Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
March 18, 2026
Mike Luckovich-trump burning bridges with our allies
— Mike Luckovich (@mluckovich.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T17:51:02.665Z
March 18, 2026
https://www.ms.now/opinion/pete-hegseth-no-quarter-war-crime
Hegseth is a pompous idiot who wants to be macho. Hegseth is endangering our troops with his pronouncements. Our troops will face additional risks is our countries follow Hegseth's example
Why Pete Hegseth's talk about 'no quarter' could itself be against U.S. and international law
The secretary of defense is a military leader in the chain of command. Whether Hegseth appreciates it or not, his words alone have legal significance.
Why Pete Hegseth’s talk about ‘no quarter’ could itself be against U.S. and international law
— Mike Walker (@newnarrative.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T11:23:17.383Z
www.ms.now/opinion/pete...
https://www.ms.now/opinion/pete-hegseth-no-quarter-war-crime
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, during a televised press briefing at the Pentagon on the Iran war on March 13, vowed this about America’s response to Iran’s ruling regime: “We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.”
These words in themselves could be a violation of both U.S. and international law.
Hegseth’s declaration of “no quarter” implicates a foundational prohibition under the law of war. These are the binding rules agreed to by states that seek to mitigate the horrors and bloodshed of conflict through pragmatic balancing of humanitarian and military considerations. The prohibition of the denial of quarter is a paradigmatic illustration of the law of war advancing both sets of considerations.
Dating back to at least the Civil War, the denial of quarter has been forbidden. As articulated in the 1863 Lieber Code (Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order No. 100), “It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter.” (emphasis added) This rule would subsequently be incorporated into treaties to which the United States is a party, including in the regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention IV, and as customary law binding on all states. Importantly, this law of war rule applies to air, land and sea warfare.
As reflected in the Lieber Code (and the Department of Defense’s own Law of War Manual), the ban on denial of quarter includes both: 1) a prohibition on conducting hostilities on the basis that legitimate offers of surrender by enemy personnel will not be accepted, but instead that there should be no survivors, and 2) a prohibition on simply declaring no quarter itself.
In other words, the law of war prohibits military leaders from the speech act of announcing “no quarter” alone.....
Denial of quarter is also a war crime under U.S. law. The War Crimes Act criminalizes violations of the following rule: “it is especially forbidden… [t]o declare that no quarter will be given.” Thus U.S. criminal law, like the international law of war, imposes individual liability for the speech act of declaring “no quarter” itself — regardless of whether the declaration is ever implemented.
A declaration of no quarter by a military leader is not only an unlawful order (the subject of a now famous video message from a number of Democratic lawmakers), but one that a court would likely find to be manifestly or patently unlawful. This means that if military subordinates were to execute a directive of no quarter, they would have no viable defense of following superior orders.
These words in themselves could be a violation of both U.S. and international law.
Hegseth’s declaration of “no quarter” implicates a foundational prohibition under the law of war. These are the binding rules agreed to by states that seek to mitigate the horrors and bloodshed of conflict through pragmatic balancing of humanitarian and military considerations. The prohibition of the denial of quarter is a paradigmatic illustration of the law of war advancing both sets of considerations.
Dating back to at least the Civil War, the denial of quarter has been forbidden. As articulated in the 1863 Lieber Code (Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order No. 100), “It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter.” (emphasis added) This rule would subsequently be incorporated into treaties to which the United States is a party, including in the regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention IV, and as customary law binding on all states. Importantly, this law of war rule applies to air, land and sea warfare.
As reflected in the Lieber Code (and the Department of Defense’s own Law of War Manual), the ban on denial of quarter includes both: 1) a prohibition on conducting hostilities on the basis that legitimate offers of surrender by enemy personnel will not be accepted, but instead that there should be no survivors, and 2) a prohibition on simply declaring no quarter itself.
In other words, the law of war prohibits military leaders from the speech act of announcing “no quarter” alone.....
Denial of quarter is also a war crime under U.S. law. The War Crimes Act criminalizes violations of the following rule: “it is especially forbidden… [t]o declare that no quarter will be given.” Thus U.S. criminal law, like the international law of war, imposes individual liability for the speech act of declaring “no quarter” itself — regardless of whether the declaration is ever implemented.
