Is there anyone out there who still takes this idiot seriously?
The criminal moron knows he is losing in 2026 and 208 elections. That is the only reason he is backing down on Iran. He would love to steal Iran's oil and make more money for himself, his family and his MAGA billionaire friends, but he is backing down because he knows that the American people (who he says "would like to see us come home") will trounce him and his MAGA Mafia malfeasance gang at the upcoming elections.
His only concern is to always make more money. He doesn't gove a hoot about lives - American and Iranian lives. Just listen to his words. Not one word on civilian lives or even on military "suckers and losers" whose lives he will exploit to make money. His words are all about making money, and to add another infantilizing insult to the American people, he justifies his cowardice and greed with "I just don’t think the people of the United States would really understand". Why would a selfish ignorant imbecile like him expect the American people to understand sending their sons and daughters get killed and kill innocent Iranian civilians in order for him to make more money than he already has is not difficult to understand.
He alway said during his campaigns that he doesn't want foreign wars. But stupid as he is, he was manhandled by Netanyahu and his Zionist chaperones and bamboozled into believing he could make more money by stealing Iran's oil. Now he is backing down like the pathetic loser that he is. Like all criminals, he's got no shame.
==========================================
Trump backs away from seizing Iran's oil: 'Unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home'
Ben Werschkul, Washington Correspondent
Mon, April 6, 2026
President Trump expressed interest in seizing Iran's oil but acknowledged the lack of political will for such a move.
Amid a day with dozens of threats and escalating rhetoric toward Iran, President Trump took a significant step back on one key issue for energy markets: a US campaign to control Iran’s oil.
“I’d like to take the oil because it’s there for the taking,” the president told reporters at the White House easter egg roll. “Unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home.”
The president said multiple times on Monday that he personally wants to take the oil. “We’d make plenty of money,” he said
But the president repeatedly acknowledged that there might not be political will for such a move, which would likely require a ground operation, saying, “I just don’t think the people of the United States would really understand.”
“I’m a businessman first,” Trump said, recounting the operation in Venezuela that saw the US take some oil proceeds. He expressed nostalgia for previous eras when “to the winner belong the spoils.”
Monday’s comments — which came between ever-escalating threats to annihilate Iran’s bridges and electric grid as early as Tuesday night — appear to lessen the odds of a potential US operation that energy traders and observers have been watching closely for weeks.
An operation to seize Iranian oil would be risky and costly and would likely require the use of ground troops to take strategic points like Kharg Island, a seaport that handles up to 90% of Iran’s oil exports.
Going further and seizing Iranian oil production itself, which is predominantly drilled onshore in the southwestern portion of the nation, would be an even more complex operation.
For weeks, Trump has repeatedly teased the idea of taking the oil.
Last Friday, the president posted, “KEEP THE OIL, ANYONE?” after another message earlier that day suggested that taking the oil would be easy with “a little more time” and that the world would make a fortune in response.
A satellite view of Kharg Island, located in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran. (Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2024)(Gallo Images via Getty Images)
The ongoing US operation has included missile attacks on Kharg Island, but Trump and his aides have repeatedly said that only military targets were hit and oil infrastructure was spared.
Other times, Trump has threatened to go further, suggesting destroying Iran’s oil infrastructure.
The president posted on March 30 that he might leave Iran, but only after “blowing up and completely obliterating” targets like Kharg Island.
Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance.
====================================================
Opinion
I was a Navy commander. Trump's approach to military deaths is concerning.
Dave Petri, Opinion contributor
Tue, April 7, 2026
When Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth invokes “no quarter, no mercy” and prays for "overwhelming violence of action" against those who "deserve no mercy" during a prayer service at the Pentagon, the country is hearing more than wartime bluster. It is hearing a dangerous view of power that confuses cruelty with strength, and risks replacing the language of disciplined force with the language of vengeance.
It’s even more concerning when the nation's commander in chief speaks of killing as an “honor,” and shares videos integrating the actual violence of war with fictional depictions pulled from popular culture films and video games.[THE HOLLYWOOD EFFECT ON UGLY AND DUMB AMERICANS]
That matters because in the United States, war is supposed to be an instrument of policy, constrained by law and guided by discipline, not a stage for bloodlust.
Americans have long accepted that military force may be necessary at times, but we have also insisted that force be used for a lawful purpose, under civilian control, and with professional restraint.
That is not softness. It is one of the things that has long distinguished a professional military from a mob, and a constitutional republic from the regimes it opposes.
The American military ethic does not teach service members to delight in killing or to treat mercy as weakness. It teaches them to perform difficult duties under the law, mission and discipline.
