"It is shocking that Trump said no one informed him that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz. I find it unbelievable that one of the fundamental pillars of geopolitical strategy in the Middle East was ignored. That was the first thing we assumed Iran would do. It is their main tool of global leverage. We are now seeing the consequences of a foreign policy driven by impulse rather than strategy.
Vote for a racist idiot
A very critical point is that trump acts strictly on impulse. There is no strategy. There is no analysis. There is no plan. It’s all impulse all the time from someone who lacks critical thinking, is a recognized narcissist and a documented serial liar.
I'm disgusted with this blundering, blathering imbecile and his ship of fools. Let fleas and flies and bedbugs swarm every voter who put this uneducated dumb guy in charge of the country--because, not-so-bright themselves, it didn't occur to them that Just Maybe the person charged with one of the most difficult jobs on earth should be filled by someone
I blame it on the theory of white supremacy. We had a president who rescued our economy from Bush, no wars and global respect, but he was black and the white guys got mad so they had to reclaim the presidency as a white job.geable and SMART. I mean... Yeah. What a concept.
Hillary cooked. MAGA walking around all proud like "this is what we voted for" or "Best President ever" (what???🙃as if they understood politics, economics or history.
Most presidents announce foreign policy in measured phrases freighted with forethought and significance. Trump blathers, tumbling over proclamations as quickly as he can pronounce them. Perhaps Trump’s secret plan is to confuse everyone so thoroughly that they are frozen with doubt. Not a winning strategy, to be sure, but the only way to make sense of Trump’s whirligig fountain of nonsense that erupted on Monday.
Before parsing Trump’s contradictory statements, let’s skip to the end: Trump panicked on Monday, because he was shocked—shocked!—to learn that attacking the nation that controls the maritime chokepoint for 20% of the world’s oil supply would close that chokepoint if attacked. Trump attempted to bamboozle commodities traders by announcing that the “excursion” into Iran would be over soon. Trump’s ploy worked, even as he issued contradictory statements about his intentions, and oil prices dropped from $120 to $85 in a few short hours.
But within hours, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted a statement that said, “it’s only just beginning.” See The Mirror, Trump claims Iran War is ‘pretty much’ complete as Hegseth says ‘it’s only just beginning’.
Trump made his prediction that the war was almost over in an interview with his new favorite mouthpiece, CBS News. Per The Mirror article linked above,
In a phone interview with CBS on Monday, Trump said the war could be over soon. “I think the war is very complete, pretty much. They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no Air Force,” he said.
Hours later, Trump gave a rambling, bellicose speech to Republican members of Congress gathered at Mar-a-Lago. See The Authoritarian Pep Rally - by What Did Trump Do Today?
Per WDTDT, instead of discussing the war “with sobriety,”
Trump spoke about war like a man narrating a casino win, bragging about sunk ships, “short-term excursions,” and enemies being “wiped out,” all while lacing the speech with the same familiar sewage of lies and scapegoating about immigrants, Democrats, and elections.
Trump told the assembled GOP members of Congress that “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough,” and that the US was prepared to hit Iran even harder. See Time, Trump Delivers Mixed Messages on the State of the Iran War
When Trump was asked to reconcile his statement that the war was “pretty much complete” (except for the “more winning” part) with Hegseth’s statement that “it’s only just beginning,” Trump laughably claimed that Hegseth was referring to “beginning of building a new country.” (See WDTDT, above.)
Don’t bother trying to reconcile Trump’s statements among themselves, much less with Hegseth’s statements. They cannot be reconciled because there is no plan, no vision, no objective, just chaos measured in “Trump-time,” which is the unit of time between the misfiring of Trump’s addled synapses.
But the chaos is inflicting human suffering and global economic panic. Trump blundered his way into a war in which one of the first acts was the killing of more than 160 innocent schoolgirls. Neither he nor the senior US military comm and has the decency or humanity to admit that they killed hundreds of Iranian children through their recklessness.
The evidence is overwhelming that the school was struck by a Tomahawk missile, which is in the arsenal of only one nation involved in this conflict—the United States. See CBC, Video appears to contradict Trump claim that U.S. wasn’t responsible for deadly Minab school blast.
