Tucker Carlson, Neocon Slayer - Antiwar.com Original
Description: Oh, it was glorious fun, yielding the kind of satisfaction that us anti-interventionists rarely get to enjoy: not one but two prominent neoconservatives who have been wrong about everything for the past decade – yet never held accountable – getting taken down on national television. Tucker Carlson, whose show is a shining light of reason … Continue reading "Tucker Carlson, Neocon Slayer"
Date: 2017-07-13T21:00:16-07:00

Skip to content

# Tucker Carlson, Neocon Slayer

Oh, it was glorious fun, yielding the kind of satisfaction that us anti-interventionists rarely get to enjoy: not one but two prominent neoconservatives who have been wrong about everything for the past decade – yet never held accountable – getting taken down on national television. Tucker Carlson, whose show is a shining light of reason in a fast-darkening world, has performed a public service by demolishing both Ralph Peters and Max Boot on successive shows. But these two encounters with evil weren’t just fun to watch, they’re also highly instructive for what they tell us about the essential weakness of the War Party and its failing strategy for winning over the American people.

Tucker’s first victim was Ralph Peters, an alleged “military expert” who’s been a fixture on Fox News since before the Iraq war, of which he was a rabid proponent. Tucker starts out the program by noting that ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may have been killed in a Russian airstrike and that the talk in Washington is now moving away from defeating ISIS and focusing on Iran as the principal enemy. He asks why is this? Why not take a moment to celebrate the death of Baghdadi and acknowledge that we have certain common interests with the Russians?

Peters leaps into overstatement, as is his wont: “We can’t have an alliance with terrorists, and the Russians are terrorists. They’re not Islamists, but they are terrorists.” He then alleges that the Russians aren’t really fighting ISIS, but instead are bombing hospitals, children, and “our allies” (i.e. the radical Islamist Syrian rebels trained and funded by the CIA and allied with al-Qaeda and al-Nusra). The Russians “hate the United States,” and “we have nothing in common with the Russians” –nothing!” The Russians, says Peters, are paving the way for the Iranians – the real evil in the region – to “build up an empire from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean.” Ah yes, the “Shia crescent” which the Israelis and their amen corner in the US have been warning against since before the Iraq war. Yet Tucker points out that over 3,000 Americans have been killed by terrorists in the US, and “none of them are Shi’ites: all of [these terrorists] have been Sunni extremists who are supported by the Saudis who are supposed to be our allies.” And while we’re on the subject: “Why,” asks Tucker, “if we’re so afraid of Iran did we kill Saddam Hussein, thereby empowering Iran?”

“Because we were stupid,” says Peters.

Oh boy! Peters was one of the most militant advocates of the Iraq war: we were “stupid,” I suppose, to listen to him. Yet Tucker lets this ride momentarily, saving his big guns for the moment when he takes out Peters completely. And Peters walks right into it when Tucker wonders why we can’t cooperate with Russia, since both countries are under assault from Sunni terrorists:

“PETERS: You sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938 saying Hitler hasn’t attacked us.

“TUCKER: I beg your pardon? You cannot compare me to somebody who makes apologies for Hitler. And I don’t think Putin is comparable.

“PETERS: I think Putin is.

“TUCKER: I think it is a grotesque overstatement actually. I think it’s insane.

“PETERS: Fine, you can think it’s insane all you want.”

For the neocons, it’s always 1938. The enemy is always the reincarnation of Hitler, and anyone who questions the wisdom of war is denounced as an “appeaser” in the fashion of Neville Chamberlain or Lindbergh. Yet no one ever examines and challenges the assumption behind this rhetorical trope, which is that war with the enemy of the moment – whether it be Saddam Hussein, the Iranian ayatollahs, or Vladimir Putin – is inevitable and imminent. If Putin is Hitler, and Russia is Nazi Germany, then we must take the analogy all the way and assume that we’ll be at war with the Kremlin shortly.

After all, Charles Lindbergh’s opponents in the great debate of the 1940s openly said that Hitler, who posed an existential threat to the West, had to be destroyed, and that this goal could not be achieved short of war. Of course, Franklin Roosevelt pretended that this wasn’t so, and pledged repeatedly that we weren’t going to war, but secretly he manipulated events so that war was practically inevitable. Meanwhile, the more honest elements of the War Party openly proclaimed that we had to aid Britain and get into the war.

Is this what Peters and his gaggle of neocons are advocating – that we go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and annihilate much of the world in a radioactive Armageddon? It certainly seems that way. The Hitler-Lindbergh trope certainly does more than merely imply that.

Clearly riled by the attempt to smear him, Tucker, the neocon slayer, then moves in for the kill:

“I would hate to go back and read your columns assuring America that taking out Saddam Hussein will make the region calmer, more peaceful, and America safer, when in fact it has been the opposite and it has empowered Russia and Iran, the two countries you say you fear most – let’s be totally honest, we don’t always know the outcomes.
”They are not entirely predictable so maybe we should lower that a little bit rather than calling people accommodationist.”

This is what the neocons hate: reminding them of their record is like showing a vampire a crucifix. Why should we listen to Peters, who’s been wrong about everything for decades? Peters’ response is the typical neocon riposte to all honest questions about their policies and record: you’re a traitor, you’re “cheering on Vladimir Putin!” To which Tucker has the perfect America Firster answer:

“I’m cheering for America as always. Our interests ought to come first and to the extent that making temporary alliances with other countries serves our interests, I’m in favor of that. Making sweeping moral claims – grotesque ones – comparing people to Hitler advances the ball not one inch and blinds us to reality.”

Peters has no real argument, and so he resorts to the method that’s become routine in American politics: accuse your opponent of being a foreign agent. Tucker, says Peters, is an “apologist” not only for Putin but also for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Again, Tucker answers smears with cold logic:

“So because I’m asking rational questions about what’s best for America I’m a friend to strongmen and dictators? That is a conversation stopper, not a beginning of a rational conversation. My only point is when Syria was run by Assad 10% of the population was Christian and they lived in relative peace.”

And that’s really the whole point: the War Party wants to stop the conversation. They don’t want a debate – when, really, have we ever had a fair debate in this country over foreign policy? They depend on fear, innuendo, and ad hominem “arguments” to drag us into war after war – and Tucker is having none of it.

So why is any of this important? After all, it’s just a TV show, and as amusing as it is to watch a prominent neocon get creamed, what doe it all mean in the end? Well, it matters because Tucker didn’t start out talking sense on foreign policy. He started out, in short, as a conventional conservative, but then something happened. As he put it to Peters at the end of the segment:

“I want to act in America’s interest and stop making shallow, sweeping claims about countries we don’t fully understand and hope everything will be fine in the end. I saw that happen and it didn’t work.”

