December 7, 2025 • 33 mins
The escalating drug boat strikes in the Caribbean, a bold Trump administration initiative targeting narco-terrorist operations linked to Venezuela. The hosts analyze reports alleging a controversial “double-tap” strike on a vessel, sparking accusations of potential war crimes. They break down the legal and ethical implications under the Law of Armed Conflict, debate media narratives, and highlight Democrats’ efforts to use this story to politically damage Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Clay offers a lawyer’s perspective on whether follow-up strikes were lawful, while Buck compares this situation to past drone strike controversies under previous administrations.
Adding to the tension, the show covers Trump’s ultimatum to Nicolás Maduro, giving the Venezuelan leader until Friday to vacate power or face possible U.S. action. The hosts weigh the pros and cons of regime change, its historical pitfalls, and its strategic significance given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. They invite Venezuelan-American listeners to share their views on intervention and democracy restoration.
High-stakes political drama and breaking news as the Venezuelan drug boat strike controversy dominates headlines. The hour opens with updates from President Trump’s marathon cabinet meeting, which lasted over two hours and was broadcast live on major networks. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth addressed the September 2 strike on a narco-terrorist vessel, defending the decision to “eliminate the threat” and dismantle cartel operations responsible for flooding the U.S. with fentanyl. Hegseth blasted the Washington Post for publishing what he called “fake stories” about alleged kill orders, stressing the reality of the fog of war and reaffirming that commanders acted lawfully under the Law of Armed Conflict. Clay and Buck analyze the legal and strategic implications, warning that Democrats and the media are using this narrative to delegitimize Hegseth and weaken Trump’s foreign policy as part of a broader impeachment strategy.
The discussion expands to Venezuela, raising questions about whether Maduro’s removal signals a deeper U.S. commitment to regime change and intervention. Clay and Buck emphasize Trump’s aggressive stance against narco-terrorists as a national security imperative, contrasting deterrence with appeasement. They argue that clear, consistent messaging from the administration could neutralize the controversy and prevent political fallout. Listener calls add fiery energy to the hour, with viral moments like Linda’s blunt declaration—“When in doubt, take ’em out”—sparking debate over rules of engagement and ethics in warfare. Other callers draw parallels to historic military actions, from the Bin Laden raid to naval confrontations with Iran, fueling a lively discussion on legality, morality, and public perception.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Whether you're lighting a candle on the Manora or placing
Baby Jesus in the Nativity. We hope your holiday is
full of grace, wonder and love.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
And maybe even a little snow.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Merry Christmas and happy Honika from all of us at
the Clay and Buck Show. The Team forty seven podcast
is sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Making the American Farm Strong Again. Team forty seven with
Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
These strikes on these lethal strikes on Narco terrorist boats
in the Caribbean.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Secretary of War Hegseeth addressed this just a moment ago.
We wanted to let you hear from him what's going
on play thirty three.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
And then it's kidding after he going after Narco terras
and designated terrorist organizations in our own hemisphere. As I've said,
I'll say again, we've only just begun striking Narco boats
and putting Narco terraces at the bottom of the ocean
because they've been poisoning the American people, and Joe Biden
(01:04):
tried to approach it with kid gloves.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Now allow them to come across the border.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
A cartels takeover community, twenty million people, hundreds of thousands
of Americans poisoned, and President Trump said, no, we're taking
the bluffs off.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
We're taking the fight.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
To these designated terror organizations.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
And that's exactly what we're doing.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
So we're stopping the drugs, we're striking the boats, we're
defeating narco terrorists, and we're standing to you. May say
one thing that drugs coming in through the same by
sea are down ninety one percent.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
And I don't know who the nine percent is.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
I'm not sure either circus, but down ninety one percent
by sea. We've had a bit of a pause because
it's hard to find boats to strike right now, which
is the entire point, right, deterrence has to matter, not arrested,
handover and then do it again, the rinse and repeat
approach of previous administrations. This is meant to get aft
after that approach. And I will just end by saying,
(01:57):
as President Trump always has our back. We always had
the back of our commanders who are making decisions in
difficult situations, and we do in this case and all
these strikes.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
They're making judgment calls.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
And ensuring that they defend the American people. They've done
the right things.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
We'll keep doing that. And we had their Backsmitch Press,
good job, thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
So Clay, that's the latest that was just moments ago
from Secretary of warheaks at this cabinet meeting that they're holding.
And I would just say, first of all, isn't it
amazing when you just compare this This is a little
bit of a side note, but the transparency, the willingness
to face the media, to discuss directly with the American
(02:38):
people what's going on in this administration, compared to imagine
if it was just a random Tuesday and Joe Biden
had all his top people around unscripted, just taking questions
from the press, Clay, it would not have happened as
and we all know why he had dementia. They were
hiding him. The whole thing was a scam. The whole
Biden administration was a scam, unfortunately, a scam on all
the American people. And the stuff that's gone on with
the border as well as the mass importation of ental
(03:00):
was hugely and dramatically worsened by the Biden scam. But Clay,
right now, you know there's a lot of different polling
on this, and you could try to the way they
craft these questions. I think by and large Republicans are
supportive of strikes on narco terrorist boats. Democrats obviously or not.
(03:21):
That's not a surprise at all, and they're hoping that
they can find a way to create a wedge within
Trump supporters on this issue.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
I don't think that's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
I think the regime change issue in Venezuela is where
things get a little stickier for MAGA.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Yeah, I think that's all connected. I do wonder again,
if this is on video, they are going to continue
to kind of chip away at the overall story, and
I would imagine we've seen a lot of the video
attacks released on the ships. My surmisal would be that
(03:57):
the story will become the boat was still operable, there
were there was a possibility that the drugs would continue
to be you know, conduited on that boat, and so
we ordered a second strike to end.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
The feasibility of the boat's ability.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
To do the job that is trying to do. That's
my bet as to what the story is going to be.
In other words, they're going to say the physical structure
itself was targeted for a second strike, not the potential survivors,
but I do think this is going to turn into
a I do think it's going to turn a story.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Now.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
This also, I think goes on some level to who
Democrats are going to bat for. Remember our good buddy
kill maar A Brell Garcia, who they initially attempted to
make the face of Trump's deportation policy Maryland, Dad kill
maar A Breio Garcia. That story has vanished because I
(04:59):
think they recognize, yeah, this is not really the focal
point of a face to make people disagree with the policy.
I don't think narco terrorists in boats are going to
be particularly sympathetic plaintiffs. And when I use that for
a sympathetic plaintiffs, anybody out there who is a defense
(05:22):
attorney has experienced this.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
When you file a lawsuit, you want to tell.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
The best story of your lawsuit, frequently involving moms.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
You know.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Ever, notice how kids who file lawsuits are always honorable students,
You know, like, oh, this poor, honorable student was just disrespected.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
In a visual era.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Isn't it amazing how often pretty girls are you were
talking about this. This NYU student who became a victim
was attacked on the streets in New York city.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
It's become a story.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
These captivating stories because they're young, innocent, attractive people. They
grab attention in a way that is that is that
is captivating to many different people out there in the media.
