Is the latest Democratic maneuver against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth a principled stand or just political theater?
Breitbart reported that Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI) dropped a bombshell on Wednesday, declaring his intent to file articles of impeachment against Hegseth over a controversial military operation in the Caribbean on September 2, tying it to past remarks on war crimes from 2016.
Let’s rewind to those 2016 comments, first unearthed by CNN and later expanded on by The Hill, where Hegseth spoke at a Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley event.
“I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes,” Hegseth said back then, per the Hill’s reporting.
Thanedar seems to think this old quote is a smoking gun, but isn’t it a stretch to weaponize a general statement about military accountability against a specific operation years later?
Fast forward to September 2, when a U.S. military strike targeted a suspected Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean, destroying the vessel in an initial hit.
A follow-up attack, ordered directly by Admiral Frank Bradley under Hegseth’s authorization per White House statements, reportedly took out survivors of the first strike.
Hegseth told reporters he watched the first strike live but didn’t stick around for the second, saying, “I moved on to my next meeting.”
Now, is that an admission of negligence or just a busy man prioritizing his schedule? Critics like Thanedar are quick to paint it as the former, but let’s not rush to judgment without the full operational context.
Thanedar isn’t backing down, planning to unveil his impeachment articles on Thursday morning at a rally in Washington, D.C.’s Union Station.
His office, via a press advisory obtained by Axios, claims the charges will include accusations of murder, conspiracy, and mishandling classified information—serious allegations that sound more like a Hollywood script than a House floor debate.
Yet, even some on the left aren’t buying the hype, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) throwing cold water on the idea, noting that a Republican-controlled House is unlikely to let this move forward.
While a senior Democrat hinted that outside groups might rally behind Thanedar, the lack of enthusiasm from party leadership suggests this could be more of a solo crusade than a coordinated offensive.
Jeffries’ skepticism, combined with the GOP’s firm grip on the House, paints a picture of an uphill battle for Thanedar—one that might be more about scoring points with a progressive base than achieving real results.
Still, the controversy around the Caribbean strike and Hegseth’s role deserves scrutiny, even if impeachment feels like a long shot. The balance between military accountability and political posturing is a tightrope, and conservatives should demand clarity on what happened on September 2 without falling for partisan traps.
