Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.

The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.

But Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Essentially, you take a bunch of radioactive material, and above a certain threshold purity and threshold amount, it just starts a chain reaction that makes it explode.

      No. That is not what enriching means. I’m sorry, you need to do a lot more research on nuclear physics; you are flatly incorrect.

    • wpb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      it is well possible that they were preparing all the pieces

      You’re literally describing building a bomb with different words. And both the IAEA and the American IC are currently of the opinion that Iran hasn’t been doing that since they suspended their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Is there something you know that they don’t?

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The moron just wants the war to hide his shenaningans at home. Sole reason. Everyone should know by now that he automatically denies any and every thing that runs contrary to his own personal narrative.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Tulsi Gabbard is a well known Iranian asset. She’s been on their payroll for years. Of course she said that they weren’t building a nuclear weapon, that’s what they paid her to say. The entire Trump regime is corrupt.

  • Robotsandstuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 hours ago

    We have done this dance before last time it cost me my 20s my sanity and most importantly a huge amount for friends I loved like brothers who died before and are still killing then selfs…

  • Englishgrinn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The truth doesn’t really matter. Israel will get their war, and the US will lumber into it behind them.

    What’s crazy to me is apparently the US has become so polarized, so used to division that pointing out Israel is acting like bloodthirsty psychos is somehow supporting Iran, or Hamas before that. It’s like their whole culture has evaporated any nuance at all. Only diametrically opposed good and evil battling forever. Professional wrestling stories with Heels and Faces divided by clear black lines.

  • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    wasn’t YET building?

    I mean… Why do you even get the uranium enriched to such high levels if you don’t plan to make use of it?

    • Batman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Power plants fueling desalination. There is alot of material about it. It’s part of the treaties with America. But to refine to weapon grade uranium is not a technological enhancement, you simply run the same enrichment procedure multiple times is my understanding. The main difference is the tricky detonation, but come on, that’s decades old tech.

      The treaties were made with the understanding they could make nukes if they wanted to.

    • xzot746@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Came here to say the exact same thing.

      It doesn’t matter if it is true or not (not just this topic) but if you repeat the lie enough and gaslight the public it becomes true, and if it doesn’t so what, what are you going to do about it.

      NOTHING that is what they are counting on.

      Keep up the protests, the No Kings protest was huge even if MSM is downplaying it.

  • VeryInterestingTable@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    First, weaken the commercial aviation in your country. Second, start calling everything terrorism. Third, start yet another war in the middle east.

    Your guy is desperately looking for another 911.

  • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    That’s fine. Iraq didn’t have WMDs either. They just need a lie to sell it to the public.

  • xyzzy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    In [Trump’s] view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

    Those are clearly Netanyahu’s words in his mouth. Netanyahu has been loudly and confidently saying that at regular intervals since 2012. Iran is always weeks away.

  • FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    17 hours ago

    He’s an idiot who has never been able to distinguish between his fantasies and reality

    He’s spent a lifetime making shit up, and never being held to account for it

    He’s a child, and what’s worse, he has dementia.

    He also lies as easily as he breathes. Truth means nothing to him. He sees being honest as a weakness

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        “But what choice do we have? Entrust the military to a lady? We’ll take the dementia-addled toddler instead”

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            Didn’t matter. Look at the three elections that Trump ran, and his performance against the candidate with a penis vs. the ones without one.

            The American electorate will vote for a Black penis-haver (particularly if he is a baller) over any vagina-haver right now. They still won’t say “I’m a sexist pig” in the exit polls, though, so we get reasons like “She didn’t explain her policies enough” or “She wasnt authentic enough” instead.

            • Lasherz@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 hours ago

              I don’t flatly disagree, but I think to call Hillary or Kamala as “electable” as Obama is a hard sell. He was a better public speaker than any president in my lifetime and he played things off well. Kamala was certainly more likable than Hillary, but she didn’t have as much sauce as the sauce king at least before he was usurped by the sauce god Mamdani.

            • sunnie@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Maybe I’m just being hopeful, but I don’t think the vagina thing is as big of an influence as it seems. First, we only have a sample size of two.

              One of them, Clinton, was just an objectively awful person. She wasn’t popular with anyone, including women.

              The second, Harris, had an abbreviated campaign caused by Biden’s unwillingness to step down. She also wasn’t built up in preparation fora campaign during her VP term. On top of that, she was very unexciting policy-wise. Basically status quo when everybody is clamoring for progress.

              Contrast that with Obama, who ran on “hope and change” and got people excited for actual progress. Which he didn’t deliver, but that’s another story.