A declaration of no quarter by a military leader is not only an unlawful order (the subject of a now famous video message from a number of Democratic lawmakers), but one that a court would likely find to be manifestly or patently unlawful. This means that if military subordinates were to execute a directive of no quarter, they would have no viable defense of following superior orders.
Hegseth is a pompous idiot who wants to be macho. Hegseth is endangering our troops with his pronouncements. Our troops will face additional risks is our countries follow Hegseth's example
March 18, 2026
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-sends-stephen-miller-to-strait
The Borowitz Report-Trump Sends Stephen Miller to Strait of Hormuz: 'No One Clears a Place out Faster Than Him'
Trump Sends Stephen Miller to Strait of Hormuz: ‘No One Clears a Place out Faster Than Him’
— Ray Beckerman (@raybeckerman.bsky.social) 2026-03-18T11:55:08.583Z
open.substack.com/pub/borowitz...
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-sends-stephen-miller-to-strait
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Claiming he does not need the help of “those sad NATO losers,” on Wednesday Donald Trump said he was sending Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to the Strait of Hormuz.
“No one clears a place out faster than Stephen,” Trump said. “It’s his superpower.”
Though expressing confidence in Miller’s effectiveness as a human repellent, Trump disclosed that he had a backup plan.
“I will put my name, Donald J. Trump, on the Strait of Hormuz,” he declared. “That emptied out the Kennedy Center very rapidly and very powerfully.”
“No one clears a place out faster than Stephen,” Trump said. “It’s his superpower.”
Though expressing confidence in Miller’s effectiveness as a human repellent, Trump disclosed that he had a backup plan.
“I will put my name, Donald J. Trump, on the Strait of Hormuz,” he declared. “That emptied out the Kennedy Center very rapidly and very powerfully.”
March 18, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-bp-oil-drilli-gulf-of-mexico-deepwater-horizon
Rachel Maddow-Trump approves oil project helmed by company responsible for the worst spill in U.S. history
The 2010 spill was living, terrifying, toxic proof that one of the world’s most profitable industries was wholly unprepared to fix a disaster it created.
"Why isn't this a show stopping scandal in our country?"
— Desert Dweller (@tischtak.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T02:26:00.996Z
- Rachel Maddow tonight.
youtu.be/UBcMF-A-CwI?...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-bp-oil-drilli-gulf-of-mexico-deepwater-horizon
But that was only the start of the disaster because, as you may remember, they couldn’t stop the oil spewing out of the well. There was even a live feed from the broken wellhead where you could watch the oil spewing out from a hole in the seafloor.
For three months, millions of barrels of oil spewed into the sea, and they just had no plan for how to stop it. They tried something called junk shots, where they literally shot junk into the top of the well to try to clog it up — anything they could find: golf balls, pieces of plastic, pieces of old tires, knotted up hunks of rope.....
In the end, the overall cleanup and compensation costs for Deepwater Horizon topped out at around $65 billion. BP was held responsible for the disaster not only in court but also in Congress, where it basically had to prostrate itself and apologize for all it had done.
Now fast-forward to Friday, when late in the day, very quietly, the Trump administration announced that it had approved a new, ultra-deep-water drilling project in the Gulf of Mexico. Unlike the rig at the center of Deepwater Horizon, which was at 5,000 feet, this project will be nearly 6,000 feet.
But don’t worry, the company behind this project, which has now been permitted to do its ultra-deep-water drilling in the same place as the worst oil spill in U.S. history, is none other than the company responsible for that 2010 disaster: BP.
As The New York Times notes, the emergency plan this time from BP is still basically the same as it was more than 15 years ago; it proposes “using chemical dispersants to break oil into tiny droplets and push it underwater.”
No word yet on whether they’re still going to focus on finding tropical walruses or trying to call dead guys as their emergency contacts.
For three months, millions of barrels of oil spewed into the sea, and they just had no plan for how to stop it. They tried something called junk shots, where they literally shot junk into the top of the well to try to clog it up — anything they could find: golf balls, pieces of plastic, pieces of old tires, knotted up hunks of rope.....
In the end, the overall cleanup and compensation costs for Deepwater Horizon topped out at around $65 billion. BP was held responsible for the disaster not only in court but also in Congress, where it basically had to prostrate itself and apologize for all it had done.
Now fast-forward to Friday, when late in the day, very quietly, the Trump administration announced that it had approved a new, ultra-deep-water drilling project in the Gulf of Mexico. Unlike the rig at the center of Deepwater Horizon, which was at 5,000 feet, this project will be nearly 6,000 feet.
