MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025
The Bulgarian woman's tale: On Saturday, we closed our post with this remark:
Within two weeks, one of the people we've mentioned today has a major decision to make.
As it turned out, the person in question had already made that decision! This morning, The New York Times' David Sanger starts his report on the aftermath like this:
Officials Concede They Don’t Know the Fate of Iran’s Uranium Stockpile
A day after President Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and totally obliterated” by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles, the actual state of the program seemed far more murky, with senior officials conceding they did not know the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.
“We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel and that’s one of the things that we’re going to have conversations with the Iranians about,” Vice President JD Vance told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, referring to a batch of uranium sufficient to make nine or 10 atomic weapons. Nonetheless, he contended that the country’s potential to weaponize that fuel had been set back substantially because it no longer had the equipment to turn that fuel into operative weapons.
The situation is somewhat murky, despite what the president said. Or at least, that's the assessment Sanger offers—and Sanger is as sober, and as experienced, as our mainstream journalists ever get.
For better or worse, the president decided to go ahead with Saturday's attack. That said, the situation is somewhat murky, Sanger says—and the major players remain in place to deal with whatever comes next.
Did President Trump perhaps overstate the situation? With a tip of the cap to the invaluable Rev, here's part of what the president said in the brief address to which Sanger refers:
PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/21/25): Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.
Borrowing from Twain, reports of that complete and total obliteration may have been greatly exaggerated—or at least, so Sanger has said. In closing, the president added this:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Tomorrow, General Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will have a press conference at 8:00 AM at the Pentagon, and I want to just thank everybody, and in particular, God.
I want to just say we love you, God, and we love our great military...
Does anyone think that the president holds actual religious beliefs? We'd be inclined to say that, as perhaps a bit of a pretender, he doesn't seem to have mastered the talk at this point.
President Trump remains. During Sunday morning's press event, Secretary Hegseth said this:
SECRETARY HEGSETH (6/22/25): The order we received from our Commander in Chief was focused, it was powerful, and it was clear. We devastated the Iranian nuclear program. It's worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops and Iranian people.
For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated, for over ten years, that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. Full stop. Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the blow to Iran's nuclear program and none could until President Trump. The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant...
When it came his turn to speak, General Caine went with "just the facts." Some have said that Secretary Hegseth may have been cheerleading a bit.
The bombs have dropped, but the principal players remain, with their strengths and their weaknesses. Along the way, the secretary even said this:
HEGSETH: President Trump said, no nukes. He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path. He sent out a Truth last night saying this: "Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight." Signed, "The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump."
The president "sent out a Truth last night?" Has anyone ever fashioned some such statement?
The secretary seems to have coined a new term, From now on, whenever the president posts on his site, his statement will be known as "a Truth!"
(The capitalization was rendered by Rev—in our view, correctly. The Iranian regime includes a Supreme Leader—but as we'll see as the week proceeds, our own White House may be tilting that way too.)
We don't mean this as a criticism of President Trump's decision. We're inclined to agree with the assessment according to which the White House was confronted with two possible choices, each of which was bad.
We don't mean what follows as a criticism of the decision. We mean it as a bit of a warning:
The decision has been made, but the major players remain. The major players remain within the White House, but within our own Blue America too.
Two weekends ago, we happened to watch Casablanca again. The famous film had briefly popped up for free through On Demand. We regard it as the greatest accidental masterwork in all of western literature.
As always, the famous film triggered reactions it hadn't triggered before. Today, especially as we think about what Secretary Hegseth said, we keep flashing on what one of Casablanca's secondary characters says at obe point about her very young husband.
We refer to the young Bulgarian refugee, Annina Brandel, who, like almost everyone else in the film, is hoping to find a way to reach a magical destination—America. Midway through the film, she asks the Humphrey Bogart character if she should agree to do a very bad thing in order to get an exit visa for herself and for her husband—her husband of only eight weeks.
She doesn't want to do this very bad thing. But along the way, she says this:
ANNINA: But M'sieur, if he never knew, and the girl kept this bad thing locked in her heart—that would be all right, wouldn't it?
RICK: You want my advice?
ANNINA: Oh yes—please.
RICK (bitterly): Go back to Bulgaria.
ANNINA (pleading): On, but if you knew what it means to us to leave Europe—to get to America
(PAUSE)
Oh, but if Jan should find out! He is such a boy. In many ways, I am so much older than he is...
You may recall how this situation plays out. But we keep thinking of the highlighted statement when we think of Hegseth's cheerleading this Sunday morning.
