Liminal Strike

@CAROLYNCoastie @Cernovich They are both pathological liars

@Cernovich I don’t know, I just watched the interview and Kent blushes when he lies, not a good trait for a politician.

A Tucker Carlson / Joe Kent ticket would steam roll anything Democrats or Republicans could bring. It's laughable when people try to argue this with me. Spend some time offline. Good looking, physically fit white men are back "in."

@BobSikes @KurtSchlichter Best case scenario would be for elements of the Artesh, the regular Iranian army, to step in and seize control and maintain order during a transition May be a pipe dream but would be ideal

Agreed. The Kurds are the only organized force I’ve heard mentioned. Trump’s words seem to indicate he’s banking on an insurgency. Or might some of the Gulf States - with serious US air and naval support - step up somehow? Could US Marines be given the task of taking Kharg Island? Especially if the Iranians attempt to garrison further?

If somebody tells you that the Iranians getting their asses kicked all over the Middle East and being dominated in every single sphere of the battle space, except ground – and that’s coming, but not with our troops – means they are winning, he is either stupid or thinks you are. @townhallcom Don’t Listen to Idiots About the Iran War townhall.com/columnists/kur…

@Mears4Liberty My recollection is that the material he leaked was highly classified and damaging I do not know the exact timeline between it being discovered and him resigning, but I believe it was close to two months

@LiminalStrike Go back and check that timeline. The investigation of Patraeus was primarily related to his affair and the FBI quickly concluded the classified material wasn't anything major, but he was forced to resign less than a month later. This is not a similar situation at all.

@jenvanlaar I can't be quiet any more. I know Chief Kent tangentially through Shannon, and I'm going to say this as someone that cut their teeth in CI before the 902d became "Army Counterintelligence Command" ... this is a wrap up smear. Here is the legal, must follow, cannot deviate from process for violations of classified information. There would be no sneaky, ongoing investigation, ever, full stop. Since Liberty crossing stood up in the aftermath of 9/11

@ScottC20012 @WillioHydro @jenvanlaar Yeah, but I know that FBI criminal investigations are not beholden to the administrative minutia of ICD 703 & 704...

@LiminalStrike @WillioHydro @jenvanlaar You legitimately have no idea what you’re talking about

@Mears4Liberty Petraeus remained CIA director for months while under criminal investigation for leaking classified material

@LiminalStrike @ScottC20012 @WillioHydro @jenvanlaar That might be plausible for low-level positions, but not this. There would be far too much risk in allowing a person to remain in this position, and it's a role that you cannot "discretely" remove access without it immediately raising flags.

@ChrisO_wiki Thanks I needed a laugh

1/ Denmark was reportedly preparing for full-scale war with the US over Greenland in January, with military support from France, Germany, and Nordic nations. Elite troops and F-35 jets with live ammunition were sent, and runways were to be blown up to prevent an invasion. ⬇️

More likely that Kent was under criminal investigation for leaking classified intel and tried to get out in front of the story One giveaway is that he is pretending to have inside knowledge on Iran's nuclear program Also, the Deep State has been propping the Islamic Republic up for 50 years...

@dbongino Now your buddies at the Bureau and DOJ are going to try to silence Joe Kent by indicting him? Trump walked away from Agenda 47. A chasm has opened in MAGA, and now the Deep State (you and yours) is fighting back. You have gone over.

Joe Kent has disgraced himself. Joe is lying to advance a personal grievance agenda. Joe is a liar. FACT.

@mtgreenee How would he know this as director of the NCTC? It is highly unlikely he would be read in on such intelligence and he is not a nuclear expert. His opinion on the matter carries little authority or credibility.

Joe Kent tells Tucker Iran was not on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. This is Iraq all over again. We should not be fighting this war, we should be putting America FIRST!!!

Tucker and Megyn have rebranded themselves so many times it is hard to keep track.. Tucker was an establishment cheerleader for invading Iraq and the pandemic shutdowns. But now his groupies would have you believe he is some libertarian voice of conscience Megyn was a feminist mainstream media talking head who pushed liberal social policies. After she flamed out at NBC she morphed into some alt-right firebrand. Both of them are complete frauds who lack core beliefs and identities. Every opinion they express is motivated by dollar signs.

Can you feel it? The dying of the cancerous doomer, everything is the Jooooooos fault, blackpill, TDS, frauds. They’re broken record retards. Everyone I know is bored with these fake losers..