I mean, you can say, remember the Idaho killers, those
young innocent kids, Moscow are Moscow rather Moscow, Ida outside
(06:22):
of the University of Idaho, Lake and Riley. I think
one reason that it cuts through the noise, she's a
young innocent college nursing student who is murdered by an
illegal immigrant. I think that it's hard to make people think,
you know, I'm really concerned about narco terrorists.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
So I think the challenge cutting through this noise is
uh and it goes both ways, right when you come
to these stories, because right now they're trying to make
a story Oh look at this nineteen year old college
student who was deported. Oh she can you believe this
is happening. They're trying to find a story that is
captivating young innocent people. Most people, I don't think see
(07:03):
narco boat captain pilots and their staff that are trying
to smuggle drugs into the country as particularly sympathetic plainiffs.
So I think that factors in here into how the
media is going to be able to cover it.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
I'm sure the administration is more than a little bit
aware of this. But to your point, Clay, about the
public's perception of these strikes and how they're going as
long as we're getting narco terrorists, I think the administra
and we're certain of this. I think the administration is
going to certainly have support of a lot of Republicans
in this. They just got to make sure they don't
(07:41):
pull a Biden administration with what we saw in Afghanistan
where they blew up if I remember a dad and
seven kids in a course right that they said was
a suicide bomber's vehicle, and it was not seven children
they blew up. And that was after we lost marines
because of the haphazard and disastrous withdrawal of the Biden administration.
So we took losses, We lost our marines to enemy,
(08:04):
to an enemy attack, and then we blew up a
car full of children because the Biden administration was so
frantic to look like they had some idea of what
they were doing in response to us losing some of
our marines. In that earlier suicide bomber attack. So this
is this Look, this is we're talking about a war
on narco terrorist. This is high stake stuff. And I
(08:28):
know that the Secretary of Warhacks Death is very focused
in on this right now. It's clearly a political or
rather the Democrats see this as a political opportunity to
go after this administration. A lot of people weighing in
on this one, Clay. I mean, here's Senator Chris Coon's
Democrat obviously, who's trying to use this as an attack
(08:50):
Play cut five.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
This incident that was just covered by the Washington Coast
in recent days suggests that a war crime may have
been committed, and I think Secretary Hegseeth likely.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Gave the order.
Speaker 5 (09:03):
I know Admiral Bradley, he's the Socom commander. He came
up through the ranks. He is decorated, he's experienced, he seasoned,
he was one of the first Americans into Afghanistan after
nine to eleven. I'd be very surprised if he did
this on his own without direct support or a command
from the Secretary.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
I'm why it's worth I think people hearing that is
just play. This is all about getting hegset. Yeah, there's
a get Hegseth operation for the Democrats in the media.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Now, well, look, the intent is not to UH, is
not to make the country better. The intent is to
get hegset And I think that's the key here that
we hit on to start the show.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Hegset is target one.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Target two right now is Cash Pttel, and they have
decided to focus all of their media attacks on that duo,
and frankly, most everybody else has been either ignored or unscathed.
You know, they tried, probably Pam Bondi. I would say
Buck is probably third on that list. We were talking
about the target list, but I would say to a
(10:05):
large extent, the Pam Bondi attacks, actually a lot of
them came from the right because of the ham handed
way they initially handled the Epstein when they brought the
influencers out and they had the briefing in the Epstein
files and everything else. So some of that fire on
Bondi came internally from the Republican Party. I think she's
(10:25):
probably third on the list of cabinet member attacks. But
clearly heg Seth from the moment he was nominated has
been target one, and Cash Bettel right now I think
is target two. I will tell you that Democrats, from
what I understand, Clay, one of the reasons Bondi is
not higher on their list is they don't view her
as as effective as some of these other I'm just
(10:47):
this is from a Democrat perspective. They know that Pete
can't handle the media, isn't going to back down align
with Trump. They know that Cash aligned with Trump, you know,
isn't going to back down for media pressure and is
trying reform or reform agenda there. I will say, we
do need to establish though, if we're gonna have people
(11:07):
from administration speaking on this issue. Okay, is it that
the boat was still we need to fact to be clear.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
That's my We need to be clear. That's because it's
my argument.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
I do think you have a very hard time if
you're if the argument is that this is a lethal
threat against the United States because they're designated narco terrorists
in a boat traveling to the US with fentil that's
going to kill people. Okay, that's the argument. They're operating
under presidential authority. Once the boat is disabled, there is
no longer any chance of those drugs making it to
(11:39):
the homeland and there and these men are not in
the fight. They are bobbing around in the water. I
do not think you can follow up with finish them off.
I do not think that that is covered in the
laws of war, the Geneva Conventions or ethics. So there
just needs to be cleared because I'm seeing people say, yeah,
if we have to hit them again, we hit them again.
I think that's wrong. And if you if you want
(12:01):
to check how this went in World War Two, the
Nazis infamously the U boat commanders would machine gun survivors,
including million people in the US Navy British Navy would
machine gun them in the water. They were brought up
on war crimes for that. They were not able to say, well,
you could still swim and maybe make it to shore
and then you could get back in the fight. So
(12:22):
we do need to have some clarity on where the
limits are here, which is why my argument is boat
is the target.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
If I if I am lawyer Clay, who is representing
these individuals in a in an investigation, and look again,
this is where I come back to what is on tape,
what is on audio? What evidence is out there? We
haven't seen it fully at least to jump on your
on your on your lawyer Clay point there. You know
Clay from self defense perspective, and someone you know who
(12:50):
conceal carries here and does a fair amount of shooting
and spends time with the two a community in South Florida.
You always say stop the threat.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
You say when you call if you have to defend
yourself with a firearm, you say, on the victim of
a crime, you know, here's my address company. You do
not say, Yeah, some guy came in. I shot him
and then he was making his way out of my house,
so I chased him on the front lawn. I put
two in the back of his head. You're going to
prison for a long time if you do that, as
(13:19):
you should.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Yeah, that's you know what I mean. There's there's a
difference there.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Are kicked his I kicked his gun away, and then
I put my gun up against his head and killed him.
Like that's not you know, at some point, when you
eliminate the threat, you're not allowed to continue to preer
more So, I'm just gonna say they ambunition the facts
to what Clay was saying. The facts are now, or
rather the facts that are being put forward are you know,
(13:42):
they did not do a follow up strike to finish
survivors off.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
That order was not given. This what the Pentagon is saying.
That order was not given and the boat may still
have been, you know, capable of continuing. That's why the
second strike came. That all you could argue thing legally.
