Alternatively, can people stop complaining about Matt’s choice of cohost?
ATW diehards need to accept that Matt *wants* to talk to Michael Tracey, probably because this pairing allows Matt to explore the place he’s in now, with everything going on in the world + media—which is not the place he was in 2 years ago.
Whatever else you can say about him, Tracey shows up for work. He didn’t quit when Matt hired Emily Kopp. He didn’t quit when Emily Kopp left(??) a month later. He didn’t quit when ATW fans insulted him week after week. And he didn’t quit when Matt lost his connection, which is why Racket readers received a complete interview. (Thank you!)
This comments section has been inexcusably rude. It’s embarrassing. Nobody who contributes to Racket in good faith should be hazed like Kopp and Tracey have been—why would anyone work with Matt in the future?
People who don’t like the content, just vote with your feet and watch something else.
Matt attracts more nags than anyone I've ever seen.
People show up here just to complain about his cohosts (both Michael and Walter), or to badger him about what stories they think he should be covering.
But forcibly kidnapping and removing someone from power at a different country because we want the oil is still stupid and I agree he should have just done some sort of deal
I watched the whole interview. Michael Tracey's questions to Joe Kent were often ... if not usually ... premised on partial misinformation or presented with an anti-Trump bias. He's obviously smart, and he's Matt's choice, but he lacks Matt's humility and willingness to be shown to be wrong. I like to think I'm open-minded, but I learn very little from Tracey's analyses. I'll watch Matt and Michael again until I realize I can't.
If you copy the transcript of this interview into MSword and do a word count, 60% of the interview is Tracey. This interview reveals little about Kent, and plenty about Tracey's opinions.
Shellenberger interviewed Kent too. While the subject there was mostly the Charlie Kirk murder. His patient, concise questions revealed much about Kent's flimsy claims.
You astutely point out something that is quite important. Your documentation confirms my own perception. An interviewer should rarely ... if ever ... dominate the conversation.
To be fair, it's telling you exactly what it is: a racket.
Ironically, Matt is both the primary perpetrator and the primary victim of the fraud, paying third-rate impostor journos to help him destroy his own reputation.
I have NO respect for Joe Kent. His take on Israel is shades of Candace Owens. I think he should go get a job at K-Mart. I'm not a huge Tracey fan, but his questioning the credibility of Kent's version was spot on.
Ok I’ll give it a try, I’ve heard one interview with JK and he came of as very smart and understanding of geopolitics. I’m glade Matt is getting into the subject even if behind the obvious beard of Tracey
I found Joe Kent completely unbelievable on the "Israel made US do it" line, and I think Tracey actually did a good job, if a rather prolix one, in bringing this out. Tracey detailed how the Trump administration had many reasons, and gave of many signs, that they judged Iran to be a very grave threat, without any need to think it was all ginned up by Israelis. Kent never actually addressed what level of threat he thinks Iran represented; in fact, Kent seems to think that uranium enrichment to near weapons-grade really isn't a big deal, and 47 years of "Death to America, Death to Israel" isn't really a serious threat. Maybe Kent is right about those two things, but I didn't find him at all convincing. In fact, the lack of content to his dismissal of these things, and of the reports of assassination plots against Trump, has rather moved the needle for me in the other direction. Kent is also a slippery guy, of course, not a career spook so much as a man looking to run for office, so I have to think Kent is positioning himself. --I read the transcripts, but never watch or listen; it's more efficient for me. So other comment gripes about how these sound don't touch me.
Joe Kent is an example of America not being able to see anything except American exceptionalism and that every other country must obey. Iran is no threat to America and never was. Why wouldn't they say "Death to America" when their democratic government was overthrown by the US in 1953 because they have America's oil in their ground. Just as Venezuela was holding America's oil illegally right? Do we not think other people want to be free of US tyranny and exploitation? By what right can the US apply sanctions against countries not doing business with America other than punishing force? The Lancet issued a report last August showing US sanctions have led to the death of 32 million people between 1971-2021. Kind of obvious why they are defiant and angry.
BeeZee, I actually agree with some of what you say about why Iranians might have justification for anti-American views. But wouldn't that also mean there are good reasons to take Iran seriously as a threat, when the country is directed by a radical Shiite cohort that can harness legitimate grievances into a zealous religious national purpose?
