Posted on 07/19/2026 4:49:48 AM PDT by MtnClimber
On one hand, we are winning the war with Iran. This week, bombings greatly accelerated and are not likely to end without real capitulation and surrender. On the other hand, the Vice President seems to be at odds with the administration, unhappy that we are in a (winning) war and casting blame for the failure of his peace effort, which is really only Iran’s fault.
On one hand, the President has declassified documents credibly showing foreign influence and interference with our elections. On the other hand, major news outlets seem determined to keep their viewers from knowing this. If viewers did know how insecure our elections are, they might support remediation measures -- like SAVE -- to the detriment of the media’s darlings, the Democrats, whose decades-long election cheating is manifest.
The president has made clear that he regards what are known as the groypers as stupid and not worth paying attention to:
Donald J. Trump • O
@realDonaldTrump I know why Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact that they think it is wonderful for Iran, the Number One State Sponsor of Terror, to have a Nuclear Weapon -- Because they have one thing in common, Low IQs. They're stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! Look at their past, look at their record. They don't have what it takes, and they never did!
Yet, this week Vice President Vance, who has yet to distance himself from Tucker Carlson, had a lengthy three-hour interview with Joe Rogan in which he blamed Israel for the war in Iran and, by inference, suggested the President is a tool of Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What a stupid thing to write.
There is an extensive quote about Vance, without attribution as far as I can tell. So what good is it?
Thanks. A lot of the negative I’m getting on Vance is negative opinion based on the negative opinion of other people. Nothingburger.
I think this is a little harsh on Vance. As I posted here:
They serve in different roles so they behave in different ways.
I know that the opposition media wants to frame it as a conflict or rift, but Vance can say what Rubio cannot.
Rubio must convey the diplomatic arm of the United States in a way that allows foreign adversaries cover to explain their engagements with the United States. If Rubio uses inciting or inflammatory rhetoric, foreign countries will be pressured to distance themselves from us. Rubio has to maintain an arm's length from the political bomb-throwing that goes on domestically for electoral consumption.
Vance, on the other hand, is throwing red meat to the base, ginning up enthusiasm for the agenda and motivation to turn out for the mid-term elections. He's not appealing to foreigners, he's making President Trump’s case domestically.
We know that, but I doesn't stop the opposition media from throwing out their own red meat to their base in response.
I'm not implying that Feldman is opposition media, but she might be falling for the opposition media line.
If the situation is as described by Feldman, that "Vance willingly but naively believed in his mission," then she's suffering from accepting the left's frame.
There is a tenet of debate to never let your opponent frame the discussion. In this case, the frame has been wrong from the start, so any derivative analysis will be wrong, too.
Feldman starts with the premise: "Maybe he wanted to deflect responsibility for the failure of an MOU he helped negotiate".
The fact is that the MOU was not a peace treaty, nor was it a peace agreement, nor was it any commitment towards peace, but the media has been framing it that way as the benchmark to declare failure by the Trump administration.
The MOU was simply an agreement on the agenda for the topics of negotiations that would follow in the next six weeks. When the Iranians "violated the MOU," they were demonstrating that they would not be good-faith actors in the future because they were never good-faith actors in the past. Vance wasn't "naively believ[ing] in his mission," he was advancing the message that President Trump was repeatedly pursuing the peace option despite multiple setbacks.
By offering an MOU that, on the surface, agreed to discuss everything that the Iranians wanted (but agreed to nothing), when the Iranians destroy even that, Trump would have proven to the world that the Iranians were never serious about negotiating and that he could resume the attacks with clean hands. It's similar to when Israel agreed to all the Palestinian demands at the Oslo Accords, but Arafat still walked away in the end.
That should be the proper frame: that President Trump, Marco Rubio, and JD Vance, were coordinating the means to expose Iran as uncategorically bad-faith actors who cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances.
Maybe Vance is still pushing the narrative that we were all-in on peaceful alternatives and that he still believes it is possible if the Iranians oust the IRGC and let cooler heads take over. From that perspective, I disagree with the frame of a structural rift at the highest levels of the administration.
Trump always says he seeks all opinions and wants robust discussion. Vance is simply keeping alive that sentiment for the portion of the MAGA base that doesn't want "endless wars." By Vance continuing to push the peace process, he's signaling that Trump hasn't walked away from it, either.
Also, at some point, there will have to be a peace negotiation, and Vance is protecting his credibility as the good-faith actor when that time comes.
This flips Feldman’s logic: instead of Vance being the only believer in a doomed mission, he becomes the designated instrument of a controlled test. He's the person who pushes the peace offer so that its rejection has maximum evidentiary and political force after Iran is exposed.
At some point, if hostilities taper, there will have to be a negotiation or at least a structured de‑escalation. President Trump benefits from having at least one senior figure whose public record shows they consistently argued “we tried peaceful options, we were willing to negotiate, we wanted an off‑ramp,” rather than only “we bombed relentlessly until capitulation.”
Vance’s continued emphasis on peace possibilities that are conditional on changes in Iran’s behavior and internal politics protects his credibility as that person. If President Trump wants one high‑profile figure continuously reminding the base, “We tried peace, we still prefer peace if Iran changes, we don’t lust for endless war,” then Vance is performing precisely that job.
Feldman has completely misread the situation.
-PJ
“government by bombing school girls, etc.”
Muslim terrorists have a history of using human shields. Unless one appreciates that despicable practice, one is lost.
I suspect that many of Vance’s critics would criticize anyone who replaces him.
It would be great if someone asked Vance about the views he held in the past and follow-up, as appropriate, about how his views changed.
Well said.
Only the people on the inside know what’s really going on, and it isn’t the propaganda agents in the media.
I recollect that you in your, continuous fatuousness, are wrong about so much else.
I am a Vance critic and will not criticize Marco (his replacement).
He’s saying most everything that I can agree with…just like President Trump.
It’s easy to find things in a two-hour, unscripted, un-edited interview that you can purposely take out of context in order to push people’s buttons - and that’s exactly what is happening here.
I am hardly ever wrong. But if it makes you feel better to say so…
Look at your insulting people on the internet. You must strut around your cellar at night.
I’d have thought that the civilian population would have made a move to take over by now or before. Then again I don’t have enough awareneness of the situation over there to know if this is quite possible yet.Isn’t that what we are are all waiting for, though?
With next to NO assistance at all and with no proper army or navy to speak of, we challenged THE most formidable land force on earth ... and succeeded!
Here's the US and Israel bombing the s*#t out of Iranian warmaking abilities and the population is still sitting around waiting for deliverance!!! WTF...?
Isn't it enough that the US will likely bank roll their reconstruction???? 😡
“”I suspect that many of Vance’s critics would criticize anyone who replaces him.””
***
Some are being paid to bash Vance and some are just lazy and stupid enough to believe the propagandists out there that are reframing what Vance actually said into something he didn’t say.
Bottom line, the rabid left is already attempting to marginalize and destroy Vance way in advance of 2028. They obviously fear him the most. And for good reason.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4388608/posts?page=40#40
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.