He is such a boy, the young Bulgarian woman says. We keep flashing on that (loving) statement when we think of Hegseth's presentation.
In the present context, Saturday's bombing mission may, on balance, be judged to have gone extremely well. But this is a story without an ending, and the major players remain.
That includes Secretary Hegseth along with President Trump. It also includes the major players in Blue America who are struggling to find a way to assess these events.
The young woman in that famous scene said her husband was "such a boy." She doesn't mean it as a criticism—but we've been flashing on that statement as we think about what we saw Secretary Hegseth do and say yesterday morning.
Where have all the flowers gone? As he continues, Sanger raises a similar question about Iran's uranium:
SANGER: Satellite photographs of the primary target, the Fordo uranium enrichment plant that Iran built under a mountain, showed several holes where a dozen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators—one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal—punched deep holes in the rock. The Israeli military’s initial analysis concluded that the site, the target of American and Israeli military planners for more than 26 years, sustained serious damage from the strike but had not been completely destroyed.
But there was also evidence, according to two Israeli officials with knowledge of the intelligence, that Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the site in recent days. And there was growing evidence that the Iranians, attuned to Mr. Trump’s repeated threats to take military action, had removed 400 kilograms, or roughly 880 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. That is just below the 90 percent that is usually used in nuclear weapons.
The site sustained serious damage, but the uranium remains?
"This is a story without an ending." The Bogart character repeats that statement several times during the course of the Oscar-winning film.
Casablanca was an accident—colloquially, a gift from the gods. It was meant to be a front-line film, but the studio had no idea that it was crafting a masterpiece as filming struggled along.
Its spectacular ending was only devised in the days before filming ended. The film was being composed on the fly, and a miracle somehow occurred.
As of today, Iran is a story without an ending. We don't mean that as a criticism, just as a matter of fact.
A few sites are gone—but as with the uranium, the major players remain. We refer to principals like President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, but to Blue America's leading players too. Can we place our faith in their good judgment as matters unfold from here?
President Trump "sent out a Truth." That's what one of the players said!
As this week proceeds, we'll look at the people, Red and Blue, who will be the decision-makers as the successor to a legendary nation—as the successor to Casablanca's "America"—responds to whatever comes next.
"It's a story without an ending," the Bogart character says. The screenwriters fashioned a brilliant ending. Will the world be that fortunate here?
Tomorrow: For starters, this person remains
The young wife's heartfelt tale: With apologies for the colorization—to watch the full scene from Casablanca, you can just click here.
ReplyDeleteLet's keep things in perspective: as horrible as this bombing Iran and sucking up to Zionists is, this is not nearly as bad Autopen's administration bombing Russia; especially attacking Russian strategic radars, and recently (which still appears to be an Autopen's op), Russian strategic bombers.
But yes, this is a huge disappointment.
PS. What's with this "Bulgarian woman" bullshit? Are you drunk?
The Bulgarian woman has been told she can have an exit visa if she sleeps with the guy administering them. She is married and doesn't want to hurt her husband, but as she weighs and balances the competing interests she decides that getting to America is worth the infidelity, although she does not think her husband will understand her sacrifice. It parallels and foreshadows the sacrifice that Ilsa makes for her husband, so it is important to the plot.
DeleteSomerby is a child if he thinks that sleeping with someone is "a very bad thing" but there was a decency code at the time the film was made. It would not be a sacrifice if Anna did not consider the quid pro quo "a very bad thing".
Somerby has always ignored that the point of the film is that Rick loses his cynicism and takes a side in the war, not longer serving his self-interest by running his bar for his own profit while others struggle around him. He wakes up at the end of the movie. Somerby is unlikely to do so himself. Today he takes no stand against this new war that Trump has started, saying that Trump had no good choice to make because either would be bad. Somerby complains that the same people are in office, but I think Trump made a big mistake, broke another set of laws by failing to involve Congress, and did so to serve his own political interests. This is going to hurt the economy and kill people in another long-lasting military entanglement that we didn't need (will prove to have been unnecessary).
Somerby refuses to take a stand. Rick's response to Anna is hostile and lacks empathy, revealing his character before Ilsa changes him. That change from apathy and self-interest to heroic struggle is the point of Casablanca, which Somerby always misses.
Yes, it was a very bad thing. Who knows what diseases the promiscuous Louis Renault had? And then Annina would give them to the innocent Jan.
DeletePenicillin was invented before WWII and was reserved for use by the US military (kept secret from the Axis) in order to cure our soldiers. Was a case of curable STD a bigger risk for them than staying in Northern Africa instead of going to the US? I suspect you are not very good at cost-benefit analysis.