What’s true isn’t self-evident, at least to those of us who aren’t omniscient. Many conservatives, as well as the country as a whole, learned something as they saw the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria unfold. On the right, many have rejected the neoconservative “idealism” that destroyed the Middle East and unleashed ISIS. When Donald Trump stood before the South Carolina GOP debate and told the assembled mandarins that we were lied into the Iraq war, the chattering classes declared that he was finished – yet he won that primary, and went on to win the nomination, precisely because Republican voters were ready to hear that message.

Indeed, Trump’s “America First” skepticism when it comes to foreign wars made the crucial difference in the election, as a recent study shows: communities hard hit by our endless wars put him over the top in the key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This, and not “Russian meddling,” handed him the White House.

Tucker Carlson’s ideological evolution limns the transformation of the American right in the age of Trump: while Trump is not, by a long shot, a consistent anti-interventionist, Tucker comes pretty close. He is, at least, a realist with a pronounced antipathy for foreign adventurism, and that is a big step forward from the neoconservative orthodoxy that has bathed much of the world in blood.

If the demolition of Ralph Peters was the cake, then the meltdown of neoconservative ideologue Max Boot the next evening was the frosting, with ice cream on the side.

Perhaps the neocons, having been trounced in round one, thought Boot could do better: they were mistaken. Tucker took him apart simply by letting him talk: Boot didn’t answer a single question put to him, and, in the course of it all, as Boot resorted to the typical ad hominems, Tucker made a cogent point:

“[T]o dismiss people who disagree with you as immoral – which is your habit – isn’t a useful form of debate, it’s a kind of moral preening, and it’s little odd coming from you, who really has been consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a decade. And so, you have to sort of wonder, like –
”BOOT: What have I been wrong about, Tucker? What have I been wrong about?
”CARLSON: Well, having watch you carefully and known you for a long time, I recall vividly when you said that if we were to topple the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the region will be much safer and the people who took their place would help us in the global war on terror. Of course it didn’t happen –“

Boot starts to completely melt down at this point, screeching “You supported the Iraq war!” To which Tucker trenchantly replies:

“I’ve been wrong about a ton of things, you try to learn your lesson. But when you get out there in the New York Times and say, we really should have done more to depose Qaddafi, because you know, Libya is going to be better when that happens. And then to hear you say we need to knock off the Assad regime and things will be better in Syria, he sort of wonder like, well, maybe we should choose another professions. Selling insurance, something you’re good at. I guess that’s kind of the point. Are there no sanctions for being as wrong as you have?”

Why oh why should we listen to Peters and Boot and their fellow neocons, who have been – literally – dead wrong about everything: their crackbrained ideology has led to untold thousands of deaths since September 11, 2001 alone. And for what?

In the end, Boot falls back on the usual non-arguments: Tucker is “immoral” because he denies that Trump is a Russian agent, and persists in asking questions about our foreign policy of endless intervention in the Middle East. Tucker keeps asking why Boot thinks Russia is the main threat to the United States, and Boot finally answers: “Because they are the only country that can destroy us with a nuclear strike.”

To a rational person, the implications of this are obvious: in that case, shouldn’t we be trying to reach some sort of détente, or even achieve a degree of cooperation with Moscow? Oh, but no, because you see the Russians are inherently evil, we have “nothing” in common with them – in which case, war is inevitable.

At which point, Tucker avers: “Okay. I am beginning to think that your judgment has been clouded by ideology, I don’t fully understand where it’s coming from but I will let our viewers decide.”

I know where it’s coming from. Tucker’s viewers may not know that Boot is a Russian immigrant, who – like so many of our Russophobic warmongers – arrived on our shores with his hatred of the motherland packed in his suitcase. There’s a whole platoon of them: Cathy Young, who recently released her polemic arguing for a new cold war with Russia in the pages of Reason magazine; Atlantic writer and tweeter of anti-Trump obscenities Julia Ioffe, whose visceral hatred for her homeland is a veritable monomania; Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion who spends most of his energy plotting revenge against Vladimir Putin and a Russian electorate that has consistently rejected his hopeless presidential campaigns, and I could go on but you get the picture.

As the new cold war envelopes the country, wrapping us in its icy embrace and freezing all rational discussion of foreign policy, a few people stand out as brave exceptions to the groupthinking mass of the chattering classes: among the most visible and articulate are Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, journalist Michael Tracey, Prof. Stephen Cohen, and of course our own Ron Paul. I tip my hat to them, in gratitude and admiration, for they represent the one thing we need right now: hope. The hope that this madness will pass, that we’ll beat back this latest War Party offensive, and enjoy a return to what passes these days for normalcy.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

### Read more by Justin Raimondo

- Was Trump Junior Framed? – July 11th, 2017
- Russophobia Hits the Libertarian Movement – July 9th, 2017
- Sikkim Stand-Off: China and India Collide in the Himalayas – July 6th, 2017
- Anti-Interventionist Voters Elected Trump – July 4th, 2017
- Happy Independence Day! – July 2nd, 2017

## Author: Justin Raimondo

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].
View all posts by Justin Raimondo

Click here to hide comments

- MvGuy

  Funny, and very distressing, that, as the Neocons would say, that the exitential aspect of this rabid Russia hating never cums to light in these “conversations” with the “confront” Russia crowd… Maybe the Russians did steal the election from the jingoistic witch… Because, Maybe the voters are more than a little loath to have Hillary out there having a pudding contest with Putin… Maybe the voters are less than assured tha

- PxThucydides

  I am a bit concerned that in enjoying the dispute between Carlson and neocons that you are considering either side to be credible. While Boot and Peters are obviously wrong on so many fronts- that doesn’t make Carlson’s position justifiable.

  What is Carlson’s position? Basically its straightforward: if Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be true. If Trump says it, it must be true. He is a pure toady to power, and will toe the party line no matter how absurd it might be.

  I am concerned that Mr. Raimondo, and Glen Greenwald, and Scott Horton as well, are all falling into a trap. The trap is this: just because someone provides a critique on neocons doesn’t make them right.

  What we see here is approval from both left and right- from Greenwald to Raimondo- for policy approaches by Trump that make sense, and criticism of the neocons who oppose it.

  The problem lies in the assumption that Trump’s moderation of policy with respect to Russia is the result of considered, intelligent analysis.

  But based on all his other policies- why on earth would anyone think that this policy was the result of considered reason?

  Why on earth would he have this one, sensible policy, while the rest of his plans- like the wall, paid for by Mexico- are just cloud-cuckoo-land insane?

  The fact that Trump’s policy on Russia is to try and reset doesn’t eliminate the possibility that there might be a very bad explanation for it. A few days ago I might have said the fact that there’s no evidence for collusion doesn’t mean there wasn’t any.

  Of course that story has changed in the past few days. We now know that if they didn’t conspire with the Russians to use Russian government resources to tilt the election it wasn’t for lack of trying.

  And the fact that they admit freely they tried to collude but say they didn’t succeed doesn’t mean they aren’t now lying.