It demands self-control in the face of danger and obedience to standards that are meant to preserve both effectiveness and humanity. Service members are trained to understand that war is not an emotional outlet. It is a grave responsibility.
The military is no place for trash-talking
President Donald Trump, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, holds a news conference at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2026.
That is why Trump's and Hegseth's statements should trouble Americans across the political spectrum. They suggest not merely a hard line toward an enemy, but a philosophy of war untethered from restraint.
There is a profound difference between promising to defeat an adversary and speaking as though killing itself is a source of honor. There is a profound difference between resolve and rhetoric that dismisses mercy altogether.
One is the language of disciplined command. The other is the language of vengeance.
Defenders of such comments will say critics are overreacting. War is brutal, they will argue, and leaders sometimes need harsh language to project strength, intimidate enemies and reassure the public. No one expects a president or Defense secretary to sound delicate in a crisis.
Fair enough, but that defense misses the real issue.
The question is not whether leaders should sound strong. The question is whether they understand that true strength requires restraint. The US needs to distinguish itself from its enemies
Defense Secretary [and alcohol-driven howling baboon] Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference with President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2026.
The United States does not prove its resolve by sounding more pitiless than its enemies. It proves its resolve by showing that even when it uses force, it remains governed by law, discipline and constitutional accountability.
Words from leaders at that level do not exist in a vacuum. They shape public expectations. They influence the command climate. They signal to allies and adversaries alike what kind of nation America intends to be.
People gather at the site of a destroyed building at a school where, as the state media reports, several people were killed in an Israeli airstrike, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Minab, Iran in this screengrab obtained from a social media video released on February 28, 2026. Iranian state media reported on February 28 that Israel struck a school in southern Iran, resulting in 40 deaths.
History offers ample warning about where the rhetoric of cruelty can lead. Nations rarely begin by openly abandoning restraint. They begin by blurring it. They begin by teaching citizens to hear vengeance as resolve, brutality as realism and moral limits as weakness.
Once that shift takes hold, the line between lawful force and licensed cruelty becomes easier to cross.
This is why Congress cannot remain a spectator.
Generations of Americans in uniform did their duty under law, discipline and civilian authority. They were expected to bear the burden of combat without abandoning professional restraint.
They followed lawful orders, operated within rules and accepted that in a constitutional system, military power is never supposed to answer to impulse alone.
Congress should be held to no less a standard.
The Constitution does not give lawmakers the luxury of silence when the executive branch drifts toward open-ended conflict or adopts rhetoric that suggests contempt for restraint. Congress has a duty not only to authorize war, oversee it and debate it, but also to defend the legal and moral framework that governs how America fights.
The War Powers framework exists precisely because the country is not meant to slide into war on presidential will alone.
That means members of Congress should publicly reject rhetoric that glorifies killing and scorns mercy. They should insist that any further military action be subject to the constitutional role of the legislative branch.
They should demand clarity on objectives, the legal basis and the limits. And they should make plain that toughness is not measured by how casually leaders speak about destruction.
(L-R) Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Lt. Gen. James Adams III, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Army Lt. Gen. William Hartman arrive to testify during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats to U.S. national security in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2026.
Americans who served have done their duty under the hardest of conditions, but always under a professional ethic that demanded discipline over rage, and mission over vengeance. They were not given a license for bloodlust. They were given standards.
Now Congress faces its own test.
When a president celebrates killing and a Defense secretary flirts with the language of no mercy, the issue is no longer just rhetoric. It is whether America still intends to act like a constitutional republic in matters of war.
Service members did their duty. Congress must now do its own.
Dave Petri, a retired U.S. Navy commander, serves as the communications director for National Security Leaders for America.
Retired Army general says US may need ‘Nuremberg’ like trials for Trump’s ‘illegal orders’ in Iran war
Mike Bedigan
Tue, April 7, 2026
“I’m old enough to remember the Nuremberg trials and how we’ve held the Germans accountable after… the atrocities they committed during World War II,” Brigadier General Steve Anderson told CNN Tuesday.
“And I’d hate to think… five, 10 years from now, we’d be doing the same kind of thing with American soldiers and leaders that made decisions that were being directed by the president of the United States that are illegal.”
The historic Nuremberg trials took place from 1945 to 1946. They saw 22 of the highest-ranking surviving Nazi officials tried for war crimes and “crimes against humanity” over atrocities committed during the Second World War.
Anderson’s remarks came in response to Trump’s social media post Tuesday morning, in which he vowed that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” if Iran did not agree to a ceasefire deal and open the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m.
“I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” the president wrote.
