"Movie Snuggles, Sugar": Prince Harry's Flirty Texts With Reporter Surface

04/02/26 11:22 AM

Harry has accused Associated Newspapers Limited of using illegal methods like phone hacking and wiretapping to gather information about him between 1993 and 2011.

"Will Bring Iran Back To Stone Ages": Trump Says US To Hit "Extremely Hard"

04/02/26 9:38 AM

Trump's White House Address On the Middle East War: Iran's Navy Gone, Air Force In Ruins, Leaders Are Dead

'Clear as mud': Rubio mocked as he tries to explain war before Trump's big TV speech

04/01/26 6:58 PM

Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a shot at trying to explain the Iran war to the nation before President Donald Trump was scheduled to appear on television networks hours later.In a video posted by the White House this week, Rubio offered the administration's latest excuse for attacking Iran. The secretary's X account also shared the video on Wednesday ahead of Trump's address."Let me explain," the secretary of state offered. "Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. Of that, there is zero doubt.""But why the attack now?" he continued. "Iran was trying to build a conventional shield, in essence, have so many missiles, have so many drones that no one could attack them, and they were well on their way. We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that no one could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future. That was an intolerable risk."The Trump administration has also pointed to regime change, a planned strike by Israel, an imminent threat of attack, and destroying other parts of Iran's military as excuses for the war. Last year, Trump had repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear program had been "obliterated."Rubio's latest explanation was met with criticism online."Yup, clear as mud. Now we are making Israel a superpower...that wasn't on my Middle East bingo card," Danny Layaou wrote."That's not foreign policy language. That's a defense contractor earnings call," Wall Street Balance Sheet noted."This government has to be the most confused one, everyday you keep coming up with different excuses as to why you're losing the war you started," Oko Oyinbo observed."It's the Christian Zionists who have an apocalyptic vision of the future. Your brilliant stunt has now enabled Iran to collect tolls from every ship passing through Hormuz," Lucy Liu commented.

'I want my vote back!' Disgusted viewers crush MAGA TV network with anti-Trump mail

03/30/26 8:23 PM

Conservative viewers unhappy about the war in Iran overwhelmed the pro-MAGA Real America's Voice network with emails opposing President Donald Trump.During the Human Events show on Monday, host Jack Posobiec spent nearly 10 minutes reading mail from people who had voted for Trump.While a minority supported the war in Iran, the vast majority of viewers expressed concerns about Operation Epic Fury."Cannot dispute the fact that the U.S. and Israel have clearly won this operation," a viewer named Chuck said. "However, if there is a regime change that excludes the Ayatollahs and basically returns Iran to pre-1979, it will have been a loss. We can't continue bombing campaigns every two years, wasting tax dollars."Ted, 78, called the war "a necessary step for the gospel to be presented before the rapture."Many commenters noted that Republicans were in danger of losing midterm elections because of the war. Others pointed out that prices were rising.Read some of the remarks from viewers below."Wasting tax dollars.""Diesel prices are sky high.""Halting our likelihood of success in the midterms.""This war is the stupidest thing ever.""A complete betrayal and flip-flop of the no new wars policy.""A trap that will last months, if not years.""Hate this war.""It is destroying MAGA.""The Dems will win the House.""The worst thing Trump has done.""Hurting the very people that Trump has fought for.""Gas is $4 a gallon.""This economy will tank.""Don't feel this was America first.""Very disappointing.""Not what he promised.""Fearful for our nation's future.""Not happy at all.""Trump has not been true to his word.""We're going to lose the House and Senate.""I voted for Trump, and I want my vote back.""The most infuriating one to two months.""Completely at my wits' end.""The opposite of what I voted for""Unnecessary side quest.""The potential to wreck the trump presidency.""Disgusted by this war.""I'm going independent, but will likely never vote again.""Feel like it's useless.""I'm done voting, period.""A straight con job.""War should be a last resort."