  The fact that they deny being in the pocket of the Russians doesn’t mean they aren’t.

  People want to pick one side or the other. The problem here is that Tucker is not a good guy. Either. He is a toady to power, and may be supporting someone who is a traitor.

  There are no good guys. Both sides are bad.

  We still have yet to see.

  - JanD

    Two things here: what do you mean with no “lack of trying”? Yuu don’t seriously regard the “Junior” email story to be evidence of team Trump “trying” or initiating anything at all? Seriously?

    It can be debated how many of Trump’s policy ideas are cloud-cuckoo-land. Securing borders is happening all over Europe, eg Austria, Hungary and such. There can’t be much doubt Trump usually starts with some extreme position but ends up with some kind of deal where he drops the “insane” parts, making others believe they accomplished something in the process. It works every time.

    - PxThucydides

      Trump hit the Syrian airbase when there was no reason to believe that Assad did it. According to Hersh, Postal, Ritter: no way it was Assad. So he makes that decision.

      Was that the work of someone who is sensible?

      Why would this same person who can do that make sensible, considered decisions on Russia?

      - RickR35

        The stupid attack on the airbase had it’s own internal logic. They gave advance notice to Russia (who then presumably warned Syria) and the attack was mostly symbolical and didn’t do much damage. Some missiles apparently didn’t even reach the target/and or the numbers were overestimated. It had an unexpected positive effect though–to unmask the shameless stupidity of the neocons and their useful idiots like F Zakariah and Brian Williams. Not that I’m defending it, but it wasn’t the work of madman as you are trying to imply.

        - wars r u.s.

          I believe Hersh said Trump initially didn’t want to give advanced warning to Russia. Anyone who launches missiles inti a sovereign country with no proof of the reason the missiles are being launched sounds like a budding madman to me. I guess we been desensitized enough to think that’s ok.

        - Jeffrey Fein

          “I believe Hersh said Trump initially didn’t want to give advanced warning to Russia.”

          A link, please. I read the article in Welt am Sontagg — in English — and don’t recall that part.

        - wars r u.s.

          Read it again.

          From a senior advisor: “The president was also initially opposed to the idea of giving the Russians advanced warning before the attack but reluctantly accepted”

        - eric

          The advanced warning was not good enough to get a fewer I presume lower class Syrian out of the way . As a few Syrian were killed maybe just to make the attack to look more authentic

        - RickR35

          Even if there had been “proof” of something or other, it wouldn’t have justified the US attacking Syria. But given the madness we’ve had to put up with all these, all lesser degrees of madness are welcome.

        - Realist

          The US doesn’t have to put up with any madness. It can get it’s ass home where it belongs.
          Stop meddling.

      - JanD

        While I do have questions myself about the facts of the attack, it goes too far to put all your faith now in the “sources” talking to Hersh & Ritter just to score another point against Trump.

        RickR35 makes a good point below, considering the largely ineffective and inconsequential attack, it might turn out to have been one of the more sanest options, depending what exactly the pressures to act were. It tells me there was still doubt on the evidence and clearly shows some unwillingness to escalate.

        In any case there’s no reason to assume Assad or anyone else of this clan (and their enemies) would not go extremely far trying to wipe out opposition, family and friends included, even in some random seeming fashion. Understanding the region as whole would show how genocidal policies and personal or tribal revenge always have been the main drivers. Let put it this way, if there were any chemical weapons lying around, people in camp Assad and as well variuous “rebel” factions almost certainly would in my estimation use it, without too much rationality attached. They simply would not care that much any more, not at this stage. We’re talking about a nation far beyond functionality and reason. Actually the only thing keeping it together are probably the Russians and Iranians. Don’t look for much functional or morality beyond that, at this stage of the disaster that is Syria.

        - eric

          But still Syria has more functionality than Iraq or Libya has yet today ..We sure can be proud of the bang up job we did on their functionality . Libya may never get back to where they were under Gaddaffi ever . .

      - jsinton

        It was getting late in the first quarter, Trump had to get points on the board, this seem like the easiest way. If he wasn’t getting pressured by the neocon/mil-indu-com/Clinton dems, he would have not bombed Syria.

  - RickR35

    “We still have yet to see.”
    Sounds to me like your mind is pretty much made up.

    Had you watched the videos, you’d have noticed that Trump doesn’t come up at all. This isn’t a neocons vs. Trump issue. It’s neocon policy vs. a rational foreign policy. You have it backward. We don’t like the non-neocon policy because Trump represents it in regard to Russia, we support that aspect of Trump’s policy because…it’s the rational and right thing to do. Don’t let your hatred of Trump get in the way of things.

    - PxThucydides

      That rational foreign policy you attribute to Trump includes incoherent opposition to the Iran nuclear deal (it’s a bad deal, the worst ever: how, exactly?), open-checkbook support for the Saudi war on Yemen, and in-your-face abandonment of the host of the most important US base in the Gulf in Qatar.

      He contradicts his own secretary of state and applauds the blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia for the crime of: supporting terrorism. Saudi. Accusing Qatar of supporting terrorism. Really? Is not WTF appropriate?

      It could be argued that there’s not a lot rational in that- and a lot of overlap with the Neocons.

      - jsinton

        Nobody said Trump was smart. But the neocons got it so screwed up, it’s hard to imagine Trump doing any worse. Even a monkey could have thrown darts at a wall and been right more often than the neocons.

        - RespectnJustice4all

          No they are pretty smart…they promote these wars based on lies & they get them …. AND they get away with the FRAUD…EVERY TIME……the key is they are backed by the “Status quo” & other war profiteers & the Media …& money/central baking mafia… They are criminals & not only protected by the Establishment but paid for doing it’s criminal propaganda…

        - liveload

          This is a bizarre comment from someone who advocates nuclear war with Korea as a solution.
          *shrug*
          Whatever

        - jsinton

          Sorry, I form my own opinions. I don’t like the wars, but I understand about unfinished business, and nonredeemable goods like N. Korea, and how the Chinese have used N Korea as a foil against the West while getting rich on Western security. If N Korea threatens the US with nukes, time to vaporize them before they do it to you. And yes, they would.

      - CuriousNC

        No Iran war yet (I expect it to happen), Qatar has supported terrorism but as you point out so has Saudi Arabia. I’m in favor of holding states like Qatar accountable. If the US is going to fight a war against Salafi Jihadism it should deal with the financiers. We now have a precedent on being confrontational with Sunni state sponsors of terror. Hopefully Saudi Arabia will be punished in our court system.

        - pshr

          “I’m in favor of holding states like Qatar accountable”

          Now, who will hold accountable the mother of all evil, the vilest of empires?

        - CuriousNC

          Its creditors!

        - jsinton

          I’m with ya. Smash the Wahabis next. They and their ISISraeli allies.

