Here is the response from the State Dept:

Quote:

---

A former State Department contractor who was actively working to derail the President's agenda is now slandering public servants like Ambassador Mike Huckabee and David Milstein.

This former contractor admitted himself that he was attempting to put "guardrails" on the administration of the duly elected President of the United States. That was the reason he was fired. Anything implying otherwise is a complete fabrication.

---

A former State Department contractor who was actively working to derail the President’s agenda is now slandering public servants like Ambassador Mike Huckabee and David Milstein.

This former contractor admitted himself that he was attempting to put “guardrails” on the…

— Tommy Pigott (@StateDeputySpox) September 6, 2025

Carlson is a POS.

After his colossal embarrassing takes on Iran, he should be anathema to all conservatives. But he's found a niche among the Jew hating, govern me harder, fake conservatives

Again, P-O-S

Tucker Carlson: “I’m not even sure Hamas is actually a radical jihadi organization. It seems more like a political organization.”

Hamas has murdered dozens of Americans and openly calls for establishing a global Islamic caliphate.

pic.twitter.com/HFyaMxSsaL

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) September 5, 2025

When he first went "independent" I enjoyed a few of his long format interviews, but it seems that as he looked to book more interviews he reached further and further into the looney bin. That loon can rub off on you.

But there is so much content out there of higher quality that he may find himself further down the path of irrelevancy than he already is.

Not a fan of either of them. Tucker seems to be after clicks and controversy. Levin is pompous and full of himself.

Levin gets to me with his bedtime story voice that gets me about half asleep the he goes full redfaced I'm having a stroke mode yelling.

Completely ruins my Sunday evening hippie lettuce time.

Hamas is a political organization though. An extinct one.

I think the point he's trying to make is, radical, depends on your point of view. The US supports radicals ALL the time, when it suits us, of course. We don't support radicals against Israel though, that is abundantly clear. You should always be weary of a government moniker given to a group of people. They are usually wrought with bias and agenda.

cecil77 said:

---

Not a fan of either of them. Tucker seems to be after clicks and controversy. Levin is pompous and full of himself.

---

He's always been in that business.

BlackGold said:

---

Hamas is a political organization though. An extinct one.

---

And terrorists. FULL STOP

Quote:

---

You should always be weary of a government moniker given to a group of people. They are usually wrought with bias and agenda.

---

Stop defending terrorists.

Almost every word in this one hour and 40 minutes has been proven to be a definitive lie.

Tucker doesn't care because selling lies is what he does. Even putting aside the smears against Israelis and the American veterans working at GHF to help feed Palestinians in Gaza, he… pic.twitter.com/WDpD34tuJs

— AG (@AGHamilton29) September 6, 2025

BlackGold said:

---

Hamas is a political organization though. An extinct one.

I think the point he's trying to make is, radical, depends on your point of view. The US supports radicals ALL the time, when it suits us, of course. We don't support radicals against Israel though, that is abundantly clear. You should always be weary of a government moniker given to a group of people. They are usually wrought with bias and agenda.

---

The ol' "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line we used to hear from leftists in the 90s.


Another example of leftists and the "new right" being different sides of the same coin

BMX Bandit said:

---

BlackGold said:

---

Hamas is a political organization though. An extinct one.

I think the point he's trying to make is, radical, depends on your point of view. The US supports radicals ALL the time, when it suits us, of course. We don't support radicals against Israel though, that is abundantly clear. You should always be weary of a government moniker given to a group of people. They are usually wrought with bias and agenda.

---

The ol' "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line we used to hear from leftists in the 90s.


Another example of leftists and the "new right" being different sides of the same coin

---

The horseshoe has closed...

BMX Bandit said:

---

BlackGold said:

---

Hamas is a political organization though. An extinct one.

I think the point he's trying to make is, radical, depends on your point of view. The US supports radicals ALL the time, when it suits us, of course. We don't support radicals against Israel though, that is abundantly clear. You should always be weary of a government moniker given to a group of people. They are usually wrought with bias and agenda.

---

The ol' "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line we used to hear from leftists in the 90s.


Another example of leftists and the "new right" being different sides of the same coin

---

Sincere question: When you say "new right," do you mean maga, ultra-maga, or another group on the right?

Another group.

Those that support Iran over Israel. That lie about Holocaust in Gaza, that want more government regulations, that prefer authoritarianism to constitutionalism, that want "free speech" to mean they have a right to be amplified and with no consequence, etc

Only a handful on F16, but they litter X and the podcast circuits with their fake brand of conservatism garbage

BMX Bandit said:

---

BlackGold said:

---

Hamas is a political organization though. An extinct one.

I think the point he's trying to make is, radical, depends on your point of view. The US supports radicals ALL the time, when it suits us, of course. We don't support radicals against Israel though, that is abundantly clear. You should always be weary of a government moniker given to a group of people. They are usually wrought with bias and agenda.

---

The ol' "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line we used to hear from leftists in the 90s.


Another example of leftists and the "new right" being different sides of the same coin

---

I'm on the side of not blindly supporting the government or believing everything they say. They constantly and consistently lie to support their causes. They also kill people who get in the way. Call it what you want. If you just lap it all up, you're nothing but an easily influenced sheep.

