything.
Bradley answered the question he was asked…
NOT the question that mattered.
And that...is exactly why this story...is far from over.
What was that Machiavelli said, something like keep your enemies close and your friends at arm’s length? If Hegseth is cut loose, what are the possible pros and cons to the current president? If Hegseth is not cut loose, what are the pros and cons to the current president? Will he be “transferred” to one of the many new positions within this administration? It seems that we now have co-secretaries of state; might we end up with a Sec of Defense as well as a separate Sec of War?
Ahhh., Mary...you fired my mind up with that! (You may regret it lol)
You’re quoting the right guy...Machiavelli understood power...better than most of the people currently wielding it. And this situation...is exactly the kind of pressure point he wrote about.
Here’s the unvarnished read:
If Hegseth is cut loose:
Pros for the president:
*He contains the political fire.
*He signals “accountability” without taking any himself.
*He buys time and creates distance from the strike.
Cons:
*He risks Hegseth talking to protect himself.
*He fractures the loyalist wing he depends on.
*He admits, indirectly, that something went very wrong.
If Hegseth is not cut loose:
Pros:
*The president projects strength and unity.
*He reassures the ideological base that loyalty is rewarded.
Cons:
*He owns the scandal personally.
*Congress and the Pentagon tighten the microscope.
*Every new fact becomes a White House problem...not a Hegseth problem.
As for “transferring” him...yes...that’s absolutely in the playbook.
This administration has already shown a taste for musical chairs with high-risk appointees. Move him sideways...rename the job...bury him in a new “initiative,” or create a second-tier role that looks powerful but isn’t. Classic face-saving.
And your question about a split Secretary of Defense/Secretary of War?
Let’s just say...this White House has already demonstrated...it likes duplicating titles when it wants to dilute responsibility. Creating a “war-focused” cabinet role...would be the most on-brand move imaginable.
Bottom line:
Whatever they do with Hegseth...it won’t be about justice...it’ll be about managing fallout... while keeping the machinery intact.
I really think head's will roll because of the horrible miss use of power. I still believe in our military, and I can smell what's cookin'. Another great article today, Jack. TGIF to you and your readers, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
Karen, I think you’re reading the situation EXACTLY right. When power gets misused this blatantly... heads do roll...not out of virtue...but because the system eventually has to protect itself.
And you’re also right to keep faith in the military...they’re the ones who recognized the breach first.
You can absolutely smell what’s coming.
And...hank you...glad today’s piece landed. TGIF...and appreciate the reStack. Hold Fast!
Excellent bulletin and analysis. A bit deeper than I usually go, so I really appreciate the English language version. Oddly enough (likely not odd at all) the first thing into mind was “three little words - ‘kill them all”- then immediately another: “We The People”. Bookends. Diametrically opposed but that’s the point. Sure is a lot of room on the shelf about now.
Randy, thank you...and I’m glad the “plain-English version” helped...because this moment demands clarity...not jargon. And you’re right...those two phrases are bookends to the entire crisis.
On one end, “kill them all”... the darkest impulse of power run amok.
On the other, “We The People” ...the line that reminds us who the government is actually accountable to.
Those two ideas...should never appear on the same shelf...but here we are...staring at the space between them...and realizing that’s exactly where this fight is taking place.
And yes… there’s a lot of room left on that shelf. More truth is coming.
They truly think, Jack, that everyone is as stupid as they are. Bradley lied to protect someone, not something, certainly not the military. He truly shit on the military. Regardless he is a disgrace. And Hegseth thinks he was so smart about gutting JAG and the Press Corp? Doesn't that in and of itself smell of premeditation?
Sue...you’re damn sure right about one thing: they really DO operate as if the entire country...is as dim as the small circle they talk to all day.
But...be careful about assuming Bradley lied to protect someone.
The way he framed things tells me...he was protecting himself...not Hegseth...not the Pentagon...and definitely not the institution.
He didn’t shield the military...he offloaded the blast radius.
He didn’t clear Hegseth...he simply refused to be the one holding the match.
That’s not loyalty...that’s SURVIVAL instinct.
And...yes...Hegseth’s war on JAG and the press corps...absolutely reeks of premeditation.
You don’t dismantle the lawyers...and silence the observers...unless you’re planning to operate in a climate...where oversight becomes an inconvenience.
That’s what makes this moment so damning:
They didn’t just react badly...they built the conditions...for something bad to happen.
You’re reading it exactly the way it should be read.
Ok, so the admiral KNEW what would happen if he pointed the finger AND if he did not. Since he didn’t sink him because of semantics, perhaps it was his aim to let Little Peter sink himself, so to speak.