      - RickR35

        I’m not attributing that rational foreign policy to Trump. As you mention there are incoherencies. There’s some overlap with a rational foreign policy and some with neocon policy, although I get the impression it’s not so much agreement with neocon policy but other issues–like good for US business or some such thing. And much in terms of Trump and foreign policy is unknown.

        - jsinton

          Actually it’s more about Trump being such an outsider without a clue. Deep state is straining hard to take him down, but they don’t get it either. Americans instinctively understand the danger of deep state, hate the course of events the last so many years, are tired of not having jobs, and are just POed. They said FU to the Republican establishment, FU to the Democratic establishment, and if Trump don’t give them what they want, they’ll give him the finger too.

    - jsinton

      Nailed it Rick, I got nothing to add.

    - Ray Shelton

      I agree with Thucydides. I don’t think he said that Trump came up in the conversation. What he said was that Trump’s so-called sensible approach to Russia is not what you think it is. In my opinion, Trump’s stance with Russia is probably because he’s either deeply in debt with Russian Banks/Oligarchs, etc or is in some way in the clutches of Putin and/or his side-kicks for business reasons. All his other policies belie any consistent vision or strategy and are usually confrontational, insulting and belligerent. Russia is the ONLY exception. I think that’s what Thucydides was saying.
      And further, Tucker Carlson, while being right on the anti-neocon front, is a lapdog for the Republican Party and a Trump apologist. I don’t see him as the great intellectual that Justin makes him out to be.
      Which brings me to the most important point: Just because someone happens to support your point of view on one issue (in this case Antiwar), should not blind you to his biases in another area. I think that someone like Ron Paul is far more deserving of the praise Justin has heaped upon Tucker.

      - Brockland A.T.

        Raimondo has never missed an opportunity to praise Ron Paul. In any case, he can’t be down on guys like Tucker forever, especially if they do something useful like unravel the neocons.

      - CuriousNC

        As long as the US isn’t nuked does it matter? Trump is also in the clutches of Netanyahu with the rest of the elected officials. Tucker Carlson maybe be those things but he is inoculating his audience against belligerent Neocon arguments.

      - Antiwar2

        Ray,
        I am sure you are a lovely person. Please read the last two decades of Mr. Raimondo’s. The comments on his columns seem to be overrun with people who either just discovered Antiwar.com or do not have any idea what they are talking about.

      - RickR35

        You are right, Trump didn’t come up in the video at all. But for some reason some people have to get Trump involved in every conversation. That was my point.

        This constant looking for sinister motives doesn’t add really anything to the issue. But no one is arguing that Trump is some superprincpled guy either, which wouldn’t be such a good thing to begin with.

        No one is making out Carlson (or Trump, or Putin, or Antiwar) to be a saint. And that was Carlson’s very point. These absolutisms that the neocons, Px, and you are displaying are not productive. Nor is it to constantly confuse issues, change topics, inject morality, etc.

      - Mary Myers

        Give Tucker some credit. He has evolved from swallowing the Neocon line to now questioning it.

  - MvGuy

    Yeah PX…. It’s awfully complicated, and who can believe anything anyone says. Some of the luminaries of the anti interventionalists A list may be deluded, and Tucker Carldon should be eschewed and doubted… well, because “he is a toady to power and may be supporting someone who is a traitor…. Never MIND that this possible traitor someone is the POTUS…. Errrrr… Am I getting this right…??? Exactly WHAT is it that OUR President may done to earn this ignomy… You seemed to skip the traitorous offence, it’s details or even the venue of the moi traitorous act.

    Perhaps you would be more prudent to have said that Carlson is supporting someone who MAY be a traitor… As opposed to ” Carlson may be supporting someone who is a traitor… Do you see the difference? Calling someone a traitor without a legal finding of such is reckless, but calling our newly elected president a traitor as he orients himself into the Washington snakepit, I believe is reckless, sophomoric anti-democratic AND unpatriotic… Give the man a break…. What did he do that was so awful to illisit your such vehement opprobrium….?????

    On the topic of good and bad guys, you say there are no good guys, but you seem to unload your worst condemnation on our president.. who has not really done very much governing yet…

    - PxThucydides

      Whoops. “May be supporting someone who may be a traitor” is better. Point taken.

  - Brockland A.T.

    You’re resorting to the rhetorical fallacy of ‘false equivalence’, making an inconsistent and biased comparison.

    Tucker is rated on his actual words and deeds; he even admits to being wrong; the neocons never have. The entire neocon agenda and attendant results have been wrong from day zero. Slowly their blind supporters at least on the right are waking up to the fact that what’s good for the neocons is not the same as what is good for America.

    Trump is beset by so many problems, no an amoral commentator toadying to power would toady to Trump. Neocons wrapped themselves in the flag like so many moths laying worms, and now are being shaken out while there’s still a flag left to save.

  - CuriousNC

    The US Government is a whore house. I just don’t want to get nuked. There is no National Intelligence Estimate on Russian interference in our election so until then we should demand one.

    The US should leave the Salafi Jihadist to Russia, disengage, and follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. The US won’t do it but it should!

    - Antiwar2

      Curious,
      Keep the whores out of this. Sex workers are overwhelming against war.

      - Skywalker

        To Antiwar2
        Is there some empirical basis for your statement about the political views of sex workers? Or are you just saying that because you think it is politically correct?

        Again, you are being hypersensitive. If I said someone was running a prison like a slave plantation, that is not a racist insult against Black people. Same with comparing the white house to a whore house. It is a dig on the owners, not the workers. ,

        - Antiwar2

          “Again, you are being hypersensitive.”

          *Blurp*

        - Skywalker

          I guess that means you thought it was politically correct. Have fun playing your little mind cop moderator games. “Eternal vigilance is the price of political correctness.”

        - Antiwar2

          Honey, the only precious snowflakes on here are you and PXImpotence. No one else cares.

          Got under your skin though.

        - comrade hermit

          AK. Sky. I love you both and you both piss me off from time to time but take my word for it, you don’t know each other, but I know both of you and your both essentially on the same side. CHILL OUT.

          AK has worked with a lot of cool people in the sex industry.

          Sky has taken some unnecessary flak for his Finkelstein-esque approach to combating Zionism with blunt language.

          Your both right and your both wrong. Can’t we all just get along?….

          ….I don’t know…f**k it. I tried.

      - Strider73

        That’s because they are neutral, servicing both sides. :-)

  - Antiwar2

    “I am concerned that Mr. Raimondo, and Glen Greenwald, and Scott Horton as well…”

    Noted. Would you like their addresses so you can send cards?

    - PxThucydides

      Got something useful to say, say it. Otherwise, STFU A*hole.

    - wars r u.s.

      Does the job description of a Mod include being a smart a** jerk?

  - Neuromancer

    Tucker Carlson is a non-interventionist.

    Donald Trump ran on a non-interventionist foreign policy (which he has largely abandoned.)