Delete"sleeping with someone" is not the same as adultery. If you disagree, ask your significant other.
DeleteYou mean Louis only wanted Annina to nap with him? And not do anything naughty? I guess it’s OK then.
DeleteWomen care about affairs not one-offs. Men care about any infidelity.
DeleteLouis saw that Annina was tired, and he wanted to let her nap in his office. He didn’t suggest anything thing inappropriate, but she knew that her husband wouldn’t understand.
DeleteThe banality of banality.
DeleteThe banality of bananas.
DeleteBananarama.
DeleteIt would have been a very bad thing, moral cretin. What if she got knocked up?
DeleteOn what basis does Somerby keep saying that the quality of the film Casablanca was accidental? That seems like an insult to all who worked on the film, especially those who were at the top of their craft, such as Bogey, Ingrid Bergman and the Hungarian-American director Michael Curtiz (who won an Oscar). The wisdom expressed by the characters emerged from the recent experience during the wartime in which the film is set. How is any of that accidental? Not only is the ending brilliant but so many other scenes are as well.
ReplyDeleteIf you know anything about the history of that film, yes it was accidental. Do some Google research.
DeleteIt may not have been intended to be a classic (who has the hubris to set out to deliberately create a classic), but the talent, budget and aims of the film were in no way accidental at all. It's origins are the same as many, if not most films. It would not have become a classic without the talent involved, because sentimentality and jingoism are not enough to create an enduring work.
DeleteJust because some film critic calls it an accidental masterpiece doesn't make it accidental. Somerby is of course happy to repeat other people's silliness, but you don't have to follow along with ideas that make no sense and are insulting to the careers of the talent involved in making the film.
Tell me one thing about the history of the film that suggests it was accidental. It was made by a studio, had a decent budget, involved strong actors in all roles, had a script that won an Oscar, and was directed by a fine director. How does any of that suggest accidental success?
I suspect it has succeeded because it appeals to both men and women. Most films choose to appeal to one or the other (or children).
DeleteI saw it when I was a child, and I liked it.
DeleteBuffoon Bob was thrown off by the fact that there were 4 endings.
DeleteSentimental fools and chicks love shitty movies.
Delete"as the successor to Casablanca's "America"
ReplyDeleteCasablanca is set in Morocco, not America. America is seen as a haven, an escape from the war waging in Europe (Hitler's war). All of the characters except Rick are European. Perhaps Rick's character is analogous to America as a nation, attempting to stay neutral while pursuing its own interests. But the greatness of the film is that we care about the people and their struggles. Everyone in the film is in exile, limbo, moving toward some resolution of their personal problems.
The film questions whether the problems of the individuals amount to a hill of beans in the context of the larger war, which is viewed in terms of good and evil which must be opposed, even by doing morally questionable things on the individual level, sacrificing personal morality for a greater good.
Somerby refuses to analyze Trump's actions in the context of good and evil. What good was served by attacking Iran that compares in any way to those issues in the film Casablanca? None that I can see, but Somerby grabs such works in order to make points he won't say directly and that remain murky because of his refusal to say what he thinks. Trump will never make a personal sacrifice. It isn't in him.
Of course nothing compares to Hitler. But a madman armed with a nuclear arsenal and missiles that could reach anywhere in Europe or the Middle East comes close.
DeleteHow many nuclear missles has Iran sent toward Europe or the Middle East? Given that Iran signed a treaty with Obama and was adhering to it, whereas Trump tore up that treaty, how is Iran the madman in this scenario?
DeleteAssumes facts not in evidence, fuckface.
Delete...a madman armed with a nuclear arsenal and missiles
They are religious fanatics, just like we have. In fact our current Ambassador to Israel is pretty fucking crazy and you have no problem with that.
And what’s wrong with beans? I happen to like beans. They’re the musical fruit — the more you eat, the more you toot.
Delete@11:30 - you're referring of course to Net-A-Yahoo, aren't you?
DeleteThe more you toot the better you'll feel, so let's eat beans at every meal. And bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb Iran, cause we can, not that it will do a single bit of good.
Delete"Of course nothing compares to Hitler. But a madman armed with a nuclear arsenal and missiles that could reach anywhere in Europe or the Middle East comes close." That is exactly what concerns me the most about the felon.
DeleteHitler is incomparable.
Delete“ madman armed with a nuclear arsenal”
DeletePutin, you mean?
Of course Sanger is right that the bombing was risky and the results not entirely certain. But, this is true of any action.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also true of any INACTION. The risks and uncertainty of allowing Iran to keep their nukes are greater than the risks of what the US did IMO.
