What a shock, Walter supports regime change in Iran and Matt nods along agreeing. Are these two just Fox News host wannabes now?
Matt pretends the objective is clear and attainable, destroy Iran's nuclear program. But there’s no evidence that this one strike did that, so we will have to do more, and Matt will need to support it to remain consistent.
Walter, while pretending to be ignorant and disinterested, is clearly a hard core Zionist anti-Iran hawk and finally openly advocated that the U.S. commit a war of regime change on Iran. His only stipulation? No “boots” on the ground in Iran. So if we carpet bomb Iran, Walter is all for it.
In the end, these two have absolutely no distance from the Trump regime. Matt sells their lies and pretext for war (destroying the nuclear program) while Walter sells the actual large goal, regime change.
A Great War hawk duo. But neither of these two would be sending their kids to the war, only other people’s kids.
Would it be better if they had continued ass kissing the auto-pen regency? Pretending Biden was actually President and that Russiagate was real helped America so much. Not. Dealing with Iran, who we should recall has been waging war against America, Israel and the West for over 40 years is long over due.
The U.S. and Israel both say they don't know where a large and weaponizable amount of 60% enriched Uranium is, they didn't drop bunker busters on Isfahan, and there is zero evidence that the damage was severe enough to destroy the facility. Besides that, the Iranians are on U.S. satellite imagery evacuating the facility, both staff and equipment was certainly in the trucks they moved stuff out with.
So any person interested would understand with perfect clarity that this strike did absolutely NOT destroy the Iranian nuclear program. Not to mention that Iran still has the science and allies with the weapon already who might be willing to help them along.
What's amazing is that Walter also pretends his AtW commentary comes without the context of the other horseshit he's spouting. He tweeted last night (in response to the ceasefire that Israel immediately shat on, trying to fuck things up again) about how all these peaceniks seen oddly hopeful the ceasefire would fail and "Never seen so many bloodthirsty anti-war voices in my life".
No, we fucking aren't. The ceasefire is great if it holds, but it likely wont because as Trump said this morning RE: Israel, "they don't know what the Fuck they are doing". And if Trump manages NOT to get fully dragged into war by Israel's rogue actions again, it will be BECAUSE of the fact that his anti-war base- from Matt Walsh to MTG and Tucker- are furious and creating pressure, because it's not a popular move.
The subtext of this Matt/Walter idea that people shouldn't "freak out" until it's too fucking late is insane. Outrage works sometimes, and the clapping seals saying "no big deal, yeah hit the nukes", you are the ones enabling a bad outcome, if we do ultimately get one.
The problem is still the same as it was on June 12th- Israel is committing genocide with our money/guns and bombing other countries to get us into a war. Israel does not want peace, and every American voice from the left OR right should be against them and what they are trying to do. https://x.com/democracynow/status/1937488413126472102
Do you have evidence that they weren’t destroyed? You seem to have info that none of the rest of us do. Are we doing more? As of right now we’re not but again you seem to have top secret access so again enthral us with your acumen. Any any regime that chants ‘death to America’ can suck a bag of dicks…..so yeah……we’re not siding with them. Go peddle your Rashida Tlaib & Ilhan Omar talking points over on Bluesky.
I have more evidence that the nuclear program is intact than you have that it is totally destroyed. The US didn’t even bother dropping a bunker buster on Isfahan because they knew it wouldn’t penetrate deep enough and our own government and the Israeli government both say there is a large amount of 60% enriched uranium that they have no idea where it is.
So yes, the attack blew up some above ground buildings and put some holes in a mountain. But even if they actually destroyed what they hit, they didn’t even try to hit the underground portion in others.
Um. I didn’t make the claim that it was totally destroyed. You however made the claim that it wasn’t. So please post up your undisputed ‘evidence’ that their nuclear program is still fully intact. Look forward to seeing it.
The evidence is what I posted which you can confirm from US and Israeli sources. That’s not good enough for you, not my problem. The U.S. itself claims it did not drop bunker busters on Isfahan and both nations claim Iran still has enriched uranium. So yes, it’s without a doubt that the program was not totally destroyed.
In fact, the reason the U.S. is using vague language like “severely damaged” is because we have no idea how far we set back a potential Iranian nuclear weapon at all.