He's slippery for sure. He ran twice for our congressional seat. 2022 and 2024. A friend ran for the same seat in 2022. There were many things that happened in that first race that makes me distrust him and shudder whenever I see him on the podcast circuit since his big, dramatic, resignation.
Y'all denigrated the hell out of Joe Kent and pretended he was going around spouting wild conspiracy theories but as you see, he's level headed and careful to draw a clear line between what he knows and what he just thinks might be the case. Giving his honest take on the situation and going out of his way to always say when he doesn't have insider info to substantiate it.
All I got out of Joe Kent was the repetition of “I think this “. Since he’s basically selling the idea that Israel directed the US into a war, it would be nice if he had some proof as opposed to his opinion.
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio told reporters in Washington.
Yes, that would refer to the first action of the war. Best I can tell from sorting through sources is that Israeli intel (most likely) found out that all or most of the leaders of Iran were meeting in one place at a specific time. At the same time Witkoff was reporting back that the Iranians were not negotiating in good faith and were adamant about continuing enrichment. In fact, if he is to be believed, Iran said it had enough uranium for ten nuclear weapons and could have them in a short amount of time. Given that circumstance Trump took advantage of the situation. Rubio's comment does not come close to the narrative that Joe Kent is selling by the way
Witkoff stenographered back Netanyahu’s thirty year plus story. He had little difficulty massaging in his words, our “first Jewish president”, into believing it.
Now, Trump made the decision and should be held responsible but to deny he was greatly influenced by Mossad intelligence and the Likudniks is a fools errand. Throw in the Loomer, Hagee, White, Levin, etc nutcases and you’ve got an unfortunate marriage that needs dissolving.
Matt could find someone better to ask questions. Kent isn't heavy handed in his explanation of isreals influence which seem to make a few of the supporters uncomfortable.
I guess Matt isn't yet done eroding his credibility—along with his non-batshit subscriber base.
Joe Kent is a grifter who was fired for peddling false stories masquerading as leaks—and is now doing what grifters do when they get fired by President Trump: courting TDSers and groypers, often by appearing with credulous faux journalists and podcasters. Racket is now, to its shame, on the list of outlets people like Kent can exploit. And it's not even very high on that list, which is somehow even more pathetic.
I remember when Matt didn't slobber over the 'expertise' of people who casually cite the infinitely discredited New York Times as gospel. I remember when Matt didn't hinge his thinking on the assumption that Trump's slapdash tweets should be taken at face value. Hell, unlike Matt, even Kent acknowledges what anyone with a half-functioning brain can see: that Trump's tweet was a bluff meant to leverage a negotiation. Even Kent can muster enough integrity to note that it was not a literal threat to destroy the entire "civilization" of Iran, never mind that Trump's literally been trying to liberate that country.
Back when Matt rebranded his ostensibly truth-seeking business as "Racket," a synonym for "scam" and "fraud," I thought it was really, really stupid—akin to a chef who prides himself on making delicious food choosing to name his restaurant "Disgusting." But I could take comfort in the fact that Matt was merely a bad marketer, not a bad journalist.
Sadly, now, it seems this outlet really is just a racket. So I guess the name, at least, is telling us the truth, even if nothing else is.
Michael all but opened with blowing smoke up Kent's ass, by saying he showed "integrity", for resigning and going on a publicity tour. Wow, so courageous. Sure, Jan, maybe, if Obama were president. Snowden actually exposed a widespread criminal operation within the administration, though. His life was in danger. He's still living in exile. Kent is just spreading rumors on podcasts. Meanwhile, Matt, et al are eating it up, along with their pizza, right after spending multiple episodes on ripping those same podcasts?
Of what use is a bluff which is obviously a bluff to everybody, including the target of the bluff? You’re saying he didn’t mean it and everybody knew, but Iran didn’t? Odd strategy, maybe Kent is right if the geniuses advising Trump truly “think” like you do.
I didn't say it was obvious to the target of the bluff. There are quite the language and cultural barriers, after all—barriers that don't exist between Trump and every idiot who went crazy because of the word "civilization."
I also didn't say Trump's bluff worked or was smartly executed. In fact, I called it "slapdash" and said it obviously shouldn't be taken at face value.