I do not think we want to hear people from
the pro Trump side of things saying there were a
couple of guys who had already been hit with a missile,
who are in the middle of the ocean or middle
of the Caribbean, clinging to refuse, and we hit him again.
(14:08):
By the way, I don't believe that that happened here.
I think this is a hit piece. I just want
to be clear. But there are people who are trying
to say that that would be lawful too, just because
they're on the team, so to speak. And I do
not think that's a good place to go because you're
opening yourself up to the other side saying you your defense,
you would you would even if a war crime wasn't committed. Clay,
(14:29):
we can which I don't believe it was. To be clear,
we cannot have pro Trump people argue in favor of
a clear war crime that's not a good idea either, right,
which is why clarity on this I think is so important.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
I understand the argument that, hey, I'm concerned about American authority,
I don't really understand it as it pertains to the
drug boat strikes in international waters.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
And so.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Look, you can make that argument, but that doesn't seem
like something that I think is going to, pardon the
expression here, blow up in Trump's face, Linda and Florida.
You want to react, A lot of you want to react,
by the way, loaded lines right now.
Speaker 6 (15:20):
Hi, I do, thank you guys. So for four years
I lived with Biden letting in twenty million illegals crossing
our border, illegally breaking our laws. And you know, and
everybody knew about it. The media knew about it. They
discussed it, but we didn't give it oxygen. Like we're
(15:42):
giving this narco terrorists two guys to twenty billion do
the map, okay, And all we do is we're browbeating
this two narco terrorists to death literally, and you know,
we just keep discussing it, and who cares about the
two guys in the water. They were bad guys, but
(16:03):
so were the twenty million.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
That Okay, Linda, let me play. Let me play devil's
advocate here. If if it were to be reported and
confirmed that the Narco terrorists, which I agree are bad guys,
were floating in the water and we ordered a helicopter
to go in and to mow them down as they
floated in the water, you wouldn't have an issue with that.
Speaker 6 (16:29):
I wouldn't have an issue with that at all, after
letting in twenty million illegals.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
I have appreciate is that your granddaughter in the background.
Speaker 6 (16:40):
There, no, no, no, I've got three dogs that are
laying on.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Oh okay, so I those dogs don't mess around.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Those are well behaved dogs.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
I was gonna say, Linda, Linda is running in her
ship with a with a browbie. Thank you for the
call there. Look, that would be a crime. Okay, So
I appreciate that. If I had given the order, I
want Linda on my jury because I appreciate that she
is the Nathan Jess up there she.
Speaker 5 (17:11):
Is.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
You're damn right. I ordered the code to ed, So
thank you Linda for that call.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
That would be illegal, That would be a violation, that
would be a war crime. So I don't think if
there were American soldiers floating around in the waters off
the shore of a foreign country and they ordered for
the American soldiers to be summarily executed or American citizens,
(17:41):
I think a lot of people would say, yeah, we
have an issue with that and it would be illegal.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
That to me is not what occurred here. However, yes
it would be a war crime. In fact, it actually
would be there. There is even with really.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Bad people, and even if Trump is in charge, we
do need to underst then there is such a thing
as a war crime. We are saying one was not
committed here because they did not do anything wrong based
on the facts.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
But to my point clan that I keep making of,
people need to understand.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
We just had a caller who was like, I mean,
if we have the machine gun them in the water,
no big deal.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
No, that's not good jury.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
If I'm Colonel Jessup, I will say that is a
war crime. And for people out there who say, Okay,
this is not a big story, they are. I mean,
the lead story right now on MSNBC and CNN is
about the boat strikes. Now, I think the communication here
(18:43):
we should also mention. The Cabinet meeting live on Fox
News has been going on now Buck for nearly two hours,
so our entire show. Trump has been allowing his cabinet
members to field questions from everybody out there. Joe and four,
retired Air Force colonel, fighter pilot, what's your take on
(19:06):
the story so far as you can tell?
Speaker 7 (19:08):
Hi, Well, first of all, I heard a previous callers say,
undeclared war, but we've been fighting the quote, Well, we've
not been fighting, but we've been participating in the quote
war on drugs for fifty years or so. Yeah, you know,
I came back from Vietnam. I flew one hundred and
fifty three combat missions over there in phantoms, came back
(19:29):
to Homestead Air Base, and then we would sit on
the air defense of alert pad and intercept drug airplanes
that were flying into our territory, many of which were
actually over the Everglades, over our dirt throwing out at
that time bales of marijuana, and we would try to
get the tail number of the airplane to identify them.
(19:51):
Sometimes these same guys would just fly in daytime and
that made it easy to identify the tail number. But
generally they would get rid of that airplane and move
on to something else that over time that progressed to
I was a F sixteen count operational test pilot where
I worked on the program to outfit the airplanes with
(20:14):
night vision goggles and then we could join on these
guys at night. Look at the guy, look at the load,
look at the airplane's tail number, hand them off to customs,
and that air bridge where they would fly drugs into
the country basically was reduced. I can't say shut down,
(20:35):
but it was greatly reduced.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
And then let me ask you this, colonel, and thank
you for all the work that you did in the
Air Force, what would have happened if you had you know,
if you had ordered you shoot down one of those planes.
There are guys floating hanging on to the refuge of
the plane, and you said, we're going to go buy
for another pass. We want to machine gun those guys
(20:59):
in the water, holding on to the holding on to
the refuse.
Speaker 7 (21:05):
Well, if I shot them down, I would do it
in such a way there'd be no survivors.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
That's a great answer. But if and and by the way, uh,
I appreciate that answer. But if there were and you
said We're gonna go by, and I want you to
lean out my tail gunner here or whoever's with you,
and I want you to pick off those survivors. And
it later came out that you had done that. Do
you think you would have had the ability to make
(21:30):
that decision legally?
Speaker 7 (21:34):
You know, I would like it. Let me put on
my colonel sat now. I was about to have the
survivors from an intel standpoint, Yeah, talking guys about why
are you still doing this? What are they doing to
motivate you to go out and risk your lives because
you know you're stand a good chance of dying. I'm
(21:55):
not a Navy guy. I'm an Air Force guy, but
I'm a top gun graduate. So I do want to
make the bad guys go away and pay for their crimes.