But we sure have them a reason to develop one with this idiotic and ineffective bombing. One that violates international law and the NPT.
Walter says, of bombing a nation state we weren't at war with, "either they didn't have nukes and no loss or they were building them and good job".
What about the most probable scenario, which is that they *weren't* building them in favor of diplomacy, but now (rightfully) feel they MUST build them, to prevent war criminal bullies like the US/Israel from doing unprovoked murders of their civilians, all while lying about negotiations. Every country now has more incentive to acquire nukes if they haven't, and to keep them if they do.
Trump is Netanyahu's bitch, and so was Biden, and Kamala if she'd won would have been striking Iran on behalf of Israel too. This bombing is the one thing that probably would have happened no matter who was in office, though I can't help feel your take would be a different if the exact same thing happened under a Democrat leader. It's a worse betrayal under Trump, because he ran on an opposite idea, while Kamala admitted she was a warmonger RE Iran.
No one serious thinks Trump was a puppet of Putin. No one serious believes Trump is acting in the interest of Americans right now.
This was a surprising listen. Initially I thought; “Oh fuck…here we go…” Walter in over his head and Matt wrapped around him like a human floatation device. I think what happened (this might be a complete fantasy) is that pressure from readers and listeners finally forced these two to dig down through their own superficial snide rationalizations to some reasonably deep essential principles.
It was pretty compelling.
Basically they articulated: the world isn’t fair. If the big dogs intimidate the little dogs consider a world where every dog is the big dog.
They managed not to focus on Trump or Israel. I think they should don their big person pants and get into that. Regardless of the shit we WILL sling from the peanut gallery.
Why EXACTLY is the USA serving at the pleasure of Israel? Discuss. And if the USA IS serving at the pleasure of Israel what does the USA get
out of the deal?
The Trump family gets Gaza The Trump Property? Is that the deal? Or do the Palestinians FINALLY get their state because (as Walter would have us believe) Heir Trump is a guy who gets things done.
They also buy on its face as true the notion that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program and totally ignore all sources that contradict that notion, whether that is the IAEA or the Trump administration itself. They only take claims as true on their face if they come from Israel or Trump himself.
Meanwhile, Walter gleefully taunts that if there was no Iranian nuclear program then bombing them is no issue, has no costs, and no risks. Just a completely neutral event. This is propaganda on the highest level. This attack was not only illegal under international law, a war crime of aggression, but it also put in jeopardy the possibility of a wider all out war with Iran, which is of course what Israel wants the U.S. to be engaged in. The fact that Walter ignores all of this shows how clearly he is a propagandist for Zionists and Israel.
Not to mention that his specialty is fiction. Which he used to freely admit, until he began settling into this this bizarre and disappointing role of writing the Truthman Show.
Jesus Christ Walter and Matt there is so much bullshit here it’s hard to ignore. The reason Iran has developed a nuclear program beyond what is required for energy and medical only happened once trump pulled us out of the last deal. They are doing that as a bargaining chip to get rid of the sanctions that have been on Iran since the revolution that overthrew the last guy we installed after a regime change. Israel has been saying, Netanyahu in particular, has been saying Iran is months away from a nuke for 30 fucking years and has been wrong time and time again!!! How are you lapping this up it’s fucking incredible! The only objection Israel had to us invading Iraq was not that we shouldn’t, but we should do Iran first! Well look at that I guess we finally got there. Even the god damn intel agencies arnt going along with this and they have been gunning for Iran since the Shaw was overthrown. So ridiculous. Refute any of it.
I have to hand it to you two, the amount of calories you guys must burn trying to justify the US bombing of a sovereign state only to conclude that people’s general reaction is just “a freak out that needs to be toned down,” is truly impressive. Although Taibbi did have to admit at the end he was exhausted.
I especially like the thorough trashing of Iran as simply a terrorist state and a thorn in America’s side for decades. By diminishing the Shah of Iran’s two decade reign of terror, and the subsequent US imposing of crushing sanctions on the Iran population for the last 40 years, its easy to conclude there is no reason for Iran to hate us or retaliate against us in anyway it can.
Who has been terrorizing who, Matt, kinda depends on where you live.
Yes, and who most recently backed out of a nuclear deal that would make today's threat non-existent? Who was it that kept to the terms of said deal for an entire year after the US side broke it, only to be crippled by new sanctions and assassinations of leaders in their beds at night?
