Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
Stocks are lower this morning after Israel attacked Iran. Bonds and MBS are up.
Oil is up big this morning after Israel attacked Iran‘s nuclear facilities and weapons factories. President Trump warned Iran to make a deal: “They should now come to the table to make a deal before it’s too late. It will be too late for them. You know the people I was dealing with are dead, the hardliners,” the president said. He would not specify which people he was referring to.
The attack on Iran is boosting the US dollar and putting a bid under oil and the 10 year bond. North Sea Brent futures are up about 7%, while WTI is up 8% in sympathy.
We had another successful bond auction yesterday, where Treasury auctioned off $22 billion of 30 year bonds. Demand was strong again, with a bid-t0-cover ratio of 2.43.
The MBA applauded the Senate’s bill to end abuses of trigger leads, which can cause a barrage of unsolicited calls to an unsuspecting borrower on a credit pull.
“The Senate passage of this important bill, following similar legislation advancing in the House Financial Services Committee earlier in the week, is an enormous step toward finally putting a stop to trigger lead abuses.
“We commend Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), as well as the bill’s dozens of bipartisan cosponsors, for their continued leadership on this issue – a top MBA advocacy priority.
“MBA looks forward to working with the sponsors and House and Senate leadership to reconcile the slight differences in the two bills so that one bill can be passed in both chambers and signed into law as quickly as possible.”
Inputs for housing construction rose 0.2% MOM in May after falling 0.2% MOM in April, according to an analysis of yesterday’s producer price index from the NAHB. On a year-over-year basis they increased 1.9%. The goods component – i.e. sticks and bricks – rose 1.6% while the services component rose 2.3%.
If there is any sort of tariff-related increase in housing construction, it isn’t evident in the latest numbers or the graph below:
Filed under: Economy |
All Things in Moderation 
I always appreciate it when people are honest about what they believe:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/heres-a-perfect-example-of-why-matt
LikeLike
Nothing could be better for Trump’s popularity right now than crowds claiming they want their friends to stay in America waving Mexican flags – repeated on a loop on all three 24/7 cable networks.
Staying out of a middle east war would be a way he could help himself, if he thinks the left is not doing enough for him.
LikeLike
C’mon, this is the textbook example of propaganda.
LikeLike
The comparison to pre-revolutionary France seems appropriate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/us/politics/huma-abedin-alex-soros-wedding-hillary-clinton-kamala-harris.html
LikeLike
No kings, bro.
LikeLike
I listened to most of the Carlson/Cruz interview and, though Tucker wasn’t at times too aggressive/hostile than I think was necessary, Cruz was not prepared. He was particularly weasely regarding AIPAC. I have no issue with AIPAC and do not think it’s nefarious in the least, but clearly it lobbies on behalf of Israel. Why Cruz kept dodging that is beyond me.
nothing Carlson asked was out of bounds and ultimately I don’t think Cruz or his arguments were convincing. After Iraq and 20 years in Afghanistan, raging skepticism is warranted and no assumptions about the justness of U.S. military action should be acceded.
LikeLike
I agree that Cruz did not handle the interview well, and that is on him. But Carlson’s disingenuous “I’m confused” schtick is very tedious. And he clearly wasn’t interested in understanding Cruz’s take on anything, but instead seemed interested mainly in condemning Cruz no matter what he said. First he slammed Cruz for advocating for “regime change” in Iran as a general matter, and then he slammed Cruz for not advocating for military action and regime change in response to Iran’s plot to kill Trump.
And the pretense that not knowing the population of Iran somehow represented a shocking lack of knowledge was absurd.
I thought Cruz made a huge error early on when he unfairly insinuated that Tucker was motivated by anti-semitism, but to be fair to Cruz I think he did it only out of frustration at Tucker’s repeated, and equally unfair, insinuations that Cruz was acting as an agent of Israel rather than the US. Tucker seemed intent on baiting Cruz, and he didn’t handle it well.