Here ya go, Mister Civilian Appointee, put THAT in your smipe and poke it!
Exactly, Rae. Bradley understood the stakes...on BOTH sides of that tightrope.
If he pointed directly at Hegseth...he’d ignite a constitutional crisis inside the chain of command.
If he covered for him...he’d own the whole mess himself.
So...he chose the middle path; the kind that keeps him clean...while leaving Hegseth standing on a trapdoor...with a frayed rope. He didn’t “save” him. He just declined to be the one...who cut the line.
And...in Washington...that’s the deadliest kind of message:
“I’m not protecting you… but I’m not taking the fall for you either.”
Which is why your read is spot-on.
Bradley didn’t sink him...he let Little Peter drift into open water...with holes in the hull...and a spotlight overhead.
#1. How can this be called a war crime when we have no war? Are those 2 words accurate? #2. How did they know they had drugs (they didn't, but that's what is being said). Even if they had drugs, wouldn't this just be plain outright murder? Yes, they are focusing on who said what in the final kill strike. But why are the words illegal strike on the survivors being used when it was all an illegal strike and all of those onboard were murdered. I don't see the difference.
Hegseth wants warriors. Warriors don’t ask questions, they just act. He is on record complaining about the limitations imposed by the Geneva Convention. He believes that rules of engagement should be ignored. All this will come back to haunt him.
I am very disappointed and will never respect Bradley for covering to save a sun-downing criminal POTUS and his own punch drunk SECDEF. I had hoped he wouldn’t cover the real truth, but “fall on his sword”, he did! As far as I’m concerned, Bradley ordered those people’s deaths even though he knew it was wrong. Let him take the fall since he was obviously pleased to tarnish and destroy his own reputation and integrity. He is a war criminal too.
Jack - what I'm having trouble understanding is why this was different in handing survivors when not that long ago there was another boat attack and there were two survivors who were rescued and turned over to their own country, who promptly determined, there had been NO crime committed by either! Why didn't our government just pick them up and turn them over? What was so different? They could have actually obtained more evidence of drugs, but instead, blew everything to smithereens thereby obliterating any actual evidence to support their attack mission.
Jack, I knew yesterday when the admiral said kill them all was not given. I knew that was a bold face lie. After reading your article, about piss drunk Pete yesterday. I now believe he won’t be long for this job.
Jeff, your instinct isn’t wrong. When an admiral denies the phrase...but Congress walks out looking rattled...something deeper is off. Bradley’s statement didn’t clear Hegseth...it exposed how bad ...the situation really is.
And you’re right...a guy this radioactive...doesn’t last long!
#HoldFast
-Jack
Bullseye Jack!...this is but a singular battle in a revolution not of violence, but clear eyed determination. We have an administration taking orders from Oligarchs; we have a corrupt and inept DOJ and FBI; we have masked thugs roaming our American cities under color of law, and now we have a scandal of murder running from the bottom to the top of our armed services and civilian counterparts of the Department of Defense. Instead of "the buck stops here" we have a merrygoround of finger pointing; we are ass deep in the Big Muddy and it's way past time for Congress to pull their head out of their asses and take care of the American peoples business!!
You nailed the larger truth, James. This isn’t one scandal...it’s a pattern...a government stumbling deeper into its own rot....while pretending everything is fine.
When you’ve got oligarch fingerprints on policy...federal agencies tripping over their own contradictions...masked tactical teams...acting without real oversight...and now a military-civilian scandal stretching from the deck plates to the E-Ring… you’re not looking at coincidence. You’re looking at SYSTEMIC FAILURE.
The buck absolutely isn’t stopping anywhere...HELL no...it’s bouncing around like a damn pinball.
And you’re right...Congress needs to quit performing outrage...and start doing the job the Constitution actually assigned them!
Clear-eyed determination...is exactly what this moment demands.
#HoldFast. More coming.
-Jack
The “buck” has been stolen by Trump.
Wait, wait, wait. All this may be true but please analyze Bradley's response in the way you counseled us to do: he did not say there was no order from Hegseth. He said no "direct" order.
He was asked the wrong question, which ought to have been along the lines of, "Did you know that DOD policy for this mission was to kill everyone on the boat?" and "Please state each and every reason why you believed your were authorized to kill or order the killing of the two people who survived the initial attacks?" or "Would you have killed the two men if you had not thought it was in accordance with DOD policy? If so, under what authority would you have killed them."
