Tucker Carlson goes nuclear on Mark Levin

42,025 Views | 434 Replies | Last: 21 days ago by Queso1
johnnyblaze36
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been a big fan of both for a long time but this is quite the accusation by Tucker. I haven't listened to Levin in quite awhile.

For anybody that still does, would you agree or disagree with Tucker's assessment?



Quote:

Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He's demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are now arguing. They're just weeks away.

If this sounds familiar, it's because the same people have been making the same claim since at least the 1990s. It's a lie. In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest. If the US government knew Iran was weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, we'd be at war already.

Iran knows this, which is why they aren't building one. Iran also knows it's unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran's leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.

So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government. Virtually no one will say this out loud. America's record of overthrowing foreign leaders is so embarrassingly counterproductive that regime change has become a synonym for disaster. Officially, no one supports it. So instead of telling the truth about their motives, they manufacture hysteria: "A country like Iran can never have the bomb! They'll nuke Los Angeles! We have to act now!"

They don't really mean this, and you can tell they don't by what they omit. At least two of Iran's neighbors both Islamic nations already have nuclear weapons. That fact should scare the hell out of Mark Levin. Yet for some reason he never mentions it. How come? Because it's not the weapons he hates. It's the ideology of the Iranian government, which is why he's lobbying to overthrow it.

It goes without saying that there are very few Trump voters who'd support a regime change war in Iran. Donald Trump has argued loudly against reckless lunacy like this. Trump ran for president as a peace candidate. That's what made him different from conventional Republicans. It's why he won. A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters. It would end his presidency. That may explain why so many of Trump's enemies are advocating for it.

And then there's the question of the war itself. Iran may not have nukes, but it has a fearsome arsenal of ballistic missiles, many of which are aimed at US military installations in the Gulf, as well as at our allies and at critical energy infrastructure. The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans. It could also collapse our economy, as surging oil prices trigger unmanageable inflation. Consider the effects of $30 gasoline.

But the second week of the war could be even worse. Iran isn't Iraq or Libya, or even North Korea. While it's often described as a rogue state, Iran has powerful allies. It's now part of a global bloc called BRICS, which represents the majority of the world's landmass, population, economy and military power. Iran has extensive military ties with Russia. It sells the overwhelming majority of its oil exports to China. Iran isn't alone. An attack on Iran could very easily become a world war. We'd lose.

None of these are far fetched predictions. Most of them comport with the Pentagon's own estimates: many Americans would die during a war with Iran. People like Mark Levin don't seem to care about this. It's not relevant to them. Instead they insist that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, regardless of its purpose. They know perfectly well that Iran will never accept that demand. They'll fight first. And of course that's the whole point of pushing for it: to box the Trump administration into a regime change war in Iran.

The one thing that people like Mark Levin don't want is a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran, despite the obvious benefits to the United States. They denounce anyone who advocates for a deal as a traitor and a bigot. They tell us with a straight face that Long Island native Steve Witkoff is a secret tool of Islamic monarchies. They'll say or do whatever it takes. They have no limits. These are scary people. Pray that Donald Trump ignores them.

HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The replies are pretty funny.

P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tucker strikes me as carrying water for Russia and their proxies.
NormanEH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[Go troll somewhere else. -Staff]
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
P.H. Dexippus said:

Tucker strikes me carrying water for Russia and their proxies.


Their grocery stores are amazing.
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting that Tucker is an apologist for any and all adversarial countries and views America as the evil player in everything, while making the daily decision to stay in America.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this quote from Carlson or the Obama administration?

Quote:

In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest


Iran doesn't want the bomb. Just clean energy!
Jet White
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waffledynamics said:

Interesting that Tucker is an apologist for any and all adversarial countries and views America as the evil player in everything, while making the daily decision to stay in America.


To be fair, this is not really his argument about "America" at all. He does seriously question the motives of large factions of our government, agree or disagree. But makes clear he believes in the American people. American people =/= American government.

That's not an endorsement or denouncement of this tweet. I didn't even finish reading it, had to stick a bookmark in it after chapter 2.
FobTies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dave Smith does a great job covering Levin. He is the old man screaming to get off his lawn, another Bush/Cheny war mongering neocon.
Is he right on a lot of things? YES

But, we have since learned that the enemy wants us to war with them. It drives the US further into debt while increasing global outrage against our collateral damage. So the enemy wins on 2 fronts. Yet we keep flexing, bc we think any alternative shows weakness that condones Islamic extremism. I used to think that too when I was ignorant of the world and war.