LikeLike
Cruz is, to a certain extent, acting as an agent, he said it during the interview that he ran to be the Senate’s #1 advocate for Israel. I don’t have a problem with that, but it is his words.
As for his tone and quixotic looks, that’s Carlson when he disagrees with someone and Cruz or his communication people should have known, based on Tucker’s attitudes of late re foreign intervention, that the interview would be hostile.
Finally, re the nuke Iran comments, that was more an accusation against those that are advocating for direct U.S. involvement, as in, if you really believe that Iran has tried, directly, to assasinate Trump, than annihilating them via nuke seems a reasonable proposal, so I think he was testing the assertion, as in, if you believe this why aren’t you advocating a nuclear attack?
LikeLike
My JFK assasination conspiracy theory is that LBJ had proof the Russians were involved, but the only way to prevent MAD from happening was to create a plausible cover-up.
LikeLike
McWing:
As for his tone and quixotic looks, that’s Carlson when he disagrees with someone
Agreed. It is his schtick.
and Cruz or his communication people should have known, based on Tucker’s attitudes of late re foreign intervention, that the interview would be hostile.
Yup. You are right that Cruz seemed unprepared for it.
so I think he was testing the assertion, as in, if you believe this why aren’t you advocating a nuclear attack?
Agreed, but it is a wholly disingenuous point. There is no way that Carlson actually thinks we should militarily attack Iran simply because they have plotted to kill Trump. He pretended that this was just an obvious and uncontroversial position to take, but in fact it is almost certainly true that Iran has attempted to kill Trump, and yet Tucker is completely opposed to military action against Iran. He pretends that it is wholly unreasonable that a person would not advocate for such a reaction to such a plot, in order to suggest that Cruz is lying about it. But I don’t think Cruz is lying, and I think it is entirely reasonable to think that, in the absence is a successfully executed plot as opposed to simply the existence of a plot, one wouldn’t advocate a military strike (and invasion?) against Iran. I think Tucker is being entirely disingenuous – or stupid – if he claims that the mere existence of a plot would compel him to take military action. And I don’t think he is stupid.
LikeLike
There is no way that Carlson actually thinks we should militarily attack Iran simply because they have plotted to kill Trump.
The assertion he’s talking about is an actual assasination attempt, not just plotting, so his sarcasm, if you will, makes sense since it’s also obvious that Carlson does not believe the assertion and does think Cruz is lying about it. We could argue that his sarcasm was less than subtle, and might have come off as disingenuous, in which case He should have told Cruz that he didn’t believe him and didn’t believe Cruz was being honest. I cannot think of an interviewer who would actually do that though.
LikeLike
Cruz was pretty clear, I thought, that he was talking about a plot, not an actual attempt. He said that Congress had been shown intelligence that Iran had hired hit men to kill Trump along with several former Trump admin officials, one of which was (IIRC) John Bolton. He claimed that 2 men had been arrested near Bolton’s apartment in relation to this plot, but he specifically rejected the notion that either of the 2 actual attempts on Trump were related to it, and he never claimed that this plot had resulted in an actual attempt on Trump.
So either Tucker was disingenuously pretending that Cruz had associated this plot with an actual attempt, or he was disingenuously pretending that he (Tucker) would advocate for war simply because of the existence of such a plot.
LikeLike
Well, this part of the interview seems to demonstrate that Cruz says it’s more than a “plot” but an active, ongoing attempt where “hitmen” have been engaged and are actively hunting Trump. So Carlson’s question re nuking and the DoD actively defending POTUS and punishing Iran, seems appropriate.
I still stand by my assertions that Tucker was being sarcastic but acting in good faith that Cruz does not believe it’s an active plot if he is not demanding extreme U.S. reaction to an active plot.
Edit: not sure that “good faith” is what I’m looking for, I believe that Tucker believes Cruz is lying re active plot and so posits the question, if you believe that why aren’t you advocating for…
LikeLike
I guess we disagree about the difference between a plot to do something and an attempt to do something. Cruz clearly says Iran would like to kill Trump, and have hired hitmen to do it, but he doesn’t say the hit men have actually made an attempt on his life.