In the face of incontestable evidence to the contrary, Trump is claiming that Iran stole a US missile and then fired it at a school filled with Iranian schoolchildren. When Trump was asked why he is the only person in his administration making this baseless claim, Trump responded, “Because I just don’t know enough about it.” See The Hill, Trump’s denial on Iran school bombing cuts against mounting signs of US responsibility.
Hegseth backed up Trump’s claims that Iran was responsible, saying that the “only side that targets civilians is Iran.” (See The Hill, above.)
The refusal of Trump and Hegseth to take responsibility for the killings is despicable. The military proudly announces within minutes when missiles hit their intended targets, but claims an inability to discern the truth when a US missile kills civilians.
If Trump and Hegseth are willing to lie about killing civilians, we should believe nothing they say about the war--which is why the Trump-Hegseth dizzying flurry of contradictory statements on Monday is meaningless. And the oil traders who relied on the liars' statements are fools.
Why does this matter to Americans defending democracy at home? Because Trump has once again bumped into the limits of political gravity in the US. Each time he does, he becomes weaker, more vulnerable to losing control of Congress in November 2026.
Trump’s war is illegal, unconstitutional, and unpopular in the US. The manner in which it is being conducted is reckless, and the failure to acknowledge civilian deaths at the hands of US weapons is immoral. We must raise our voices so loudly that Congress rouses itself to do its job by exercising oversight of Trump’s war. A great opportunity to do so is on March 28, 2026, the next No Kings Day. If Americans take to the streets by the tens of millions, we can teach reluctant politicians to fear the political wrath of the people more than they fear Trump.
We can do that. We are well on our way to making that happen. Be part of history—protect our Constitution, rein in our president, and save thousands of lives. Show up and speak out on March 28—or sooner, if possible!
Trump is delaying endorsement in Texas GOP Senate primary over SAVE Act
John Cornyn and Ken Paxton are headed to a Republican primary runoff for the US Senate seat currently held by John Cornyn. Many Republicans believe that Ken Paxton would lose in a general election and are pressuring Trump to endorse Cornyn.
Trump was likely heading for an endorsement of Cornyn when Paxton came up with a gambit to secure Trump’s endorsement. Paxton said he would drop out of the race if the Senate passed the SAVE Act. See Politico, Trump is delaying Texas Senate endorsement to pressure GOP senators on SAVE America Act.
Paxton’s move caught Trump’s attention, and Trump is now delaying the endorsement as a way of putting pressure on other GOP Senators—like John Thune—to pass the SAVE Act.
Why does this story matter? Because you will undoubtedly see media references to Paxton calling on the Senate to use the “talking filibuster” to pass the SAVE Act.
So, to save a lot of anxiety and confusion, the “talking filibuster” IS the filibuster—at least so far as amending Senate rules and procedure is concerned. To switch to a “talking filibuster” through a rules change, Republicans would need 67 votes. They don’t have 67 votes to change the rules for a talking filibuster. If they did, they would just overcome the filibuster with 60 votes.
The other way to implement a talking filibuster is with the “nuclear option”—using a parliamentary procedure to advance a bill with only 51 votes. Republican leadership is dead set against the nuclear option because they know Democrats will do the same thing as soon as they take control of the Senate.
I addressed the misconceptions about the “talking filibuster” in my newsletter dated February 26, 2026, Senate Majority Leader rejects Trump’s call to eliminate filibuster to pass SAVE Act.
The Politico article above noted that Thune remains opposed to the “talking filibuster” to pass the SAVE Act:
But on Monday, [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune poured cold water on Trump’s hopes once again, stating that formally nuking the legislative filibuster is “not going to happen” and arguing that a talking filibuster without forcing through a rules change is “way more complicated” than people realize.
See also, Politico, Thune: Talking filibuster ‘more complicated and risky’ than people realize..
This story matters for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that Trump understands he cannot implement the SAVE Act provisions through an executive order. If he believed that an executive order would pass scrutiny in the courts, he wouldn’t be pressuring Cornyn and Paxton to convince John Thune to use the talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
Second, Paxton has found a way to extend a nasty, lose-lose fight for Republicans in a contest that will pit Democrat James Talarico against the wounded survivor of the Cornyn-Paxton cage fight.
Never underestimate Trump’s ability to make a bad situation worse for Republicans.
Susan Wagner of Grassroots Connectors calls out pundits for ignoring the grassroots.