'Is that a serious response?' GOP analyst gets heated as poll shows 'bad news' for Trump

04/01/26 9:00 PM

Conservative analyst Scott Jennings got heated during a panel discussion on CNN's "The Arena" on Tuesday after new polling found the American public largely does not approve of President Donald Trump's war in Iran. A new poll from CNN revealed that two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the war, and 63% said they believe the conflict will develop into a prolonged war. Another 70% of respondents said they oppose sending ground troops to Iran, and another 71% of respondents said they want Congress to reject the Pentagon's $200 billion funding request for the war. CNN anchor Abby Phillip, filling in for Kasie Hunt, called the poll "a lot of bad news for President Trump in terms of how the American people view this war."It shows that the president tonight is speaking maybe a little too late," Phillip said.Jennings said the poll is "somewhat irrelevant now" because the U.S. is already engaged in the conflict with Iran. Lulu Garcia-Navarro, a journalist at The New York Times, responded by spelling out "L-O-L," an acronym for "laugh out loud," after Jennings spoke. "Is that a serious response to a serious answer?" Jennings snapped. "President Trump chose to do this, and now he's changing what the metrics of success are," Garcia-Navarro said. "This is a disaster for the region, and it has been a disaster for the American people because they have had to pay for this war.""L-M-A-O. That's my response to that," Jennings shot back, using a vulgar acronym with similar meaning.

'It was a test': Trump moves against NATO as members 'weren't there for us'

04/01/26 11:21 AM

Donald Trump has suggested he has no interest in continuing with NATO and may even pull the United States out of the intergovernmental organization. The president has done much to anger the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's members this year, strongly implying he would take Greenland by force if necessary. His administration's strikes on Iran last month marked another contentious point for the president and his relationship with NATO, as he called on member nations to back the war. Speaking to The Telegraph, Trump said, “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way."Trump went on to use the war in Ukraine as an example of where he felt the US had been let down by NATO members and other governments. Trump added, "Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey’, you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic."We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us."The president's comments on NATO follow on from Secretary of State Marco Rubio denouncing the intergovernmental organization. In an interview with Hashem Ahelbarra of Al Jazeera, the Donald Trump appointee criticized the NATO alliance for not backing the US war on Iran, and then stated, “I think it was very disappointing. You have this – and again, look, the President and our country will have to reexamine all of this after this operation is over.""But one of the reasons why NATO is beneficial to the United States is it gives us basing rights for contingencies. It allows us to station troops and aircraft and weapons in parts of the world that we wouldn’t normally have bases, and that includes in much of Europe.”

'Lust for violence': Nobel winner 'horrified' as Pentagon drags US into endless quagmire

03/30/26 6:08 PM

Economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon over their lack of direction and obsession with violence amid the Iran war. In his Substack post, Krugman tore into Hegseth's beliefs of applying further damage to Iran as the war now enters its 30th day and talks swirl of a ground war, which President Donald Trump has not yet ruled out. Krugman was doubtful that 10,000 troops could secure the Persian Gulf or prompt oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz again. "A month into the war, and now they’re talking about pointless ground action and/or war crimes," Krugman wrote. He pointed to Hegseth's troubling focus on lethality. "In this case, our Secretary of Defense, which is his legal title, although he calls himself the Secretary of War, continually argues that if only we get even more violent, if only we do even more damage, that this will somehow translate into success in Iran," Krugman wrote. "He clearly relishes the thought of violence himself. He’s now holding prayer breakfasts, and in his prayer breakfast, he called upon the Lord to support us in 'overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.'""I think this is deeply un-American, but anyway, aside from the evilness — I don’t think there’s any other way to put it — of the world view, how is this supposed to work?" Krugman asked. "If you look at the plans or ideas that are being bruited for using ground forces now, and that’s clearly very much sort the next step here, for using ground forces against Iran, well, yeah, you can seize Kharg Island, although hanging onto it could be very expensive, but then what?"It's unclear at this point whether negotiations were actually underway — and what the administration's objectives were. "Other presidents have been accused of negotiating with themselves," Krugman wrote. "Trump is negotiating with his imaginary friends. There’s no reason at all to believe that these talks are actually happening. But he then pivots midway through the post, to saying, and if we don’t get this, then we’re going to start bombing civilian power plants and water supplies."Trump's thought process could lead to further harm, the economist argued. "So give us what we want or we’ll commit a massive, massive war crime, which I hope is not going to happen," Krugman wrote. "But even if it did, why would you think this would open up the Strait of Hormuz? So it’s this lust for violence with no actual coherent story about how that violence is going to produce results. It’s horrifying.""I really don’t know how this ends, except that it does feel as if this is a quagmire largely in the minds of top Trump officials, Trump himself and Hegseth, who having this utterly unshakable belief that hurting people will produce great results, respond to each failure of violence to produce results by getting even more destructive with no end game in sight," Krugman added. Pete Hegseth Believes in the Lethality Fairy by Paul Krugman"Overwhelming violence of action" as the solution to all problemsRead on Substack