Tucker says that “by definition” if what Cruz says is true, the US should be taking military action against Iran. I don’t know where he gets that, as if one follows the other in the same way that 1+1 equals 2, and that it is impossible for anyone to believe what Cruz says without also thinking the US must strike Iran militarily. That is patent nonsense to me, because I find it perfectly plausible that one could believe what Cruz says is true and also to believe that whether or not to attack Iran is a complicated decision that is dependent on many factors beyond the simple existence of this plot.
I don’t know if the intelligence reports about this plot are true, but this is what I believe is true.
1) The CIA has reported to Congresss that Iran is trying to kill Trump.
2) Cruz believes the intelligence reports about it.
3) Tucker is lying when he says that if he believed the intelligence reports, he would definitively advocate for a military attack on Iran.
LikeLike
Cruz clearly says Iran would like to kill Trump, and have hired hitmen to do it, but he doesn’t say the hit men have actually made an attempt on his life.
Well, to flog a dead horse, going from planning to kill someone by hiring hit men and actually hiring the hitmen to do the assassination moves it from the “plotting” stage into the “attempting” stage. To me, it is an unambiguous difference.
Tucker says that “by definition” if what Cruz says is true, the US should be taking military action against Iran.
I know that reasonable people can disagree on what a Nation should do in response to another Nation actually hiring hit men to assassinate their leader, but based on Cruz’s aggressive national defense and seemingly interventionist profile, if he is asserting a hostile foreign Nation has hired hitmen to assassinate our elected leader, I would expect him to demand something profound, even including a nuclear attack, from the United State. I would not, under his assertion of an active assassination attempt, to be sanguine with an ally (in this case, Israel) “handling” it for us.
3) Tucker is lying when he says that if he believed the intelligence reports, he would definitively advocate for a military attack on Iran.
I do not believe that Tucker is lying regarding what he thinks Cruz would advocate if what Cruz is asserting is true. It’s hard to understand Cruz, given the above, would suddenly need to be nuanced about what actions the US should take.
LikeLike
McWing:
Well, to flog a dead horse…
The question isn’t whether there is an unambiguous distinction between plotting privately and hiring a hitman. To me the question is whether there is a difference between hiring someone (or being hired) to shoot someone, and that person actually shooting the someone. I think there is.
I know that reasonable people can disagree on what a Nation should do in response to another Nation actually hiring hit men to assassinate their leader…
Tucker seems not know this, or at least he pretends to think the exact opposite, ie that any disagreement with the notion that military action must take place is not reasonable. He says it should happen “by definition”.
…if he is asserting a hostile foreign Nation has hired hitmen to assassinate our elected leader…
Let’s be clear about what the assertion actually is, which is not they hired hitmen to “assassinate our elected leader”.
The assertion is that in 2022 US intelligence claimed to have discovered an Iranian plot to kill several members of the previous administration in retaliation for the death of Qassem Soleimani in a US airstrike. At the time, all of the alleged targets, including Trump, were private citizens, not “our elected leader”. The Biden DOJ actually charged an Iranian national, Shahram Poursafi, with attempting to arrange for the killing of John Bolten as a part of this wider retaliation plot.
This 2022 intelligence claim is what Tucker says must compel one to advocate for direct military action against Iran “by definition”, and therefore anyone who is not so compelled, but claims to believe the intelligence, must be a liar.
I would expect him to demand something profound, even including a nuclear attack, from the United State.
And so if Cruz fails to conform to your own or Tucker’s personal expectations, he must be lying?
For the record, I think a nuclear response to a foreign government’s attempt, whether successful or not, to kill even the sitting President, much less a former President, would be insane, and so I would not expect any sane person to demand such a thing.
I would not, under his assertion of an active assassination attempt, to be sanguine with an ally (in this case, Israel) “handling” it for us.