You know, in Vietnam, I had a guy on the
Mekong River shoot at me as I flew by him,
and so I went back and he and I discussed
the merits of twenty milimeters versus a K forty seven,
(22:19):
and he was not a happy camper. Yeah, you know,
as far as the Navy rules of engagement in the
international rules, I hate to admit it, but I'm pretty
much clueless on that.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Thank you for the call, and thank you for all
the service, and I'd love that the number of people
we have listening to the best call callers are awesome,
kiddy top gun pilots who flew and look, I'd like
to have Linda on my jury in this situation, but
you have to make this story.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Look, here's what I think is if you want me
to say play, I appreciate what Linda saying.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Linda wants to go full Genghis Khan on the enemies
of civilization, and I get that, but there's challenges.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Linda is not is not a crazy cat lady for
Kamala Harris, I feel very competent. I would like Linda
in my foxhole with me. Let me say this. I
think really what this represents. I love the call where
he said, hey, I'm not going to leave any survivors.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Right.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
They don't want.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
To have to rescue these guys because if they rescue
them and bring them in as combatants, they can challenge
the policy in court.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
And I think by the way I think they go
to play it. Do they go to Gitmo? Where do
they go? It's a great question. Where do we put
them that's right.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I think maybe the answer, although you know, we've been
trying to shut GITMO down, but we can't shut it
down because that's war on terror stuff.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Look, we can't even execute the nine to eleven terrorists.
You know, they still you know this, We've talked about
it with some They haven't even been able to prosecute
the guys who were in GETMO because they're worried about
the interrogation tactics that were used on them, such that
I don't even know what the absolute latest on that
(24:07):
story was, but it was, Hey, we're not going to
go for the death penalty. They're gonna admit complicity in
all of the deaths. It's been two twenty four years
since nine to eleven, and those guys are still living
in relative comfort now in Cuba and we can't even
(24:27):
prosecute them. So I guarantee you they do not want
to have these guys in possession for the next twenty years.
So when they said again they should do a better
job of communicating on this. But when they said finish
them off, they meant the boat. That's the legal argument,
and they wanted to make sure that the boat was
not able to continue its mission to deliver drugs to
(24:49):
the country. The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by
Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Making the American Farm Strong Again. You're listening to Team
forty seven with Playing Buck.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
The implications of this, first of all, aren't just about
the attempts to undermine an attack headset and with him
this administration. There's also this issue of what this does
to Venezuela, and increasingly we have what seems to be
a de facto regime change policy in place. Now, regime
(25:25):
change in nation building are not necessarily things that go
hand in hand, but they often do, and so this
is going to start to bring up some very important
and difficult conversations. I think if Maduro goes. But here
we have Secretary Hegset just moments ago getting into the
details of this strike that has been widely reported on
(25:47):
Let's listen to the Secretary of War.
Speaker 4 (25:48):
I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours
whatever where all the sensitive side exploitation digitally occurs, so
I moved on to my next meeting. A couple of
hours later, I learned that that commander had made.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Which he had the complete authority to do.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
And by the way, Edward Bradley made the correct decision
to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. He
sunk the boat, sunk the boat and eliminated the threat.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
And he was the right call. We have his back
and the.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
American people are safer because narco terrorists. No, you can't
bring drugs through the water and eventually on land if necessary,
I have to do to the American people. We will
eliminate that threat, and we're proud to do it.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
So you didn't see any survivors the Compleader.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
After that first run. I did not personally see survivors,
but I stand because the thing was on fire.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
I was exploded in fire smoke.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
You can't see anything you got digital.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
There's this is called the fog of war.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
This is what you and the press don't understand. You
sit in your conditioned offices, you're up on Capitol Hill
and you knit pick and you plant fake stories in
the Washington Post about kill everybody, phrases on anonymous sources,
not based in anything, not based in any truth at all,
and then you want to throw really irresponsible terms about
American heroes, about the judgment that they made.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I wrote a whole book on this topic.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Because of what politicians and the press does to warfighters.
President Trump is empowered commanders, commanders to do what is necessary,
which is dark and difficult things in the dead of
night on half of the American people. We support them,
and we will stop.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
The poisoning of the American people. Okay, that's a better answer.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
I still think, and this is the lawyer in me, buck,
I want a clear, concise, direct description of.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
What the admiral did.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
And it may be the case that they haven't talked
in detail about this decision, but that would help to
end this story, I believe once and for all.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
It's hard to sound objective talking about Pete because you
and I both know Pete and or we're personally friends
with Pete.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
I've known Pete now for almost fifteen years.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
So I just I say that because I think we
need to be honest about where we come from, especially
talking with some of these public figures who we know
on a personal level. And I know Pete loves the country,
and I know he loves the war fighters in the
United States military like his own family, and so I
(28:16):
bring all of that to this discussion too, all right.
That said, I think that the problem that he's running
into here a little bit, Clay is when you start
to say things again, I'm looking at this like the
enemy here in the media, which he's addressing very clearly.
He's saying, you guys are a bunch of jerks that
don't understand anything. But when he says things like fog
of war, that they're going to take that now and
(28:40):
say so you don't know if there were survivors or not,
that's what they're That's the next stage.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Now.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I think in this process it went from the order
to kill survivors to now you're saying fog of war again.
I understand from the very beginnings you need to call
in and say what he did is totally lawful. I
believe that Pete Hegseth and the jaysok here Joint Special
Operations Command. I think they operated in a lawful fashion.
(29:06):
I am just saying the way this is turning into
a story is leaving bits of daylight here with the
facts as presented, the narrative as constructed from the top
of the of the Pentagon hierarchy. And when you say
things like, you know, fog of war, I get it.
I know what he's saying. But they're going to say, so,
(29:28):
you don't even know if there were you know, there
was smoke. You know, there could have been survivors. You know,
this is the next this is the next phase of it.
I think totally.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
And this is why I say, and this is me
speaking as a.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Former criminal defense attorney.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
Your story has to be consistent, and you have to
stick to it, and you have to put it out there,
and it has to be ironclad in terms of you
being able to prove what.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Exactly it is.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
And I just think the story of we had to
hit the boat a second time because it had not
been completely obliterated and there were still drugs there, and
they could have brought another boat in and gotten those
drugs off, and they could have still come to the
United States. The purpose of the mission was to ensure
that that boat is completely obliterated and there are no
(30:19):
drugs that survived the attack. The first attack it did,
we put in a second one. That's what happened. I
don't know anything about the people that were on the boat. Frankly,
I don't care about them, because they were terrorists trying
to kill people in the United States. They may have survived,
they may not have but I know that boat didn't
and the drugs are gone. That's my answer. That's a
pretty good one. I wish it had been given. Yeah,
(30:40):
I stoped the threat.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
This is a threat that's identified, a threat that we
can lawfully use the United States military to address. And
Secretary of War heeg Seth and those below him in
the chain of command who were directly involved in the strike,
they were operating to stop the threat against the American people.
And if two missiles is what are to stop the threat,
and that is what it required. But this is why
(31:03):
again you know, the specificity of the same thing in
a self defense case, if somebody came at me clay
in my own home, which would be a very bad
idea because I do have a lot of guns here
and I am pretty trained.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Up these days.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
But if somebody came at me in my own home
and I put one in him, and then they say, well,
why did you why did you actually unload your whole
magazine into this person who's coming at you, let's say,
with a knife or something, I would say because in
the moment, that's what I believe to stop the threat
against my life. That's the answer. Yes, right, it doesn't
whether it's one bullet or ten bullets. I acted to
(31:37):
stop the threat against me and my family. What you
don't want to get into is, well, I hit him
five times, but then I thought, you know what, I
got to get some headshots in here to make sure
he's not moving anymore. You don't want to, in a
self defense situation say anything like that. This is those
of you. You don't have to know law of war
necessarily to understand how this. When you're talking about use
(31:59):
of force, you've got to be very specific about why
you're using that force. And I've sat through the classes.