But don’t worry, the company behind this project, which has now been permitted to do its ultra-deep-water drilling in the same place as the worst oil spill in U.S. history, is none other than the company responsible for that 2010 disaster: BP.
As The New York Times notes, the emergency plan this time from BP is still basically the same as it was more than 15 years ago; it proposes “using chemical dispersants to break oil into tiny droplets and push it underwater.”
No word yet on whether they’re still going to focus on finding tropical walruses or trying to call dead guys as their emergency contacts.
March 18, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/doj-reportedly-lowers-standards-for-federal-prosecutors-adding-to-an-unfortunate-pattern
MaddowBlog-DOJ reportedly lowers standards for federal prosecutors, adding to an unfortunate pattern
The entirety of the Trump presidency has been a grand experiment in what happens when an administration embraces amateurism and de-professionalization.
The DOJ lowered its standards for prosecutors, which followed the FBI lowering its standards for agents, which followed ICE lowering its standards.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-17T16:13:54.250Z
Trumpism is a grand experiment in what happens when an administration embraces amateurism and de-professionalization.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/doj-reportedly-lowers-standards-for-federal-prosecutors-adding-to-an-unfortunate-pattern
The list of missteps at Donald Trump’s Justice Department over the past 14 months is not short, but among the most unsettling developments is the frequency with which Main Justice has fired federal prosecutors as part of a brazenly partisan purge. Making matters worse is the fact that U.S. attorneys’ offices have reportedly struggled to find qualified replacements, with lawyers feeling understandable reluctance to join an administration in which the rule of law has been overtly weaponized.
The DOJ, however, apparently has a solution in mind: Bloomberg Law reported that the department has decided to waive the policy that required newly hired federal prosecutors “to possess at least one year of experience practicing law.” From the report:
.....Indeed, by some measures, the entirety of the Trump presidency has been a grand experiment in what happens when an administration embraces amateurism and de-professionalization.
Trump has informally lowered the standards for what it takes to lead the FBI, what it takes to serve in the Cabinet, what it takes to serve as a U.S. attorney, what it takes to be a success in the private sector and what it takes to serve as vice president.
The president himself was, in the recent past, a television reality show host who didn’t know anything about governing, never served a day in any public post and arguably had no business running to serve as the chief executive of the world’s pre-eminent superpower.
Trumpism, in other words, is defined in large part by a lowering of standards. The DOJ is apparently just keeping up.
As for the motivation behind these developments, some of the considerations are practical — the administration is desperate for prosecutors, and good applicants aren’t interested — but it’s also easy to believe there’s a larger strategy unfolding: Departments stripped of their most experienced staff and their professional standards are more easily manipulated.
The DOJ, however, apparently has a solution in mind: Bloomberg Law reported that the department has decided to waive the policy that required newly hired federal prosecutors “to possess at least one year of experience practicing law.” From the report:
Many offices have previously adopted their own rules mandating at least three years of legal practice, rather than the nationwide baseline threshold of one year. But the reduced standards this month were implemented in federal districts such as Minnesota and Southern Florida that have experienced significant attrition to put new prosecutors to work straight out of law school.
.....Indeed, by some measures, the entirety of the Trump presidency has been a grand experiment in what happens when an administration embraces amateurism and de-professionalization.
Trump has informally lowered the standards for what it takes to lead the FBI, what it takes to serve in the Cabinet, what it takes to serve as a U.S. attorney, what it takes to be a success in the private sector and what it takes to serve as vice president.
The president himself was, in the recent past, a television reality show host who didn’t know anything about governing, never served a day in any public post and arguably had no business running to serve as the chief executive of the world’s pre-eminent superpower.
Trumpism, in other words, is defined in large part by a lowering of standards. The DOJ is apparently just keeping up.
As for the motivation behind these developments, some of the considerations are practical — the administration is desperate for prosecutors, and good applicants aren’t interested — but it’s also easy to believe there’s a larger strategy unfolding: Departments stripped of their most experienced staff and their professional standards are more easily manipulated.
March 18, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/why-trumps-jan-6-pardon-doesnt-apply-to-alleged-pipe-bomb-planter-brian-cole
This is not my area of the law but on pure contract interpretation principles, trump's poorly worded pardon may not apply
Deadline Legal Blog-Why Trump's Jan. 6 pardon doesn't apply to alleged pipe bomb planter Brian Cole
Even if Cole’s alleged conduct is related to Jan. 6, 2021, his motion to dismiss still faces a fatal problem.
