The Question I’ve Never Heard Tucker Carlson Ask...

I listened to Tucker's interview, several days ago, on a podcast--I think it was Megyn Kelly's podcast. Along the way, Tucker made one outrageous claim after another. And yet he also, when it came to Israel, was repeatedly at pains to point out that he--who insists that he isn't an anti-Semite--"understands" Israel's position vis-a-vis Iran and the rest of the Middle East, and that he realizes that the Israeli position is merely one of wanting supremacy in relation to its regional neighbors. Something, Tucker repeatedly said, that every nation-state wants. And he repeated, time after time, an assertion that he, "Tucker," understands Netanyahu's position, and said that had he (Tucker) been in charge of the messaging, he'd have said exactly the same as has Bibi.

Megyn, as I've increasingly come to expect, nodded along.

And I started to wonder: What is it that Tucker Carlson thinks is Iran's goal in the Middle East? And why do I never see him speaking to it? Why doesn't he ever seem to state that it's perfectly understandable and defensible to execute thousands of Iran's citizens, if they're standing in the way of the regime's national and religious objectives, and why isn't he asserting that he--Tucker--would be doing exactly what the mullahs and the IRGC are doing to promote it, were he in charge of Iranian messaging along the way?

Tucker seems to be channeling the Iranians in many of his statements, but I don't ever recall him strongly speaking up for what Iran is for. Perhaps that's because it might be difficult for him to explain why it is that the mullahs of Iran are for (as has just occurred to Keir Starmer) ICBMs that can strike as far away as London. (Wakey-Wakey, Keir!)

The same article includes a graphic that shows (before Iran hits London) that its ICBMs might hit Vienna, Rome, and Berlin. How is that the formulation for Carlson's defensiveness of Iran? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Most recently, we have Clark Joe Kent, the former Jack Bauer of the Trump administration, resigning, publicly defaming his former bosses, and heading straight for the hills Carlson, Kelly, and Owens podcasts.

Meanwhile, apropos of possibly nothing, former 'comedian' Joe Rogan headlined--on his podcasts for the week-- comedian Mark Normand, Canadian opposition leader Pierre Polievre, healthcare advocate Brigham Buhler, MMA champion Dustin Poirier, and country singer and musician Luke Grimes. Not all of them heavyweights. But all of them indicate that perhaps--at least for now--Joe Rogan (and his millions of listeners) have other things on the mind besides our latest faux Superman.

Most recently, Carlson has described one of British history's most reviled fascists as "a great war hero."

This is probably because Tucker is an ahistorical idiot and cannot tell the difference between Oswald Mosley and Clement Attlee.

Pretending that Oswald Mosley was the leader of Churchill's opposition (when he was out of Parliament and clearly showing himself as a Hitler acolyte) versus Clement Attlee (the actual leader of the country's opposition, and the actual "war hero" from WWI, who served as Churchill's Deputy Prime Minister) shows Tucker in a rather bad light.

But, it gets worse:

Here Tucker is, interviewing Clark Joe Kent (I listened to the whole bloody thing, so you don't have to).

Close to the end, Tucker inquires of Joe if it might be possible that Israel provided the US with the coordinates so it could bomb the school children in Iran. After all, as Tucker says, " So it's entirely possible the coordinates were given to us by Israel. And why wouldn't they be?"

Tucker's a liar. And a trimmer. And a person deserving of disgust.

I'd dearly like to know the answer to the question had Tucker Carlson ever dared to ask it:

"What exactly is Iran's endgame here?"

I'm just asking.