Regardless of whether or not the Iranians saw it as a bluff, that wouldn't at all justify *you* and unhinged morons like you failing to see what should have been extremely obvious to you, including for reasons I've already mentioned, such as the fact that Trump has, for the past six weeks, literally been trying to liberate, not obliterate, Iran as a "civilization."
How about you don't comment on my comments anymore, Dolgin? You're a complete fucking waste of time, not to mention breath.
Somebody caused this war to happen after Venezuela, and it wasn't because of AIPAC campaign contributions in 2024. Stopped listening, stupid AF, boot licker babbling.
If you follow the money, all of the money (at least that we can see), it leads to the conclusion that AIPAC, (a US organization) own PAC contributed peanuts compared to other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Not to mention that ActBlue has been laundering foreign donations as well. The idea that devious Israel and a few sycophants in Trump's supposed small circle are telling that bull headed guy what to do is improbable, to say the least.
My take is that Iran was transacting too much oil in non US dollars. That’s what got Venezuela in trouble. That’s also what got Gaddafi and later Saddam, dirt naps. Transact oil in non US dollars at your own peril.
This is very plausible. Something had prevented the bomb Iran lobby from starting this war for decades, then suddenly something changed ~8 weeks ago, like it wasn't part of the agenda. We took Venezuela and the media was indicating we going to take Cuba, then the Trump DOJ releases Epstein material, the WSJ re-runs a year-old trump bribery story, and this war started.
Countries that don’t buy oil in US dollars don’t need to keep US dollar reserves. No US dollar reserves mean you don’t buy US Treasury debt. Too many do this for too long and the entire social safety net in USA is threatened. No safety net = riots & chaos. But, buy US Treasuries and safety net is secured. Also, US can invest in military. A military that can be deployed if country doesn’t want to transact its oil in US dollars.
From Steve Forbes, who I am not a fan, buts gets this right:
“Yet much of the Western media still approaches this regime with a strange softness, as though the real danger lies not in Tehran’s nuclear sprint, missile buildup, drone swarms, terror proxies or domestic slaughter, but in the possibility that the regime might actually be stopped or removed altogether. That inversion of morality has done enormous damage. It is why outlets willing to say plainly what Iran is matter. The public must hear the unvarnished truth: stopping Tehran’s theocratic terror machine would be good for Israel, good for Arab states, good for Europe, good for America and good for the long-suffering people of Iran.”
Kent may have been on his way out, but he will enrich himself with another over blown book with a huge advance but useless and just propaganda to support a publisher’s point of view.
Really, Steve Forbes is reproducing the same stuff we’ve heard for thirty years plus.
Yet what nation in the region has been the aggressor? Expanding their territorial claims by military action? For all these years Iran is a few weeks, days whatever, from having nukes. Hasn’t happened. This is PNAC, neocon propaganda now coated with nutty religious right Christian Zionist wet dreams of Armageddon.
“the apparatus that the Israelis have built around the US government, around media, the amount of support they have here in the States, it was almost impenetrable that was built around Trump.” — this isn’t really my impression from the reporting I’ve read. It sounds like the intelligence community was telling him Israel had it wrong. The right is obviously divided. I think Trump simply believed what he wanted to hear, even though intelligence, Vance, and the military had reservations.
I agree, and yet it’s almost more concerning to me that I think Israel could have done this with a fraction of the work they’ve put in to have influence, because Trump’s huge ego and lack of knowledge make him easy to manipulate.
I do appreciate having the transcript because Tracey does fine as an interviewer apart from all the "I, me, tell me I'm going a good job" stuff but in text format I can just skim over that and read the responses.
Biden administration approved the use of long range missile into Russia, not Trump. Notice the date was after the Democrats lost in November. I found the decision and timing weird at the time for an outgoing administration. Kind of felt like an FU to Trump.
Thank you. I do think it's relevant that Biden had a bunch of escalations (cluster bombs, F15s, etc.) before making this weird announcement after leaving office. Since Biden had socialized that as a US policy, I don't think the Trump announcement on it's own is sufficient context.
I don't see the value in interviewing Kent and I'm starting to care less about Racket as a whole. Feels like there's an excess of shit, whereas I just wanted to subscribe for Matt's occasional articles.