What nukes, you fucking lying sack of shit fascist freak?
DeleteWhat is the evidence Iran has any nukes (by which I assume you mean nuclear weapons)? How does this bombing advance the goal of a nukeless Iran if Iran simply moved its operation out of the sites that were bombed?
Delete@11:33 simultaneously criticizes Trump because
Delete— Iran didn’t have nukes
— the attack may have failed to take out all of Iran’s nukes.
@11:33 didn't say Iran had nukes, they said "operations." That refers to anything that was occupying those sites. If the goal was to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by destroying Iran's research sites, that doesn't mean they already had nukes.
DeleteIt really does sound like Trump had no idea what the status was of Iran's nuclear development. Is it smart to bomb a country without knowing what their capabilities are? If Iran had nukes and did move them, we'd be in deep shit right now, having provoked them into retaliation using nuclear missiles.
That is pretty much the situation anyway given that Russia has said it is happy to supply Iran with nuclear missiles to resist the attacks on them. How does that benefit the situation? And now Trump is begging China to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for us. It sounds to me like Trump has created a godawful mess that makes the world a much less safe place today than before his unprovoked attack on Iran.
Medvedev was bloviating. Russia isn’t giving Iran any nukes.
DeleteHow do you know that? I would have said Trump was bloviating before he dropped those bombs.
DeleteMedvedev said that some countries want to give nukes to Iran. I thought he was talking about Pakistan. Could also be N.Korea. Also, Turkey has US nukes on its territory. I'm pretty sure Erdogan would do it, but he probably doesn't have enough control over those nukes.
DeleteArguing with a DiC is pointless. His views change with the Fox news breeze. He has zero convictions and endless stupidity. At the end of the day, just another conservaturd DiC.
Delete"He has zero convictions..."
DeleteExcept the bigotry, of course.
Somerby today says that Trump had no choice but to bomb Iran:
ReplyDelete"We don't mean this as a criticism of President Trump's decision. We're inclined to agree with the assessment according to which the White House was confronted with two possible choices, each of which was bad.
We don't mean what follows as a criticism of the decision."
This is the right wing position on Trump's actions, expressed by Charlie Kirk:
"Iran gave President Trump no choice. For a decade he has been adamant that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. Iran decided to forego diplomacy in pursuit of a bomb..."
Meanwhile, the proof that Iran has been doing so has been declared irrelevant by Marco Rubio and Trump's administration. And Somerby buys the argument along with the rest of Trump's followers. Compare this with actual liberal response, such as AOC calling for Trump's immediate impeachment. Somerby is shilling for the right again today.
At this point, Somerby has gone mask-off enough times, that even the trolls no longer bother to refute that Somerby is obviously right wing.
DeleteActually, the “trolls” as you call them are just bored with your Somerby-hating schtick.
DeleteThe choice of not bombing was as bad as bombing Iran? Is that what Somerby is saying? Does he now trust trump, who he says has something majorly wrong with him, to weigh options and make a decision that Somerby won’t now criticize?
DeleteIMO Bob is saying that choosing to not bomb Iran would be WORSE than bombing. I base than conclusion on Bob's statement that he agrees with Trump's assessment.
Delete"even the trolls no longer bother to refute that Somerby is obviously right wing."
DeleteRefuted. There.
Somerby long ago gave up on the theory that there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot. It doesn't prove he's not a Right-winger, it just proves he's not the mainstream media.
DeleteIf Trump were to decide without any evidence that Mexico or Canada have nukes in progress, would he be justified in attacking either of our adjacent neighbors? Is this the pretext Trump will use to attack Greenland? Why not? Who would stop him? LA demonstrably has nuclear capabilities. Why not bomb California? Trump already considers Democrats to be traitors. What is the difference between sending the Marines to occupy Southern California and just wiping us all out with a few massive bombs?
ReplyDeleteIf this sounds ridiculous to you, consider what the difference is between inventing imaginary nuclear bombs in Iran and inventing them somewhere else based on political convenience.
"In the modern era, it was probably George W. Bush who first said it out loud and then acted on it: When you’re unpopular and losing politically, just start a little war that’s easily winnable and you’ll be back on top."
ReplyDeleteThom Hartmann explains how this attack on Iran benefits Trump politically and why this may be the ultimate motive for the right:
"Trump’s Iran War Fever: A Deadly Cure for His Political Collapse?"
