@#8 ... NOBODY. ...

Even if that becomes the case, the damage is going to take a long time to repair. Trust is broken in a day, but takes months, sometimes years, to fix.

Combine that with our [former?] allies being quite aware of the MAGA electorate here in the US, and that any changes made buy a non-Republican administration could easily be wiped out if MAGA takes hold again.

More from the article ...

... The National Intelligence Service (NIS) made the assessment during a closed-door briefing to the parliamentary intelligence committee, according to Rep. Park Sun-won of the ruling Democratic Party.

"Although (North Korea's constitution) mentioned that (the North) will never tolerate any infringement on its territory bordering the Republic of Korea, there were no hostile remarks toward the South whatsoever," the lawmaker quoted the NIS as saying, referring to South Korea by its official name.

"While it made the two-states stance clear, it significantly toned down hostility (toward the South)." ...

More from the OpEd ...

... The most recent spillover from the war has come in Europe: last week's sudden decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw 5,000 American troops from Germany.

But it's also been buffeting allies in the Asia Pacific, an area of the world Mr. Trump has made a primary foreign policy priority, ahead of his scheduled visit to Beijing later this month for talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Even before the war, Mr. Trump's use of tariffs to secure U.S. economic interests and his insistence that partners in both Europe and Asia significantly increase defense spending had made it clear the terms of engagement with the White House were changing.

But allied leaders were hopeful of being able to deliver the kind of loosened American commitment Mr. Trump wanted. And they were assuming U.S. officials would recognize that this transition would inevitably take time.

The Iran war -- launched alongside Israel without consulting other U.S. partners, and hitting their economies far harder than America's -- delivered a jolt of an entirely different order. ...

More from the article ...

... Two weeks after 139 people died in raging Texas floods last summer, the leader of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ridiculed reporting that said the agency had missed thousands of calls to its emergency help center.

"Fake news," David Richardson, the acting administrator at the time, told House lawmakers who were probing officials' response to the flash flooding that killed more than two dozen children.

"The vast majority of phone calls were answered," Richardson said. "All calls were answered within three minutes."

Now, newly released FEMA records raise questions about the accuracy of his sworn testimony -- and whether the agency was able to provide timely disaster services during one of the nation's deadliest catastrophes. ...

Over nine days in early July, as flooding swamped Texas Hill Country, nearly 80,000 people called the toll-free FEMA Helpline, according to FEMA records disclosed for the first time in a recent Government Accountability Office report.

The agency failed to answer 58 percent of the calls. Callers who connected had to wait 25 minutes on average.

When call volume peaked from July 7 through July 9, FEMA failed to answer 78 percent of calls, records show. The average wait was 61 minutes.

Richardson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

FEMA did not answer questions about whether Richardson's testimony to Congress was inaccurate. ...

Will ICE obey that decision?

... expressed concern on Wednesday about the public perception of the Supreme Court as an institution driven primarily by political outcomes rather than the law ...

Well then, maybe SCOTUS (i.e., the MAGA majority) should stop acting so politically?

MAGA has been injecting politics into every branch of government, why not SCOTUS?

@#1 ... He was evasive, nervous and dishonest ...

As most of the Trump inner-circle seem to be when they testify before Congress?

Why?

@#44

Oh wow ...

When a NewsMax reporter starts asking the obvious questions ...

More from the article ...

... In a tense exchange at a Pentagon press briefing, Newsmax's James Rosen pointed to Trump's changing justification for the war with Tehran which began on Feb. 28, initially offering his "gratitude and admiration" to Hegseth and U.S. forces before questioning the president's shifting rhetoric.

"I want to first express my gratitude and admiration for the work you do and for everyone involved in our armed forces and also for the accomplishments of Operation Epic Fury, which I think are too often dismissed too lightly," Rosen said to Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine.

"But those accomplishments don't obscure, I think, a central default that has occurred here, and I would like you both to address it," he added. "On the first day of this conflict, President Trump addressed the Iranian people directly and said, when we're finished, take over your government. It'll be yours to take.' And then on the seventh day of the conflict, in a Truth Social post, the president said, There will be no deal with Iran except' all caps, exclamation mark UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!'"

Rosen continued: "What happens to that pledge to the Iranians? And when did the president decide to capitulate on his demand for unconditional surrender?"

Hegseth insisted that Trump "hasn't capitulated on anything," attacking Rosen for asking the question. ...

I just saw this ...

@#8 ... They never did. ...

... until Pres Trump declared war on them.

@#6 ... U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that Iran no longer controls the Strait of Hormuz. ...

Huh?

WTF?!?!

If what Sec of Defense Hegseth says is correct, then why are there so few, if any, ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz?

Or is Sec of Defense Hegseth just lying (again?)?

@#5 ... Good thing Trump banned windmills! ...

... and seems to be targeting solar as well.

Pres Trump seems to be focused upon making sure the money flows into Big Oil.

Why?

There are so many things that really need to be discussed by the separatist crowd.

imo ... and nothing more ...

1) will NATO continue to protect Alberta should it remove itself from Canada?

2) will the border crossings between Alberta and the US change?

I could go on, but there is so much to be taken into account when a portion of a country decides that it is now a separate country.

I have to ask if the separationists have a clue about what they are asking for? Or are they too focused upon the one issue?

@#3

Yeah, I saw an article that mentioned about a 30% approval in a vote.

But, as with our mid-terms, time will tell.

Fmr Sec of State Clinton testified before Congress.

Why do Republicans seem to be so afraid to do similar?

@#1 ... Staff from the counsel's office have encouraged political appointees to be careful about what they put in writing and provided guidance for how to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely manner." ...

Stated differently, ...

1) don't document anything you do

2) if called before Congress, be belligerent, instead of answering questions

@#35 ... Rogan is playing a character. and he's a -------. ...

A couple comments ...

I thought Mr Rogan played his character on Newsradio excellently. He nailed it.

But now, what character might he be trying to portray?

One that gains him an audience for his podcast?

Appealing to the Snowflake Culture, i.e., those who tune in to social medial to hear what they want to hear?

I wish I knew ...

@#13 ... The methodology used for compiling the World Press Freedom Index 2026 ...

Yup, they describe their methods used for their compilation.

More from the article ...

... The question of separation could go on a provincewide ballot as early as October, as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she would move forward if enough names are gathered and verified. Smith has said she personally does not support the oil-rich province leaving Canada.

A "yes" vote would not trigger independence automatically. Negotiations with the federal government would have to take place and Daniel Bland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said some Indigenous groups who are already using the courts to prevent an independence referendum would use venues including the courts to stop independence from happening. ...

@#4

I wish I could disagree.