I'm lighting up the comments sections these past few weeks because I simply cannot believe how naive and brain-dead these past few shows have been. It's just so uncharacteristic, particularly of Matt. I'm sure I'll burn out and unsub eventually. I guess that's what happens when Walter Kirn is faced with irrefutable proof that the dude in white house is kinda ACTUALLY (not fake news) doing some of the things that people have accused him of/warned against. It's the same as the rampant "anti-antisemitic" speech crack down being completely re-framed as "these unemployed actor kids messing up libraries".
So what, if Trump decides to actually nuke someone, and run for a third term, we can expect the same quality analysis, "hey, now. yeah but remember they lied in 2020 about that? we all know we don't live in a democracy, kiddos, this is just how it GOES sometimes!"
Here's a consistent, real world stance, I'm arguing for you to understand, Walter:
The only country with an illegal nuclear program(Israel), encouraging The US Empire (that just happens to be the only one to ever actually nuke someone) to join them in the preemptive-bombing of a country who was willing to abide by the rules, is bad.
Iran signed a nuclear agreement, that we backed out on. Only this past month, did Trump change his stance from "no bomb" to "no enrichment", which is incompatible with even a "non-weapons" nuclear energy program. All indications are that he did this because of Israeli and neocon influence (never-trump Cheney style warmongers). You cannot be this dense.
This is absolutely correct, like Trump, Matt and Walter were so against Forever Wars last year that it is massively jarring to hear them blithely acquiescing to the illegal bombing of another country, and Walter supporting regime change.
Much like the negotiations between NATO and Serbia, clearly Trump wasn't going to take Yes, for an answer.
You are ruining the show responding to comments on the youtube feed which are generally sophomoric. Wish you could just talk about your own take instead of being defensive.
Matt and Walter, I'm about 1.25hrs in, and maybe it's because I'm older, and a moderate, but I AGREE with the thrust of your views expressed during that time on Iran. I feel I should say so because the commenters I saw you addressing on YouTube were disparaging of you and your thoughts during this ATW Live. (I tried watching Friday's ATW, but Matt seemed so tired and disoriented, and neither of you seemed well prepared, so I stopped after a while.)
If they were supporting a boots-on-the-ground war with Iran, I'd agree with your point. But I didn't hear them say that. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I think they were supporting a single "surgical strike" military operation only for US involvement. And Matt stated early on that he didn't like that strike, but was basing his next comments on the fact that like it or not, it happened.
You do realize that "boots" are not required for America to suffer casualties, right?
And no, they were not just supporting a single "surgical strike." They both openly advocated using military force, no matter how much is necessary, to destroy the "Iranian nuclear program." They could not have been more clear they both support this.
Walter himself went further and explicitly endorsed regime change and using military force to achieve it as long as no "boots" are put on the ground. So Walter is for an all out carpet bombing of Iran, since that does not require "boots." Basically to do to Iran what we did to Libya.
And in the previous episode, Matt repeatedly said that he thought bombing or sending missiles into Iran over their nuclear program was something he was "good with." He fully supports bombing Iran. He said it's the one thing he does support, bombing Iran, specifically their nuclear program.
There is no other way to interpret what they said as anything short of pro-war. Just because you don't want a full scale invasion doesn't mean you aren't pro-war. If another fucking country had a member in their government that publicly advocated a bombing of our country, then after it happened they defended it, we would without a doubt consider that person pro-war even if they did not want to invade America.
I'm certainly imperfect and on today's podcast I didn't hear that (though I dropped out before the book discussion). If they said all you say they did then I stand corrected.
Let me try to show you I am engaging you in good faith by quoting Matt from the last episode that you said you stopped listening to (I don't blame you.)
I actually have them at hand because I was so absolutely stunned and other people didn't believe me when I said Matt Taibbi supports bombing Iran, so I had to go find the quotes in the transcript from the show to prove it to people.
Here are some quotes from the last episode (only from Matt, Walter openly said he supports regime change in this episode so I won't bother with him)
"As long as we’re not doing the John Bolton removing a government and putting a new one in with a viceroy who walks around in Timberland boots and everything like that, I’m fine. If it’s just blow the shit up and leave, I’m okay with that…”
“...one of the few things that I think is worth launching a rocket or two about is the possibility of a state that’s committed acts of terrorism, getting a nuclear bomb.”