I don’t think Cruz handled Tucker’s feigned incredulity very well, and I suppose he may have opened the door to the above insinuation with his flippant response to it. But the fact is that Cruz never said or implied that Israel’s attacks on Iran were a response to, or frankly had anything even remotely to do with, the assassination plot, nor did he suggest that he was content to have them “handle” any such response to the plot.
I do not believe that Tucker is lying regarding what he thinks Cruz would advocate…
I am saying that I think Tucker is lying about what he, Tucker, would advocate if he thought the assassination plot to be true. I do not believe that he would advocate for military action, irrespective of any other conceivable considerations.
LikeLike
To me the question is whether there is a difference between hiring someone (or being hired) to shoot someone, and that person actually shooting the someone. I think there is.
Obviously there is a distinction, but you seem to be a little obtuse that there isn’t enough of a distinction between creating a plan and acting on the plan. At that point, the acting stage, should and would be interpreted as a hostile act of war if it is a nation hiring hitmen to kill the leader of another nation. Whether or not the action is successful seems irrelevant to the response to that if you believe that the foreign nation is acting on their plan. We may be arguing past each other on this point here.
ie that any disagreement with the notion that military action must take place is not reasonable. He says it should happen “by definition”.
Well, I’m leaning towards agreeing with Tucker on this, at least as it regards a non-nuclear nation. I find it hard to believe that if there was convincing evidence of this hostile act, and Cruz is certainly, rhetorically speaking as if he was convinced of that proof, that he (Cruz) would strongly advocate for significant military action up to and including nukes. That Cruz would take some sort of subtle, we need to look at every angle position regarding if or what kind of response we should take to a nation like Iran.
And so if Cruz fails to conform to your own or Tucker’s personal expectations, he must be lying?
In a word, yes. Cruz is first and foremost a politician in the Conservative wing of the Republican Party who can demagogue with the best of them and I believe his political instinct would be to immediately and vociferously demand dramatic military action.
For the record, I think a nuclear response to a foreign government’s attempt, whether successful or not, to kill even the sitting President, much less a former President, would be insane, and so I would not expect any sane person to demand such a thing.
Well, I may in fact be insane, there are times when my wife would absolutely say so! Joking aside, a response with tactical nukes to achieve the destruction of a target is certainly not an insane position to take regarding a response to an attempted assassination, let alone a successful assassination. I guess that’s more what I was thinking Tucker was getting at while also being hyperbolic.
I am saying that I think Tucker is lying about what he, Tucker, would advocate if he thought the assassination plot to be true. I do not believe that he would advocate for military action, irrespective of any other conceivable considerations.
To be honest, I’m not sure what Tucker’s actual beliefs are anymore, though his latest positions seem to align with a very isolationist view that seems to imply that the U.S. is causing some of the hostile acts that have happened to us in the last, say, 50 years. Did Tucker assert that he would, if he were in the decision making position, be hyper aggressive to an assassination attempt? I honestly cannot remember.
LikeLike
McWing:
Well, I’m leaning towards agreeing with Tucker on this, at least as it regards a non-nuclear nation.
So then reasonable people can’t disagree? This is “by definition” what should happen?
I find it hard to believe that if there was convincing evidence of this hostile act, and Cruz is certainly, rhetorically speaking as if he was convinced of that proof, that he (Cruz) would strongly advocate for significant military action up to and including nukes
You find it hard to believe that Cruz wouldn’t, or that any reasonable person wouldn’t? Tucker’s belief that Cruz is lying is premised on the belief that no reasonable person could both believe the intelligence and not demand military action in response.
In a word, yes. Cruz is first and foremost a politician in the Conservative wing of the Republican Party who can demagogue with the best of them and I believe his political instinct would be to immediately and vociferously demand dramatic military action.
Ok, so explain to me why he didn’t, and toward what end he is apparently lying about the plot now?
This seems to be Tucker’s pretzel logic:
Cruz is promoting war with Iran by lying about the assassination plot. And we know he is lying about the assassination plot because he didn’t use it to promote war against Iran, as any reasonable person who actually believed the plot would have done.