I don't support Hamas and I also don't support Israel's on going actions in the region. Full stop. I did support Israel's initial action and response in Gaza, to remove Hamas, which they've done. Now they're just murdering people indiscriminately. Which they will probably continue to do since there are no real goals to change the region.

There are two sides to every coin and not everything is cut and dry, good and evil or black and white. So yea a freedom fighter/terrorist moniker can be misleading depending on who is dishing it out (think CNN labeling conservatives as right wing extremists).

Quote:

---

Now they're just murdering people indiscriminately.

---

You keep claiming to be impartial and then use ridiculous lines like this.

Quote:

---

There are two sides to every coin and not everything is cut and dry

---

No there isn't and somethings are cut and dry


Hamas is a terrorist group. Period.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

There are two sides to every coin and not everything is cut and dry

---

No there isn't and somethings are cut and dry


Hamas is a terrorist group. Period.

---

Hamas is just evil, there is nothing good about them at this point. By recent context, you can extend that designation to all Palestinians.

I could entertain (not on this thread) a discussion on which religion(s) may be more righteous than another, but to your point it DOES NOT APPLY to Hamas or any other terrorist group.

That was one of dumbest things Carlson has ever said re: Hamas.

That said, was I the only one who through this interview learned Mark Levins step son is the number one aide to Mike Huckabee, an Israeli boot licker and ambassador? That smells so freaking fishy, and then it all starts to make more sense why, like in the op, mark levin is at the White House lobbying for policy and war lol.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

There are two sides to every coin and not everything is cut and dry

---

No there isn't and somethings are cut and dry


Hamas is a terrorist group. Period.

---

I assume he thinks the Nazi Party was just a political organization that happened to have a military organization attached to it...

Levin completely denies Carlson's lies about lobbying the WH.

Tucker has always been nothing more than an actor. He's always been milquetoast. He's an Episcopalian and for most of his career he portrayed a moderate Republican. He got on Fox and pretended to be conservative. Now, he has proven himself to be a huckster and a political prostitute who will do anything for attention. He should go back to the bow tie.

Or maybe he can replace Colbert as a fake conservative comedian.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Levin completely denies Carlson's lies about lobbying the WH.

Tucker has always been nothing more than an actor. He's always been milquetoast. He's an Episcopalian and for most of his career he portrayed a moderate Republican. He got on Fox and pretended to be conservative. Now, he has proven himself to be a huckster and a political prostitute who will do anything for attention. He should go back to the bow tie.

Or maybe he can replace Colbert as a fake conservative comedian.

---

Tucker lost me with his antisemitism.

All he does is lie lie lie

Total lie. In fact, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon told Bush NOT to invade Iraq, because Iran was a far bigger threat. Sick, evil shit.

It’s repulsive seeing people who know better become strategic austists when it comes to Tucker’s insanity about Jews and Israel—he’s constantly given… pic.twitter.com/epNtU5Vz8n

— David Reaboi, Late Republic Nonsense (@davereaboi) September 24, 2025

I wonder who bought Tucker off this time? He's always been a fraud.

From August 2002

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/17/iraq.israel1

Quote:

---

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Ranaan Gissin, a senior Sharon adviser told the Associated Press yesterday. "It will only give Saddam Hussein more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of weapons of mass destruction."

Israeli intelligence officials had new evidence that Iraq was speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, he added.

Last night Mr Bush, speaking in Crawford, Texas, said he would consult with others on US policy on Iraq, but would make his decisions based on the "latest intelligence".

"We'll continue to consult - but Americans need to know I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country, plus our friends and allies," Mr Bush told reporters.

Mr Gissin's statement appears to mark a change of tactic by the Israeli prime minister as he sees Mr Bush coming under pressure to back away from an attack on Iraq.

Earlier this week Mr Sharon told the Knesset's foreign affairs committee that Iraq was Israel's "greatest danger" but Israel was not pressing for an attack. A day later, however, he met Israel's air force chiefs and toured Israel's air defences.

"Mr Gissin is usually more alarmist than anybody else but there is no doubt that he is his master's voice. It is in the interest of the prime minister to heat things up a bit," Ron Pundak, director of the Peres Centre for Peace, said.

"Mr Sharon sees eye to eye with the extremists in the Pentagon. He is a very cunning tactician. It suits him to speak like this at this juncture."

Israel has told the US that if Iraq strikes Israel with missiles, it will counter-attack. During the Gulf war in 1991 when the US managed to get an Arab coalition lined up against Iraq, Israel gave into American pressure and held back from any military action even though Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles. None had chemical or biological warheads and they caused few casualties.

Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, defence minister in the coalition government, who is struggling against Labour rivals to lead the party in the next election, also raised the rhetoric. He told the newspaper Yediot Ahronot that Israel would not hesitate to retaliate against Iraq.

A poll in the newspaper Maariv showed 57% of Israelis supported a US attack on Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

---

Thanks, but what does that have to do with Tucker's latest lie?

He claims Israel started pushing for Iraq invasion immediately after 9/11/01. History shows that's just not accurate at all!