Christine… thank you. THIS...is exactly what I want from longtime subscribers; you’re ENGAGING in the kind of thinking I hammer on constantly. That’s how you know two things:
The writing is hitting its mark...and...readers are actually absorbing it...processing it...and folding it into their own decision-making. YOU...spotted something incredibly important...and it didn't have to be pointed out to you. Bravo!
You’re exactly right to zero in on that word...“direct.”
That wasn’t an accident. That was a lawyered-up escape hatch the size of an aircraft hangar.
Bradley didn’t say:
“There was no order.”
He said:
“There was no direct order.”
In Washington-speak...that’s the difference between “I wasn’t told to do it” and “I knew damn well what outcome was expected.”
And you’re absolutely right...Congress asked the wrong question.
The real questions were the ones you listed:
*Was DOD policy, command climate, or mission framing understood to mean “leave no survivors”?
*What made you believe killing the two men was authorized?
*Under what authority did you carry out that second strike?
* If you didn’t think this was policy, why did you do it?
THOSE questions would have ripped the veil off the real issue:
Implicit orders...operational expectations...and the command climate Hegseth created.
Because in military operations...explicit orders are rare.
Command intent is everything.
Bradley answered the question he was asked…
NOT the question that mattered.
And that...is exactly why this story...is far from over.
#HoldFast
-Jack
Yep. That was a very carefully considered and precise response. And the QUESTION may have been, as well.
What was that Machiavelli said, something like keep your enemies close and your friends at arm’s length? If Hegseth is cut loose, what are the possible pros and cons to the current president? If Hegseth is not cut loose, what are the pros and cons to the current president? Will he be “transferred” to one of the many new positions within this administration? It seems that we now have co-secretaries of state; might we end up with a Sec of Defense as well as a separate Sec of War?
Ahhh., Mary...you fired my mind up with that! (You may regret it lol)
You’re quoting the right guy...Machiavelli understood power...better than most of the people currently wielding it. And this situation...is exactly the kind of pressure point he wrote about.
Here’s the unvarnished read:
If Hegseth is cut loose:
Pros for the president:
*He contains the political fire.
*He signals “accountability” without taking any himself.
*He buys time and creates distance from the strike.
Cons:
*He risks Hegseth talking to protect himself.
*He fractures the loyalist wing he depends on.
*He admits, indirectly, that something went very wrong.
If Hegseth is not cut loose:
Pros:
*The president projects strength and unity.
*He reassures the ideological base that loyalty is rewarded.
Cons:
*He owns the scandal personally.
*Congress and the Pentagon tighten the microscope.
*Every new fact becomes a White House problem...not a Hegseth problem.
As for “transferring” him...yes...that’s absolutely in the playbook.
This administration has already shown a taste for musical chairs with high-risk appointees. Move him sideways...rename the job...bury him in a new “initiative,” or create a second-tier role that looks powerful but isn’t. Classic face-saving.
And your question about a split Secretary of Defense/Secretary of War?
Let’s just say...this White House has already demonstrated...it likes duplicating titles when it wants to dilute responsibility. Creating a “war-focused” cabinet role...would be the most on-brand move imaginable.
Bottom line:
Whatever they do with Hegseth...it won’t be about justice...it’ll be about managing fallout... while keeping the machinery intact.
#HoldFast
-Jack
Thx, Jack.
Exactly! The scandal is the dead people. Thank you.
You're welcome, Myrna. SO many...are skipping right past that.
#HoldFast
-Jack
Thank you, Jack. Scary but the hope of "the truth will out" is here. #HOLDFAST
Absolutely, Pamela...it is scary. But...moments like this...are when the truth starts punching through the walls they’ve built around it.
Cracks become fractures...fractures become daylight. And you’re right...the truth WILL out.
#HoldFast
-Jack
I really think head's will roll because of the horrible miss use of power. I still believe in our military, and I can smell what's cookin'. Another great article today, Jack. TGIF to you and your readers, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
Karen, I think you’re reading the situation EXACTLY right. When power gets misused this blatantly... heads do roll...not out of virtue...but because the system eventually has to protect itself.
And you’re also right to keep faith in the military...they’re the ones who recognized the breach first.
You can absolutely smell what’s coming.
And...hank you...glad today’s piece landed. TGIF...and appreciate the reStack. Hold Fast!
-Jack.
Excellent bulletin and analysis. A bit deeper than I usually go, so I really appreciate the English language version. Oddly enough (likely not odd at all) the first thing into mind was “three little words - ‘kill them all”- then immediately another: “We The People”. Bookends. Diametrically opposed but that’s the point. Sure is a lot of room on the shelf about now.