I've sat through the discussion we had this in the CIA.
We had to have conversations about lethal force. Right, This
is you have to understand what the framework is. We're
using violence against another human being.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Always, the threat wasn't eliminated with the first strike, so
we had to have a second strike to eliminate the threat.
This is not very complicated. But again, when they start
nitpicking at you, I appreciate the fact that Pete recognizes
he's the target here. Somebody I think this is important,
leaked probably very classified information to a large extent to
(32:40):
the Washington Post, which may or may not be accurate,
but somebody obviously has Pete as the target here. They're
attempting to come after him, the admiral and the President.
I mean, their intent here matters, and so again I
think you have to eliminate this story to the best
(33:01):
of your ability.
Whether you're lighting a candle on the Manora or placing
Baby Jesus in the Nativity. We hope your holiday is
full of grace, wonder and love.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
And maybe even a little snow.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Merry Christmas and happy Honika from all of us at
the Clay and Buck Show. The Team forty seven podcast
is sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Making the American Farm Strong Again. Team forty seven with
Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
These strikes on these lethal strikes on Narco terrorist boats
in the Caribbean.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Secretary of War Hegseeth addressed this just a moment ago.
We wanted to let you hear from him what's going
on play thirty three.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
And then it's kidding after he going after Narco terras
and designated terrorist organizations in our own hemisphere. As I've said,
I'll say again, we've only just begun striking Narco boats
and putting Narco terraces at the bottom of the ocean
because they've been poisoning the American people, and Joe Biden
(01:04):
tried to approach it with kid gloves.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Now allow them to come across the border.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
A cartels takeover community, twenty million people, hundreds of thousands
of Americans poisoned, and President Trump said, no, we're taking
the bluffs off.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
We're taking the fight.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
To these designated terror organizations.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
And that's exactly what we're doing.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
So we're stopping the drugs, we're striking the boats, we're
defeating narco terrorists, and we're standing to you. May say
one thing that drugs coming in through the same by
sea are down ninety one percent.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
And I don't know who the nine percent is.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
I'm not sure either circus, but down ninety one percent
by sea. We've had a bit of a pause because
it's hard to find boats to strike right now, which
is the entire point, right, deterrence has to matter, not arrested,
handover and then do it again, the rinse and repeat
approach of previous administrations. This is meant to get aft
after that approach. And I will just end by saying,
(01:57):
as President Trump always has our back. We always had
the back of our commanders who are making decisions in
difficult situations, and we do in this case and all
these strikes.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
They're making judgment calls.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
And ensuring that they defend the American people. They've done
the right things.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
We'll keep doing that. And we had their Backsmitch Press,
good job, thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
So Clay, that's the latest that was just moments ago
from Secretary of warheaks at this cabinet meeting that they're holding.
And I would just say, first of all, isn't it
amazing when you just compare this This is a little
bit of a side note, but the transparency, the willingness
to face the media, to discuss directly with the American
(02:38):
people what's going on in this administration, compared to imagine
if it was just a random Tuesday and Joe Biden
had all his top people around unscripted, just taking questions
from the press, Clay, it would not have happened as
and we all know why he had dementia. They were
hiding him. The whole thing was a scam. The whole
Biden administration was a scam, unfortunately, a scam on all
the American people. And the stuff that's gone on with
the border as well as the mass importation of ental
(03:00):
was hugely and dramatically worsened by the Biden scam. But Clay,
right now, you know there's a lot of different polling
on this, and you could try to the way they
craft these questions. I think by and large Republicans are
supportive of strikes on narco terrorist boats. Democrats obviously or not.
(03:21):
That's not a surprise at all, and they're hoping that
they can find a way to create a wedge within
Trump supporters on this issue.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
I don't think that's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
I think the regime change issue in Venezuela is where
things get a little stickier for MAGA.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Yeah, I think that's all connected. I do wonder again,
if this is on video, they are going to continue
to kind of chip away at the overall story, and
I would imagine we've seen a lot of the video
attacks released on the ships. My surmisal would be that
(03:57):
the story will become the boat was still operable, there
were there was a possibility that the drugs would continue
to be you know, conduited on that boat, and so
we ordered a second strike to end.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
The feasibility of the boat's ability.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
To do the job that is trying to do. That's
my bet as to what the story is going to be.
In other words, they're going to say the physical structure
itself was targeted for a second strike, not the potential survivors,
but I do think this is going to turn into
a I do think it's going to turn a story.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Now.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
This also, I think goes on some level to who
Democrats are going to bat for. Remember our good buddy
kill maar A Brell Garcia, who they initially attempted to
make the face of Trump's deportation policy Maryland, Dad kill
maar A Breio Garcia. That story has vanished because I
(04:59):
think they recognize, yeah, this is not really the focal
point of a face to make people disagree with the policy.
I don't think narco terrorists in boats are going to
be particularly sympathetic plaintiffs. And when I use that for
a sympathetic plaintiffs, anybody out there who is a defense
(05:22):
attorney has experienced this.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
When you file a lawsuit, you want to tell.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
The best story of your lawsuit, frequently involving moms.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
You know.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Ever, notice how kids who file lawsuits are always honorable students,
You know, like, oh, this poor, honorable student was just disrespected.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
In a visual era.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Isn't it amazing how often pretty girls are you were
talking about this. This NYU student who became a victim
was attacked on the streets in New York city.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
It's become a story.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
These captivating stories because they're young, innocent, attractive people. They
grab attention in a way that is that is that
is captivating to many different people out there in the media.
I mean, you can say, remember the Idaho killers, those
young innocent kids, Moscow are Moscow rather Moscow, Ida outside
(06:22):
of the University of Idaho, Lake and Riley. I think
one reason that it cuts through the noise, she's a
young innocent college nursing student who is murdered by an
illegal immigrant. I think that it's hard to make people think,
you know, I'm really concerned about narco terrorists.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
So I think the challenge cutting through this noise is
uh and it goes both ways, right when you come
to these stories, because right now they're trying to make
a story Oh look at this nineteen year old college
student who was deported. Oh she can you believe this
is happening. They're trying to find a story that is
captivating young innocent people. Most people, I don't think see
(07:03):
narco boat captain pilots and their staff that are trying
to smuggle drugs into the country as particularly sympathetic plainiffs.
