this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
794 points (99.1% liked)

politics

24208 readers
2780 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 hours ago

The best hint that Iran has no nukes is that the US is attacking them. If they had nukes they would keep away.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 hours ago

Trump has always shown us he doesn't need intelligence.

[–] Naevermix@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago (3 children)
[–] LadyButterfly@lazysoci.al 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)
[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

That's Secretary of State Colin Powell testifying to Congress about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, during the Bush Jr. administration, I think.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 hour ago

It's not Congress. It's the UN. And he was doing a really stupid publicity stunt about how that vial could hold anthrax to kill them all. And then went on about WMDs in Iraq.

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

That's Secretary of State Colin Powell ~~testifying~~ lying to Congress about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, during the Bush Jr. administration, I think.

I had to.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The Bush administration getting away with all their criminal shit paved the way for Trump.

[–] LadyButterfly@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 hour ago

Tbf I doubt it was new in politics

[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

In fairness to Colin Powell, my understand was he didn't know it was a lie/ trumped up evidence at the time, and was pretty bitter about it in later years.

[–] d00ery@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I think he's possibly talking at the UN or some security council as they plaque in front of him says "United States", at a guess that wouldn't be necessary in front of Congress. I might be wrong though, I'm not from the US.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

"Better not drop that cake"

[–] torrentialgrain@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Okay so we believe Tulsi Gabbard now?

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 5 hours ago

Yes she works for Russia and they're friends with Iran.

So we can't really trust either.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not only is trump ignoring this, but lots and lots of shitlibs on this site are also.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago (8 children)

yeeeah... shrug, Trump ignores them all. And why shouldn't he? They didn't prevent him from happening, what's the point of the CIA, NSA etc when they either knew about him & putin, and let hit happen, or, they didn't know, even though it's been obvious since the 80s?

Nice job Intel community, you shot us all in the face.

[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

So we oppose US intelligence agencies overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries but not their own?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

The point is to be additional arms of the government that he can manipulate and abuse to his own ends.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] tonytins@pawb.social 12 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The more he dismiss America's intelligence agencies, the more i believe them.

[–] LadyButterfly@lazysoci.al 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Yep exactly. If he says something I assume the opposite is true. I'm not saying this for comedy value, I genuinely do

[–] nonfuinoncuro@lemmy.zip 3 points 12 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›