Texas Watch

Hi JD, since you're explaining why Republicans lost the midterms, there's something I'd really like you to explain. Just recently, you publicly defended your friendship with Tucker Carlson and confirmed that the two of you still speak. Then, days before the election, Tucker told 100 million people that Trump is considering a nuclear strike on Iran, supposedly based on inside sources in the administration. He even claims to know what you're personally advising the president. And you haven't said a word about it. Now, I'm not suggesting you're Tucker's source. But the fact that you've publicly acknowledged your friendship and ongoing communication with him puts a pretty enormous spotlight on you. Tucker Carlson is a habitual liar. He lies constantly, contradicts himself, and has spent the past few years telling Americans how wonderful Russia and Qatar are while painting the most miserable picture imaginable of America. His entire operation is dedicated to convincing Americans that their country is hopeless and their enemies are somehow more admirable. Now he's spreading panic about an impending nuclear war just days before an election, and people who ordinarily despise him are suddenly treating him as a credible journalist. (Even Christiane Amanpour amplified him!) And you're telling us that the war is why Republicans lost, without so much as acknowledging what your own friend was telling tens of millions of Americans right before they voted. If you know Tucker is lying, why haven't you publicly called him out? And why would you want to remain friends with someone who is knowingly spreading such an outrageous lie about the administration you serve in? And there's another thing about your post that doesn't make sense to me. If you still believe that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is vital to American national security, then shouldn't you be apologizing to Americans for failing to make that case? I understand that Americans are frustrated with the war and the price they're paying at the pump. But if you genuinely believe we're dealing with a threat of this magnitude, surely your responsibility as vice president is to explain why confronting it is necessary, including why Americans might have to endure some economic pain in the process. Instead, you're now treating public frustration as though it settles the question of whether the war was justified in the first place. If you believe the threat can be dealt with later, explain how. If you believe diplomacy can still work (as Tucker claims), explain what happens when Iran refuses to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Are we supposed to accept a nuclear Iran because gas is expensive? What happens if Iran starts charging tolls in the Strait of Hormuz after America leaves? And if you never believed this war was necessary in the first place, then I think you owe Americans an explanation for a number of your own public statements defending the administration's position. I understand that a vice president has obligations to the president, but that doesn't explain away your own words or your role in shaping policy. You were personally involved in these negotiations. You had an enormous platform to explain the stakes to Americans. If you believe this was necessary for our national security and Americans rejected it because they didn't understand why, then that is also a failure of leadership, including yours. And I'm tired of watching anyone who questions you immediately accused of being an Israeli operative, Israel First, or secretly paid by Israel. If you think I'm wrong, address what I'm saying. I don't think anyone being intellectually honest can look at this situation and pretend there aren't some very serious questions about Vance's conduct here.