Agristotle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Both men are staunch conservatives and talented writers, this is an interesting debate.

Thanks for posting.
jamey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everything Tucker says is revenue or stock price dependent. He's not a journalist but an entertainer
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tucker is a clown
UntoldSpirit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have found that Levin is usually right. Carlson is a mixed bag and an isolationist. I listened to Levin's latest arguments about Iran , which are pretty dang good. Carlson is wrong about Levin's motives. Levin is no warmonger, but he makes a good case against isolationism and doing nothing.

I don't want to side with Levin on this because its just horrific to think of the likely reality he presents. Carlson is the type that when Iran detonates a nuke, will blame it on things we did a long time ago.

I would prefer Carlson to be correct, but sadly, I think Levin's arguments are correct.
OdessaAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I read this with tuckers voice and distinct cadence in the back of my mind. Almost like one of his opening monologues….
aezmvp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tucker strikes me as a guy with a good handle on domestic issues and a total phobia for anything looking like a normal foreign policy. Now we have had terrible foreign policy for 30 years. So not much new.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not like his financier supports Qatar and Iran or anything like that or is a lifelong Democrat
Jet White
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TRM said:

It's not like his financier supports Qatar and Iran or anything like that or is a lifelong Democrat



Wasn't aware he needed a financier with the family wealth and how many eyeballs his show gets
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with Levin about 99% of the time. He's a strict constitutionalist, but there are a few things that he's more big government on than I am.

I absolutely agree that Iran should not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. But Levin is huge on continuing funding Ukraine. I am very against the continued money laundering in a war they can never win.

I also usually agree with Tucker, but he isn't a true conservative. He has some odd takes on Russia and current global issues.
esteban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tucker is no longer owned by the Murdochs which allows him to take the sane and correct position on Iran. Levin is a total shill for Israel and pushes their interests over ours at all times. This is why he wants yet another disastrous war. Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his. I'm not a fan of either, but Tucker at least has half a brain and a teaspoon of integrity.
johnnyblaze36
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

I agree with Levin about 99% of the time. He's a strict constitutionalist, but there are a few things that he's more big government on than I am.

I absolutely agree that Iran should not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. But Levin is huge on continuing funding Ukraine. I am very against the continued money laundering in a war they can never win.

I also usually agree with Tucker, but he isn't a true conservative. He has some odd takes on Russia and current global issues.
I'm with you on the first bolded part and the second part is surprising to read. If that's the case then I think it would lend more credence to Tucker's assertions here.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
esteban said:

Tucker is no longer owned by the Murdochs which allows him to take the sane and correct position on Iran. Levin is a total shill for Israel and pushes their interests over ours at all times. This is why he wants yet another disastrous war. Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his. I'm not a fan of either, but Tucker at least has half a brain and a teaspoon of integrity.


Has a late period Kanye vibe to it.
esteban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Israel supports Ukraine because they both depend on us. If Americans ever decide to stop funding these wars they are both toast. Therefore, Mark Levin supports Ukraine. I wish it was more complicated, but that's really his whole shtick. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
esteban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faustus said:

esteban said:

Tucker is no longer owned by the Murdochs which allows him to take the sane and correct position on Iran. Levin is a total shill for Israel and pushes their interests over ours at all times. This is why he wants yet another disastrous war. Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his. I'm not a fan of either, but Tucker at least has half a brain and a teaspoon of integrity.


Has a late period Kanye vibe to it.
Facts don't care about your vibes. Instead of taking cheap shots, tell me where I'm wrong. Netanyahu himself testified before congress about all of the wonderful rewards of invading Iraq. Now he wants a war with Iran. Mark Levin has been right there with him all along.

If it's fine to say Rashida Tlaib is a shill for Hamas, then it should be fine to say that Mark Levin is a shill for Israel. Is that not fair?
Infection_Ag11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
His point about us being told Iran is just about to get a nuke is valid. Ive been hearing people say that since at least the 90s.