“If we were going to do this, I think we should have done it ourselves and not let Israel do it.”
So by this, what I understand is Matt is against a regime change/occupation of Iran, but has multiple times now endorsed, even if "begrudgingly" so, a bombing campaign at Iran aimed at the destruction of the nuclear program.
Thanks for these. The last of the quotes you found goes deeper than I'd have expected. It basically says that if the US was going to get involved at all, he would have been up for us doing all that Israel has done there. Reading it in context it sounds like he wasn't thinking about the retaliation aspects of that. Was he woozy and out of it through that whole thing? Right around that quote he says he doesn't feel strongly either way about it. On a strongly related note, let's hope the ceasefire and end of war that Trump announced is real.
The YouTube comment section was tiring, full of bad facts and no respect for differing point of view. And, if there is sadness in the world, none of us are entitled to be happy. Ever.
The internet (and the media) is far better at amplifying the negative than the positive because of the way we are wired by evolution--and sadness hyped becomes madness.
Walter, if the objective is to forestall the nuclear program, bombing is obviously ineffective. We sabotaged the negotiations and then killed the chief negotiator. I doubt that is our objective.
Also, in response to our discussion of “theocratic lunacy,” rather than citing evidence of psychopathy, perhaps I should have mentioned the religious justifications given for occupying others land (literally extracting people from their homes so others of the appropriate religion can move in as occurs in the West Bank) and lording over them with identity cards that include one’s religion and whether one is determined to be under military rule, including having separate roads to travel and being subjected to checkpoints at the point of a gun) or have the privileges of those who are not. Religion is clearly not the overriding issue. Rather, a racist, apartheid state with a Zionist political ideology at odds with the actual tenets of the ancient religion with which it cloaks itself is.
I'm certainly finding Catch-22 an easier read than 1984, which was as impossible the sixth through ninth times I tried, during your and Walter's discussing it, as it had been the first five.
I only made it a quarter of the way through this episode. I can chop plenty up to ignorance, political blinders. But it comes to a point where Walter in particular is just a partisan hack, making the whole thing a joke (not in a funny way) and Matt tepidly pushes back occasionally. Gave up after Walter said it was the intelligence assessment that got us into Iraq. Literally the opposite. It was partisan hacks like himself that cherry picked intelligence, and just lied, to sell that war. He’s not just on another planet, he’s light years away from reality.
Seriously, Matt, cut the fucking cord with this guy. Do your journalism. Talk about your journalism on shows. Invite guests on to this show. No more pontificating on shit you guys don’t know enough about. Invite someone on that does instead.
Of course Zionist stooge and frequent Fox guest Kirn dissembles and conflates with the pretentious gravitas of an Ivy League grad, though his intellectual heft is all ignorant bluster that cannot bear the weight of inspection. Sorry, Walter, 60% enriched Uranium cannot be weaponized quickly regardless of what your bloodthirsty fellow-travellors say. Further, Uranium bombs are too big for ballistic missiles unlike Plutonium implosion warheads are, and unless Iran magically gets a modern bomber fleet should they choose to get a uranium bomb, they would have no strategic means of delivering said bomb. Iran does not as of now have the ability to refine weapons grade plutonium, and disposes of its plutonium waste from the Arak reactor in Russia. Had Walter spent 10 minutes doing reasearch on nuclear weapons that even us hoi polloi can reference on Wikipedia he could have saved some face; now I'm not sure if he's just another pompous yet ignorant winbag or just shilling for his socioeconomic world aka the establishment.
What a shock, Walter supports regime change in Iran and Matt nods along agreeing. Are these two just Fox News host wannabes now?
Matt pretends the objective is clear and attainable, destroy Iran's nuclear program. But there’s no evidence that this one strike did that, so we will have to do more, and Matt will need to support it to remain consistent.
Walter, while pretending to be ignorant and disinterested, is clearly a hard core Zionist anti-Iran hawk and finally openly advocated that the U.S. commit a war of regime change on Iran. His only stipulation? No “boots” on the ground in Iran. So if we carpet bomb Iran, Walter is all for it.