Randy, thank you...and I’m glad the “plain-English version” helped...because this moment demands clarity...not jargon. And you’re right...those two phrases are bookends to the entire crisis.
On one end, “kill them all”... the darkest impulse of power run amok.
On the other, “We The People” ...the line that reminds us who the government is actually accountable to.
Those two ideas...should never appear on the same shelf...but here we are...staring at the space between them...and realizing that’s exactly where this fight is taking place.
And yes… there’s a lot of room left on that shelf. More truth is coming.
#HoldFast
-Jack
They truly think, Jack, that everyone is as stupid as they are. Bradley lied to protect someone, not something, certainly not the military. He truly shit on the military. Regardless he is a disgrace. And Hegseth thinks he was so smart about gutting JAG and the Press Corp? Doesn't that in and of itself smell of premeditation?
Sue...you’re damn sure right about one thing: they really DO operate as if the entire country...is as dim as the small circle they talk to all day.
But...be careful about assuming Bradley lied to protect someone.
The way he framed things tells me...he was protecting himself...not Hegseth...not the Pentagon...and definitely not the institution.
He didn’t shield the military...he offloaded the blast radius.
He didn’t clear Hegseth...he simply refused to be the one holding the match.
That’s not loyalty...that’s SURVIVAL instinct.
And...yes...Hegseth’s war on JAG and the press corps...absolutely reeks of premeditation.
You don’t dismantle the lawyers...and silence the observers...unless you’re planning to operate in a climate...where oversight becomes an inconvenience.
That’s what makes this moment so damning:
They didn’t just react badly...they built the conditions...for something bad to happen.
You’re reading it exactly the way it should be read.
#HoldFast.
-Jack
I will listen again. I would be relieved to be wrong.
By the way, if you get a chance, I posted an article to you on Blue Sky.
Ok, so the admiral KNEW what would happen if he pointed the finger AND if he did not. Since he didn’t sink him because of semantics, perhaps it was his aim to let Little Peter sink himself, so to speak.
Here ya go, Mister Civilian Appointee, put THAT in your smipe and poke it!
#HOLDFAST
📎🖇️
Exactly, Rae. Bradley understood the stakes...on BOTH sides of that tightrope.
If he pointed directly at Hegseth...he’d ignite a constitutional crisis inside the chain of command.
If he covered for him...he’d own the whole mess himself.
So...he chose the middle path; the kind that keeps him clean...while leaving Hegseth standing on a trapdoor...with a frayed rope. He didn’t “save” him. He just declined to be the one...who cut the line.
And...in Washington...that’s the deadliest kind of message:
“I’m not protecting you… but I’m not taking the fall for you either.”
Which is why your read is spot-on.
Bradley didn’t sink him...he let Little Peter drift into open water...with holes in the hull...and a spotlight overhead.
Here you go, Mister Civilian Appointee…
put that in your smipe and poke it. :)
#HoldFast
The unraveling...has only just begun.
-Jack
Yep. I’d call that one first class burn. 🔥
There is nothing good to celebrate about killing helpless people. No victory at all.
#1. How can this be called a war crime when we have no war? Are those 2 words accurate? #2. How did they know they had drugs (they didn't, but that's what is being said). Even if they had drugs, wouldn't this just be plain outright murder? Yes, they are focusing on who said what in the final kill strike. But why are the words illegal strike on the survivors being used when it was all an illegal strike and all of those onboard were murdered. I don't see the difference.
I can’t wait to read the Signal texts from an angry drunk Hegseth if he gets the boot.
Hegseth wants warriors. Warriors don’t ask questions, they just act. He is on record complaining about the limitations imposed by the Geneva Convention. He believes that rules of engagement should be ignored. All this will come back to haunt him.
I am very disappointed and will never respect Bradley for covering to save a sun-downing criminal POTUS and his own punch drunk SECDEF. I had hoped he wouldn’t cover the real truth, but “fall on his sword”, he did! As far as I’m concerned, Bradley ordered those people’s deaths even though he knew it was wrong. Let him take the fall since he was obviously pleased to tarnish and destroy his own reputation and integrity. He is a war criminal too.
Jack - what I'm having trouble understanding is why this was different in handing survivors when not that long ago there was another boat attack and there were two survivors who were rescued and turned over to their own country, who promptly determined, there had been NO crime committed by either! Why didn't our government just pick them up and turn them over? What was so different? They could have actually obtained more evidence of drugs, but instead, blew everything to smithereens thereby obliterating any actual evidence to support their attack mission.