@barnes_law @ggreenwald So you are citing PRC propaganda as an authoritative source now. Good that everyone will see where you stand.

We're at the "hide the coffins" stage of the war.

@TonySeruga The decision to attack Iran is completley outside his purview as director of the NCTC, and it is higly unlikely he had access to secret intelligence about the regime's nuclear and missile programs or the strategic posture of the regime

📰 Inside the Fallout: Joe Kent’s Resignation Blows Open a War Within Trump’s Inner Circle The sudden resignation of Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has detonated into one of the most serious power struggles yet inside the Trump administration. Officially, Kent quit in protest of what he called an “unnecessary war” with Iran, declaring that “Israel pressured the U.S. into a conflict that serves no benefit to the American people.” But the establishment quickly struck back—accusing the decorated Green Beret and Gold Star husband of being a “known leaker” who was excluded from classified briefings months ago. Corporate media—from CNN to the Associated Press—amplified that storyline, painting Kent as a compromised figure ousted in disgrace rather than a man of conscience. The timing, however, speaks volumes. Kent posted his resignation letter on X hours before the administration could announce his removal, ensuring his narrative went public first. Critics inside the intelligence community called it a “self‑righteous publicity stunt,” while his supporters saw it as a desperate attempt to warn Americans that the Iran war is being driven by deception and foreign influence. Independent outlets quickly rallied behind Kent, pointing to familiar patterns—the silencing of dissenters before or during every U.S. foreign intervention. Labeling him a “leaker” conveniently destroys his credibility without having to confront his central claim: that Israel and its powerful lobby shaped the intelligence used to justify military escalation. Transparency could end the debate instantly—one declassified threat assessment would prove the administration right or wrong—but none has been released. Predictably, those calling for openness have instead been branded as dangerous or antisemitic, a tactic that shuts down discussion by design. Meanwhile, reports from inside Washington paint a broader picture of internal warfare. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, has remained largely silent. Vice President JD Vance—who met with Kent days before the resignation—is keeping his distance. And the MAGA coalition itself is fracturing over foreign policy: traditional nationalist voices who supported Trump’s first term “no new wars” stance now accuse him of betraying it under pressure from neoconservative operatives and donors. Fueling the fire, commentators like myself argue that Kent’s resignation wasn’t conscience but camouflage—an effort to save face before being officially terminated. His Substack column, echoed by Fox News insiders, insists Kent was already a liability and manipulated the press to cast himself as a whistleblower. Yet there is no evidence of leaks, relying on anonymous officials—ironically, the same machinery that thrives on secrecy. For transparency advocates, that irony is the giveaway: when bureaucracy fears exposure, it calls exposure treason. In truth, Kent’s departure reveals a government still ruled by internal rivalries and opaque allegiances. It marks the first visible crack in Trump’s alliance with RFK Jr. and Gabbard, a coalition that once promised restraint abroad but now appears consumed by competing loyalties at home. Whether Kent was a hero speaking truth or a liability covering his tracks almost doesn’t matter—the reaction tells the story. The intelligence establishment moved overnight to erase him from legitimacy, just as it has done to every figure who questions its authority. The moral is ancient and unchanged: the louder Washington accuses someone of “leaking,” the more likely that person revealed something the public was never meant to see. The real scandal is not Joe Kent’s defiance but the system’s reflexive instinct to bury dissent under the label of disloyalty. Until Americans see the intelligence reports that justified the war, the nation will keep guessing which side is telling the truth—and which is merely managing the narrative.

@AmericaFirstCon @barnes_law Why would the head of the NCTC be read into secret Pentagon war plans? This is highly idiotic analysis, even for X which is saying something...

President Trump has apparently settled on a plan to try to use thousands of US Marines to take control of multiple Iranian islands in what will ultimately be a failed and futile attempt to re-establish control of the Persian Gulf and likely result in thousands of US military casualties. But it won't just be a military debacle like Gallipoli. It will likely result in multiple US warships including the USS Tripoli being sent to the bottom of the Persian Gulf from Iran's hundreds if not thousands of anti-ship missiles including hypersonic missiles. If so, it would prove the most humiliating US naval defeat since Pearl Harbor. America First conservative champion and war hero @joekent16jan19's decision to resign as Director of the Counterterrorism Center, which was announced earlier this morning, is likely a response to Trump's decision to move forward with these amphibious assaults.