In the end, these two have absolutely no distance from the Trump regime. Matt sells their lies and pretext for war (destroying the nuclear program) while Walter sells the actual large goal, regime change.
A Great War hawk duo. But neither of these two would be sending their kids to the war, only other people’s kids.
Would it be better if they had continued ass kissing the auto-pen regency? Pretending Biden was actually President and that Russiagate was real helped America so much. Not. Dealing with Iran, who we should recall has been waging war against America, Israel and the West for over 40 years is long over due.
All Trump did was start a war without even destroying the Iranian nuclear capacity. But he did certainly give them a reason to obtain a nuke.
Complete and utter incompetence.
I didn’t realize that you had gone in and personally inspected where the labs have been bombed; you have your after action intelligence how exactly?
The U.S. and Israel both say they don't know where a large and weaponizable amount of 60% enriched Uranium is, they didn't drop bunker busters on Isfahan, and there is zero evidence that the damage was severe enough to destroy the facility. Besides that, the Iranians are on U.S. satellite imagery evacuating the facility, both staff and equipment was certainly in the trucks they moved stuff out with.
So any person interested would understand with perfect clarity that this strike did absolutely NOT destroy the Iranian nuclear program. Not to mention that Iran still has the science and allies with the weapon already who might be willing to help them along.
Explain how Iran has been waging war on America for 40 years? I'm missing something, give me examples please?
Walter and Matt's relationship is a lot like Bibi and Trump's.
What's amazing is that Walter also pretends his AtW commentary comes without the context of the other horseshit he's spouting. He tweeted last night (in response to the ceasefire that Israel immediately shat on, trying to fuck things up again) about how all these peaceniks seen oddly hopeful the ceasefire would fail and "Never seen so many bloodthirsty anti-war voices in my life".
No, we fucking aren't. The ceasefire is great if it holds, but it likely wont because as Trump said this morning RE: Israel, "they don't know what the Fuck they are doing". And if Trump manages NOT to get fully dragged into war by Israel's rogue actions again, it will be BECAUSE of the fact that his anti-war base- from Matt Walsh to MTG and Tucker- are furious and creating pressure, because it's not a popular move.
The subtext of this Matt/Walter idea that people shouldn't "freak out" until it's too fucking late is insane. Outrage works sometimes, and the clapping seals saying "no big deal, yeah hit the nukes", you are the ones enabling a bad outcome, if we do ultimately get one.
The problem is still the same as it was on June 12th- Israel is committing genocide with our money/guns and bombing other countries to get us into a war. Israel does not want peace, and every American voice from the left OR right should be against them and what they are trying to do. https://x.com/democracynow/status/1937488413126472102
Do you have evidence that they weren’t destroyed? You seem to have info that none of the rest of us do. Are we doing more? As of right now we’re not but again you seem to have top secret access so again enthral us with your acumen. Any any regime that chants ‘death to America’ can suck a bag of dicks…..so yeah……we’re not siding with them. Go peddle your Rashida Tlaib & Ilhan Omar talking points over on Bluesky.
I have more evidence that the nuclear program is intact than you have that it is totally destroyed. The US didn’t even bother dropping a bunker buster on Isfahan because they knew it wouldn’t penetrate deep enough and our own government and the Israeli government both say there is a large amount of 60% enriched uranium that they have no idea where it is.
So yes, the attack blew up some above ground buildings and put some holes in a mountain. But even if they actually destroyed what they hit, they didn’t even try to hit the underground portion in others.
Um. I didn’t make the claim that it was totally destroyed. You however made the claim that it wasn’t. So please post up your undisputed ‘evidence’ that their nuclear program is still fully intact. Look forward to seeing it.
I already did post it, I can’t help it if you ignore it.
You mean you said it. Is that your evidence?
The evidence is what I posted which you can confirm from US and Israeli sources. That’s not good enough for you, not my problem. The U.S. itself claims it did not drop bunker busters on Isfahan and both nations claim Iran still has enriched uranium. So yes, it’s without a doubt that the program was not totally destroyed.
In fact, the reason the U.S. is using vague language like “severely damaged” is because we have no idea how far we set back a potential Iranian nuclear weapon at all.
But we sure have them a reason to develop one with this idiotic and ineffective bombing. One that violates international law and the NPT.
amen.
Another episode of Ugly Americans this Week. LOL Walter's "sources."