So I think that factors in here into how the
media is going to be able to cover it.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
I'm sure the administration is more than a little bit
aware of this. But to your point, Clay, about the
public's perception of these strikes and how they're going as
long as we're getting narco terrorists, I think the administra
and we're certain of this. I think the administration is
going to certainly have support of a lot of Republicans
in this. They just got to make sure they don't
(07:41):
pull a Biden administration with what we saw in Afghanistan
where they blew up if I remember a dad and
seven kids in a course right that they said was
a suicide bomber's vehicle, and it was not seven children
they blew up. And that was after we lost marines
because of the haphazard and disastrous withdrawal of the Biden administration.
So we took losses, We lost our marines to enemy,
(08:04):
to an enemy attack, and then we blew up a
car full of children because the Biden administration was so
frantic to look like they had some idea of what
they were doing in response to us losing some of
our marines. In that earlier suicide bomber attack. So this
is this Look, this is we're talking about a war
on narco terrorist. This is high stake stuff. And I
(08:28):
know that the Secretary of Warhacks Death is very focused
in on this right now. It's clearly a political or
rather the Democrats see this as a political opportunity to
go after this administration. A lot of people weighing in
on this one, Clay. I mean, here's Senator Chris Coon's
Democrat obviously, who's trying to use this as an attack
(08:50):
Play cut five.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
This incident that was just covered by the Washington Coast
in recent days suggests that a war crime may have
been committed, and I think Secretary Hegseeth likely.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Gave the order.
Speaker 5 (09:03):
I know Admiral Bradley, he's the Socom commander. He came
up through the ranks. He is decorated, he's experienced, he seasoned,
he was one of the first Americans into Afghanistan after
nine to eleven. I'd be very surprised if he did
this on his own without direct support or a command
from the Secretary.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
I'm why it's worth I think people hearing that is
just play. This is all about getting hegset. Yeah, there's
a get Hegseth operation for the Democrats in the media.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Now, well, look, the intent is not to UH, is
not to make the country better. The intent is to
get hegset And I think that's the key here that
we hit on to start the show.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Hegset is target one.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Target two right now is Cash Pttel, and they have
decided to focus all of their media attacks on that duo,
and frankly, most everybody else has been either ignored or unscathed.
You know, they tried, probably Pam Bondi. I would say
Buck is probably third on that list. We were talking
about the target list, but I would say to a
(10:05):
large extent, the Pam Bondi attacks, actually a lot of
them came from the right because of the ham handed
way they initially handled the Epstein when they brought the
influencers out and they had the briefing in the Epstein
files and everything else. So some of that fire on
Bondi came internally from the Republican Party. I think she's
(10:25):
probably third on the list of cabinet member attacks. But
clearly heg Seth from the moment he was nominated has
been target one, and Cash Bettel right now I think
is target two. I will tell you that Democrats, from
what I understand, Clay, one of the reasons Bondi is
not higher on their list is they don't view her
as as effective as some of these other I'm just
(10:47):
this is from a Democrat perspective. They know that Pete
can't handle the media, isn't going to back down align
with Trump. They know that Cash aligned with Trump, you know,
isn't going to back down for media pressure and is
trying reform or reform agenda there. I will say, we
do need to establish though, if we're gonna have people
(11:07):
from administration speaking on this issue. Okay, is it that
the boat was still we need to fact to be clear.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
That's my We need to be clear. That's because it's
my argument.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
I do think you have a very hard time if
you're if the argument is that this is a lethal
threat against the United States because they're designated narco terrorists
in a boat traveling to the US with fentil that's
going to kill people. Okay, that's the argument. They're operating
under presidential authority. Once the boat is disabled, there is
no longer any chance of those drugs making it to
(11:39):
the homeland and there and these men are not in
the fight. They are bobbing around in the water. I
do not think you can follow up with finish them off.
I do not think that that is covered in the
laws of war, the Geneva Conventions or ethics. So there
just needs to be cleared because I'm seeing people say, yeah,
if we have to hit them again, we hit them again.
I think that's wrong. And if you if you want
(12:01):
to check how this went in World War Two, the
Nazis infamously the U boat commanders would machine gun survivors,
including million people in the US Navy British Navy would
machine gun them in the water. They were brought up
on war crimes for that. They were not able to say, well,
you could still swim and maybe make it to shore
and then you could get back in the fight. So
(12:22):
we do need to have some clarity on where the
limits are here, which is why my argument is boat
is the target.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
If I if I am lawyer Clay, who is representing
these individuals in a in an investigation, and look again,
this is where I come back to what is on tape,
what is on audio? What evidence is out there? We
haven't seen it fully at least to jump on your
on your on your lawyer Clay point there. You know
Clay from self defense perspective, and someone you know who
(12:50):
conceal carries here and does a fair amount of shooting
and spends time with the two a community in South Florida.
You always say stop the threat.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
You say when you call if you have to defend
yourself with a firearm, you say, on the victim of
a crime, you know, here's my address company. You do
not say, Yeah, some guy came in. I shot him
and then he was making his way out of my house,
so I chased him on the front lawn. I put
two in the back of his head. You're going to
prison for a long time if you do that, as
(13:19):
you should.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Yeah, that's you know what I mean. There's there's a
difference there.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Are kicked his I kicked his gun away, and then
I put my gun up against his head and killed him.
Like that's not you know, at some point, when you
eliminate the threat, you're not allowed to continue to preer
more So, I'm just gonna say they ambunition the facts
to what Clay was saying. The facts are now, or
rather the facts that are being put forward are you know,
(13:42):
they did not do a follow up strike to finish
survivors off.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
That order was not given. This what the Pentagon is saying.
That order was not given and the boat may still
have been, you know, capable of continuing. That's why the
second strike came. That all you could argue thing legally.
I do not think we want to hear people from
the pro Trump side of things saying there were a
couple of guys who had already been hit with a missile,
who are in the middle of the ocean or middle
of the Caribbean, clinging to refuse, and we hit him again.
(14:08):
By the way, I don't believe that that happened here.
I think this is a hit piece. I just want
to be clear. But there are people who are trying
to say that that would be lawful too, just because
they're on the team, so to speak. And I do
not think that's a good place to go because you're
opening yourself up to the other side saying you your defense,
you would you would even if a war crime wasn't committed. Clay,
(14:29):
we can which I don't believe it was. To be clear,
we cannot have pro Trump people argue in favor of
a clear war crime that's not a good idea either, right,
which is why clarity on this I think is so important.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
I understand the argument that, hey, I'm concerned about American authority,
I don't really understand it as it pertains to the
drug boat strikes in international waters.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
And so.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Look, you can make that argument, but that doesn't seem
like something that I think is going to, pardon the
expression here, blow up in Trump's face, Linda and Florida.
You want to react, A lot of you want to react,
by the way, loaded lines right now.