Why Trump’s Jan. 6 pardon doesn’t apply to alleged pipe bomb planter Brian Cole
— CVJ (@enuffsaysv.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T22:00:44.260Z
Even if Cole’s alleged conduct is related to Jan. 6, 2021, his motion to dismiss still faces a fatal problem.
Read in MS NOW: apple.news/Ayx7uAHXaRCe...
‼ï¸
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/why-trumps-jan-6-pardon-doesnt-apply-to-alleged-pipe-bomb-planter-brian-cole
President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 defendants continue to generate litigation over how broadly they apply. The latest example comes from alleged Jan. 6 pipe bomb planter Brian Cole, who said the clemency “unequivocally applies” to him.
But there’s a simple reason for the courts to find that it doesn’t.
To understand why, let’s first look at the Jan. 20, 2025, proclamation’s text, which grants relief to three categories of people. First, it commutes sentences to time served for a list of people named in the order (Cole isn’t one of them). Second, it pardons “all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” And third, it directs the attorney general to drop “all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
So, before getting to the allegations against Cole, who has maintained his innocence, he faces a threshold issue: He doesn’t fit into any of those categories. He was charged in December 2025, long after Trump’s January order, and he hasn’t been convicted. Therefore, he was neither charged nor convicted at the time that Trump granted the pardon. .....
To be sure, had Cole been charged or convicted by the time Trump issued his proclamation, it wouldn’t have been ridiculous to argue that it covered him, even if that argument were not as airtight as his dismissal motion suggested.
But in any event, the timing is important enough that courts could rule against him on that threshold matter alone — that is, without deciding whether his alleged conduct qualifies as related enough to Jan. 6. Courts like not having to decide things they don’t have to when they don’t want to.
And though the government’s position on the pardon’s scope doesn’t dictate how the courts decide that scope, that the Trump DOJ brought this case shows that it doesn’t think Cole qualifies.
Of course, if the courts reject Cole’s motion to dismiss, Trump will be free to issue him a fresh pardon if he wants to. In fact, the president doesn’t have to wait for the courts to weigh in. He could do it today.
But there’s a simple reason for the courts to find that it doesn’t.
To understand why, let’s first look at the Jan. 20, 2025, proclamation’s text, which grants relief to three categories of people. First, it commutes sentences to time served for a list of people named in the order (Cole isn’t one of them). Second, it pardons “all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” And third, it directs the attorney general to drop “all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
So, before getting to the allegations against Cole, who has maintained his innocence, he faces a threshold issue: He doesn’t fit into any of those categories. He was charged in December 2025, long after Trump’s January order, and he hasn’t been convicted. Therefore, he was neither charged nor convicted at the time that Trump granted the pardon. .....
To be sure, had Cole been charged or convicted by the time Trump issued his proclamation, it wouldn’t have been ridiculous to argue that it covered him, even if that argument were not as airtight as his dismissal motion suggested.
But in any event, the timing is important enough that courts could rule against him on that threshold matter alone — that is, without deciding whether his alleged conduct qualifies as related enough to Jan. 6. Courts like not having to decide things they don’t have to when they don’t want to.
And though the government’s position on the pardon’s scope doesn’t dictate how the courts decide that scope, that the Trump DOJ brought this case shows that it doesn’t think Cole qualifies.
Of course, if the courts reject Cole’s motion to dismiss, Trump will be free to issue him a fresh pardon if he wants to. In fact, the president doesn’t have to wait for the courts to weigh in. He could do it today.
This is not my area of the law but on pure contract interpretation principles, trump's poorly worded pardon may not apply
March 18, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-john-roberts-2676213906/
Trump headed for Supreme Court bruising as John Roberts 'lost patience with him': expert
trump has been an asshole to the courts and judges for a while. The attacks that trump made on the SCOTUS tariff ruling has pissed off Roberts
Trump headed for Supreme Court bruising as John Roberts 'lost patience with him': expert
— Anne Grete (GoogeliArt) 🦋💙PD (@googeliart.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T09:04:21.224Z
www.rawstory.com/trump-john-r...