Walter says, of bombing a nation state we weren't at war with, "either they didn't have nukes and no loss or they were building them and good job".
What about the most probable scenario, which is that they *weren't* building them in favor of diplomacy, but now (rightfully) feel they MUST build them, to prevent war criminal bullies like the US/Israel from doing unprovoked murders of their civilians, all while lying about negotiations. Every country now has more incentive to acquire nukes if they haven't, and to keep them if they do.
Trump is Netanyahu's bitch, and so was Biden, and Kamala if she'd won would have been striking Iran on behalf of Israel too. This bombing is the one thing that probably would have happened no matter who was in office, though I can't help feel your take would be a different if the exact same thing happened under a Democrat leader. It's a worse betrayal under Trump, because he ran on an opposite idea, while Kamala admitted she was a warmonger RE Iran.
No one serious thinks Trump was a puppet of Putin. No one serious believes Trump is acting in the interest of Americans right now.
No one serious thinks”
This was a surprising listen. Initially I thought; “Oh fuck…here we go…” Walter in over his head and Matt wrapped around him like a human floatation device. I think what happened (this might be a complete fantasy) is that pressure from readers and listeners finally forced these two to dig down through their own superficial snide rationalizations to some reasonably deep essential principles.
It was pretty compelling.
Basically they articulated: the world isn’t fair. If the big dogs intimidate the little dogs consider a world where every dog is the big dog.
They managed not to focus on Trump or Israel. I think they should don their big person pants and get into that. Regardless of the shit we WILL sling from the peanut gallery.
Why EXACTLY is the USA serving at the pleasure of Israel? Discuss. And if the USA IS serving at the pleasure of Israel what does the USA get
out of the deal?
The Trump family gets Gaza The Trump Property? Is that the deal? Or do the Palestinians FINALLY get their state because (as Walter would have us believe) Heir Trump is a guy who gets things done.
They also buy on its face as true the notion that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program and totally ignore all sources that contradict that notion, whether that is the IAEA or the Trump administration itself. They only take claims as true on their face if they come from Israel or Trump himself.
Meanwhile, Walter gleefully taunts that if there was no Iranian nuclear program then bombing them is no issue, has no costs, and no risks. Just a completely neutral event. This is propaganda on the highest level. This attack was not only illegal under international law, a war crime of aggression, but it also put in jeopardy the possibility of a wider all out war with Iran, which is of course what Israel wants the U.S. to be engaged in. The fact that Walter ignores all of this shows how clearly he is a propagandist for Zionists and Israel.
But he has inside sources, very powerful people, very smart people!
Not to mention that his specialty is fiction. Which he used to freely admit, until he began settling into this this bizarre and disappointing role of writing the Truthman Show.
He’ll need a sequel to Blood Will Out.
Jesus Christ Walter and Matt there is so much bullshit here it’s hard to ignore. The reason Iran has developed a nuclear program beyond what is required for energy and medical only happened once trump pulled us out of the last deal. They are doing that as a bargaining chip to get rid of the sanctions that have been on Iran since the revolution that overthrew the last guy we installed after a regime change. Israel has been saying, Netanyahu in particular, has been saying Iran is months away from a nuke for 30 fucking years and has been wrong time and time again!!! How are you lapping this up it’s fucking incredible! The only objection Israel had to us invading Iraq was not that we shouldn’t, but we should do Iran first! Well look at that I guess we finally got there. Even the god damn intel agencies arnt going along with this and they have been gunning for Iran since the Shaw was overthrown. So ridiculous. Refute any of it.
perfect
I have to hand it to you two, the amount of calories you guys must burn trying to justify the US bombing of a sovereign state only to conclude that people’s general reaction is just “a freak out that needs to be toned down,” is truly impressive. Although Taibbi did have to admit at the end he was exhausted.
I especially like the thorough trashing of Iran as simply a terrorist state and a thorn in America’s side for decades. By diminishing the Shah of Iran’s two decade reign of terror, and the subsequent US imposing of crushing sanctions on the Iran population for the last 40 years, its easy to conclude there is no reason for Iran to hate us or retaliate against us in anyway it can.
Who has been terrorizing who, Matt, kinda depends on where you live.