Flap flap flap. Kent is the Celebrity Lip Flapper of the Month. His time is almost up. Boy, Megyn K. swooned over this guy. Still does. Her hubby had better look out. But who knows? They all could be the swinging types.
Iran wants a nuke-tipped missile in the worst way. More than anything in the whole wide world. They'll say anything to get a little more time for their project. Why wouldn't you, if it would get you pallets of cash from the very people you'd love to punish? Boy, are Americans dumb!
To be a Big Player. To make the world listen. To be someone. That is the Islamic Republic's dream, and it's so very close to blossoming. Or was.
Please STOP with Tracey
Alternatively, can people stop complaining about Matt’s choice of cohost?
ATW diehards need to accept that Matt *wants* to talk to Michael Tracey, probably because this pairing allows Matt to explore the place he’s in now, with everything going on in the world + media—which is not the place he was in 2 years ago.
Whatever else you can say about him, Tracey shows up for work. He didn’t quit when Matt hired Emily Kopp. He didn’t quit when Emily Kopp left(??) a month later. He didn’t quit when ATW fans insulted him week after week. And he didn’t quit when Matt lost his connection, which is why Racket readers received a complete interview. (Thank you!)
This comments section has been inexcusably rude. It’s embarrassing. Nobody who contributes to Racket in good faith should be hazed like Kopp and Tracey have been—why would anyone work with Matt in the future?
People who don’t like the content, just vote with your feet and watch something else.
Or hey since we paid money how about we share our feedback instead would that be okay with you
Matt attracts more nags than anyone I've ever seen.
People show up here just to complain about his cohosts (both Michael and Walter), or to badger him about what stories they think he should be covering.
We don’t take kindly to naggers around these parts.
Ha!
We have a right to an opinion just like you. If you don’t like other peoples’ opinions take your own advice and move on.
Thank you Carina!!
"ATW diehards need to accept that Matt *wants* to talk to Michael Tracey"
I think you need to get your head out of your ass, missy. You sound like a
champion of narrative control. People have opinions and they get to express them. That is the schtick here.
Oh, and the "like" by Tracey is pretty pathetic.
"Carina" might be Tracey's sister or aunt or something. Go easy.
But forcibly kidnapping and removing someone from power at a different country because we want the oil is still stupid and I agree he should have just done some sort of deal
I watched the whole interview. Michael Tracey's questions to Joe Kent were often ... if not usually ... premised on partial misinformation or presented with an anti-Trump bias. He's obviously smart, and he's Matt's choice, but he lacks Matt's humility and willingness to be shown to be wrong. I like to think I'm open-minded, but I learn very little from Tracey's analyses. I'll watch Matt and Michael again until I realize I can't.
If you copy the transcript of this interview into MSword and do a word count, 60% of the interview is Tracey. This interview reveals little about Kent, and plenty about Tracey's opinions.
Shellenberger interviewed Kent too. While the subject there was mostly the Charlie Kirk murder. His patient, concise questions revealed much about Kent's flimsy claims.
You astutely point out something that is quite important. Your documentation confirms my own perception. An interviewer should rarely ... if ever ... dominate the conversation.
And Shellenberger’s interview was top notch.
We can't hear you, get Walter Kirk's dick out of your mouth, everything sounds garbled
I’m struggling to see what The Racket is at this point.
To be fair, it's telling you exactly what it is: a racket.
Ironically, Matt is both the primary perpetrator and the primary victim of the fraud, paying third-rate impostor journos to help him destroy his own reputation.
Please STOP with Tracey. He’s grating and unbearable to listen to.
If Matt had stopped with Tracey, this would have been an extremely short interview.
Who cares its unwatchable with bore.
I'm really enjoying it.
I have a lot of respect for Joe Kent, & Michael's questions are great.
I have NO respect for Joe Kent. His take on Israel is shades of Candace Owens. I think he should go get a job at K-Mart. I'm not a huge Tracey fan, but his questioning the credibility of Kent's version was spot on.
Ok I’ll give it a try, I’ve heard one interview with JK and he came of as very smart and understanding of geopolitics. I’m glade Matt is getting into the subject even if behind the obvious beard of Tracey
Kent’s answers great, he pointed out how small trumps circle is and who he is under the influence of. 20:45
Book wench: Thanks for posting! I will listen, and try to keep an open mind.