It is hard to argue that Trump has not been politically collapsing.
https://hartmannreport.com/p/trumps-iran-war-fever-a-deadly-cure-bcf
Why doesn't the illegality of Trump's actions bother Somerby? It bothers me and most other Democrats. Hartmann says:
ReplyDelete"And, if it is, shouldn’t Congress have a say in the decision like our Constitution requires? Article 1, Section 8 says, after all:
“The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
There isn’t a single mention in Article II, which covers the presidency, of that person having any decision-making power over war and peace; as commander-in-chief he’s required to follow the dictates — or at least permissions — of Congress.
Which is why Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and both Bushes all went to Congress to get authorization for dropping bombs on other countries, and Obama used Bush’s bipartisan congressional Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) to legitimize his attacks on Libya and elsewhere.
Trump has no such authority, and he’s not even claiming authorization via the AUMF; unlike every previous president he hasn’t provided a legal rationalization for the attack.
The War Powers Act requires Congress get at least a 48 hour notice. Trump did none of that; he’s daring Congress to challenge his authority to act unilaterally, and all about a handful of Republicans have already rolled over."
Even Massie and Green are against Trump’s crime.
DeleteOf all the countries in the world, only one has used nukes. It’s madmen should be taken out
ReplyDeleteGod damn spellcheck. Its, not it’s.
DeleteRead more, learn more:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/06/mission-accomplished-8
I am amused by how anything Trump does becomes a negative in the minds of the Trump-haters. In this case, there is no evidence that the three MOP bombs failed to achieve their objective. Yet that presumed failure is now a part of the narrative.
ReplyDeleteAnother flaw in the narrative is that it ignores what Israel will accomplish going forward. If there are some nukes remaining, Israel might well locate and destroy them. BTW there are probably brave Iranians who are giving information to Israel. Their courage should be praised.
You have that reversed. Trump does bad things because he is stupid and incompetent, not because he is Trump. There used to be some intelligent qualified Republican presidents a long time ago.
DeleteYou mean US Grant.
DeleteA popular attitude is that Trump is evil. Thus, anything he does is bad. The only challenge is to figure out why why he did was wrong.
DeleteThis is convenient politically, because the critic doesn't have to advocate the opposite of what Trump did. In this case, s/he can say Trump was wrong and bad to bomb Iran's nukes without coming out in favor of not bombing them.
Gotta wonder why anyone would be skeptical of a clown documented to have had 30,000 lies emerge from his pie hole his first term whose cabinet includes a reformed heroin addict running our healthcare system, a ketamine addict slashing our science budgets and a Fox weekend warrior with an alcohol problem running the military with no significant experience at or near that level. Iran has been within 2 weeks of a nuclear warhead on and off for upwards of 15-20 years. Nothing new, except that Israel has drawn us into an unnecessary conflict that puts targets on the backs of Americans globally. So what else is new.
DeleteA popular attitude is that Trump is evil.
DeleteHe is corrupt, a bullshit artist, ignorant, totally unqualified to be president, a lying sack of shit, racist provocateur, criminal, and yes, evil, you fucking fascist freak.
Trump was wrong and bad to bomb Iran's nukes
DeleteOnce again, fuckface, what evidence do you possess that Iran had even 1 "nuke", you fucking lying sack of shit.
@1:02 - Once Iran has one nuke, it's too late. They can use the nuclear threat to deter any attack. It essential to take out Iran's nuclear capability before they have working atomic bombs.
Delete"Israel might well locate and destroy them. BTW there are probably brave Iranians who are giving information to Israel."
DeleteAnd I pony too! I wish for a pony!
1:14, you have been saying all day we bombed their nukes, you lying sack of shit. What is wrong with deterrence. We have been living with MAD since the end of WW2.
Delete@1:24 - the problem with deterrent is that Iran's leadership is nuts. It's not certain that they would be deterred. The world is a lot safer if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.
DeleteBTW I disagree with your logic. Just because some calamity has not occurred yet doesn't guarantee that it won't occur. Don't make Harry Truman's mistake. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=harry+truman+mt+st+helens&atb=v426-1&ia=web
I don't give a fuck what you believe, fuckface. There is no evidence that Iranian leadership is nuts or suicidal. As I said, they are religious fanatics, just like you fucking Zionists. You're just a fucking liar.
DeleteFirst you say, "They can use the nuclear threat to deter any attack", Yeah! What is wrong with that. As is becoming more evident, it is clear they did not have this deterrence, wouldn't you agree? you fucking fascist freak. It is also becoming clear to most clear minded people, and that doesn't include you, fuckface, that the object here is regime change in Iran, by violent aggressive preemptive attacks from outside the country, most notably the zionist anti-democratic state of Israel.