Susan Wagner of Grassroots Connector has published an essay on Substack that is generating a lot of buzz in the political commentary world. See Susan Wagner, Grassroots Connector, Dear Pundits | We need your assistance.
Susan documents a well-known, maddening, and puzzling phenomenon: the tendency of pro-democracy commentators to treat the grassroots resistance as an afterthought. Instead, pundits are caught in a self-referential, cross-promoting, tightly-knit group of political insiders who opine on the problems that face our democracy while ignoring the people who are actually doing something about it—grassroots activists.
Susan writes,
All your programs, podcasts, livestreams, and Substack content feed the public a steady diet of all the evils of MAGA and Trump. The message is relentless: Democracy is collapsing. Institutions are failing. Our opponents are ruthless. You rarely, if ever, feature grassroots stories or host activists from organizations that are part of the solution. Excluding such voices is more than an annoying oversight.
There is only one goal for 2026 – to win every possible election and loosen the MAGA hold on this country. Winning requires all hands on deck, which requires a convincing narrative. As an example, sports fans need to believe their team can win in order to show up at stadiums. And sportscasters are masters of talking up their team’s chances, focusing on strengths, not detailing the dangers ahead. Your readers and listeners, like sports fans, need the hope that today’s activists bring. This is precisely the attitude needed to stage a decisive win for democracy.
There are exceptions. Rachel Maddow routinely devotes the first ten minutes of her weekly program to highlighting the efforts and victories of grassroots activists. But many of Rachel’s colleagues devote 95% of their coverage to cataloging Trump’s threats without making the obvious counterpoint: We can and are resisting Trump—and we are winning! Relegating that second part of the story—the part where we resist and win—to 5% of their coverage is wrong.
Susan makes the point that there are dozens of dynamic, articulate grassroots leaders who deserve at least as much time as the daily catalog of Trump’s threats.
Check out Susan’s essay. If it resonates with your worldview, forward it to your favorite political pundit who seems to treat the grassroots movement as an afterthought.
Concluding Thoughts.
Trump’s war on Iran and the cascading global consequences have raised the anxiety level among readers of this newsletter. See the Comments section to Monday’s newsletter. People feel off-balance, on their back foot, exhausted, and bewildered. After all, many who are on the streets protesting the war today have done it before—in the 1960s, the 1990s, and the 2000s. Do we have to do it again?
Yes.
Such is the nature of resistance—it is 90% persistence and 90% resistance. 1For a century before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, Black Americans were refusing to give up seats in trains, trolleys, and streetcars. Were their efforts wasted? No! Their resistance was the foundation on which Rosa Parks stood when her act of civil disobedience took flight.
The people who preceded Rosa Parks were undoubtedly weary to the bone of fighting the same battle again and again and again. But they persisted.
Sometimes, the mere act of persisting is the most revolutionary act we can perform. This may be one of those moments. If it is, we should welcome that task as a sacred duty that will keep the struggle to preserve democracy alive long enough for reinforcements to arrive. That is all we need to prevail: Do not quit. Do not surrender. Outlast them. If we do that, we will surely prevail.
I suspect this crisis will end not because Donald Trump and Whiskey Pete Hegseth learn any lessons along the way. Even while inflation has already made this unpopular war more politically problematic,
It’ll come when outsiders — the Gulf allies getting hammered (several of which demand further costs to Iran), the countries formerly known as European allies, and Asians more generally — bring enough pressure to bear on both sides to find an exit-ramp.
It may not come before chaos hits some very high population countries around the world.
Marcy Wheeler at Emptywheel. The Other Hostage Crisis
STORY-LINE OPERATION SUNSET: A THRILLER BY LESLIE WOLFE:
A villainous Russian psychopathfilled with overwhelming greed for power and money has an unimaginable plan to destroy America; and possibly the world. Alex Hoffman has chased him for years. She has a knack for seeing what no one else can see. However, this time she must succeed in finding and…
By Guy Faulconbridge and Angus MacSwan EDINBURGH (Reuters) - Scotland has voted on whether to stay within the United Kingdom or declare independence to break the 307-year-old union in a finely balanced referendum with global consequences. Scotland's verdict on the union should be clear around breakfast time on Friday, but a YouGov poll of 1,828 voters previously polled indicated 54 percent of Scots would back the union while 46 percent would seek independence. ...
Source: Reuters