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-john-roberts-2676213906/
A meltdown by US Attorney Jeanine Pirro over being blocked by Judge James Boasberg in her attempt to subpoena the Federal Reserve as she pursues Chair Jerome Powell is setting up a possible showdown in the Supreme Court — which will not go well, according to a former prosecutor.
Appearing on MS NOW Monday, former Palm Beach County state attorney Dave Aronberg claimed Pirro has every intention of running to the nation’s highest court for relief.
But he warned it will not be forthcoming.
On Friday, a furious Pirro shouted at reporters, “By inserting himself and preventing the grand jury from even obtaining — let alone hearing evidence — he [Boasberg] has neutered the grand jury's ability to investigate crime.”
According to Aronberg, Pirro’s saber-rattling combined with Donald Trump’s attacks on Powell on social media will make it hard for the DOJ to get a sign-off to proceed from the nation’s highest court.
“Trump was literally hoisted with his own petard, to use a Shakespeare reference, especially because yesterday was the ides of March,” Aronberg told the hosts.....
“But in that tariff ruling recently, Chief Justice Roberts seemed like he's lost some patience with Trump, and he didn't give the president anywhere near the deference he gave him in the immunity ruling,” he went on. “And so, I think, this ruling will hold up on appeal, especially because you've seen other rulings by the Supreme Court that show that they put the Fed in a unique place, a special bubble that protects them.
Appearing on MS NOW Monday, former Palm Beach County state attorney Dave Aronberg claimed Pirro has every intention of running to the nation’s highest court for relief.
But he warned it will not be forthcoming.
On Friday, a furious Pirro shouted at reporters, “By inserting himself and preventing the grand jury from even obtaining — let alone hearing evidence — he [Boasberg] has neutered the grand jury's ability to investigate crime.”
According to Aronberg, Pirro’s saber-rattling combined with Donald Trump’s attacks on Powell on social media will make it hard for the DOJ to get a sign-off to proceed from the nation’s highest court.
“Trump was literally hoisted with his own petard, to use a Shakespeare reference, especially because yesterday was the ides of March,” Aronberg told the hosts.....
“But in that tariff ruling recently, Chief Justice Roberts seemed like he's lost some patience with Trump, and he didn't give the president anywhere near the deference he gave him in the immunity ruling,” he went on. “And so, I think, this ruling will hold up on appeal, especially because you've seen other rulings by the Supreme Court that show that they put the Fed in a unique place, a special bubble that protects them.
March 17, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/joe-kent-resigns-iran-war-trump-counterterrorism
MaddowBlog-Key counterterrorism official in Trump administration resigns in protest over war in Iran
After less than a year as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent is quitting over his disagreement with Trump over Iran.
The truth is, Joe Kent never should’ve been confirmed as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in the first place.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-17T14:15:08.703Z
But his decision to resign in protest — first such resignation since the offensive in Iran began — creates a notable counterterrorism vacancy during a war.
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/joe-kent-resigns-iran-war-trump-counterterrorism
Joe Kent, whom Senate Republicans confirmed last summer to serve as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has made headlines for a variety of unfortunate reasons, but on Tuesday morning, the Washington Republican made news in an entirely unexpected way: He announced that he’s resigning in protest from the Trump administration over the war in Iran.
In a brief item published to social media, Kent wrote:
Kent, who included an image of his formal resignation letter, added that he considers it an honor to have served under Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. His tweet concluded, “May God bless America.”....
Kent was a contentious figure long before he joined the president’s team. Indeed, The Associated Press published a memorable report during Kent’s 2022 Republican congressional campaign, for example, highlighting his “connections to right-wing extremists, including a campaign consultant who was a member of the Proud Boys.”
The Seattle Times later noted Kent’s “reported associations with white nationalists and other far-right groups, and embrace of conspiracy theories on an array of subjects.”.....
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia called Kent’s record “deeply troubling” but said he agreed with his resignation.
“I strongly disagree with many of the positions he has espoused over the years, particularly those that risk politicizing our intelligence community,” Warner said in a statement on Tuesday. “But on this point, he is right: there was no credible evidence of an imminent threat from Iran that would justify rushing the United States into another war of choice in the Middle East.”
In his resignation letter, Kent pushed a false conspiracy theory that Israeli officials and the media conspired to dupe Trump into launching a war with Iran. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., bashed Kent for resigning and appeared to suggest he’s antisemitic.
“Good riddance. Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans,” Bacon wrote in a post on X on Tuesday. “Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don’t want it in our government.”
