1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Kent's a non-interventionist MAGA and a known leaker to the press and has now handed a bit of gift to the Dems. How much he was privy to in relation to Iran's ballistic missiles and nuclear programme is another thing.

In other words, until some time after Trump's reelection he was MAGA. But since MAGA is Trump, now that Trump has done a U-turn, Kent hasn't reversed himself likewise and is clinging to a discarded principle.

22 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

In other words, until some time after Trump's reelection he was MAGA. But since MAGA is Trump, now that Trump has done a U-turn, Kent hasn't reversed himself likewise and is clinging to a discarded principle.

MAGA is not homogenous. Apart from that your post is unintelligible.

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The man had a difficult time at his position. He was not qualified for his job and lacked the education needed to manage a large department with a diverse workforce. His wife died in Syria during a mission to secure the oilfields from occupation by ISIS and Turkiye. He has been blaming Israel ever since, even though Israel had no involvement and had nothing to do with ISIS and the Syrian civil war. The Democrats warned that he was unstable because of his association with fringe right wing groups.

The Trump administration gave a mediocre candidate an opportunity and he reportedly blundered from the start. I think that if the story is pursued, we will hear about some personal matter that forced the resignation.

You missed the important point that you've been trying to deny on other threads,

Joe Kent said that Iran posed "no imminent threat" to the US and claimed the administration "started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby".

6 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

MAGA is not homogenous. Apart from that your post is unintelligible.

Trump disagrees. And given what polls show, he has a point.

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

MAGA is not homogenous. Apart from that your post is unintelligible.

As for my comment being unintelligible, since you offer no explanation of why you find it so, this may well be a confession of a certain analytic deficiency on your part.

Joe Kent said "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Rubio said the same. Trump said he "had a feeling" Iran posed a threat.

Does anyone disagree with what Joe Kent said?

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Joe Kent said "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Rubio said the same. Trump said he "had a feeling" Iran posed a threat.

Does anyone disagree with what Joe Kent said?

I don't think too much attention should be paid to Joe Kent. He also tried to stifle a report from the National Security Council that said that could find no connection between the Venezuelan government and Tren de Agua. That said, there are other independent reports that said the same thing about the pretext for war against Iran.

27 minutes ago, JimCM said:

You missed the important point that you've been trying to deny on other threads,

Joe Kent said that Iran posed "no imminent threat" to the US and claimed the administration "started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby".

It all depends on what is considered imminent.

AI Overview

An imminent threat is an immediate, impending, and unavoidable danger that poses a significant risk of instant harm or injury, requiring urgent action to address it. It differs from future danger by being instantly actionable, with a present ability and opportunity to cause injury. It is a critical concept in safety and self-defense cases.

Immediate threat? No, Impending threat? Yes. Unavoidable threat? Arguably yes. Iran was building ICBM's and was enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. Assessment was they had no intention of stopping this.

This is just part of the ongoing MAGA Civil War. It also exposes the deep dark underbelly of MAGA, which is increasingly racist, antisemitic and Nazi-ish.

At the top of the heap is Trump, whose slogan should be---and is to all rational people---Trump First, or Trump Uber Alles. Everything in Trump's mind is for the greater glory, and financial gain, of Trump. Trump noted yesterday that "I saved the world from nuclear holocaust", as he is trying to shift the narrative back to "a week away from a bomb". Given what Marco Rubio first said about the war, and which Kent has seconded, the US was drawn into this war because of Netanyahu. Trump is so transparent and easily manipulated, it is easy to surmise how Netanyahu might have gotten to Trump: I suspect Trump was told how Trump will be viewed worldwide and in history as the man who saved the world, and Trump was probably also reminded that when Bush II invaded Iraq, his approval rating jumped to 80%. Ratings are so important to the insecure Trump. Given what Lindsey Graham said two weekends ago on the Sunday talk shows, it also suggests Netanyahu might have told Trump he could take Iran's oil and sell it. (Graham said, "We're going to make so much money selling Iran's oil" on those talk shows. That doesn't seem like a thought that would originate in Graham's head, so it may well have come from Trump.)

Joe Kent is a certified nutball. There isn't a conspiracy he hasn't embraced with both hands, from the "stolen election" to "the FBI initiated 6 Jan 2021". He has attended many white nationalist group meetings and is an associate of anti-semite and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes (the guy invited to dine privately with Trump at Mar-a-Lago with Kanye West).

Kent fits in much more with the up and coming MAGA wing, represented by the now various "Young Republican" groups who regularly praise Hitler, advocate authoritarianism, and post their idiocy online and in Reddit and Telegram groups. Even the Florida chapter head of Kirk's Turning Point America, Ian Valdes, posted in one of the MAGA chats, "I will def not marry a Jew". While that is the worst of MAGA and the up and coming constituency, even less rabid MAGAs support Trump's attempts to quash free speech and press freedom. They are as anti-American as can be.