"They can use the nuclear threat to deter any attack" presumes a need to attack Iran, which is a hilarious self-own by a sad troll.
Delete"the problem with deterrent is that Iran's leadership is nuts. It's not certain that they would be deterred. The world is a lot safer if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons."
DeleteThe world would be safer if no country had nuclear weapons.
But let that go. In the nearly 50 years since the Iranian revolution, the country's leaders have never shown a willingness to risk complete annihilation of their country. That would be the certain consequence of using a nuclear weapon against their neighbors or the US. But that mild bit of common sense won't help justify an offensive assault on Iran, so "nuts!" it is.
Come on now you DiC. Israeli land forces are spent. War criminal Bibi is using the moronic felon and the morons he has assembled to fight Iran for him. Even a flip flopping dumb ass rightly like you should be able to put this together. It will be our blood and treasure spent in Iran. China and Russia win again.
DeleteThere is plenty of satellite evidence Iran moved nuke shit around before the bombs hit. Also too, no way to know how much shit damaged by bunker busters. But the US reputation as a viscous murderer of brown Muslim people remains intact. So remain proud of your endless crusade to destroy Muslims David. What could go wrong?
DeleteHeightened terrorist alert now in placed for the US.
DeleteI am more concerned with the US and Israel having nukes, given their unhinged leaders. With that said: Iran doesn't have nukes. Netanyahu has been pushing the lie that Iran is about to possess nukes for a dozen years or so. Apparently, it never gets old.
Deleteviscous = vicious
DeleteQuaker - Have Iran's leaders risked complete annihilation? They did something close to that just a few days ago. When Iran faced a demand that they stop enriching uranium, they responded that they would start enriching twice as fast. They virtually demanded to be attacked. And, this at a time when their air defense had been destroy, so that they could be safely attacked. The statement seemed crazy when they made it. Events have shown that it was crazy.
Delete"They virtually demanded to be attacked."
DeleteNetanyahu is a mass murderer. Trump is a clown. You're an idiot.
"Once Iran has one nuke, it's too late. They can use the nuclear threat to deter any attack."
DeleteImagine that. A country that wants to deter attacks. We'd better attack them to show how wrong they were to want to deter attacks.
Did Trump notify Reps in advance but not Dems? This has been widely reported. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied it.
ReplyDelete"We did make bipartisan calls," Leavitt stated, setting the record straight from the outset. "Thomas Massie and the Democrats — he should be a Democrat 'cause he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party — were given notice. The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls."
The White House, contrary to the manufactured narrative, conducted its due diligence and reached out to leaders on both sides of the aisle. The administration’s outreach efforts were comprehensive, but in a detail that speaks volumes, the top Democrat in the House was apparently unavailable to take a call of such national security importance.
Leavitt revealed the specifics of the outreach, exposing the disingenuous nature of the complaints.
"In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached," she explained. "We tried him before the strike and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as Chuck Schumer was briefed prior to the strike."
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/06/23/democrats-caught-in-a-huge-lie-about-trumps-iran-strike-n4941081
Fuck you, faggot. You can go straight to hell.
Delete"Did Trump notify Reps in advance but not Dems? This has been widely reported."
DeleteShockingly, some people accepted that narrative unquestioningly and even excused the supposed omission as reasonable and appropriate. Necessary, even.
But you'd never fall for that, right?
Yes, I was fooled. My bad.
DeletePeople familiar with the matter initially told CNN that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries received notifications shortly before the public announcement — and after the attack itself.
DeleteCurrent version of CNN story:
But after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt disputed that account, a source conceded that Schumer had been called around 6 p.m. – a little less than an hour before the strikes began – with little detail. He was told of imminent military action without naming the country in which the action was to take place, the source said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine speak during a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington, Sunday, June 22, 2025, after the U.S. military struck three sites in Iran, directly joining Israel's effort to destroy the country's nuclear program.
Leavitt wrote on X that the administration made “bipartisan courtesy calls to Congressional leadership” and spoke to Schumer in advance of the strikes. She said that Jeffries “could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.” Sources familiar with the matter said the administration made multiple efforts to reach Jeffries in advance of the strikes after talking to Schumer.
But Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, were not told until after the strikes had occurred, sources said.
Leavitt lied, per usual.
DeleteTrump did notify Repubs and did not notify Dems.
OMG,it DiC has once again made a trip to the all you can eat smorgasbord of right wing propaganda sites. What an insatiable appetite.
DeleteAlso: Heck! What's the deal with counting Massie as "notifying a Dem"? Just because they're mad at him doesn't mean he's automatically on the other team.