Kent’s departure leaves the United States without a director of the National Counterterrorism Center during a war, which seems less than ideal.
In a brief item published to social media, Kent wrote:
After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today.
I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.
Kent, who included an image of his formal resignation letter, added that he considers it an honor to have served under Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. His tweet concluded, “May God bless America.”....
Kent was a contentious figure long before he joined the president’s team. Indeed, The Associated Press published a memorable report during Kent’s 2022 Republican congressional campaign, for example, highlighting his “connections to right-wing extremists, including a campaign consultant who was a member of the Proud Boys.”
The Seattle Times later noted Kent’s “reported associations with white nationalists and other far-right groups, and embrace of conspiracy theories on an array of subjects.”.....
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia called Kent’s record “deeply troubling” but said he agreed with his resignation.
“I strongly disagree with many of the positions he has espoused over the years, particularly those that risk politicizing our intelligence community,” Warner said in a statement on Tuesday. “But on this point, he is right: there was no credible evidence of an imminent threat from Iran that would justify rushing the United States into another war of choice in the Middle East.”
In his resignation letter, Kent pushed a false conspiracy theory that Israeli officials and the media conspired to dupe Trump into launching a war with Iran. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., bashed Kent for resigning and appeared to suggest he’s antisemitic.
“Good riddance. Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans,” Bacon wrote in a post on X on Tuesday. “Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don’t want it in our government.”
Kent’s departure leaves the United States without a director of the National Counterterrorism Center during a war, which seems less than ideal.
March 17, 2026
Trump said he spoke to a former president about bombing Iran. Four denials suggest otherwise.
Trump said twice Monday that he spoke to one of his predecessors about the Iran war and that the former president said he wished he had taken the action Trump did
https://x.com/DittiePE/status/2033864741265760476
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/said-spoke-a-former-president-bombing-iran-four-denials-suggest-not-rcna263819
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump told reporters Monday that one of his predecessors told him he wished he had been the one to bomb Iran.
An aide for George W. Bush told NBC News that “they haven’t been in touch,” while an aide to Bill Clinton told NBC News that whoever Trump was referring to was not Clinton.
An Obama aide said “no recent conversations” have taken place between Barack Obama and Trump, and a source familiar with the matter said the former president Trump was referring to was not Joe Biden.....
“I’ve spoken to a certain president — who I like, actually. A past president, former president, he said: ‘I wish I did it. I wish I did.’ But they didn’t do it. I’m doing it. Yeah?” Trump said at a lunch for Kennedy Center board members.
Later in the day, Trump repeated the claim in the Oval Office, saying: “I spoke to one of the former presidents who I actually like.”
“I actually speak to some,” Trump said. “And he said, ‘I wish I did what you did.’”
Asked by a reporter to elaborate on which president he was speaking to, Trump did not specify. He said it wasn’t Bush and then said “I don’t want to say” when he was asked it was Clinton.
An aide for George W. Bush told NBC News that “they haven’t been in touch,” while an aide to Bill Clinton told NBC News that whoever Trump was referring to was not Clinton.
An Obama aide said “no recent conversations” have taken place between Barack Obama and Trump, and a source familiar with the matter said the former president Trump was referring to was not Joe Biden.....
“I’ve spoken to a certain president — who I like, actually. A past president, former president, he said: ‘I wish I did it. I wish I did.’ But they didn’t do it. I’m doing it. Yeah?” Trump said at a lunch for Kennedy Center board members.
Later in the day, Trump repeated the claim in the Oval Office, saying: “I spoke to one of the former presidents who I actually like.”
“I actually speak to some,” Trump said. “And he said, ‘I wish I did what you did.’”
Asked by a reporter to elaborate on which president he was speaking to, Trump did not specify. He said it wasn’t Bush and then said “I don’t want to say” when he was asked it was Clinton.
March 17, 2026
Giving Chocolate to dog at end of life
My sister is a veterinarian with a doctorate. We called her when one of our PBGVs was in bad shape in the evening. The poor puppy (she was 13 years old) had a cancer tumor that our regular vet did not want to remove. The poor puppy was in pain and my sister suggested that we give the puppy a pain pill wrapped in chocolate. I started to object and my sister made clear that this was okay. We got the puppy to stop crying and got her to our regular vet that morning.
I saw this story and it brought a tear to my eye
https://x.com/Paw_Vibe/status/2033584953288753318.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 179,102