Speaker 6 (15:20):
Hi, I do, thank you guys. So for four years
I lived with Biden letting in twenty million illegals crossing
our border, illegally breaking our laws. And you know, and
everybody knew about it. The media knew about it. They
discussed it, but we didn't give it oxygen. Like we're
(15:42):
giving this narco terrorists two guys to twenty billion do
the map, okay, And all we do is we're browbeating
this two narco terrorists to death literally, and you know,
we just keep discussing it, and who cares about the
two guys in the water. They were bad guys, but
(16:03):
so were the twenty million.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
That Okay, Linda, let me play. Let me play devil's
advocate here. If if it were to be reported and
confirmed that the Narco terrorists, which I agree are bad guys,
were floating in the water and we ordered a helicopter
to go in and to mow them down as they
floated in the water, you wouldn't have an issue with that.
Speaker 6 (16:29):
I wouldn't have an issue with that at all, after
letting in twenty million illegals.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
I have appreciate is that your granddaughter in the background.
Speaker 6 (16:40):
There, no, no, no, I've got three dogs that are
laying on.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Oh okay, so I those dogs don't mess around.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Those are well behaved dogs.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
I was gonna say, Linda, Linda is running in her
ship with a with a browbie. Thank you for the
call there. Look, that would be a crime. Okay, So
I appreciate that. If I had given the order, I
want Linda on my jury because I appreciate that she
is the Nathan Jess up there she.
Speaker 5 (17:11):
Is.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
You're damn right. I ordered the code to ed, So
thank you Linda for that call.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
That would be illegal, That would be a violation, that
would be a war crime. So I don't think if
there were American soldiers floating around in the waters off
the shore of a foreign country and they ordered for
the American soldiers to be summarily executed or American citizens,
(17:41):
I think a lot of people would say, yeah, we
have an issue with that and it would be illegal.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
That to me is not what occurred here. However, yes
it would be a war crime. In fact, it actually
would be there. There is even with really.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Bad people, and even if Trump is in charge, we
do need to underst then there is such a thing
as a war crime. We are saying one was not
committed here because they did not do anything wrong based
on the facts.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
But to my point clan that I keep making of,
people need to understand.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
We just had a caller who was like, I mean,
if we have the machine gun them in the water,
no big deal.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
No, that's not good jury.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
If I'm Colonel Jessup, I will say that is a
war crime. And for people out there who say, Okay,
this is not a big story, they are. I mean,
the lead story right now on MSNBC and CNN is
about the boat strikes. Now, I think the communication here
(18:43):
we should also mention. The Cabinet meeting live on Fox
News has been going on now Buck for nearly two hours,
so our entire show. Trump has been allowing his cabinet
members to field questions from everybody out there. Joe and four,
retired Air Force colonel, fighter pilot, what's your take on
(19:06):
the story so far as you can tell?
Speaker 7 (19:08):
Hi, Well, first of all, I heard a previous callers say,
undeclared war, but we've been fighting the quote, Well, we've
not been fighting, but we've been participating in the quote
war on drugs for fifty years or so. Yeah, you know,
I came back from Vietnam. I flew one hundred and
fifty three combat missions over there in phantoms, came back
(19:29):
to Homestead Air Base, and then we would sit on
the air defense of alert pad and intercept drug airplanes
that were flying into our territory, many of which were
actually over the Everglades, over our dirt throwing out at
that time bales of marijuana, and we would try to
get the tail number of the airplane to identify them.
(19:51):
Sometimes these same guys would just fly in daytime and
that made it easy to identify the tail number. But
generally they would get rid of that airplane and move
on to something else that over time that progressed to
I was a F sixteen count operational test pilot where
I worked on the program to outfit the airplanes with
(20:14):
night vision goggles and then we could join on these
guys at night. Look at the guy, look at the load,
look at the airplane's tail number, hand them off to customs,
and that air bridge where they would fly drugs into
the country basically was reduced. I can't say shut down,
(20:35):
but it was greatly reduced.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
And then let me ask you this, colonel, and thank
you for all the work that you did in the
Air Force, what would have happened if you had you know,
if you had ordered you shoot down one of those planes.
There are guys floating hanging on to the refuge of
the plane, and you said, we're going to go buy
for another pass. We want to machine gun those guys
(20:59):
in the water, holding on to the holding on to
the refuse.
Speaker 7 (21:05):
Well, if I shot them down, I would do it
in such a way there'd be no survivors.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
That's a great answer. But if and and by the way, uh,
I appreciate that answer. But if there were and you
said We're gonna go by, and I want you to
lean out my tail gunner here or whoever's with you,
and I want you to pick off those survivors. And
it later came out that you had done that. Do
you think you would have had the ability to make
(21:30):
that decision legally?
Speaker 7 (21:34):
You know, I would like it. Let me put on
my colonel sat now. I was about to have the
survivors from an intel standpoint, Yeah, talking guys about why
are you still doing this? What are they doing to
motivate you to go out and risk your lives because
you know you're stand a good chance of dying. I'm
(21:55):
not a Navy guy. I'm an Air Force guy, but
I'm a top gun graduate. So I do want to
make the bad guys go away and pay for their crimes.
You know, in Vietnam, I had a guy on the
Mekong River shoot at me as I flew by him,
and so I went back and he and I discussed
the merits of twenty milimeters versus a K forty seven,
(22:19):
and he was not a happy camper. Yeah, you know,
as far as the Navy rules of engagement in the
international rules, I hate to admit it, but I'm pretty
much clueless on that.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Thank you for the call, and thank you for all
the service, and I'd love that the number of people
we have listening to the best call callers are awesome,
kiddy top gun pilots who flew and look, I'd like
to have Linda on my jury in this situation, but
you have to make this story.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Look, here's what I think is if you want me
to say play, I appreciate what Linda saying.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Linda wants to go full Genghis Khan on the enemies
of civilization, and I get that, but there's challenges.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Linda is not is not a crazy cat lady for
Kamala Harris, I feel very competent. I would like Linda
in my foxhole with me. Let me say this. I
think really what this represents. I love the call where
he said, hey, I'm not going to leave any survivors.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Right.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
They don't want.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
To have to rescue these guys because if they rescue
them and bring them in as combatants, they can challenge
the policy in court.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
And I think by the way I think they go
to play it. Do they go to Gitmo? Where do
they go? It's a great question. Where do we put
them that's right.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I think maybe the answer, although you know, we've been
trying to shut GITMO down, but we can't shut it
down because that's war on terror stuff.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Look, we can't even execute the nine to eleven terrorists.
You know, they still you know this, We've talked about
it with some They haven't even been able to prosecute
the guys who were in GETMO because they're worried about
the interrogation tactics that were used on them, such that
I don't even know what the absolute latest on that
(24:07):
story was, but it was, Hey, we're not going to
go for the death penalty. They're gonna admit complicity in
all of the deaths. It's been two twenty four years
since nine to eleven, and those guys are still living
in relative comfort now in Cuba and we can't even
(24:27):
prosecute them. So I guarantee you they do not want
to have these guys in possession for the next twenty years.