A retired U.S. Army General has warned that Donald Trump’s actions in the Iran war may lead to serious consequences for the president and all those who follow his ‘illegal’ orders (AP)
Multiple experts and people on both sides of the political aisle have said that many of the president’s threats in recent weeks would constitute war crimes, should he make good on them.
MAGA stalwart Marjorie Taylor Greene and even right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones are among those who have expressed outrage online.
Back on CNN, Anderson said Trump was “not competent” and speculated that he would find a way to avoid the 8 p.m. deadline.
“I think he will figure out a way to either extend the deadline, because there’s no way that he can do what he says he’s going to do, which is to bomb every single civilian target in the theater and in Iran,” he said.
“If he were to do that… it would be the commitment of a great war crime.”
In November the Justice Department opened an investigation into a video featuring Democratic lawmakers including Senators Mark Kelly (pictured) in which they urged service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful (AP)
In November, the Justice Department opened an investigation into a video featuring Democratic lawmakers, including Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, in which they urged service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful.
The group, all of whom had military backgrounds, issued a video statement last week telling troops they “can and must refuse illegal orders,” emphasizing that threats to constitutional order can emerge “from right here at home.”
However, a grand jury ultimately refused to indict the lawmakers in connection with the video. Kelly described the attempt by the Trump administration as an “outrageous abuse of power.”
“It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime — all because of something I said that they didn’t like,” he said. “That’s not the way things work in America.”
Trump Eviscerated by ‘Disgusted’ War Veterans and Officials for ‘Grotesque’ Posts
Leigh Kimmins, Donovan Lynch
Tue, April 7, 2026
President Donald Trump’s unhinged war ramblings have left war veterans and former government officials “disgusted.”
The backlash erupted after Trump, 79, warned Tuesday morning that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” if Tehran does not open up the Strait of Hormuz. A separate post on Sunday threatening to obliterate civilian infrastructure also contributed to the outrage among those who have served.
Naveed Shah, political director for Common Defense and an Army veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, said he is “disgusted and genuinely alarmed” by Trump’s “increasingly unhinged rhetoric.”
Naveed Shah speaks as people protest in Philadelphia last June. / Lisa Lake / Getty Images for No Kings
He told the Daily Beast on Tuesday: “I know over the last decade we have become desensitized to Trump’s locker room talk, but language like that is beneath the dignity of the office and dangerous for our troops on the ground.”
He took particular issue with the “sarcastic Praise be to Allah line” from Trump’s post on Sunday, which he labeled “grotesque” because it mocks a faith practiced by millions, “including many who fought alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“Trump’s statement today about the ‘whole civilization’ is the opposite of a responsible Commander-in-Chief,” he added.
He drew attention to the 13 troops the U.S. has lost during Operation Epic Fury, as well as the hundreds injured, and said, “Every casualty is a bill we pay in blood while the President heckles from the cheap seats.”
“Threatening to expand this war without any regard for the damage it has caused and what it will cost demonstrates his contempt for our troops, the American people who do not support this, and the innocent people caught in the middle,” Shah said.
He said that it appears that the president and his close advisers on the war are “not negotiating or looking for off-ramps.”
The president launched into a full-blown genocide level threat against Iran in his Truth Social Post. / Truth Social/ Donald Trump
“Instead, he’s issuing ultimatums via tweet. Without clear, realistic conditions for de-escalation, we’re surging towards another forever war in the Middle East,” he said.
Rick Shimek, of the American Legion chapter in Miami, told MS NOW’s Alex Tabet that he was “totally against” the route Trump is taking with respect to Iran.
“It’s a war crime. I mean, how do you win a war by destroying the country?” Shimek said. “It’s just, he even said it! It would take years to rebuild the infrastructure that he wants to blow up tomorrow. So let’s hope they negotiate and this never happens.”
Brian Finucane, a former state department lawyer, told the Beast that Trump “appears desperate and is using threats to try to coerce Tehran to reach a deal.”
He said the situation is “unprecedented and suggests that he is in over his head.”
Foreign officials have also warned of the legal issues that would arise if Trump follows through on his threats.
“Under international law, deliberately attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime,” said UN human rights chief Volker Türk.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called for Trump to be impeached after his bizarre war threat. / Getty Images
Many prominent conservative voices in the U.S. have also turned on the president. Former congresswoman and Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene on Tuesday called to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the president from office.
“Not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilization. This is evil and madness,” she said.
When reached for comment, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Beast that Iran has until 8 p.m. Tuesday to “meet the moment and make a deal with the United States."
“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do,” Leavitt said.
No comments:
Post a Comment