Connect with us

News

Voters in Military Towns Fear Trump Is ‘Bumbling’ US Into Another Iraq: Report

Published

on

Voters from military towns are worried that President Donald Trump, despite campaigning on a “peace” platform, is “bumbling” America into another Iraq or Afghanistan war, The New York Times reports.

“It’s a waste of resources, a waste of money, and we come off as bullies,” Krystal Zimmerman, an Army veteran who fought in Iraq, told the Times. She had supported President Trump’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites last year, “but as the conflict lurches from bombings and threats of annihilation to a shaky truce with no clear exit, she worries that President Trump has now stumbled into his own forever war.”

The Times conducted three dozen interviews with voters in military towns across America — including Colorado Springs, San Antonio, and Fayetteville.

After six weeks of war, many voters “said they still had no clear sense of the president’s goals in Iran, or why he had joined Israel in attacking now. It all felt so fast and erratic, they said.” They were used to past presidents making the case for months to the public, as Republican Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush did.

“Nothing like that preceded the attack on Iran, the Times noted. “And the blizzard of shifting statements that Mr. Trump has offered in phone calls with reporters and late-night Truth Social posts only added to some people’s confusion.”

READ MORE: The World Has Stopped Fearing Trump’s Bullying: Report

On April 1, the White House published a press release declaring “President Trump’s Clear and Unchanging Objectives Drive Decisive Success Against Iranian Regime.”

It listed remarks made by several different administration officials including the president, offering varying reasons for the war, which the White House said were the Trump administration “repeatedly and unambiguously” reaffirming “core objectives.” Some of the quotes mentioned nuclear weapons, some did not.

“Nearly two-thirds of voters,” the Times reported, “and 71 percent of political independents — said they thought Mr. Trump had not provided a clear explanation in the lead up to the war, according [to] a Quinnipiac University poll from early March.”

“I don’t think Trump is making wise decisions,” Emmelia Lorenzen, a Trump voter from Fayetteville who was raised in a military family, told the Times. “One of Trump’s biggest campaign motives was that he is not a man of war,” she said. “And then you see us moving to war so quickly after saying that. It just doesn’t really make sense.”

She “was particularly disturbed by his vow to annihilate the entire Iranian civilization if Iran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a threat averted at the last minute when the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week cease fire.”

Mike Keefe in Portland, Oregon, told the Times, “I’m incredulous that more people aren’t in the streets but, yeah, it’s kind of hard to be surprised or even shocked by anything he does now.”

Not everyone the Times spoke with opposed Trump’s actions.

“It’s a threat — it needs to be neutralized,” Gary Freese, who served in Iraq, said. He praised the president, saying his actions show “he’s got spine” by attacking Iran.

“These guys are religious zealots,” Wayne Brincks, a retired farmer, said of Iran’s leadership. “I think the president thought it was now or never, and we had to do something.”

Others disagreed.

Iowa farmer Mike Nelson, who questions Israel’s influence in Trump’s decision to attack Iran, told the Times, “I don’t think there was any imminent danger.”

READ MORE: ‘He Reported to Me in Detail’: Netanyahu’s Boast on Vance Fuels Blowback

 

Image via Reuters 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Republicans Are Using a Secret Super PAC to Pour $1 Million Into Democratic Primaries

Published

on

Super PACs with ties to Republicans are spending money to promote weaker, left-wing candidates in Democratic primaries, in an apparent effort to help Republicans retain control of the House, The New York Times reports.

“They’re going into Democratic primaries and literally trying to boost the most extreme candidates and oppose the Blue Dog-endorsed candidates that, if they win, are going to beat the Republicans in the general,” U.S. Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA) said in an interview with the Times. The Blue Dogs are more centrist Democrats.

One “new mystery super PAC with ties to Republicans has spent more than $1 million meddling in at least three Democratic congressional primaries to select preferred opponents,” the Times reports. That group is spending money to promote “a left-wing sex therapist in Texas who has been accused of bigotry and antisemitism by leaders in both parties.”

It is also running ads in Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Nebraska.

In some of these races the spending is an effort to disrupt Democratic candidates “who are part of the Democratic Party’s ‘red to blue’ program, a special designation for top recruits in key races that could determine control of the House.”

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

The Times calls these “interventions in the opposing party’s primaries,” and reports that they are “apparently to elevate Democrats viewed as weaker candidates,” suggesting that “the race for control of the House has entered an intensive new phase in which both parties are vying for every imaginable edge.”

“Some Republicans privately believe the party’s best chance to hold power this year is to cast Democrats as extremists,” the Times reports.

Another super PAC formally aligned with Republicans is promoting a progressive Democrat in California.

Maureen Galindo is running for a Democratic seat from Texas. Party leaders are backing Johnny Garcia, who has worked in the local sheriff’s office. Despite having raised less than $10,000, Galindo finished first in the primary, advancing to a May runoff.