Huh?
a response with tactical nukes to achieve the destruction of a target is certainly not an insane position to take regarding a response to an attempted assassination
Yes, I understand you think that. I disagree entirely, and think it is an insane position to take.
Did Tucker assert that he would, if he were in the decision making position, be hyper aggressive to an assassination attempt?
Not in those precise words, but yes, that is what I took him to be saying when he said that “by definition” the US should be attacking Iran if the assassination plot claim was true. And, again, I think he is lying about it for exactly the reasons you lay out regarding what his worldview seems to have become in recent years.
LikeLike
So then reasonable people can’t disagree? This is “by definition” what should happen?
It wouldn’t be the first time I do not understand common usage but I think the the qualifier “by definition” allows for reasonable disagreement on the extent and/or intensity of the response, and I think that is what Tucker was getting at.
Tucker’s belief that Cruz is lying is premised on the belief that no reasonable person could both believe the intelligence and not demand military action in response.
Yes, on this we agree that was Tucker’s premise. I do not think Cruz really believes the “intelligence” surrounding it and therefore is satisfied with a proxy response. Our most recent bombing was premised on the desire to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. To my knowledge, no one in the Administration has said another reason was due to an assassination attempt.
Ok, so explain to me why he didn’t, and toward what end he is apparently lying about the plot now?
My explanation: Cruz does not believe the “intelligence” that the Iranians are actively trying to assassinate Trump but is touting it in the hopes of persuading reluctant Republicans that we should bomb Iran. If he actually believed the “intelligence” he would not be satisfied with a proxy response and would be loudly advocating a very robust, direct assault by US forces on Iran, up to and including, (at least) tactical nukes.
I disagree entirely, and think it is an insane position to take.
Well then it’s official, I have an insane take and may be insane. Granted, you didn’t accuse me of being insane but frankly, you have to be entertaining the possibility.
Not in those precise words, but yes, that is what I took him to be saying when he said that “by definition” the US should be attacking Iran if the assassination plot claim was true. And, again, I think he is lying about it for exactly the reasons you lay out regarding what his worldview seems to have become in recent years.
Well, I agree with the first half of this paragraph, but not necessarily the second half. He does not believe the “intelligence” of an active assassination attempt but would advocate for a robust and direct attack if there was information provided that he did believe.
LikeLike
McWing:
To my knowledge, no one in the Administration has said another reason was due to an assassination attempt.
I agree…no one is using it as the, or even a, pretext to attack Iran. Which according to you and Tucker must mean that no one actually believes it. I think it just means that reasonable people can disagree over what the appropriate response is to an unfulfilled plot to kill an ex-president.
My explanation: Cruz does not believe the “intelligence” that the Iranians are actively trying to assassinate Trump but is touting it in the hopes of persuading reluctant Republicans that we should bomb Iran. If he actually believed the “intelligence” he would not be satisfied with a proxy response and would be loudly advocating a very robust, direct assault by US forces on Iran, up to and including, (at least) tactical nukes.
Sorry…I am confused. Is he trying to persuade Republicans that “we” should bomb Iran, or is he trying to persuade them to support Israel’s bombing of Iran?
If the former, isn’t that exactly what a reasonable person who did believe in the assassination plot would do? And if the latter, why would Cruz, or anyone, expect the lie to generate support for a proxy response since any reasonable person who believed it would instead demand a US, not a proxy, response?
Well then it’s official, I have an insane take and may be insane.
And my take is either unreasonable or a lie, so I may be unreasonable or a liar. We are equally fucked up, I am sure. (Certainly there are at least a few people who know us both who would say so!)
LikeLike
Which according to you and Tucker must mean that no one actually believes it.
Yes, we agree.
I think it just means that reasonable people can disagree over what the appropriate response is to an unfulfilled plot to kill an ex-president.
Can we agree that Cruz was promoting something more than an “unfulfilled plot”? I know it wasn’t a successful assassination, thankfully, but he wasn’t asserting it was a coupe dudes bullshitting either. His assertion was that it was an active assassination attempt.