Trump, purely in his own interest, created MAGA, but he has lost control of it---as bad as it normally is---and it is morphing into an even worse form of itself. It is a virus spreading faster than Covid 19, and will do more damage if not stopped. There does not seem to be a vaccine for it, either. Trump even unleashed Incel Angst, with comments in both the NY and FL Young Republicans (young goes up to at least 40 years old) calling rape "epic".

Kent will likely find refuge with guys like Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh, already is an associate of Fuentes, and may well soon appear on Joe Rogan (Rogan needs to get his ratings back up). MAGA is now playing "Bad Guy, Worse Guy" in its hellbent race to the bottom of the sewer.

This

Funny. You found my recent comment unintelligible, yet you offer this:

4 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It all depends on what is considered imminent.

AI Overview

An imminent threat is an immediate, impending, and unavoidable danger that poses a significant risk of instant harm or injury, requiring urgent action to address it. It differs from future danger by being instantly actionable, with a present ability and opportunity to cause injury. It is a critical concept in safety and self-defense cases.

Immediate threat? No, Impending threat? Yes. Unavoidable threat? Arguably yes. Iran was building ICBM's and was enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. Assessment was they had no intention of stopping this.

On the one hand you claim that "It all depends on what is considered imminent." In your first 2 sentence yet you offer a definition that clearly defines what imminent is. And that agrees with how Chatgpt and GeminiAI define "imminent". And then you go off on some jag that means what exactly? That the threat isn't imminent? Or that somehow imminent doesn't mean immediate threat but does mean impending threat or unavoidable threat? The definition clearly state that an imminent threat poses "a significant risk of instant harm or injury, requiring urgent action to address it."

There is no evidence of an imminent threat.

There is abundant evidence of there being no imminent threat.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Funny. You found my recent comment unintelligible, yet you offer this:

On the one hand you claim that "It all depends on what is considered imminent." In your first 2 sentence yet you offer a definition that clearly defines what imminent is. And that agrees with how Chatgpt and GeminiAI define "imminent". And then you go off on some jag that means what exactly? That the threat isn't imminent? Or that somehow imminent doesn't mean immediate threat but does mean impending threat or unavoidable threat? The definition clearly state that an imminent threat poses "a significant risk of instant harm or injury, requiring urgent action to address it."

Seems you didn't read past my first two sentences or are ignoring the second two of the three points of the definition. I clearly stated there was no immediate threat but this by definition does not mean there was no "imminent" threat.

10 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

I think that if the story is pursued, we will hear about some personal matter that forced the resignation.

Of course you will dear, sycophants are the champions of spin.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Seems you didn't read past my first two sentences or are ignoring the second two of the three points of the definition. I clearly stated there was no immediate threat but this by definition does not mean there was no "imminent" threat.

Nonsense. How is a "significant threat of instant harm" not immediate? If anything, "instant" is even more extreme than "immediate".

51 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Nonsense. How is a "significant threat of instant harm" not immediate? If anything, "instant" is even more extreme than "immediate".

Impending or unavoidable. Both part of the definition with neither being instant or immediate. Rather easy to understand.

24 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Impending or unavoidable. Both part of the definition with neither being instant or immediate. Rather easy to understand.

Imminent is not the same as unavoidable. wikidiff.com/unavoidable/imminent

Just because something is unavoidable does not mean it is imminent. Rather easy to understand for most people.

4 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Imminent is not the same as unavoidable. wikidiff.com/unavoidable/imminent

Just because something is unavoidable does not mean it is imminent. Rather easy to understand for most people.

Unavoidable is part of the definition of imminent as I pointed out above. Impending threat, credible threat and unavoidable threat along with immediate threat are all parts of the definition of imminent. So, saying there's an imminent threat doesn't by definition necessarily mean immediate threat.

12 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Joe Kent, one of the United States’ top counterterrorism officials, announced his resignation on Tuesday, citing his opposition to the Iran war and what he said was Israel’s influence over the Trump administration’s policies. Here is his resignation letter in full.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/dea3cbf97dbfb39c/1/output-1.png

https://archive.ph/R2vUr

I may not like his principles, but at least unlike most rightwingers who post here, he doesn't believe that MAGA is Trump and Trump is MAGA, at least he has some.

It looks like Joe Kent, unlike most of the other DC Swamp Creatures, actually has a moral compass. His boss, Tulsi Gabbard, spoke out against overthrowing the Iranian government in 2020, but now she has become an obsequious sycophant who understands that her ambitions for US Presidency lie in Israel via AIPAC, and not with the US voters. She has sold out.

10 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Unavoidable is part of the definition of imminent as I pointed out above. Impending threat, credible threat and unavoidable threat along with immediate threat are all parts of the definition of imminent. So, saying there's an imminent threat doesn't by definition necessarily mean immediate threat.

Seems as you are not among most people. No matter how you spin it, imminent does not mean unavoidable. Evidently you did not read or understand my wikidiff link.

We should be grateful to Trump for attacking Iran.

It's going to completely <deleted> him up with the midterms.

We should be grateful to Trump for attacking Iran.

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

It's going to completely <deleted> him up with the midterms.

