Venezuelan Double-Tap Debate Continues. Somali Fraud Controversy. Trump's Dipping Economy Ratings.

The Venezuelan Boat Strike Becomes a Political Rorschach Test

What began as a straightforward debate over a lethal interdiction has now turned into a partisan contest of interpretation. The Pentagon showed members of Congress video of the Venezuelan strike, including the moment two surviving sailors were hit after fleeing their destroyed boat. Democrats like Representative Adam Smith insist the footage depicts a clear war crime. Republicans such as Senator Tom Cotton argue the opposite, describing survivors as non-surrendering combatants behaving suspiciously — even fixating on one man removing his shirt, as though that were meaningful evidence of intent.

The novelty of the tactic complicates everything. Declaring narco-trafficking boats as legitimate targets for missile strikes opens a new category of confrontation at sea. Even if one accepts the legal rationale for the initial shot, questions remain about what constitutes surrender, incapacitation, or threat in the aftermath. The administration’s muddled communication has only heightened the confusion. And while the public appears unfazed — polling suggests most Americans don’t object to military action against drug cartels — the legal stakes are far greater than the political ones. It’s a rules-of-engagement problem, not a messaging one.