    Therefore, Tucker Carlson is a Donald Trump sycophant.

    Try running that past Aristotle.

    - wars r u.s.

      Has Tucker been consistently non-intervention? I don’t know because I never watch FOX.

- John1943

  I watched a brain dead Rhode Island congressman on Tucker tonight. He tried to say that the so called hacking by Russia was RT having some bad stories about Hillary Clinton and some Russian bots spreading them around the internet. What a joke! The BBC. CBC, and virtually every other government News service operating in this country was attacking Trump. that also includes PBS. The Israeli’s have been using internet bots forever stinking up internet comment sections with lies and false stories. This is supposed to the hacking that we are supposed to go to war with Russia about. That and the fairy tale about wiki leaks. The British have been interfering here for 200 years or more so are the French. The Saudi’s and israeli’s for over 70. The Neocons are going crazy with their blood lust for war.

  - axel

    Easy on the French! Without the French financing, army, and navy, there may not have been a United States, and we were gracious enougn to honor them in 1931 with a commemorative stamp!
    (Honorable mention also to the Prussian Baron von Steuben, who organized Washington’s rag-tag starving mob into an army, though he didn’t make it onto a stamp).
    Overall, Washington wasn’t having too much luck until Yorktown.
    https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/246882553/vintage-unused-us-postage-stamp-2c

  - Realist

    There is no country on the face of the earth that has interjected it’s self in the governance of foreign countries, than the US

    - jsinton

      I’ll buy that.

- RickR35

  It’s problematic “debating” neocon scumbags. They are non-rational, fanatical, ideological, not to mention they have a financial investment in the policies they sell; they’re pathologically self-righteous and for them to get on some moral high-horse and feign indignation is sickening.

  The best way to deal with them is simply ignoring them altogether. No paleoconservative should bother with these people. Don’t they also get paid to be on these shows? Like the Trump people say, the neocons lost. There’s no reason to give them a pulpit for them to advance their agenda.

  - Realist

    Exactly correct.

  - RespectnJustice4all

    Perhaps quite true & discussion is futile… ,..& are they neocons?…or really neo-bolsheviks?… .lies, denials, false accusations all manner of attempted smears & “deceptions”… always playing the man…No conscience & don’t care what anyone thinks about them…Prosecute them fur war crimes I say!

  - Druid55

    Important to show them up and get them on the Redford, though

- promotis2

  Of course those who emigrated from Russia hate the mother country. They were the ones who thought they would literally buy up Russia and profit from her natural resources. They were welcomed by that drunk Yelsin, but Putin who has a true love for his country would have none of this. These neocons could not rip off Russia under Putin and he sent them packing.Unfortunately, they ended up in the United States. Tucker is in the true American conservative tradition of the founding fathers who warned against this interventionist nonsense. But, in a country like the United States where foreign policy is made in Tel Aviv and enforced by AIPAC all those who disagree are Hitler apologists.

- Skywalker

  Cui bono, Justin? Why don’t you write about the influence of the Zionist lobby on tricking the USA into regime changing wars against all the anti-Zionist regimes in the Middle East (iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya)? Or do you believe that it is only a coincidence that anti Max Boot, Cathy Young and Julia Ioffe are Russian Jewish emigres and Ralph Peters has equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? The American people are being led like sheep to serial wars against regimes that support the Palestinian resistance movement against Zionist colonialism. And getting the US into a war with Iran has been the top goal of Israeli foreign policy and the Zionist lobby since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It is impossible to understand the warmongering of the Zionists without appreciating the control the Zionist movement has over the neocon agenda and the influence of Israel and its lobby over US foreign policy.

  - geokat62

    Great stuff, Skywalker.

    For some reason Justin is a little reluctant to identify what most neocons have in common and what may be the driving force behind their attempts to vilify Putin and start WWIII. He came very close to doing so, however, when he wrote this paragraph:

    “I know where it’s coming from. Tucker’s viewers may not know that Boot is a Russian immigrant, who – like so many of our Russophobic warmongers – arrived on our shores with his hatred of the motherland packed in his suitcase. There’s a whole platoon of them: Cathy Young, who recently released her polemic arguing for a new cold war with Russia in the pages of Reason magazine; Atlantic writer and tweeter of anti-Trump obscenities Julia Ioffe, whose visceral hatred for her homeland is a veritable monomania; Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion who spends most of his energy plotting revenge against Vladimir Putin and a Russian electorate that has consistently rejected his hopeless presidential campaigns, and I could go on but you get the picture.”

    To help some of his readers connect the dots, here’s a little background info on each of these individuals:

    [Max] Boot was born in Moscow. His parents, both Russian Jews, later emigrated from the Soviet Union to Los Angeles, where he was raised.

    [Cathy Young] – ONE DAY in February 1979, a Russian Jew named Ekaterina Jung confided to her 16-year-old classmates in Moscow’s Sokolniki District School Number One that her family had decided to emigrate to the United States.

    [Julia] Ioffe was born in Moscow and her family immigrated to the United States in 1990 when Ioffe was 7; they were legal immigrants who according to Ioffe were “fleeing anti-Semitism” in the Soviet Union due to being of Jewish descent.

    [Garry] Kasparov was born Garik Kimovich Weinstein in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR (now Azerbaijan), Soviet Union. His father, Kim Moiseyevich Weinstein, was Russian Jewish, and his mother, Klara Shagenovna Gasparian, was Armenian.

    Lt. Colonel Peters – [He] showed his Zionist colours when espousing in an interview with The Jewish Press the most inane of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments that would warm the heart of any Jewish zealot. Answering a question he stated that Americans would only sufficiently respond to Islam when there is an increase in Islamic terrorism on American soil. – Zionism, Islam and The West, Kerry Bolton 2015, Black House Publishing Ltd.

- jsinton

  You go, Justin. Smash deep state and their military-industrial complex allies. What I have really enjoyed about Trump is how he makes all the neocons show their true colors.

- Ray Shelton

  I wonder what Tucker would say if Trump went to war with N. Korea. My bet is, he would suddenly cast off his non-interventionist garb and…join the war party!

  - Realist

    I think you are wrong about Tucker. He is not enamored with Trump…..Trump is just the best we have right now.

- Brockland A.T.

  The bear in the room no-one seems to be mentioning is Halford Mackinder. Mackinder’s Heartland theory more or less states that Russia, not the U.S., is the natural seat for global empire. Its simple geography; the Eurasian heartland Russia dominates is easily four or more times the size of the North American heartland the U.S. dominates.

  Oddly enough the neocons don’t talk much of Mackinder at all, for all that their policies are derived from it (and Spykman’s Rimland take on Mackinder). They seem to like to promote the idea first as their own intellectual product, and secondly, repackage it as something new for a new generation, when its far from. In any case, from adversarial Mackinderism, Russia will always be the great enemy as Carthage was to Rome. Like Carthage, its not purely a military thing, its about standing in the way of one elites’ hegemony.