So don’t listen then?
I found Joe Kent completely unbelievable on the "Israel made US do it" line, and I think Tracey actually did a good job, if a rather prolix one, in bringing this out. Tracey detailed how the Trump administration had many reasons, and gave of many signs, that they judged Iran to be a very grave threat, without any need to think it was all ginned up by Israelis. Kent never actually addressed what level of threat he thinks Iran represented; in fact, Kent seems to think that uranium enrichment to near weapons-grade really isn't a big deal, and 47 years of "Death to America, Death to Israel" isn't really a serious threat. Maybe Kent is right about those two things, but I didn't find him at all convincing. In fact, the lack of content to his dismissal of these things, and of the reports of assassination plots against Trump, has rather moved the needle for me in the other direction. Kent is also a slippery guy, of course, not a career spook so much as a man looking to run for office, so I have to think Kent is positioning himself. --I read the transcripts, but never watch or listen; it's more efficient for me. So other comment gripes about how these sound don't touch me.
Joe Kent is an example of America not being able to see anything except American exceptionalism and that every other country must obey. Iran is no threat to America and never was. Why wouldn't they say "Death to America" when their democratic government was overthrown by the US in 1953 because they have America's oil in their ground. Just as Venezuela was holding America's oil illegally right? Do we not think other people want to be free of US tyranny and exploitation? By what right can the US apply sanctions against countries not doing business with America other than punishing force? The Lancet issued a report last August showing US sanctions have led to the death of 32 million people between 1971-2021. Kind of obvious why they are defiant and angry.
BeeZee, I actually agree with some of what you say about why Iranians might have justification for anti-American views. But wouldn't that also mean there are good reasons to take Iran seriously as a threat, when the country is directed by a radical Shiite cohort that can harness legitimate grievances into a zealous religious national purpose?
He's slippery for sure. He ran twice for our congressional seat. 2022 and 2024. A friend ran for the same seat in 2022. There were many things that happened in that first race that makes me distrust him and shudder whenever I see him on the podcast circuit since his big, dramatic, resignation.
I think chaos is his M.O.
"There were many things that happened in that first race that makes me distrust him..." -- Like what?
Y'all denigrated the hell out of Joe Kent and pretended he was going around spouting wild conspiracy theories but as you see, he's level headed and careful to draw a clear line between what he knows and what he just thinks might be the case. Giving his honest take on the situation and going out of his way to always say when he doesn't have insider info to substantiate it.
All I got out of Joe Kent was the repetition of “I think this “. Since he’s basically selling the idea that Israel directed the US into a war, it would be nice if he had some proof as opposed to his opinion.
He knows nothing. He's a self-important buffoon.
He sure sounds like it
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio told reporters in Washington.
Yes, that would refer to the first action of the war. Best I can tell from sorting through sources is that Israeli intel (most likely) found out that all or most of the leaders of Iran were meeting in one place at a specific time. At the same time Witkoff was reporting back that the Iranians were not negotiating in good faith and were adamant about continuing enrichment. In fact, if he is to be believed, Iran said it had enough uranium for ten nuclear weapons and could have them in a short amount of time. Given that circumstance Trump took advantage of the situation. Rubio's comment does not come close to the narrative that Joe Kent is selling by the way
Witkoff stenographered back Netanyahu’s thirty year plus story. He had little difficulty massaging in his words, our “first Jewish president”, into believing it.
Now, Trump made the decision and should be held responsible but to deny he was greatly influenced by Mossad intelligence and the Likudniks is a fools errand. Throw in the Loomer, Hagee, White, Levin, etc nutcases and you’ve got an unfortunate marriage that needs dissolving.
So Witkoff is on the Israeli payroll I guess. Have any proof perhaps?
When you lose an argument, build a new strawman
If you think he’s on the Israeli payroll it’s your guess. You prove it.
Speaking of echo chambers how about Kent Taibbi and Tracey.
Excellent interview!
We're lucky that Michael Tracey was able to carry on the interview after Matt's wi-fi crashed.
I really like Joe Kent. He comes across as pretty sincere.
He is more willing than I am to excuse Trump's actions, though.
lol but you still blithely voted for Trump, a pathological liar and compulsive man-child, not once but three times.