Tucker's claiming that? There is plenty of indications that Neocons in Bush's circle were calling for it the day after, but Israel???? I think the pre-determined bias of the W admin made any Israeli "pushing" the matter completely irrelevant and redundant.

titan said:

---

Tucker's claiming that? There is plenty of indications that Neocons in Bush's circle were calling for it the day after, but Israel???? I think the pre-determined bias of the W admin made any Israeli "pushing" the matter completely irrelevant and redundant.

---

Many powerful Neocons of the 1990s-2000s were the disaffected, politically "reformed" Jewish Liberals of the 1960s. In some ways I think the Tucker faction is pushing the "Jews Did It" through the dominant center-right political party at the time.

***This is just an observation and not what I think or believe about the whole issue

Didn't even watch Tucker's take; was just responding to Reaboi's take, and regretted it pretty quickly. Don't want to re-litigate Iraq when there are much higher priority domestic issues.

TexAgs Iraq War debates in the late 2000's were like pulling teeth.

Quote:

---

The reason Tucker Carlson downplays the threat of Islamist terrorism/migration, pretends he suddenly doesn't know who Tommy Robinson is after praising him, claims concerns over the threat are an op, promotes an open borders pro-terror socialist as a victim etc. is because he views those people as allies.

It's the same reason he's silent about an Afghan national who was let into the country via an expedited visa murdering two national guardsmen in D.C. And the reason he's silent about the Somali fraud schemes in Minnesota.

If you don't realize by now that he's on the other side, then you're not paying attention.

---

The reason Tucker Carlson downplays the threat of Islamist terrorism/migration, pretends he suddenly doesn’t know who Tommy Robinson is after praising him, claims concerns over the threat are an op, promotes an open borders pro-terror socialist as a victim etc. is because he…

— AG (@AGHamilton29) November 30, 2025

Quote:

---

It's the same reason he's silent about an Afghan national who was let into the country via an expedited visa murdering two national guardsmen in D.C. And the reason he's silent about the Somali fraud schemes in Minnesota.

If you don't realize by now that he's on the other side, then you're not paying attention.

---

Wait a second. What does this refer to?? Has Tucker in any way run interference for that cretin?

That asked, having now watched the full two hours of the interview with Cruz, now see fully why it seems Tucker has really gone into an oppositional mode. Very snarky and almost undermining. He seems to have let devil's advocate go to his head.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3546667/replies/71389909

Tucker just told Pierce that ww2 was britians fault. So, he drank to much of that quack Cooper. Starting to think he is a Cia asset like his dad

Is it inconsistent to believe Israel acting in its own best interest is sometimes at odds with America and its own best interest - and yet is still America's closest and most important ally?

I'm beginning to believe Tucker kinda believes what he says, but really he says what he does for clicks.

There's some buzz that Tucker has converted to Islam.

Maybe some rich sheikh paid him eleventy billion dollars to push their viewpoint. These guys know that everything in America is for sale. The only thing negotiable is the price. Free markets.... capitalism... you see...

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Tucker just told Pierce that ww2 was britians fault. So, he drank to much of that quack Cooper. Starting to think he is a Cia asset like his dad

---

What?! No, of the powers, Britain was not primarily responsible for the distorting terms of Versailles (which is the only sense one can say that WW2 was their fault. To a degree of course, the same main cause for WW 1 - alliances -- treaties -- did play a role in WW2. Aside from the obvious role of Hitler's unappeasable aggression, geography that put Poland in between German and Russia which he wanted to invade and subdue, made it inevitable. Given Hitler's vision, there was no way that invasion of Poland was not happening.

Tucker basically told him that Churchill was the reason ww2 blossomed into ww2 and britian could have chosen to not go to war over poland instead

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Tucker basically told him that Churchill was the reason ww2 blossomed into ww2 and britian could have chosen to not go to war over poland instead

---

Is that what the `quack Cooper' says and where he got it. So he's making a different argument than Buchanan did trying the `American interest' angle to argue against it.

Strictly speaking, yes, Britain and France can choose to not go to war. But if they were going to do that, they should have worked out prior that they would not obstruct Germany going east after the Soviet Union. But what that view forgets is from Britain and France's pov BOTH Germany and Soviets had just agreed to carve up Poland. They were acting to prevent escalation anyway, and break that start.

The real wild card is if Hitler had made clear behind closed doors that he was going east, and that the Allies would have to `spot him one more Munich' so he could invade Russia. But that is a rather fanciful scenario to imagine him playing Great Game politics to that extent, even if just possibly, London would have believed such a plain admission.

But these are just what ifs of diplomacy.

None of this makes it "Britains' fault"

infinity ag said:

---

There's some buzz that Tucker has converted to Islam.

Maybe some rich sheikh paid him eleventy billion dollars to push their viewpoint. These guys know that everything in America is for sale. The only thing negotiable is the price. Free markets.... capitalism... you see...

---

Surely you are jesting. It would add a whole different light to the already repeated claims of being on Qatar's payroll. You don't have to be a convert to be cashing in. But this would say all kinds of things.