“In a text message,” the Times reports, “Ms. Galindo suggested the money for the mailer had come from ‘a billionaire zionist who made the pac to sabotage candidates,’ using the type of language that has previously prompted charges of antisemitism, including from Senator Jacky Rosen, Democrat of Nevada, and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who called her ‘openly bigoted.'”

Galindo told the Times, “Dems and Republicans uniting against me in the same week with the same message is evidence that theyre [sic] working together for the zionist billionaires that control our government and tax money.”

There are more races that Democratic strategists expect Republicans to meddle in, including in California, Michigan and Colorado.

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Fetterman Says He ‘Fully’ Understands Why a Pennsylvania Judge Left the Democratic Party

Published

on

A longtime Pennsylvania judge who ran as a Democrat is dropping his affiliation with the Democratic Party over what he sees as antisemitism, and U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) is weighing in.

Justice David Wecht “said in a statement he is switching his party affiliation to independent due to an ‘acquiescence to Jew-hatred’ becoming ‘disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party,'” Politico reported.

“I can no longer abide this. So, I won’t,” said Wecht, who once served as vice chair of the state Democratic Party. “I am no longer registered within any political party.”

Judge Wecht said that antisemitism used to be found more often on the far right, but since the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting in 2018, he said, “that same hatred has grown on the left.”

“Increasingly, it has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. It is the duty of all good people to fight this virus, and to do so before it is too late,” he said.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

Lamenting that the Democratic Party has “changed,” Wecht said that “hateful anti-Jewish invective and actions are minimized, ignored, and even coddled.”

Senator Fetterman, whose own intention to stay affiliated with the Democratic Party has been questioned, knows Judge Wecht, according to Fox News.

“I know David and his legendary father, Cyril,” Fetterman wrote in a post on X. “As I’ve affirmed, I’m not changing my party — but I fully understand David’s personal choice.”

Fetterman also appeared to agree with Wecht, saying that the “Democratic Party must confront its own rising antisemitism problem.”

Pittsburgh’s NPR station WESA reports that Fetterman, “like Wecht a Pennsylvania Democrat, has also criticized the party, particularly in recent days as Democrats in Maine seem all but certain to nominate Graham Platner, who had a Nazi tattoo, as their candidate to challenge Republican Susan Collins for her Senate seat.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

America’s ‘Winner-Take-Everything’ War Has Already Begun: Columnist

Published

on

Republican efforts to wipe Democrats off the face of their states’ congressional maps — the redistricting wars — are not the end of a “winner-take-everything” political “cold civil war,” but merely the beginning, argues Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark.

President Donald Trump started the redistricting war when he demanded Texas redistrict mid-decade to gain five Republican seats in the House of Representatives. GOP-led states have followed suit, but in some, like America just saw in Louisiana, Republicans are now pushing to send only Republicans to the House. They are redrawing their maps to get rid of districts that voted for Democrats.

Pointing to journalists and analysts, Last argues that that will become a problem some day for Republican states that have no Democratic members of Congress. Because one day there will be a Democrat in the White House, and it will be disadvantageous for there to be no Democrats for those red states to help get their voice out to the new administration.

Last also notes that in this “winner-take-everything” political world that America may be entering, what President Joe Biden did for red states proved to be unhelpful for Democrats, and helped voters push him out.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

“Joe Biden was, famously, a president for all of America,” Last writes. “He pumped hundreds of billions of dollars in federal credits and investments into red states. Biden didn’t just give red states their fair share—he gave them much more.”

Biden’s theory, Last argues, was that “the way to leach the poison of Trumpism out of America was to forgive Republicans and shower them with goodies to prove that he was on their side, too.”

“The notion was that, in exchange, they would reward him politically, or at least be less hostile in their overall political outlook.”

That did not work.

“Instead of conveying to Republicans that the cycle of recriminations could be broken, Biden inadvertently conveyed a different message: That Democrats did not believe in recriminations,” he writes. In other words, the message was that for all of the GOP’s bad faith actions, there would be no political price to pay.

“What message would it send to Republicans if, in 2029, President Raphael Warnock passed an infrastructure package that, just to pick an example, shoveled money for battery factories into Tennessee, after Tennessee gerrymandered its lone Democratic district out of existence?” he posits.

“Democratic deterrence didn’t work,” Last writes.

He points to Democratic states that moved to redistrict after Texas, and notes that the two sides were coming up about even.

But then, Florida moved to redistrict, with Republican Governor Ron DeSantis “doing an end run around the law” to get more GOP seats.

And then, the Supreme Court “rushed to insert itself into the fight by pushing out the Callais decision in time for Southern states to get rid of a bunch of black congressional districts.”

At this point, for Democrats to take back majority control of the House, they will need to “win the national popular vote by more than 4 percentage points.”

This status quo, says Last, is “not sustainable.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image: Public Domain by Architect of the Capitol via Flickr

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.