Matt could find someone better to ask questions. Kent isn't heavy handed in his explanation of isreals influence which seem to make a few of the supporters uncomfortable.
I guess Matt isn't yet done eroding his credibility—along with his non-batshit subscriber base.
Joe Kent is a grifter who was fired for peddling false stories masquerading as leaks—and is now doing what grifters do when they get fired by President Trump: courting TDSers and groypers, often by appearing with credulous faux journalists and podcasters. Racket is now, to its shame, on the list of outlets people like Kent can exploit. And it's not even very high on that list, which is somehow even more pathetic.
I remember when Matt didn't slobber over the 'expertise' of people who casually cite the infinitely discredited New York Times as gospel. I remember when Matt didn't hinge his thinking on the assumption that Trump's slapdash tweets should be taken at face value. Hell, unlike Matt, even Kent acknowledges what anyone with a half-functioning brain can see: that Trump's tweet was a bluff meant to leverage a negotiation. Even Kent can muster enough integrity to note that it was not a literal threat to destroy the entire "civilization" of Iran, never mind that Trump's literally been trying to liberate that country.
Back when Matt rebranded his ostensibly truth-seeking business as "Racket," a synonym for "scam" and "fraud," I thought it was really, really stupid—akin to a chef who prides himself on making delicious food choosing to name his restaurant "Disgusting." But I could take comfort in the fact that Matt was merely a bad marketer, not a bad journalist.
Sadly, now, it seems this outlet really is just a racket. So I guess the name, at least, is telling us the truth, even if nothing else is.
Michael all but opened with blowing smoke up Kent's ass, by saying he showed "integrity", for resigning and going on a publicity tour. Wow, so courageous. Sure, Jan, maybe, if Obama were president. Snowden actually exposed a widespread criminal operation within the administration, though. His life was in danger. He's still living in exile. Kent is just spreading rumors on podcasts. Meanwhile, Matt, et al are eating it up, along with their pizza, right after spending multiple episodes on ripping those same podcasts?
Of what use is a bluff which is obviously a bluff to everybody, including the target of the bluff? You’re saying he didn’t mean it and everybody knew, but Iran didn’t? Odd strategy, maybe Kent is right if the geniuses advising Trump truly “think” like you do.
I didn't say it was obvious to the target of the bluff. There are quite the language and cultural barriers, after all—barriers that don't exist between Trump and every idiot who went crazy because of the word "civilization."
I also didn't say Trump's bluff worked or was smartly executed. In fact, I called it "slapdash" and said it obviously shouldn't be taken at face value.
Regardless of whether or not the Iranians saw it as a bluff, that wouldn't at all justify *you* and unhinged morons like you failing to see what should have been extremely obvious to you, including for reasons I've already mentioned, such as the fact that Trump has, for the past six weeks, literally been trying to liberate, not obliterate, Iran as a "civilization."
How about you don't comment on my comments anymore, Dolgin? You're a complete fucking waste of time, not to mention breath.
Somebody caused this war to happen after Venezuela, and it wasn't because of AIPAC campaign contributions in 2024. Stopped listening, stupid AF, boot licker babbling.
Trump seems to be a wholy-owned subsidiary of the Israel lobby. You do have to follow the money—and his about-face on the Epstein files.
If you follow the money, all of the money (at least that we can see), it leads to the conclusion that AIPAC, (a US organization) own PAC contributed peanuts compared to other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Not to mention that ActBlue has been laundering foreign donations as well. The idea that devious Israel and a few sycophants in Trump's supposed small circle are telling that bull headed guy what to do is improbable, to say the least.
The Israel lobby is far larger than AIPAC which is merely one element of it.
Oh, da Juice, da Juice. They control everything!
Whose boots are they licking?
is good question, WTF would somebody say that? Was he just pseudo-expert babbling?
Something unreported has happened, and to explain it as 2024 AIPAC superpac donors want their seat at the table is pretty stupid imo.
My take is that Iran was transacting too much oil in non US dollars. That’s what got Venezuela in trouble. That’s also what got Gaddafi and later Saddam, dirt naps. Transact oil in non US dollars at your own peril.
This is very plausible. Something had prevented the bomb Iran lobby from starting this war for decades, then suddenly something changed ~8 weeks ago, like it wasn't part of the agenda. We took Venezuela and the media was indicating we going to take Cuba, then the Trump DOJ releases Epstein material, the WSJ re-runs a year-old trump bribery story, and this war started.
