Yesterday, the Pentagon and White House finally admitted that they didn’t hit ISIS-K fighters when they droned a vehicle in Kabul last month. Instead, seven children were part of the death toll and no enemy combatants were struck.
At the time, the Biden administration took an inexcusable victory lap, calling it a “righteous strike” while using it as proof that the president’s claim of “over the horizon” capability was proven to be highly effective. Keep in mind, this was after 13 Americans had been murdered by a suicide bomber just days earlier.
Last night, Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves to lambast the Biden administration for its rank incompetence and unwillingness to hold anyone accountable. While doing so, he hit on some very important points that I think are worthy of discussion.
Carlson begins with the most obvious fact: that this strike was done to make Biden look good. The Pentagon went all out in playing it up in the aftermath, claiming — with no equivocation — that “multiple suicide bombers” were killed. They also claimed to have seen multiple secondary explosions, something that we now know never happened. Also, in what may have been a veiled swipe at Fox News’ Pentagon stenographer extraordinaire, Jennifer Griffin, Carlson put up one of the claims she had regurgitated. In the end, every detail she reported without question was completely false.
At another point, Carlson played a montage of media analysts on networks like CNN and MSNBC lauding Biden for the strike, asserting that it was evidence that America’s ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations was strong. Of course, that “ability” ended up murdering children, in a strike that was meant to cover for the president’s asinine handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
What that once again illustrates, as Carlson points out, is how vapid our “expert” class truly is. These are career mediocrities who knew absolutely nothing about that what had transpired, yet they took to the airwaves to declare the strike a success simply for partisan reasons. There’s something especially gross about that, given how disastrous the overall situation was and continues to be.
Unfortunately, the mediasphere is inundated with former government officials who serve as a disturbing example of how garbage the people who staff our bureaucracies are. Yet, they now pose as authorities on the very issues they were so inept at handling. It’s laughable.
Carlson ended by noting the lack of accountability and the absurdity of claiming the strike went through “rigorous” protocols. As if to mimic parody, the administration actually still “stands by the intel” that lead to the strike, intel that likely came from the Taliban. How can you stand by intel that was wrong? That makes no sense on its face, yet here we are.
Further, is there anything to suggest the “rigorous” protocols that lead to the strike are actually all that rigorous? As Carlson notes, these are the same clownish intel agencies that missed 9/11 and told us that Kabul would remain safe. Yet, we are supposed to treat them as sacrosanct and infallible. That’s a terrible way to protect a country and its interests.
Lastly, Carlson made a sarcastic reference to something I’ve been thinking about for a while, which is the fact that “ISIS-K” seems only to exist in the minds of national security “experts.” We keep hearing about this grave, new threat, with the Pentagon using ISIS-K as an excuse for their disastrous evacuation, but no evidence of their existence is ever really presented. And given the propensity for the Pentagon and White House to lie to the American people, why should anyone be taking their word for anything?