But the post as a whole comes off as carrying water for America's enemies, and it's largely a strawman anyway as no lobbying will ever convince this generation of Americans to support a land invasion of Iran. Short of them smuggling a nuke into the US and detonating it, that is just never going to happen. So it's silly to talk about.
Infection_Ag11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

If it's fine to say Rashida Tlaib is a shill for Hamas, then it should be fine to say that Mark Levin is a shill for Israel. Is that not fair?


Sure, but Hamas is a group of murderous savages straight out of the Middle Ages and Israel is a thriving parliamentary democracy. One produces suicide bombers and the other the highest per capita number of Nobel Prize winners in the world. Shilling for Israel is often in our interest.
Infection_Ag11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

But Levin is huge on continuing funding Ukraine. I am very against the continued money laundering in a war they can never win.


Levin's premise, and that of many others, is that it will cost us more in the long run if we stop funding it. And in more ways than just dollars and cents.

And the end of the day, the position to abandon Ukraine outright requires some degree of trust in Vladimir Putin. Trust that he isn't lying about his intentions should he get what he wants in Ukraine. And given that his history and the entire history of Russia as a unified state going back over 500 years argues against that proposition I'm regularly surprised at how many people are willing to buy it.

If Putin plans to do what he has always said privately he wants to do, and what Russia has always done, allowing Ukraine to fall to save some money will go down as the greatest American geopolitical blunder in our lifetimes.
esteban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Infection_Ag11 said:

Quote:

If it's fine to say Rashida Tlaib is a shill for Hamas, then it should be fine to say that Mark Levin is a shill for Israel. Is that not fair?


Sure, but Hamas is a group of murderous savages straight out of the Middle Ages and Israel is a thriving parliamentary democracy. One produces suicide bombers and the other the highest per capita number of Nobel Prize winners in the world. Shilling for Israel is often in our interest.
Fair enough regarding Hamas. But the war in Iraq wasn't in our best interest. Neither is a war with Iran. There's really only one country on Earth that would theoretically benefit from such a conflict. But if you mention the name of that country you get compared to Kanye. It's an odd situation.
96AgGrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So Tucker doesn't suggest Iran shouldn't be stopped from getting nuclear weapons. He just seems to think he has enough Intel to say definitely that we're not there yet, and that Levin is lying.

Either Tucker has insider information on Iran's nuclear program, or he's talking out of his ass. He can't possibly be taking it on faith that Iran is sandbagging their own development to avoid a conflict, can he?
BboroAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We have so much propaganda served to us on a regular basis and for so long that the truth is difficult to discern.

Avoiding war seems most correct to me.
milner79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The greatest geopolitical blunder of our lifetimes was four years of the Biden administration's open borders. That is going to bite us in the ass in a big way at a point in the not too distant future. If Tom Homan is concerned, we should all be concerned.

But I digress from the op...
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Radio/podcasting celebrities disagree as to future forever-war plans. Not a big deal. Tucker and Levin are both smart guys, but have staked out opposite ends of the republican ideological spectrums (and yes, Levin is an Israel-first type).
ts5641
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's no evidence Iran is even close to building a nuke?
fixer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iran not wanting a deployable fleet of nukes is like believing Hamas was a legitimate governing political machine for Palestine.


WBBQ74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Declaring war and attacking/invading Iran with US forces based on the premise that they might do something is foolish. At some time in the future IDF air assets will destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons plant(s) with a surgical strike. Kinda like mowing the grass in the backyard; it will grow back and need mowing in the future but for now it will be ok.

Mark Levin writes good books but is very hard on the ears. It is rare that I can make it thru any of his radio or TV programs without just turning it off due to his screeching. The crazy uncle vibe thing. Levin has decent takes on most political issues but his abrasiveness gets in the way.

Tucker Carlson is wry and makes excellent points. Sometimes he gets a little swampy but that is his background/DNA. I miss his show on Fox.

These guys are like condiments. Depending on what you are eating they both work. But not always on everything.

HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ts5641 said:

There's no evidence Iran is even close to building a nuke?
I don't disagree. They don't have to build, they can buy from China.

One of the real surprising things I saw on a work trip to Beijing circa 2012 was a large number of Iranians staying in my hotel. I'm sure there's a lot more to explore in Iran-China relations.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.