If you can watch Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth in that CNN segment without your head exploding at the 3:43 mark, you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
After stating that the the so called “double-tap” bombing of alleged Venezuelan drug-smugglers was a war crime and murder, Duckworth is asked by Dana Bash, inadvertently practicing journalism, whether the Senator in fact knows what the hell she is ranting about, and gets the equivalent of “no,” “I just know what I’ve read online” and “I only know what I read in the newspapers.”
What Duckworth answered can be fairly translated as “I don’t really know anything the average channel-surfing short-order cook knows about this, and maybe less only I just tuned in to MSNBC, but I’m a Democrat, we have to criticize anything the Trump administration does, and I’ve got some talking points that my staffer was emailed from the DNC—maybe the same ones you were sent, Dana—and I’m just going from those.”
Duckworth was on CNN to discuss the incident as a purported expert: she’s built her entire political career by relying on her Army National Guard veteran status and losing her legs when her helicopter was hit by a missile during the first Iraq War. It’s an insult to viewers for her to go on the air and accuse the Department of War of “murder” without doing more than checking “what’s available in the media,” whatever that means in her case. I bet she got a summary of “what’s available in the media” and what she “knows” is double hearsay.
If I am asked on a radio show to give my opinion as an ethicist about, say, a law firm firing a member for a social media post denigrating Charlie Kirk and President Trump, I’d better have read the various analyses by my colleagues in the field, looked at the relevant ethics rules and legal ethics opinions, kno what the fired attorney wrote, and be ready to provide some trustworthy analysis other than “I only know what I read on ‘Above the Law.'”
This is the very epitome of political hackery. The Senator goes on CNN with no preparation at all, and spews a predetermined and predictable position because Trump Bad, while not even pretending to have any special insight into what occurred.
Ethics Alarms 
I live in Illinois and our senators never cease to amaze me with their utter stupidity and radical liberalism. Tammy Duckworth makes the ladies on “The View” look like geniuses. As you stated, her ONLY qualifications were being a helo pilot in National Guard and losing her legs in an attack.
To claim Duckworth only knows what she has read online or in the newspapers, and to also claim she knows no more than a channel-surfer, is ridiculous. She served in the military for 24 years, and during that service she was schooled in the Geneva Conventions and in U.S. military law regarding armed combat. That training would have been even more specific with regard to non-combatants during her flight school training, and then even beyond that in the training for command of a well-armed black hawk helicopter for her deployment to Iraq. While in Iraq, she would have gotten (and perhaps delivered) refresher training on the rules of engagement, which are grounded in the Conventions and the U.S. military law. She also refers to having read the full report, and, while it is not clear in the video clip exactly what that report is (Bash moved on to another topic without clarification on this), it certainly goes well beyond channel-surfing.
At this point, the Department of Defense is stone-walling on shaky grounds the members of Congress who are seeking more information. As Duckworth pointed out, they all have top-secret clearances, so why would Hegseth do that if there is nothing to hide? Consequently, she is rendering an opinion rather that stating an absolute fact, but it is an opinion better informed than most of us would have.
What she knew before the incident is irrelevant. She was entering what was being presented as an expert opinion based on facts she pretended to have but did not have, and admitted as much. If she didn’t see the recordings, she is going on hearsay and news media distortions. It is not an opinion informed more than most of us, it is an opinion less informed than that of many who have seen the evidence. I have to deal with this problem daily, and I have stated often, and probably should again, that my analysis is limited by what I can learn from media reports, often many, sometimes special materials that I have access to. But if I am asked to assess specific facts that I have not had access to, all I can say is “based on what other sources.” Duckworth was making accusations of murder without validated facts that could possibly indicate murder, and using a political accusation, which war crime always is, as a supposedly expert opinion, though she is not, for example, a lawyer, and has a pseudo PHD from an online university. She may know the rules of combat, but she is not qualified to pass judgment on an incident she only has second and third hand, and incomplete, knowledge of.
“… she is not qualified to pass judgment on an incident she only has second and third hand, and incomplete, knowledge of.”
By that reasoning, much of the commentary here, especially with regard to attacks – excuse me, kinetic strikes, – on what we are told are drug boats are easily dismissable.
Hey, great imitation of the famous Bob and Ray routine where the interviewer keeps repeating what the interviewee just said in his next question! I wrote exactly that in my response. Of course, when I’m been put on TV or radio to discuss an episode as an expert, its only when I have all the information. And she’s a US Senator, not a petty blogger whose analysis has no significant influence at all…nor is my analysis influenced by a partisan agenda. Tell you what: when I’m Senator, I’ll show you and Tammy how it’s done….