DeleteYes QIB. Another display of DiC's never-ending flip flopping, lying, and his lick spittle servitude to the cause of spreading the abject stupid of the day from the right.
Delete@2:18 Actually I was fooled by CNN, a left wing site.
Delete"My bad" does a lot of fucking work for the DiChead.
DeleteDoesn't matter if David reads left or right wing news, he still comes to the wrong conclusion.
Delete1:06 - As Walter Sobchak would say, that’s not the preferred nomenclature.
DeleteDoes anyone have any idea how many troops it's going to take for the invasion of Iran? Will the Marines occupying LA be relieved anytime soon?
ReplyDeleteI'll be shocked if Trump commits any ground troops. That's not his style.
DeleteDeploying ground troops requires planning and a commitment to following through. It can't be called off or restarted on a whim. Trump admitted last week that he prefers to be able to change his mind right up to the last moment.
A ground invasion calls for careful analysis and sound judgment, not impulsiveness. Definitely not Trump's forte.
Trump has Marines stationed in LA. I don't put anything past him. Israel is pounding Tehran, not just nuclear research sites. You can't get regime change with just bombs.
DeleteThere are so many parallels aligning between Trump and Bush II at this point that it is beginning to look like they are engraved in the Republican playbook.
DeleteGiven our massive successes with land troops since WWII, I mean why not bag Iran too. It has all worked out so well. And it should be way easier this time since drone technology has evened the battlefield for the insurgents. Jesus you let's war people are blind to how things actually work.
DeleteIsrael needs lebensraum.
DeleteThe deployment of ground troops is limited to blue states.
DeleteUntil Trump's bombing of Iran is shown to benefit a black person, there will be no public discussion of how it adds to the deficit.
ReplyDelete"The secretary seems to have coined a new term, From now on, whenever the president posts on his site, his statement will be known as 'a Truth!'"
ReplyDeleteGolly, it seems we have found a rare gap in Our Host's encyclopedic knowledge of popular political discourse. Hegseth didn't invent anything here. Messages posted on the president's Truth Social platform have been called Truths from the day of the site's launch. The designation is analogous to the use of Tweet to refer to a message on Twitter.
Supreme Court permits Trump administration to resume third country removals — like deportations to Sudan — without limited notice.
ReplyDeletebecause what good is packing the supreme court with fascists if they don't let you be a fascist
DeleteThe dissent makes more sense than the affirmation.
Delete"Majority of People Taken by ICE Had No Convictions
ReplyDeleteJune 23, 2025 at 11:01 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 153 Comments
“New nonpublic data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicate that the government is primarily detaining individuals with no criminal convictions of any kind,” the Cato Institute reports.
“Also, among those with criminal convictions, they are overwhelmingly not the violent offenses that ICE continuously uses to justify its deportation agenda.”
Big News: Trump Announces Israel and Iran Have Agreed to a “Complete and Total Ceasefire”
ReplyDeleteThis is a total victory for the US. Iran's nukes are eliminated. No American troops will be on the ground. Peace is agreed to (FWIW). This ending could hardly be more ideal for the US.
"Iran's nukes are eliminated."
DeleteYou're not getting any smarter, are you?
Trump's statement is at https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114734934153569653
DeleteIt's boastful: "This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will!"
But, given the excellent outcome, Trump deserves to boast. A lot of things could have gone wrong.
"This ending could hardly be more ideal for the US."
DeleteUntil six months from now, when an Iranian sleeper agent blows himself up in the middle of Times Square.
You don't ever think very far ahead.
Possibly, @8:07. That would be bad.
DeleteOTOH it's also possible that the amount of terrorism in the world will decline, as Iran stops supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis
Iranian representative sort of disputes Trump's post, but his words look more like a quibble.
DeleteJust hours after President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, Tehran made it clear who they believe started this conflict, blaming Israel for launching the war, not the other way around. Iran insisted there is no official agreement on any ceasefire or halt to military actions. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that if Israel does not cease its “illegal aggression” against Iran by 4 a.m. Tehran time, their response will continue. Iran said the final decision on stopping its military operations would be made later.
"As of now, there is NO ‘agreement’ on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations,” Araghchi wrote. “However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 am Tehran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards."
"Together with all Iranians, I thank our brave Armed Forces who remain ready to defend our dear country until their last drop of blood, and who responded to any attack by the enemy until the very last minute,” Araghchi said.
This was the first official remarks by Iran to Trump’s claimed ceasefire between Iran and Israel.