  The neocons and their Great Game forbears aren’t used to not being able to bully and deceive and get away with it. Amazing how crass the Game has become as it comes down to the wire.

- Realist

  Tucker is the man on Fox. No one on Fox has ever taken on Peters, that I know of. Peters is a hegemonic scumbag. I have never liked him and change the channel when he is on. Boot has the IQ of a corn dog and Tucker beat him down but good. I am amazed that Fox allows Tucker to humiliate and ass kick the war mongers. Fox tends to have the militaristic bravado thing going.
  Kudos to Justin for highlighting Tucker.

  - Antiwar2

    Let’s enjoy it while it last. Remember Andrew Napolitano’s show on Fox Business News? You don’t? Probably having Scott Horton, Justin Ramiondo, and me on as guests is why.

  - Mary Myers

    Next up on Tucker’s show should be retired General Jack Keane, who works for the Institute for the Study of War.

    - Strider73

      I vote for Paul Van Riper, the USMC general who as the OPFOR commander “annihilated” an entire US carrier battle group in a 2002 war game. Then the managers restarted the exercise and ordered Van Riper to lose. A year later US troops were complaining “this isn’t the enemy we war-gamed against.” No kidding. In real life there are no reset buttons.

    - Realist

      Yes, an another ass hole warmonger.

  - jsinton

    I suspect Fox goes whatever way the profit winds blow for their viewership. At least it is not CNN allied with the Neocon/Zionist/Mil-Int-Com, which is a total puke fest of Russians under my bed things.

    - Realist

      I agree.

- dinvale

  The fact that Trucker agreed with Iraq invasion is amazing.Millions of people around the world knew that all the pretexts were lies and one like Tucker who is an observer of American policy scene believed that the invasion was on right reasons? ForTucker doesn’t matter how was built Iraq invasion but only that the promised good results for America were not reached.Tucker .It is also surprising that Tucker doesn’t suspect that US reached what she wanted in Iraq ,the chaos ,and went on with this to Libya ,Syria and looking after Iran for the same.

- bob balkas

  Southwest of Russia is a fat belt of islamic ‘stans and ending with islamic outer Mongolia.
  China lays southeast of that belt.
  If Russia and China continue building friendly relationships with imams and stanic elites of that belt, that would enhance greatly security and peace in almost entire Asia.

  Are Syrian rebels onto the fact that they may have good and better friends in islamic ‘stans, than in US, Israel, EU, US, Canada, gulf states…..?

  If they are onto it, peace in Syria is assured. And Iraqis, then, follow Syrian rebels.

- Stefan Reich

  Col Peters obviously has no sex life

  - Antiwar2

    Stefan,
    Keep it clean. This is not Buzzfeed.

  - comrade hermit

    “He looks like he jerks off with Icy Hot.”

    -Granddad, The Boondocks

- Skywalker

  Cui bono, Justin? Why don’t you write about the influence of the Zionist lobby on tricking the USA into regime changing wars against all the anti-Zionist regimes in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya)? Or do you believe that it is only a coincidence that anti Putin pundits Max Boot, Cathy Young and Julia Ioffe are Russian Jewish emigres and Ralph Peters has equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? The American people are being led like sheep to serial wars against regimes that ideologically oppose Zionist colonialism and especially against regimes that give material support to the Palestinian resistance movement against Zionist colonialism. And getting the US into a war with Iran has been the top goal of Israeli foreign policy and the Zionist lobby since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It is impossible to understand the warmongering of the Neocons or the USA without appreciating the control the Zionist movement has over the Neocon agenda and the influence of Israel and its lobby over US foreign policy.

  - Skywalker

    Could the moderators explain to me why the above post got deleted from this site?
    I don’t consider it to be “Jew Baiting”. But I am getting increasingly annoyed with the heavy handed moderating on this site. So I am speaking up before I get banned.

    - Antiwar2

      Everybody and their mother knows about AIPAC. If you want Mr. Raimondo to say “ALL THE JEWS,” you are barking up the wrong tree.

      - Skywalker

        To Antiwar2:
        Aren’t you being hyper-sensitive? Who is talking about “all the Jews?” I certainly don’t include Sheldon Richman, Lucy Steigerwald, Gideon Levy, Albert Einstein or even Avrum Blum in the category of unthinking Jewish nationalists. But Jewish nationalism is a serious problem at the root of the Zionist movement which in turn is at the root of the Neocon movement subverting contemporary US foreign policy, especially following 9/11. .

        Jews have survived historical persecution by developing a group solidarity. But the instincts for survival in a hostile environment where Jews were a persecuted and endangered minority have been too often co-opted by the Zionist movement to guilt trip non-Zionist Jews into silence or complicity with the Zionist colonization project.

        I suggest you read “Einstein on Israel and Zionism” by Fred Jerome (St. Marten’s Press 2009). Einstein was a proud cultural Zionist who opposed political Zionism because he understood that the group religious and ethnic solidarity that had enabled Jews to endure centuries of persecution was incompatible with the tolerance necessary to govern a multi-ethic state. He therefore adamantly opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

        - Brockland A.T.

          More to the point, the Puritans assumed a moral imperative and entitlement to genocide; they continued on the same mission of destruction they originally meant for England’s Catholics, and pretty much anyone else who didn’t agree with their brand of Reformed Protestantism. Even for Protestants they were a little ‘out there’, and the Church of England never accepted them. Similarly, it would be a mistake to assume all Jews are Zionists or sympathetic to Zionism.

          Zionism is perhaps more appropriately called Anglo-Zionism, and Jewish nationalism is a bit of a misnomer since Jews are members of many nations other than Israel. Ethnocentrism may be a more appropriate word, ethnicity being based on common tribal and language affiliations.

          I seem to have missed your original controversial post, but its not hard to guess its some sort of identity conflation error. Asking the Jews to give up their ‘nationalism’, or ethnic identity, calling it a problem, is a problem. This is the same kind of fallacious thinking pattern that gets you in trouble as an anti-Trumpist; Trump isn’t the problem and hardly the root of all that’s wrong in American politics. Zionism uses Jewish ethnocentrism, ethnocentrism is not in and of itself the clear genesis of Zionism.

          While certainly Jews are caught up in Zionism, what gets underplayed is the gentile component of the Zionist movement. Zionist Christianity in secular or religious form was the gamebreaker, a Christian extremist movement that made a niche extremist Jewish movement mainstream. They have a kind of symbiotic, power-sharing, blame-sharing relationship.

          The Zionist Christians are hardly motivated by any love of Jewish humanity; Jews like the rest of us are mere pawns for securing an exclusive future in the afterlife. Come Judgement Day the right sect of Christians will be elevated to the right hand of God while everyone else including if not especially the Jews are exterminated for good in the ultimate pogrom of the Second Coming. In the meantime outsiders to make themselves useful good peasants and not question their conventions of convenience.