March 17th is the feast day of St. Gertrude of Nivelles, the patron saint of gardens and cats. #Catlore

@JacquettaInTx1 @realmflynnJR @RealCandaceO @megynkelly @TuckerCarlson @joerogan @TheoVon @ComicDaveSmith @andrewschulz @RealAlexJones 🎯

Oh yeah I really want to follow a loon attacking a woman whose husband was murdered. Another one that sees demons in his closet. Another one just being an off the wall bitch. Another one that thinks he's funny when he's not funny at all. Another one that was never MAGA at all, and has a creepy little Texas idiot on talking about God, thinking he knows what God is. And then another one that just follows along because he thinks all the other ones are cool. Yeah let me just run and do that. And anyone that doesn't go to vote in Nov because of these few jerks telling them shit, is nuts to even think to give it to the Dems and should never say crap if it does. 🙄

It’s insane to me how certain voices out there completely underestimate the influence and audience sizes of @RealCandaceO @megynkelly @TuckerCarlson @joerogan @TheoVon @ComicDaveSmith @andrewschulz @RealAlexJones Probably not a good move heading into November.

🎯 Plus given Tucker's recent track record, people should be far from convinced that there even is a criminal referral. I would not be surprised either way on that matter. If he was just in contact with the regime and trying to secure interviews, then that would fall under protected speech. If his activities crossed over into providing aid and comfort to the regime, then he is in deep trouble... We will find out the truth hopefully

@BretWeinstein Brakes on Brett. Let’s find out what evidence there is…proclamations of innocence at this stage are no more persuasive than proclamations of guilt.

Tucker has everything a reasonable man could want: A beautiful family, many good friends, he’s adored by millions, a warm and welcoming home, a staff that loves him, influence. He’s not egotistical, or driven by lust, or greed. Ask yourself: Would he risk it all for Iran? Why???

Horrible analogy Tucker is the first person to report on the supposed investigation against him Also, Russigate was completely contrived and had no basis in reality Tucker seems to be admitting that he was in contact with people in the Iranian regime The nature of that contact will determine if a crime was committed. If he was just acting as a journalist and attempting to get information or interviews he should be fine. If he was providing assistance to them then he is probably in some serious legal trouble

The usual playbook from Russiagate. The regime spies on you. They leak the "investigation" to regime propagandists. These propagandists then report on the (sham) investigation.

@itsbrittanyrose 🙏🙏🙏

Please say a prayer for my sweet baby girl Olive. The 65 mph winds picked up her hay hut & her with it. She’s at the emergency vet unable to lift her head. She has a CT scan scheduled for tomorrow or Sunday hopefully. 🤍

Well said. This probably the clearest synopsis of the current military action in Iran I've read on X or anywhere else. The Administration doesn't want to box themselves in with regime change as a stated objective because it is contingent on the Iranian people successfully removing what remains of the Islamic Republic once the operation concludes. This is no doubt the ultimate objective IMO, but the US is only willing to go so far to achieve it. There will not be an occupation force micromanaging the transition to a new regime, nor should there be.