Agree. The GOP will most likely lose both the House and the Senate throwing a crimp in Trump's ever changing agenda.

58 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Impending or unavoidable. Both part of the definition with neither being instant or immediate. Rather easy to understand.

Once again. Here's the definition you quoted: "An imminent threat is an immediate, impending, and unavoidable danger that poses a significant risk of instant harm or injury"

All 3 cases pose a "significant risk of instant harm or injury". It doesn't say only the immediate danger poses an instant threat of harm or injury. The meaning is plain.

16 minutes ago, connda said:

It looks like Joe Kent, unlike most of the other DC Swamp Creatures, actually has a moral compass. His boss, Tulsi Gabbard, spoke out against overthrowing the Iranian government in 2020, but now she has become an obsequious sycophant who understands that her ambitions for US Presidency lie in Israel via AIPAC, and not with the US voters. She has sold out.

Given that Kent tried to stifle a report that found no connection between Venezuela and Tren de Agua, I'm not inclined to give him a pass.

Crackpot or not, Kent is among a growing number of MAGA and ultra-right-wing voices to call out Israel's interference in the US administration. Much of the MAGA base has always been unhappy with Israel's influence in the US. In any case, there is no logical reason for the US to be at war with Iran - a deal was within reach on nuclear enrichment and international inspections. But Israel's Nettanyahu wanted to quickly shut that door and bomb Iran back to the stoneage (which won't happen of course). Trump is simply Nettanyahu's useful idiot. Now there's not even a clear off ramp for Trump and the US military, short of just throwing in the towel and walking away. But Nettanyahu probably won't let Trump do that. He likely posseses some compromat on Trump - maybe Epstein file related. The rest of the world is paying the price.

4 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Crackpot or not, Kent is among a growing number of MAGA and ultra-right-wing voices to call out Israel's interference in the US administration. Much of the MAGA base has always been unhappy with Israel's influence in the US. In any case, there is no logical reason for the US to be at war with Iran - a deal was within reach on nuclear enrichment and international inspections. But Israel's Nettanyahu wanted to quickly shut that door and bomb Iran back to the stoneage (which won't happen of course). Trump is simply Nettanyahu's useful idiot. Now there's not even a clear off ramp for Trump and the US military, short of just throwing in the towel and walking away. But Nettanyahu probably won't let Trump do that. He likely posseses some compromat on Trump - maybe Epstein file related. The rest of the world is paying the price.

Has much of MAGA's base always been unhappy with Israel. Certainly not the Christian Evangelist. What MAGA has always been is very broadly anti-Muslim. Still, I suspect that if Trump pulled a 180 on his support for Israel, MAGA supporters would follow.

As for the compromat allegation, who knows? What we know is that Trump is extraordinarily susceptible to flattery and I would bet the Israelis gamed out how to persuade him. The Israelis may be many things, but stupid they are not.

36 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Crackpot or not, Kent is among a growing number of MAGA and ultra-right-wing voices to call out Israel's interference in the US administration. Much of the MAGA base has always been unhappy with Israel's influence in the US. In any case, there is no logical reason for the US to be at war with Iran - a deal was within reach on nuclear enrichment and international inspections. But Israel's Nettanyahu wanted to quickly shut that door and bomb Iran back to the stoneage (which won't happen of course). Trump is simply Nettanyahu's useful idiot. Now there's not even a clear off ramp for Trump and the US military, short of just throwing in the towel and walking away. But Nettanyahu probably won't let Trump do that. He likely posseses some compromat on Trump - maybe Epstein file related. The rest of the world is paying the price.

29 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Has much of MAGA's base always been unhappy with Israel. Certainly not the Christian Evangelist. What MAGA has always been is very broadly anti-Muslim. Still, I suspect that if Trump pulled a 180 on his support for Israel, MAGA supporters would follow.

As for the compromat allegation, who knows? What we know is that Trump is extraordinarily susceptible to flattery and I would bet the Israelis gamed out how to persuade him. The Israelis may be many things, but stupid they are not.

I tend to think that the kompromat explanation is not necessary. Trump is dumb enough to be fooled by Putin or Netanyahu.

50 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Has much of MAGA's base always been unhappy with Israel. Certainly not the Christian Evangelist.

Apparently the right wing white-racists MAGA base is opposed to Israel. There are several high profile influencers very anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli influence in US politics. Tucker Carlson for one.

1 hour ago, ronnie50 said:

Now there's not even a clear off ramp for Trump and the US military, short of just throwing in the towel and walking away.

Only quoting my own post to mention breaking news that the huge aircraft carrier Gerald R Ford is leaving the war, and returning to base after a fire in its laundry room (you couldn't make this up - or?? Could you?)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-carrier-ford-deployed-war-with-iran-go-port-temporarily-after-fire-2026-03-17/

8 hours ago, Yagoda said:

What ends LOL?

We arent poking. We are destroying, quite well too,

Believe me when in the UK people are admiring Sir Keir Starmer's stance against your orange baboon then make no mistake his ranting days are close to an end