Sorry…I am confused. Is he trying to persuade Republicans that “we” should bomb Iran, or is he trying to persuade them to support Israel’s bombing of Iran?
He was trying to persuade reluctant Republicans that we should bomb Iran because of nukes, yes, but also because they’re actively trying to assassinate Trump.
If the former, isn’t that exactly what a reasonable person who did believe in the assassination plot would do?
Yes.
why would Cruz, or anyone, expect the lie to generate support for a proxy response since any reasonable person who believed it would instead demand a US, not a proxy, response?
I think Cruz was advocating for a more aggressive U.S. response, but not necessarily a robust one a la if he actually believed there was an active, ongoing assassination attempt. When Tucker confronted him he started backing off and suddenly seemed satisfied with Israel acting in our stead. To me, that is a “tell”.
LikeLike
McWing:
Can we agree that Cruz was promoting something more than an “unfulfilled plot”?
No, I don’t agree. I don’t know what “more” he might have been suggesting. Perhaps this is a function of our disagreement over the distinction between a plot and an actual attempt.
His assertion was that it was an active assassination attempt.
As far as I am aware, he never used the word “attempt”, and I am not even sure that he said it was an on-going plot, although he might have. The things I have read suggest that the Iranians put the plot on hold until after the elections because they thought it would be easier to carry out if Trump lost the election, and it isn’t clear whether they re-activated it after he won.
He was trying to persuade reluctant Republicans that we should bomb Iran because of nukes, yes, but also because they’re actively trying to assassinate Trump.
And isn’t this something that any reasonable person would do if they believed the assassination story?
Yet somehow you conclude that he is lying about believing the story because he isn’t doing the thing that you just claimed he is doing.
Do you seriously not see the logical problem here?
I think Cruz was advocating for a more aggressive U.S. response, but not necessarily a robust one a la if he actually believed there was an active, ongoing assassination attempt.
So now a person is lying about believing the assassination story not just if he doesn’t advocate for any military action, but if he doesn’t advocate for military action that is “robust” enough?
What kind of military action is robust enough to suggest that a person advocating for it is not a liar if they say they believe the assassination story?
When Tucker confronted him he started backing off and suddenly seemed satisfied with Israel acting in our stead.
What exactly did he “back off” of? From my recollection, the only thing he backed away from was his frustrated response to Tucker’s accusatory “Why aren’t we bombing them?”, which was “We are bombing them!” He then immediately backtracked on that, because it wasn’t strictly true at the time (although it became true).
LikeLike
No, I don’t agree. I don’t know what “more” he might have been suggesting. Perhaps this is a function of our disagreement over the distinction between a plot and an actual attempt.
You’re obviously correct. If we cannot have agreement, at least we have clarity.
As far as I am aware, he never used the word “attempt”, and I am not even sure that he said it was an on-going plot, although he might have. The things I have read suggest that the Iranians put the plot on hold until after the elections because they thought it would be easier to carry out if Trump lost the election, and it isn’t clear whether they re-activated it after he won.
My perception was that Cruz was using language that implied an active, ongoing attempt as part of a justification for US involvement (which had not yet happened.)
Do you seriously not see the logical problem here?
There was and is a part of the Republican base that is VERY reluctant to use force and is not amenable to any us involvement anywhere in the middle east. I think that Cruz was attempting to emotionally blackmail that part of the base to get them on board with US military involvement, and no, I do not believe that Cruz believed it was an active assassination attempt but wanted people to think it was.
Tucker’s point was that if you actually believe it is an active assassination attempt by a foreign government against Trump then, when pressed, you would not suddenly back off and say that the Israeli’s could handle it for us. To me, that was the indication that Cruz was lying and attempting to emotionally blackmail the reluctant part of the base. My memory is that he was, when aggressively pressed by Tucker, satisfied with a proxy form of response. Obviously your perception is different.
LikeLike
McWing:
There was and is a part of the Republican base that is VERY reluctant to use force and is not amenable to any us involvement anywhere in the middle east.
