How Do You Solve a Problem Like Tucker Carlson? Why does he keep showcasing people who say all the same things Israel’s worst enemies do?

In the opening sentence of Douglas Murray’s current bestseller, On Democracies and Death Cults, Murray writes, “Sometimes a flare goes up and you see exactly where everyone is standing.”

In this case, the flare was the October 7, 2023 pogrom in southern Israel perpetrated by Hamas and hordes of “innocent” Gazan civilians.

And that flare starkly illuminated the unmistakable outline of Tucker Carlson.

On the wrong side of the wire.

For years Carlson offered conservative punditry at outlets like the Weekly Standard, CNN, and MSNBC, until he really took off in 2016 as Fox News’s most popular conservative. In 2019, Michael Anton labeled Carlson “the de facto leader of the conservative movement -- assuming any such thing can still be said to exist.”

His nightly monologues fearlessly exposed the debacles of the Russia hoax, COVID, “mostly peaceful” BLM riots, the rigged election, and the Biden administration’s Gestapo tactics towards the J6 protesters.

One could imagine that, once the Left had successfully assassinated Trump, the next worst troublemaker who needed shutting up would be Carlson.

Then the most shocking historical crime of this century happened, and Tucker Carlson had nothing to say. As weeks passed after October 7, his silence implied an unhealthy antipathy towards Israel’s cause.

Then, on November 15, 2023, Carlson interviewed Candace Owens, a frequent guest on Fox News, including Carlson’s former show. At the time of the podcast, Owens was in the middle of a flap with her then co-worker at the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro (an issue of its own that’s not the focus here).

When the conversation turned to Israel, Carlson’s thoughts on October 7 weren’t encouraging.

Dear Mr. T.R. Clancy,

Tucker Carlson interviews people from both sides.

It’s called “journalism.”

You’re as bad as the other side, wanting to call advocacy “journlism.”

Are you afraid that your mind is so weak that you might be swayed by something you might learn, if you even watched?

You are perfectly free not to watch it.

To an outsider, it looks suspect. Hating Israel is easy to do.

The only way for an outsider to love Israel, is to be there. All of the peaceful, compassionate ideas have been tried. Repeatedly. Now, its time to eliminate them.

I have a liberal friend in upstate NY. He moved there from the city. He used to photograph the coyotes and tell me how beautiful they are, and that they deserve to live there more than he does.

Then his cherished cat got utterly mauled. Guess who was then talking about rifles and hunting.

I’m certainly not defending Adolf Hitler.

But can I just confess something?

I do not like the phrase “holocaust denier”, and I become suspicious when people play the “denier” card.

Similarly, I do not like the phrases “election denier”, “pandemic denier” or “climate change denier”.

When questioning a thing gets you pegged as a “denier”, there is a chilling effect on the search for truth, which requires asking questions.

There, I said it. Flame away.

I can’t rouse myself to care that Carleson is insufficiently pro israeli.

Likely his most central issue —as is likely the case with candace owens—is that he does not want Israel to supplant England as the country with whom the USA has the deepest connection.

If anyone wants to test their limits on this subject—take a listen to President Trump today in Saudi Arabia as he heaps all kinds of praise on Saudi Arabia and the undying friendship of the USA and Saudi Arabia—as he seeks a trillion dollars in Middle Eastern funds to invest in the USA. Money talks. (Neither the UK nor Israel has that kind of money.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgVxYO8l9KU

Do you think Cooper would agree with your characterization of his statements?

If not, why don’t you take on his ACTUAL statements?

Cooper said directly before the Churchill statement that it was something he said to his anglophile friend (Jocko Wilink) to intentionally be hyperbolic.

60 million Christians and 6 million Jews died as a result of the war. Everyone recognizes that there was something Hitler could have done differently to avoid that terrible outcome. Perhaps there was ALSO something that Churchill could have done differently to avoid that outcome. Why is that so terrible to contemplate? In the conversation with Tucker, Cooper compared Hitler to a methhead holding his own family hostage and Churchill to cop who escalated the situation.

Why is it crazy to think that the Germans didn’t plan on food shortages for their prisoners WHEN THEY DIDN’T PLAN ON FOOD SHORTAGES FOR THEIR PEOPLE??? Of course more prisoners died of starvation than they planned. More of their own people were dying of starvation than they planned too. How many more died is certainly a question that can be asked. Was it 5% more? Was it 50% more? Was it 100% more? Maybe you don’t care about the answer but the fact that you think nobody should be allowed to ask it is telling.

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.