So when they said again they should do a better
job of communicating on this. But when they said finish
them off, they meant the boat. That's the legal argument,
and they wanted to make sure that the boat was
not able to continue its mission to deliver drugs to
(24:49):
the country. The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by
Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Making the American Farm Strong Again. You're listening to Team
forty seven with Playing Buck.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
The implications of this, first of all, aren't just about
the attempts to undermine an attack headset and with him
this administration. There's also this issue of what this does
to Venezuela, and increasingly we have what seems to be
a de facto regime change policy in place. Now, regime
(25:25):
change in nation building are not necessarily things that go
hand in hand, but they often do, and so this
is going to start to bring up some very important
and difficult conversations. I think if Maduro goes. But here
we have Secretary Hegset just moments ago getting into the
details of this strike that has been widely reported on
(25:47):
Let's listen to the Secretary of War.
Speaker 4 (25:48):
I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours
whatever where all the sensitive side exploitation digitally occurs, so
I moved on to my next meeting. A couple of
hours later, I learned that that commander had made.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Which he had the complete authority to do.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
And by the way, Edward Bradley made the correct decision
to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. He
sunk the boat, sunk the boat and eliminated the threat.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
And he was the right call. We have his back
and the.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
American people are safer because narco terrorists. No, you can't
bring drugs through the water and eventually on land if necessary,
I have to do to the American people. We will
eliminate that threat, and we're proud to do it.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
So you didn't see any survivors the Compleader.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
After that first run. I did not personally see survivors,
but I stand because the thing was on fire.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
I was exploded in fire smoke.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
You can't see anything you got digital.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
There's this is called the fog of war.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
This is what you and the press don't understand. You
sit in your conditioned offices, you're up on Capitol Hill
and you knit pick and you plant fake stories in
the Washington Post about kill everybody, phrases on anonymous sources,
not based in anything, not based in any truth at all,
and then you want to throw really irresponsible terms about
American heroes, about the judgment that they made.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I wrote a whole book on this topic.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Because of what politicians and the press does to warfighters.
President Trump is empowered commanders, commanders to do what is necessary,
which is dark and difficult things in the dead of
night on half of the American people. We support them,
and we will stop.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
The poisoning of the American people. Okay, that's a better answer.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
I still think, and this is the lawyer in me, buck,
I want a clear, concise, direct description of.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
What the admiral did.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
And it may be the case that they haven't talked
in detail about this decision, but that would help to
end this story, I believe once and for all.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
It's hard to sound objective talking about Pete because you
and I both know Pete and or we're personally friends
with Pete.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
I've known Pete now for almost fifteen years.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
So I just I say that because I think we
need to be honest about where we come from, especially
talking with some of these public figures who we know
on a personal level. And I know Pete loves the country,
and I know he loves the war fighters in the
United States military like his own family, and so I
(28:16):
bring all of that to this discussion too, all right.
That said, I think that the problem that he's running
into here a little bit, Clay is when you start
to say things again, I'm looking at this like the
enemy here in the media, which he's addressing very clearly.
He's saying, you guys are a bunch of jerks that
don't understand anything. But when he says things like fog
of war, that they're going to take that now and
(28:40):
say so you don't know if there were survivors or not,
that's what they're That's the next stage.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Now.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I think in this process it went from the order
to kill survivors to now you're saying fog of war again.
I understand from the very beginnings you need to call
in and say what he did is totally lawful. I
believe that Pete Hegseth and the jaysok here Joint Special
Operations Command. I think they operated in a lawful fashion.
(29:06):
I am just saying the way this is turning into
a story is leaving bits of daylight here with the
facts as presented, the narrative as constructed from the top
of the of the Pentagon hierarchy. And when you say
things like, you know, fog of war, I get it.
I know what he's saying. But they're going to say, so,
(29:28):
you don't even know if there were you know, there
was smoke. You know, there could have been survivors. You know,
this is the next this is the next phase of it.
I think totally.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
And this is why I say, and this is me
speaking as a.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Former criminal defense attorney.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
Your story has to be consistent, and you have to
stick to it, and you have to put it out there,
and it has to be ironclad in terms of you
being able to prove what.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Exactly it is.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
And I just think the story of we had to
hit the boat a second time because it had not
been completely obliterated and there were still drugs there, and
they could have brought another boat in and gotten those
drugs off, and they could have still come to the
United States. The purpose of the mission was to ensure
that that boat is completely obliterated and there are no
(30:19):
drugs that survived the attack. The first attack it did,
we put in a second one. That's what happened. I
don't know anything about the people that were on the boat. Frankly,
I don't care about them, because they were terrorists trying
to kill people in the United States. They may have survived,
they may not have but I know that boat didn't
and the drugs are gone. That's my answer. That's a
pretty good one. I wish it had been given. Yeah,
(30:40):
I stoped the threat.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
This is a threat that's identified, a threat that we
can lawfully use the United States military to address. And
Secretary of War heeg Seth and those below him in
the chain of command who were directly involved in the strike,
they were operating to stop the threat against the American people.
And if two missiles is what are to stop the threat,
and that is what it required. But this is why
(31:03):
again you know, the specificity of the same thing in
a self defense case, if somebody came at me clay
in my own home, which would be a very bad
idea because I do have a lot of guns here
and I am pretty trained.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Up these days.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
But if somebody came at me in my own home
and I put one in him, and then they say, well,
why did you why did you actually unload your whole
magazine into this person who's coming at you, let's say,
with a knife or something, I would say because in
the moment, that's what I believe to stop the threat
against my life. That's the answer. Yes, right, it doesn't
whether it's one bullet or ten bullets. I acted to
(31:37):
stop the threat against me and my family. What you
don't want to get into is, well, I hit him
five times, but then I thought, you know what, I
got to get some headshots in here to make sure
he's not moving anymore. You don't want to, in a
self defense situation say anything like that. This is those
of you. You don't have to know law of war
necessarily to understand how this. When you're talking about use
(31:59):
of force, you've got to be very specific about why
you're using that force. And I've sat through the classes.
I've sat through the discussion we had this in the CIA.
We had to have conversations about lethal force. Right, This
is you have to understand what the framework is. We're
using violence against another human being.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Always, the threat wasn't eliminated with the first strike, so
we had to have a second strike to eliminate the threat.
This is not very complicated. But again, when they start
nitpicking at you, I appreciate the fact that Pete recognizes
he's the target here. Somebody I think this is important,
leaked probably very classified information to a large extent to
(32:40):
the Washington Post, which may or may not be accurate,
but somebody obviously has Pete as the target here. They're
attempting to come after him, the admiral and the President.
I mean, their intent here matters, and so again I
think you have to eliminate this story to the best
(33:01):
of your ability.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com