          Its part of the social warfare meme game; non-Jewish Abramic extremists blame the Jews generally but excuse themselves. The non-Jewish populations from which they originally derived may adopt, with varying degrees of blindness, antisemitism under the mistaken assumption that extremists are still in any way ‘one of them’. Zionism wields anti-semitism as a two-edged sword, at once derogatory of Jews even as criticism of Zionism is anti-semetic.

    - Skywalker

      Antiwar2:

      I think we are going to have a problem.
      Here is my post again. Please explain why you are deleting it?
      I don’t want to be posting forbidden opinions.

      Cui bono, Justin? Why don’t you write about the influence of the Zionist lobby on tricking the USA into regime changing wars against all the anti-Zionist regimes in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya)? Or do you believe that it is only a coincidence that anti Max Boot, Cathy Young and Julia Ioffe are Russian Jewish emigres and Ralph Peters has equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? The American people are being led like sheep to serial wars against regimes that support the Palestinian resistance movement against Zionist colonialism. And getting the US into a war with Iran has been the top goal of Israeli foreign policy and the Zionist lobby since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It is impossible to understand the warmongering of the Zionists without appreciating the control the Zionist movement has over the neocon agenda and its influence on US foreign policy.

      - Neuromancer

        Another (? or a repeat) poster with the complaint “But Justin, why didn’t you mention this? Why didn’t you mention that? Waa! Waa!”

        These are essays, not tomes or Ph.D. theses. There is only so much you can say in the space allotted. Justin has written plenty about AIPAC, the Israel “Amen” corner, and just about every other manifestation of Israel-first foreign policy you can imagine.

        Do a little homework before coming on here with another screed.

      - comrade hermit

        Doesn’t sound like anything Israel Shahak or Ilan Pappe wouldn’t observe, however, I think it’s important to recognize that Putin is by no means an anti-Zionist. Russia recently beat the United States to become the first foreign government to recognize Jerusalem as the true capitol of Israel. The only reason Zionists have a beef with Russia is their support for Syria and Iran. Neocons, who often overlap with Zionists, appose the very existence of Russia as a singular state because it forms the land bridge that makes the Eurasian Century an inevitability. I suspect that Boot, Young, Ioffe and definitely Peters are motivated primarily by the latter.

        Never the less: F**K CENSORSHIP!!!!

        - Strider73

          > The only reason Zionists have a beef with Russia is their support for Syria and Iran.

          Also, Jews were treated quite poorly in the USSR, which backed the Arabs in the 1967 war. That said, Russia is not the USSR except to the neocons & Zionists.

        - comrade hermit

          Good point.

        - Druid55

          If Russia backed the Arabs in 1967 shows they were smarter in foreign policy than us!

        - Skywalker

          Exactly right, Comrade,

          Netanyahu, the Israeli Zionists and their lobby see a confrontation between the USA and Russia over NATO expansion as a distraction to pushing the USA into a war with Iran.

          It sounds like I am about to get black listed from antiwar.com. Before that happens I just wanted to add I will miss your passionate and insightful contributions.
          Keep the faith in Happy Valley!

          May the Force be with you and all those you love, always.

          Skywalker

        - comrade hermit

          If you get black listed than I’ll raise holy f**king hell and I actually know a few people here. They wont hear the end of it. Ever.

          Either way you’re always welcome at http://exileinhappyvalley.blogspot.com/

      - Skywalker

        Thomas:

        Your and your sidekick have deleted my post three times. Here it is again. Please explain to me how it is “Jew- baiting”. I don’t want to be posting forbidden opinions. If you don’t have the patience or the artillery to explain then you might as well ban me and get it over with. I can move and you and Antiwar2 can score another point for political correctness and keeping antiwar.com safe from dangerous thoughts.
        Please explain why you deleted this post:

        Cui bono, Justin? Why don’t you write about the influence of the Zionist lobby on tricking the USA into regime changing wars against all the anti-Zionist regimes in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya)? Or do you believe that it is only a coincidence that Max Boot, Cathy Young and Julia Ioffe are Russian Jewish emigres and Ralph Peters has equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? The American people are being led like sheep to serial wars against regimes that support the Palestinian resistance movement against Zionist colonialism. And getting the US into a war with Iran has been the top goal of Israeli foreign policy and the Zionist lobby since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It is impossible to understand the warmongering of the Zionists without appreciating the control the Zionist movement has over the neocon agenda and its influence on US foreign policy.

- Edison Frisbee

  Don’t forget Mark Levin….

- RespectnJustice4all

  Sorry Justin but, even the interviewer is pushing “The Narrative” BS….& as usual the the Questioner omits the essence of the problems….eg Why are we backing MURDEROUS militants to overthrow the democratically elected Govt of Syria?…There was order in Syria before the US/Israel Neocon “intervention” nest ce pas?..WE ought be helping restore order. ….What legal or moral rights for this FOREIGN intervention & responsibility for the harms (by the lies that cased them)?… Lastly, what specifically was the problem with the Assad Govt??… as Syrians were not suffering violence or trying to flee Assad’s Syria PRIOR to the US seeking to effect “Regime Change” in Syria? Then talking Russian “interference” in USA Elections & ignoring Israel’s 5th Col & fronts & shills in US & West is not only ludicrous…. all the above is evil….Prosecute them all I say!

- antarcticus

  Wake me up when Tucker Carlson interviews Malcolm Howard, the dying CIA agent who confessed to 9/11 involvement.

- Skywalker

  Antiwar2:
  Please explain why you have deleted this post twice this morning? Precisely what about it is improper?

  Cui bono, Justin? Why don’t you write about the influence of the Zionist lobby on tricking the USA into regime changing wars against all the anti-Zionist regimes in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya)? Or do you believe that it is only a coincidence that anti Max Boot, Cathy Young and Julia Ioffe are Russian Jewish emigres and Ralph Peters has equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? The American people are being led like sheep to serial wars against regimes that support the Palestinian resistance movement against Zionist colonialism. And getting the US into a war with Iran has been the top goal of Israeli foreign policy and the Zionist lobby since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It is impossible to understand the warmongering of the Zionists without appreciating the control the Zionist movement has over the neocon agenda and its influence on US foreign policy.

  - Jeffrey Fein

    Bullseye! It is always a mitzvah to declare this central cause of the world’s misery, this elephant in the room of American subversion by Israel/Zionism.

    Keep at it.

    - Skywalker

      Thanks, Jeff,
      I don’t agree that Israel/Zionism is the central cause of the world’s misery. However I do believe that the Zionist movement has tremendous, even decisive influence over US Middle East policy and in defining the acceptable terms of political discourse in the USA.