Yes, and who most recently backed out of a nuclear deal that would make today's threat non-existent? Who was it that kept to the terms of said deal for an entire year after the US side broke it, only to be crippled by new sanctions and assassinations of leaders in their beds at night?
I'm lighting up the comments sections these past few weeks because I simply cannot believe how naive and brain-dead these past few shows have been. It's just so uncharacteristic, particularly of Matt. I'm sure I'll burn out and unsub eventually. I guess that's what happens when Walter Kirn is faced with irrefutable proof that the dude in white house is kinda ACTUALLY (not fake news) doing some of the things that people have accused him of/warned against. It's the same as the rampant "anti-antisemitic" speech crack down being completely re-framed as "these unemployed actor kids messing up libraries".
So what, if Trump decides to actually nuke someone, and run for a third term, we can expect the same quality analysis, "hey, now. yeah but remember they lied in 2020 about that? we all know we don't live in a democracy, kiddos, this is just how it GOES sometimes!"
Here's a consistent, real world stance, I'm arguing for you to understand, Walter:
The only country with an illegal nuclear program(Israel), encouraging The US Empire (that just happens to be the only one to ever actually nuke someone) to join them in the preemptive-bombing of a country who was willing to abide by the rules, is bad.
Iran signed a nuclear agreement, that we backed out on. Only this past month, did Trump change his stance from "no bomb" to "no enrichment", which is incompatible with even a "non-weapons" nuclear energy program. All indications are that he did this because of Israeli and neocon influence (never-trump Cheney style warmongers). You cannot be this dense.
This is absolutely correct, like Trump, Matt and Walter were so against Forever Wars last year that it is massively jarring to hear them blithely acquiescing to the illegal bombing of another country, and Walter supporting regime change.
Much like the negotiations between NATO and Serbia, clearly Trump wasn't going to take Yes, for an answer.
You are ruining the show responding to comments on the youtube feed which are generally sophomoric. Wish you could just talk about your own take instead of being defensive.
Matt and Walter, I'm about 1.25hrs in, and maybe it's because I'm older, and a moderate, but I AGREE with the thrust of your views expressed during that time on Iran. I feel I should say so because the commenters I saw you addressing on YouTube were disparaging of you and your thoughts during this ATW Live. (I tried watching Friday's ATW, but Matt seemed so tired and disoriented, and neither of you seemed well prepared, so I stopped after a while.)
The thrust of their view was that they both support a war with Iran while neither of them or their family will partake in the war.
If they were supporting a boots-on-the-ground war with Iran, I'd agree with your point. But I didn't hear them say that. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I think they were supporting a single "surgical strike" military operation only for US involvement. And Matt stated early on that he didn't like that strike, but was basing his next comments on the fact that like it or not, it happened.
You do realize that "boots" are not required for America to suffer casualties, right?
And no, they were not just supporting a single "surgical strike." They both openly advocated using military force, no matter how much is necessary, to destroy the "Iranian nuclear program." They could not have been more clear they both support this.
Walter himself went further and explicitly endorsed regime change and using military force to achieve it as long as no "boots" are put on the ground. So Walter is for an all out carpet bombing of Iran, since that does not require "boots." Basically to do to Iran what we did to Libya.
And in the previous episode, Matt repeatedly said that he thought bombing or sending missiles into Iran over their nuclear program was something he was "good with." He fully supports bombing Iran. He said it's the one thing he does support, bombing Iran, specifically their nuclear program.
There is no other way to interpret what they said as anything short of pro-war. Just because you don't want a full scale invasion doesn't mean you aren't pro-war. If another fucking country had a member in their government that publicly advocated a bombing of our country, then after it happened they defended it, we would without a doubt consider that person pro-war even if they did not want to invade America.
Stop shifting the goal posts.
I'm certainly imperfect and on today's podcast I didn't hear that (though I dropped out before the book discussion). If they said all you say they did then I stand corrected.
Let me try to show you I am engaging you in good faith by quoting Matt from the last episode that you said you stopped listening to (I don't blame you.)
I actually have them at hand because I was so absolutely stunned and other people didn't believe me when I said Matt Taibbi supports bombing Iran, so I had to go find the quotes in the transcript from the show to prove it to people.