I know…and I think this wing would be just as reluctant even in the face of a known assassination plot against the president. (It might be less reluctant if such a plot was successful.) And I think Tucker is part of this wing, which is why I think he is lying when he implies that he would “by definition” support such force if he thought the plot was real.
I think that Cruz was attempting to emotionally blackmail that part of the base to get them on board with US military involvement
But wouldn’t someone who believed the plot was real do the exact same thing? It sounds to me like you just think Cruz is a liar, and that conclusion has nothing to do with how he responds to the claim of a plot. If he doesn’t advocate for a military response he is lying because any reasonable person would. And if he does advocate what any reasonable would, he is just doing it to emotionally blackmail people, and he still is a liar.
Tucker’s point was that if you actually believe it is an active assassination attempt by a foreign government against Trump then, when pressed, you would not suddenly back off and say that the Israeli’s could handle it for us.
I don’t recall Cruz saying anything about Israel “handling” anything “for us”, most particularly with regard to the assassination plot. As I said, the only thing he “backed off” of was the claim that “We are attacking Iran”, because it wasn’t (yet) true.
LikeLike
I know…and I think this wing would be just as reluctant even in the face of a known assassination plot against the president. (It might be less reluctant if such a plot was successful.) And I think Tucker is part of this wing, which is why I think he is lying when he implies that he would “by definition” support such force if he thought the plot was real.
I also agree with this – Common Ground!
But wouldn’t someone who believed the plot was real do the exact same thing? It sounds to me like you just think Cruz is a liar, and that conclusion has nothing to do with how he responds to the claim of a plot.
Yes, I think Cruz, a politician, is a liar. That’s not to say I didn’t vote for him twice and probably will do so again. All politicians lie. That said, he backed off the position of direct US assault despite claiming that Iran was actively trying to assassinate the sitting US President. When Tucker asked him why we weren’t’ bombing them, Cruz said it was ok, Israel was. To me, that demonstrated Cruz’s bad faith. We are at an impasse on this point.
If he doesn’t advocate for a military response he is lying because any reasonable person would. And if he does advocate what any reasonable would, he is just doing it to emotionally blackmail people, and he still is a liar.
Maybe I’m nitpicking here but Cruz was advocating for US involvement in part because, he claimed, the Iranians were actively trying to kill Trump. He backed off that when Carlson became hostile and aggressive in questioning and, in my memory, was suddenly less interested in US involvement in response to that questioning. Why would he become sanguine with a proxy exacting revenge then? Why would his position seemingly change?
I don’t recall Cruz saying anything about Israel “handling” anything “for us”, most particularly with regard to the assassination plot. As I said, the only thing he “backed off” of was the claim that “We are attacking Iran”, because it wasn’t (yet) true.
I’ll admit to having imperfect recall, and mine differs from yours. I am not interested enough to go back and listen however.
LikeLike
McWing:
I am not interested enough to go back and listen however.
You probably should because your interpretation of what happened really can’t be sustained. If you watch it again you will see that it was Carlson, not Cruz, who raised the assassination story. Cruz was not using it to sell a US military response or anything else. Tucker brought it up in order to discredit Netanyahu. Netanyahu had tied the two actual assassination attempts on Trump (Butler and Florida) to the Iranian plot, and Carlson questioned Cruz about that claim. Cruz acknowledged that Netanyahu was wrong (he said he “misspoke”) and said that he had no reason to think, and did not find it plausible, that the two known attempts had anything to do with Iran, but that it was true that there was an active (you were right about that) Iranian plot that had been going on since well before Trump got elected in 2024. Carlson then insisted that, if it were true, we should already be at war with Iran, and pressed Cruz to essentially prove to him that the story was true. When he couldn’t prove it, Carlson concluded it must be false and that even Cruz must not actually believe it.
So it is just wrong to portray Cruz as using it to drum up support for war with Iran. The entire discussion was driven by Carlson, not Cruz, and it was the very fact that Cruz wasn’t using it to bang the drums of war that produced Carlson’s (pretended) outrage.
LikeLike