MURDERBOAT 2.0, THE MEDIA JOINS IN
- lhpgop
- 30 minutes ago
- 3 min read
There is an unmistakable pattern whenever Donald Trump attempts to elevate strong, patriotic leaders inside the U.S. Armed Forces: suddenly, anonymous sources appear, allegations harden into “facts,” and the entire Washington bureaucracy works overtime to destroy that individual before he can rise.
The latest target is Admiral Mitch Bradley—a decorated Navy SEAL with decades of combat experience—who, not coincidentally, is someone President Trump has shown interest in moving up the chain of command. And just like clockwork, the political-media-intelligence complex has launched its preemptive strike.
A recent article, fueled by anonymous whispers and legal conjecture, presents a neatly packaged smear campaign. It purports to outline “war crimes” allegedly committed during a narco-terrorism interdiction operation in the Caribbean. But the more closely one examines the piece, the clearer the objective becomes: drive a wedge between Trump and the military leadership he trusts, and cripple Adm. Bradley before he becomes a threat to entrenched Pentagon actors who resist Trump’s promised reforms.
Weaponizing Language: The “Kill Everybody” Narrative
Let’s begin with the central claim—that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued an order to “kill everybody.” The article offers no documentation, no audio, no video—only “interviews with seven individuals,” a phrase Washington reporters use when they want to create the illusion of consensus without revealing motives, allegiances, or even basic credibility.
This phrase is a classic psychological-operations tool:
Short.
Shocking.
Emotionally loaded.
Designed to override analytical thought.
It is media engineering, not reporting.
Once this phrase is planted, every part of the story becomes easier to frame as criminal or reckless. The narrative has been set.
Anonymous Sources + Law Professors = Manufactured Legitimacy
The article then trots out law professors who specialize in the academic anti-force-projection worldview. Their quotes are presented as legal fact—though not a single one of these experts has access to operational details, kinetic rules of engagement, intelligence assessments, or the classified justification for the mission.
Their opinions are strategic framing, not legal analysis.
Yet the article uses them as a battering ram to:
frame Hegseth as a war criminal,
cast Adm. Bradley as a rogue operator,
and suggest that anyone aligned with Trump poses a unique danger to “international norms.”
This is precisely how bureaucratic power defends itself—by weaponizing academia to delegitimize leaders who don’t bow to the political priesthood of Washington.
Pretending to Support Bradley While Destroying Him
The article feigns neutrality but is unmistakably crafted to end Adm. Bradley’s career.
It describes him as:
The one who “executed the strike,”
The one who “monitored from Fort Bragg,”
The one who “ordered” the follow-up,
The one legally at risk.
At the same time, it subtly suggests that Trump and Hegseth are “pointing to Bradley” as the responsible party—trying to gin up a narrative of chaos and betrayal inside the chain of command.
This is a classic disinformation move:Invent internal division to create real internal division.
If Pentagon insiders can convince officers that Trump’s leadership is “dangerous” or “self-serving,” they weaken Trump’s ability to command the military he is constitutionally entitled to lead.
Congressional “Bipartisanship” as a Weapon
The article boasts that lawmakers “across party lines” are launching probes. This is supposed to give the impression that the case is airtight and the scandal undeniable.
But what it actually reveals is coordination.
When the House Armed Services Committee—long dominated by defense contractors, Pentagon careerists, and globalist-aligned staffers—announces a “bipartisan concern,” you know the decision was made long before the headline was written.
It is not oversight.It is preemptive sabotage.
The Real Mission: Damage Trump Before He Reshapes the Military
Underneath all the dramatic language and selective outrage, this article is part of a broader campaign—one designed to destabilize Trump’s reform agenda by attacking the people he trusts most.
Trump wants:
A military chain of command that fights enemies—not political battles.
Special operations forces freed from bureaucratic paralysis.
Leaders like Hegseth and Bradley—men who don’t worship the DC status quo.
Those are the people who get taken out first.
Not with bullets.With leaks.With investigations.With carefully orchestrated media hysteria designed to make the public believe that America’s warriors are suddenly “war criminals” for fighting enemies of the United States.
Final Verdict
This was never about narco-terrorists in the Caribbean.
It was about the war inside Washington—between a bureaucracy desperate to maintain its grip and a President determined to break the cycle of weakness, corruption, and political manipulation inside America's armed forces.
The article is not journalism.It is a political operation.And everyone paying attention can see exactly what the real target is.