- eric

  If anyone looks like the reincarnation of Hitler . NATO most fits the bill . In the destruction of Yugoslavia NATO aligned every time with the same ethnic groups of people Hitler did ,Used the same kind of false flag attacks . Only real difference is NATO has much greater propaganda machinery and more fire power . United States humiliated both Russia and China in Yugoslavia . The question was asked in Yugoslavia how could one tell the difference in what NAZI’s did and what NATO is doing . You can bet your Life China and Russia can not see any difference either . As they both have been preparing the best they could since we destroyed Yugoslavia . Today China and Russia feel a lot more prepared to standup against NATO than they were 18 yrs ago .

- Jamie

  Wonderful take down of these two neocon tools. They know they are lying to Tucker and the world but have to keep lying because that is what their handlers expect of them.

- Mary Myers

  Great analysis, Justin. Tucker’s dust-ups with Peters and Boot made my month.

- muggles

  Thanks for this terrific and timely essay on Tucker and the dead brain neocon monsters! When these creeps run out of arguments (about five seconds in) they resort to childish name calling and smear tactics. That’s what’s left of the neocon brain trust.
  Peters looks like some nut in the war room of Dr. Strangelove while “Max Boot” (whose fake name always reminds of Homer’s Simpson’s nom de plume “Max Power”) is some wooden headed puppet who is right out of the pages of an Ayn Rand novel as principal villain. Rand too was a Russian exile who hated everything and everyone from her former homeland.
  What a takedown! All Tucker has to do is object to their smearing him being somehow, in their Bizarro World, as “pro Hitler.” Boot merely hits his regular “replay” button of smears and catch phrases for every question. Questioning the motives of one’s debate opponent is the lowest form of rebuttal. Unless evidence can be offered it is the automatic sign of a desperate loser.
  Also of great value today, Justin notes Tucker Carlson’s evolution from plain vanilla “conservative” host to a far more enlightened and savvy semi non interventionist who actually thinks for himself. No longer spoon fed by the so called experts from War Party think tanks. We should all note and applaud anyone at any time who makes this important transition. No, they aren’t hard core libertarians yet, but there is a road they are on and we should help them down that road with cheers and support. Let’s hope Fox doesn’t kill him off, despite his being the only thing on there worth watching.

- Pingback: Tucker Carlson | Brasil no Mundo()

- eric

  I had a friend that migrated from Russia at a fairly young age . I would say she was a Russianphobe . As she was always against what ever Russia would do I pointed out to her that Solzhenitsyn looked to me to be making good sound moral decisions . After communism fell Solzhenitsyn might have been the most powerful man in Russia up until his death . Putin is who Solzhenitsyn selected to strengthen Russia . And there can be no argument about Putin accomplishing this . After Putin’s first term The world found out the bear is back , As Medvedev stood up to NATO when Georgia attacked South Ossetia . I think Russia has been a fairly friendly bear and has been operating on higher moral plane than NATO or the USA for at least the last 20 years . Even my Russian immigrant friend has finally been forced to admit this . Russia has more been a power acting more to promote peace than conquest . We read Russia has a lot of new high powered weapons . I say they are now much stronger than the Soviet Union ever was . But Putin’s greatest strength is that he has created pride in the Russian people , pride in their country A happy feeling of Unity in the Russian people .

- comrade hermit

  I’m not exactly the captain of the Tucker Carlson fanclub but I do find it hilarious that a “Realist” took the spot of that grope-a-holic war junkie Bill O’Reilly. I’m sure that really chafes that old Jurassic predators balls to no end. Good riddance. That old clod-hopping creep will have to get his cheap thrills rubbing up against “the folks” in the unemployment line. I’ll be there to knock his dentures down his throat when he does.

- Pingback: APPAF()

- liveload

  I don’t know what’s more amusing:
  Some mainstream reporter asking a couple of real questions, decades too late.
  Or
  Raimondo celebrating it and hoisting a fool who says things like this:

  jsinton says:
  July 14, 2017 at 4:12 am
  Well if I had my way, I’d announce all US military forces will leave S Korea. Then wait a year or two and move out, have a Gulf of Tonkin moment, and vaporize N Korea.

  From: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-be-fooled-there-is-no-diplomacy-with-north-korea/

  Seriously?!?!

  Go away.

- chrismalllory

  ”BOOT: What have I been wrong about, Tucker? What have I been wrong about?”

  Remember, Lil Maxie Boot is the guy who said the biggest thing wrong with the war in Afghanistan was that there weren’t enough Americans dying.

- Pingback: APPAF Newsletter 07-17-2017 | APPAF()

- boxofvapor

  Very rarely do we see Washington as united as they are today in their condemnation of Russia and anything even remotely tied to Russia. The scary part is that it’s a convergence of so many different interests. Each group demonizing Russia and Putin have their own specific reasons for doing so and that is exactly how 99% of all wars start.

  You very rarely, if ever, see a war start over “one” reason. It’s almost always a number of various groups that all believe they will profit in one form or another from confrontation. These groups who believe they will profit from war never see the down side either. They are always going to “win” and reap the rewards, whatever that might mean to them.

  Think of it as the “perfect storm” if you will.

  Well right now we have a huge storm brewing and to top it off, it’s the dead of summer, when average Americans are basically tuned out from the entire process. This means there is little accountability for the actions of our dear leaders in Washington.

  Ps, Isn’t it really strange how so many Trump haters truly believe that he is not only retarded but also crazy. Well if that is true, then why would you want to put Trump in a position where the only way he can prove his innocence is by attacking Russia? It reminds me of a story my father told me once. He was at a drinking party and one guy bet another guy that he couldn’t go around a certain corner in his car doing 100mph. The guy making the bet got in the car with the other drunk guy to make sure he was actually doing 100 when he reached the corner. (You can imagine the outcome) It seems the Trump haters who are doing this Russian baiting either don’t realize we are all in this car together or they don’t understand that rolling your car doing a hundred isn’t good for your health.

- Druid55

  I was never a fan of Tucker but this may change my mind. These f’in Zionist neocons are dangerous ideologues

- L Garou

  Tucker really does deserve a medal.
  At least a commendation or ten for showcasing how a bona fide intellectual and patriot easily exposes the fake intellectual snakes in the grass.
  General or no (lol) General..

- Rick Morrow

  Tucker Carlson – Always prepared, never disappoints.

- Pingback: Tucker Carlson, Neocon Slayer – Antiwar.com Original | PG.Chrys' No Agenda Linkblog()

- Bevin Chu

  “Boot is a Russian immigrant, who – like so many of our Russophobic warmongers – arrived on our shores with his hatred of the motherland packed in his suitcase. There’s a whole platoon of them: Cathy Young… Julia Ioffe… Gary Kasparov… I could go on but you get the picture.”

  Exactly. China is plagued with the same sort of Sinophobic warmongers. The most recent being the late Liu Xiaobo, another in a long string of “useful idiots” of the CIA and MI6.