Countries that don’t buy oil in US dollars don’t need to keep US dollar reserves. No US dollar reserves mean you don’t buy US Treasury debt. Too many do this for too long and the entire social safety net in USA is threatened. No safety net = riots & chaos. But, buy US Treasuries and safety net is secured. Also, US can invest in military. A military that can be deployed if country doesn’t want to transact its oil in US dollars.
You both have shit for brains
Can Racket News be a bigger lapdog to Joe Kent?
From Steve Forbes, who I am not a fan, buts gets this right:
“Yet much of the Western media still approaches this regime with a strange softness, as though the real danger lies not in Tehran’s nuclear sprint, missile buildup, drone swarms, terror proxies or domestic slaughter, but in the possibility that the regime might actually be stopped or removed altogether. That inversion of morality has done enormous damage. It is why outlets willing to say plainly what Iran is matter. The public must hear the unvarnished truth: stopping Tehran’s theocratic terror machine would be good for Israel, good for Arab states, good for Europe, good for America and good for the long-suffering people of Iran.”
Kent may have been on his way out, but he will enrich himself with another over blown book with a huge advance but useless and just propaganda to support a publisher’s point of view.
It now makes sense why Kirn was booted.
Really, Steve Forbes is reproducing the same stuff we’ve heard for thirty years plus.
Yet what nation in the region has been the aggressor? Expanding their territorial claims by military action? For all these years Iran is a few weeks, days whatever, from having nukes. Hasn’t happened. This is PNAC, neocon propaganda now coated with nutty religious right Christian Zionist wet dreams of Armageddon.
And Kirn wasn’t fired. He chose to bow out.
“the apparatus that the Israelis have built around the US government, around media, the amount of support they have here in the States, it was almost impenetrable that was built around Trump.” — this isn’t really my impression from the reporting I’ve read. It sounds like the intelligence community was telling him Israel had it wrong. The right is obviously divided. I think Trump simply believed what he wanted to hear, even though intelligence, Vance, and the military had reservations.
Good point.
I did hear some reports to that effect.
Still, it is disturbing to realize how powerful Israel is within this Admin.
I agree, and yet it’s almost more concerning to me that I think Israel could have done this with a fraction of the work they’ve put in to have influence, because Trump’s huge ego and lack of knowledge make him easy to manipulate.
I do appreciate having the transcript because Tracey does fine as an interviewer apart from all the "I, me, tell me I'm going a good job" stuff but in text format I can just skim over that and read the responses.
I think Michael got a fact wrong on Ukraine Russia conflict. See NYT article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-atacms-missiles.html
Biden administration approved the use of long range missile into Russia, not Trump. Notice the date was after the Democrats lost in November. I found the decision and timing weird at the time for an outgoing administration. Kind of felt like an FU to Trump.
I didn’t get a fact wrong. This is what I was referring to: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine-strikes-russia-with-atacms-after-trump-lifted-long-range-missile-ban-e7a862c8?st=T5xmNF&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Thank you. I do think it's relevant that Biden had a bunch of escalations (cluster bombs, F15s, etc.) before making this weird announcement after leaving office. Since Biden had socialized that as a US policy, I don't think the Trump announcement on it's own is sufficient context.
I don't see the value in interviewing Kent and I'm starting to care less about Racket as a whole. Feels like there's an excess of shit, whereas I just wanted to subscribe for Matt's occasional articles.
Flap flap flap. Kent is the Celebrity Lip Flapper of the Month. His time is almost up. Boy, Megyn K. swooned over this guy. Still does. Her hubby had better look out. But who knows? They all could be the swinging types.
Iran wants a nuke-tipped missile in the worst way. More than anything in the whole wide world. They'll say anything to get a little more time for their project. Why wouldn't you, if it would get you pallets of cash from the very people you'd love to punish? Boy, are Americans dumb!
To be a Big Player. To make the world listen. To be someone. That is the Islamic Republic's dream, and it's so very close to blossoming. Or was.
But, anyway, flap flap flap.
“Israel is the jr. partner in this relationship but won’t act like it until we restrict military aid to them.”
In other words…