There is a phenomenon I've mentioned before where people come to believe a word means one thing, from context initially, then through more context, then they start using the word and nobody ever corrects them. This pattern is common and results in people using words incorrectly. The words I want to address today are "war," "mission," and "objective." Everybody thinks they know what a war is, but after observing people over the past couple of weeks, quite frankly, I don't think a lot of them do. All rules boil down to an implicit threat of violence. Without the threat of violence, its not a rule but merely a suggestion or request. Violence is always, across all time periods, resolved by answering the question of "Who can poke the other to death or surrender before getting poked to death or surrender first?" "War" is organized violence between a sufficiently organized and coordinated group of people against another to achieve competing objectives. These objectives are fulfilled by coordinated poking and anti-poking to compel an enemy force, state, person, gang, or other group to either do something, stop doing something, or allow something to happen. "War" is an extremely lose term, which is why the Constitutional limitation that only Congress may "declare war" holds so little legal effect. I try (though of course I am not always successful) to be precise in my speech and words, so I prefer much more concrete words than "war." A "mission" is a set of activities undertaken specifically to accomplish one or more objectives. An objective is one or more concrete goals. A simple example: Your wife tells you to go to the store. So you go. What did she send you for? She didn't say. She just wants you to be at the store. Unless you simply being present at the store is her objective, that's not a mission. She failed to give you a proper objective. "Go to the store," she says, "and pick up milk." So you go to the store, you pick up a jug of milk, put it down, and go back home. Mission accomplished? Your wife failed to give you clear enough goals for you to accomplish the mission as she intended it. "Go to the store, pick up milk, purchase it, and return it to me here." Boom, now we have a real mission. What if the store is out of milk? Improvise, adapt, overcome, continue mission by going to another store. Your mission has now survived contact with the enemy and was still accomplished despite a major obstacle. What if another man is there to get milk and its the last carton in town? Do you let him have it? Do you insist its yours? What if he doesn't agree? Are you willing to fight over this gallon of milk? Are you willing to kill for it? How important is this mission? Do you have buddies to call in to help secure this milk for the Queen back in the castle? Does he? He's got a spear, but yours is longer. His buddies have armor, but yours have a chariot. So on and so forth. I use this very simple example because of all the hubaloo about Iran this and Iran that, I'm noticing a distinct lack of anyone talking about what objectives make up the mission. That is fair and reasonable because, I concede, the Trump Administration has not been clear on the objective. The reason for this, as I've alluded to before, is that frankly most Americans will never be satisfied no matter how much you explain and putting our objectives out there limits us. One of our excuses after the fact, assuming there is a regime change, is going to be to "free the Iranian people." That's a post hoc rationalization, a tool for accomplishing our objectives. That's not why we're there. The primary reason we are fighting Iran right now is because they showed a weakness greater than they ever had before and potentially greater than they would again for a long time—the iron was hot and had to be struck. Our mission, in my estimation, is to neutralize the threat the Velayat-e Faqih poses to American interests in the region. How this objective is accomplished is very flexible. Regime change and overthrow? Sure. A Supreme Leader who plays by our rules? Yeah, we'll probably take that. Sending Persia back to the 19th Century by destroying their energy infrastructure? Well, if they insist... Aside from the politically strategic ambiguity, this is the reason why the messaging seems so confused. We don't care how this goal gets accomplished. Our goal is the neutralization of a persistent threat and pain in ass and our allies' asses. It is not politically expedient to try to explain to the American populace—I know this because I've been writing publicly on this subject for over a year now and for very few people is any amount of explanation enough. The bottom line is that there are rules that countries have to follow and Iran persistently refused to play by those rules. They routinely attacked their neighbors, routinely started civil wars, routinely committed acts of piracy, and they were fixated on developing nuclear weapons so that they could fulfill their religious agenda of destroying the countries of Israel and the United States—the Little and Great Satans. But this is not meant to be an airing of grievances about Iran; I've done that elsewhere. This is an explanation of what our objectives are. (Or, at least, what I believe them to be.) The United States likely does not care whatsoever what form a neutralized Iran takes. If we have to bomb it into ruins, so be it. If we can help facilitate a counter-revolution, that is probably ideal. If we could send Mojtaba Khamenei a fruit basket, a get well soon card, and a signed Babe Ruth baseball to make his country stop all of these hostile practices—I have no doubt we would do it. When Trump is talking about victory right now, he's talking about the fact their threat has largely been neutralized. Iran's primary MAD-substitute was taking the GCC hostage. Through last year's 12-Day War and the 2026 Gulf War, Iran's ability to hold the GCC hostage has been neutralized. They are no longer capable of causing the kind of damage that is so politically unacceptable that it serves as a deterrent. Can they fire occasional drones and missiles still? Yes. But its not gonna be enough to win the milk carton. Its not going to be enough to deter the United States or its allies from fighting back or hitting even harder. Prior to the past 12 months, they did have that capability. Now they do not. You do not have to eliminate every weapon in Iran to 'neutralize' the threat. Neutralizing the threat doesn't literally mean rendering the threat absolute zero; it just means reducing it to a tolerable level. That is what Trump means when he says we've already won. Our immediate objective is effectively complete; but we have a secondary objective—extend the neutralization as long as possible. (The immediate sub-objective remains to neutralize the threat localized to Hormuz, but Iran lacks the ability to meaningfully resist that effort, so its just a matter of time.) The next phase of this war, this battle for our objectives, is to extend the neutralization of the Iranian threat. A new government is optimal, but bombing their infrastructure would neutralize them for at least a decade or two. Options remain numerous.

@greg_price11 @WillioHydro 🙏🙏🙏

The victim of the terrorist attack at Old Dominion has been identified as Lt. Col. Brandon Shah-- who was a Professor of Military Science and the leader of the university's ROTC program. He was a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Atlantic Resolve. His awards included two Bronze Stars, Senior Army Aviator Badge, Combat Action Badge, Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal with Valor, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and the Joint Service Achievement Medal. RIP. 🙏