Here are some quotes from the last episode (only from Matt, Walter openly said he supports regime change in this episode so I won't bother with him)
The transcript so you can search them for yourself as you wish - https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/transcript-america-this-week-june-e1d?r=8yze6&utm_medium=ios
"As long as we’re not doing the John Bolton removing a government and putting a new one in with a viceroy who walks around in Timberland boots and everything like that, I’m fine. If it’s just blow the shit up and leave, I’m okay with that…”
“...one of the few things that I think is worth launching a rocket or two about is the possibility of a state that’s committed acts of terrorism, getting a nuclear bomb.”
“If we were going to do this, I think we should have done it ourselves and not let Israel do it.”
So by this, what I understand is Matt is against a regime change/occupation of Iran, but has multiple times now endorsed, even if "begrudgingly" so, a bombing campaign at Iran aimed at the destruction of the nuclear program.
Thanks for these. The last of the quotes you found goes deeper than I'd have expected. It basically says that if the US was going to get involved at all, he would have been up for us doing all that Israel has done there. Reading it in context it sounds like he wasn't thinking about the retaliation aspects of that. Was he woozy and out of it through that whole thing? Right around that quote he says he doesn't feel strongly either way about it. On a strongly related note, let's hope the ceasefire and end of war that Trump announced is real.
The YouTube comment section was tiring, full of bad facts and no respect for differing point of view. And, if there is sadness in the world, none of us are entitled to be happy. Ever.
The internet (and the media) is far better at amplifying the negative than the positive because of the way we are wired by evolution--and sadness hyped becomes madness.
Yep.
Slim Pickens, wheeee... 🙆🏻♂️ 🚀 💥 🍄
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
Good one!!!
Walter, if the objective is to forestall the nuclear program, bombing is obviously ineffective. We sabotaged the negotiations and then killed the chief negotiator. I doubt that is our objective.
Also, in response to our discussion of “theocratic lunacy,” rather than citing evidence of psychopathy, perhaps I should have mentioned the religious justifications given for occupying others land (literally extracting people from their homes so others of the appropriate religion can move in as occurs in the West Bank) and lording over them with identity cards that include one’s religion and whether one is determined to be under military rule, including having separate roads to travel and being subjected to checkpoints at the point of a gun) or have the privileges of those who are not. Religion is clearly not the overriding issue. Rather, a racist, apartheid state with a Zionist political ideology at odds with the actual tenets of the ancient religion with which it cloaks itself is.
Why is Israel’s nuclear program never mentioned?
I can't believe your podcast has already been superseded by events!
Anyway, it was really enjoyable. I loved your responding live to comments. Great fun. Walter, please hit the spacebar.
I'm certainly finding Catch-22 an easier read than 1984, which was as impossible the sixth through ninth times I tried, during your and Walter's discussing it, as it had been the first five.
I only made it a quarter of the way through this episode. I can chop plenty up to ignorance, political blinders. But it comes to a point where Walter in particular is just a partisan hack, making the whole thing a joke (not in a funny way) and Matt tepidly pushes back occasionally. Gave up after Walter said it was the intelligence assessment that got us into Iraq. Literally the opposite. It was partisan hacks like himself that cherry picked intelligence, and just lied, to sell that war. He’s not just on another planet, he’s light years away from reality.
Seriously, Matt, cut the fucking cord with this guy. Do your journalism. Talk about your journalism on shows. Invite guests on to this show. No more pontificating on shit you guys don’t know enough about. Invite someone on that does instead.
Of course Zionist stooge and frequent Fox guest Kirn dissembles and conflates with the pretentious gravitas of an Ivy League grad, though his intellectual heft is all ignorant bluster that cannot bear the weight of inspection. Sorry, Walter, 60% enriched Uranium cannot be weaponized quickly regardless of what your bloodthirsty fellow-travellors say. Further, Uranium bombs are too big for ballistic missiles unlike Plutonium implosion warheads are, and unless Iran magically gets a modern bomber fleet should they choose to get a uranium bomb, they would have no strategic means of delivering said bomb. Iran does not as of now have the ability to refine weapons grade plutonium, and disposes of its plutonium waste from the Arak reactor in Russia. Had Walter spent 10 minutes doing reasearch on nuclear weapons that even us hoi polloi can reference on Wikipedia he could have saved some face; now I'm not sure if he's just another pompous yet ignorant winbag or just shilling for his socioeconomic world aka the establishment.