Share and Follow
Fox News’ Brit Hume has taken aim at prominent liberal media figures, accusing them of hypocrisy for labeling the conflict involving Iran, the US, and Israel as a “stalemate.” In a pointed critique, Hume responded to comments made by Whoopi Goldberg, Joe Scarborough, and Symone Sanders Townsend regarding the ongoing war. He dismissed their assertions that former President Trump was “not prepared” and hadn’t outlined “what the plan is,” as well as the claim that the US could “win every single battle” yet still lose the war. Hume proposed a thought-provoking scenario: “Imagine if the United States were under attack from a major adversary,” he suggested.
Beyond the BlockadeÂ
Hume invited viewers to consider a scenario where Iran was bombing the US, moving freely through American skies without resistance, and launching missiles and attacks at will. He further imagined Iran having “killed the president and wiped out his Cabinet and numerous officials down the ranks.” Hume pondered how Americans would react if the US retaliated by “shutting off a major waterway crucial for our economy.” He concluded by questioning whether anyone would call such a situation a stalemate, as suggested by Walter Russell Mead. The clips leading up to Hume’s analysis seemed to paint a negative picture of the war, now entering its third week. Sanders remarked, “It’s becoming clear that we were not prepared for a prolonged conflict.”
The Vietnam ShadowÂ
Goldberg wondered aloud, “Are we any closer to discovering the plan?” Scarborough drew parallels to the Iraq War, noting, “We find ourselves once again in a situation where we could win every battle but still lose the war.” Host Martha MacCallum echoed Hume’s sentiments and speculated on how liberal media might cover the war if the roles were reversed. “It’s a valid point, and it’s always insightful to flip the scenario and consider how the coverage might look then,” she commented. “No one would ask those attacking us, ‘Why haven’t they defined how long this will take?'” Meanwhile, President Trump faced inquiries about the war’s developments and plans. When asked if he feared that deploying troops to Iran could lead to another Vietnam-like situation, Trump firmly replied, “No, I’m not afraid of anything.”
The president has previously said that he would deploy ground troops if ‘necessary,’ but he has offered few details on what scenario would prompt a boots-on-the-ground invasion. He also said during the sit-down with the Taoiseach that the US has contemplated destroying Iran’s energy infrastructure. ‘We could take out their electric capacity in one hour,’ he said, adding, ‘there’s nothing they can do.’ Though the president said the war should only last weeks, there is concern among administration officials that the offensive could last much longer. Three sources familiar with the matter told Axios that the Middle East conflict could run into September, a much longer timeline than Trump has ever discussed publicly. Americans are against sending in troops, according to the latest Quinnipiac survey of 1,000 US voters published March 9. The results showed that 74 percent of respondents oppose sending ground troops into Iran. A majority, 53 percent, said they are against the war altogether.
The president was also confronted about the news that his top counterterrorism official, Joe Kent, resigned over the war. ‘I always thought he was a nice guy, but I thought he was very weak on security. Very weak on security. I didn’t know him well, but I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy,’ Trump said. ‘But when I read his statement, I realized that it’s a good thing that he’s out, because he said Iran was not a threat.’ Kent resigned early on Tuesday and published a letter publicly noting how he ‘cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.’ ‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,’ Kent said in his dramatic public break-up with the administration.