Seyed Abbas Araghchi
@araghchi
As Iran has repeatedly made clear: Israel launched war on Iran, not the other way around.
As of now, there is NO "agreement" on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations. However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 am Tehran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards.
The final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later.
Talk about counting the chickens before they hatch. What weirdos think all clear right fucking now? Magats, them is the weirdos. And they are pulling respectable people off the streets and dumping them god knows where. Sick and weird.
DeleteName one reason for Iranian leadership to trust lying crooked Bibi, or our lying felon?
DeleteJune 23 - there is good reason for Iran to trust that if they keep fighting, Israel and the USA will bomb the sh-t out of them.
DeleteIs this "ceasefire" announcement sort of like the time Trump said he was committed to a Diplomatic Resolution, and then the bombs began dropping three hours later? Or like the time he gave a "two week" time period for deciding to bomb Iran, when he'd already decided to bomb Iran?
DeleteTrump and the Iranians are playing the Israelis.
Delete10:49. So now you have it that there is good reason to believe the US will bomb the shit out of Iran pending their compliance. Why should this country further escalate with them? Do you think that is in our better interests? The objective of destroying their uranium facilities has been met. Any further aggression is an escalation that does nothing to ensure the safety of this country's citizens nor soldiers. Israel can take care of itself. Our job is not to babysit them in whatever aggressions they undertake. Beyond securing that Iran does not have nuclear capability, a threat that has been predicted imminent for the last 20 years or so, this administration has no business wasting our tax dollars and putting targets on the backs of Americans in the service of Israel. The imminent threat to the US is plunging us into a recession while spending tax dollars on an unnecessary war that further aggravates the deficit.
DeleteIsrael's current political model of bombing the sh-t out of people in order to exist model is unsustainable.
DeleteYou and Donald J Chickenshit are real tough guys, Dickhead.
Delete"A lot of things could have gone wrong."
DeleteLike what? Israel pounded the crap out of Iran for days, decapitated its military leadership. The boogeyman that was such a threat to the world turned out to be defenseless.
Trump: Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire.
ReplyDeleteIran: We haven't agreed to a ceasefire.
DiC: A quibble.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are over after years of Democrat enabling. Thank you President Trump.
ReplyDeleteThe Voting Rights Act of 1965 is gutted after years of Democrats supporting it. Thank you President Trump.
DeleteObviously you have a problem with premature ejaculation.
DeleteSo are we doing regime change in Iran, or not?
ReplyDeleteI can hardly wait for regime change but the midterms are in 17 months.
Delete
ReplyDeleteHey, the locationally-insecure resident Democrat from Oakland, this is for your reading pleasure:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/san-francisco-is-americas-worst-run-city-wallethub-report-5876314
"San Francisco Is America’s Worst Run City: WalletHub Report
Six of the bottom 10 spots are claimed by cities in California.
Several other California cities also ranked in the bottom 10 of 148 cities, including Stockton (138), Los Angeles (139), Long Beach (140), Fresno (141), and Oakland (146)."
San Francisco was named the “worst-run” city in the United States the second year in a row. Oakland is the third from the bottom.
But don't get upset, my friend. No matter how crappy your place is, if you like it, stay there, by all means. It's nobody's business what you do.
David in Cal, who constantly disses cal, is always able to move. I hear Mississippi is hot and steamy in the summer.
DeleteAnd cheaper.
DeleteNot as hot as Death Valley.
DeleteYou can just tell the local chapter of the KKK in MS that you are one of the "good Jews". It's all good, Dickhead.
DeleteYou can tell San Francisco is the worst run city in the country, because the average cost of a house there is only $500, due to the law of supply and demand.
DeleteMeanwhile, in rural areas where Republicans rule, the average housing cost is over $2 Million.
Where does the White House rank on best run?
DeleteDavid in Cal can always move to one of the countries welfare states, like Alabama, Mississippi, or Israel.
DeleteDo your own research, but leave us the fuck alone, weirdo. "Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks."
DeleteMentally Unstable
ReplyDelete“The ceasefire is unlimited,” he told NBC. “It’s going to go forever . . . I don’t believe they will ever be shooting at each other again.”
after the violation....
"Neither country, he said, “knows what the fuck they’re doing.”
Doing the math I calculate there are three countries that don't know what the fuck they are doing. Other than blowing shit and people up.
DeleteDemocrats are sad Iran’s nukes are history.
ReplyDeleteThey were hoping the bombing would not work because they hate Trump and Jews so much they want to see Jews eliminated by Iranian nukes.
Squeal louder.
Delete