'Remarkably vague and impulsive': Tapper obliterates Trump's supposed '4-D chess'

03/30/26 10:03 PM

CNN anchor Jake Tapper questioned President Donald Trump's ultimate game plan in Iran, calling out the president and his administration for mixed messaging. Tapper was responding to Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claims about objectives in the war and what the United States had aimed to achieve in its military strikes that first launched on Feb. 28. Now weeks into the war, Americans were unsure what the actual objectives were following confusing communications over what prompted the military action in the Middle East."If the mission is just as Secretary Rubio noted, the destruction of the air force and the navy and missiles and missile-making capability, it would seem that the U.S. would be close to accomplishing that," Tapper said. "But according to reports in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is preparing for more. The Pentagon is preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran, troops on the ground. President Trump is weighing deploying another 10,000 more ground troops to the Middle East region in general. And they are also considering a complex operation to extract with boots on the ground."Trump hasn't made clear what his next decision will be — and that has left Americans confused, Tapper explained. "Again, one can want a denuclearized and democratic Iran and still wonder if President Trump is kind of making some of this up as he goes along," Tapper said. "One can support President Trump and wonder if he's fully aware of how often wars spiral out of control little by little, with unanticipated responses by the enemy requiring increasing commitment." "President Trump said he would end the Iran war when he, 'feels it in his bones,' when so many lives are on the line. That is a remarkably vague and impulsive metric... Some people believe Trump's constant back and forth is street strategic, four-dimensional chess," Tapper added.

'Shell-shocked' CEOs are done staying quiet as Trump torches their bottom lines: report

03/30/26 6:23 PM

Donald Trump's Iran war is testing the limits of corporate America's tolerance — and the only thing keeping CEOs from publicly attacking the president is fear of retribution, according to Fortune's Diane Brady reporting from CERAWeek in Houston.But that restraint may be ending. As the economic damage mounts, business leaders are signaling they may finally be willing to risk Trump's wrath and speak out against policies they view as catastrophic for their bottom lines.The stakes are becoming impossible to ignore. Economists warn recession odds are now high. Oil prices have surged more than 50 percent. The war is costing U.S. taxpayers approximately $1 billion a day while destroying 10,000 jobs from the economic shockwave alone.Energy sector CEOs are particularly alarmed. At CERAWeek, leaders from Dow and Chevron warned of dire consequences if the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked to shipping. The blockade has forced Asia to scramble for alternative energy sources, while Russia gains little thanks to its own war with Ukraine.Signs of CEO defection are mounting. Chubb CEO Evan Greenberg told Brady that "democracy is so fragile." Citadel's Ken Griffin revealed that he and his CEO peers find the Trump administration's favoritism "extremely distasteful."More than 60 corporate leaders — including CEOs from 3M, Best Buy, Cargill, General Mills, Land O'Lakes, Target, Xcel Energy, and UnitedHealth Group — have already signed a letter of protest against the administration's ICE enforcement actions in Minnesota.One CEO admitted to Brady that they are "shell-shocked" by administration policies but feel constrained by fiduciary duty to avoid putting their companies in Trump's crosshairs by speaking publicly.That calculus could shift dramatically. If the war begins to seriously impact stock prices and corporate profits, business leaders may conclude that the financial damage outweighs the political danger of breaking ranks with the president.

'That is such garbage': Marco Rubio pummeled on MS NOW for NATO threat

03/31/26 11:54 AM

Comments made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the future relationship between the US and NATO that hint at a break with the peace-keeping coalition received a thorough –– and critical –– examination on MS NOW early Tuesday morning.In an interview with Hashem Ahelbarra of Al Jazeera, the Donald Trump appointee criticized the NATO alliance for not backing the US war on Iran, and then stated, “I think it was very disappointing. You have this – and again, look, the President and our country will have to reexamine all of this after this operation is over. But one of the reasons why NATO is beneficial to the United States is it gives us basing rights for contingencies. It allows us to station troops and aircraft and weapons in parts of the world that we wouldn’t normally have bases, and that includes in much of Europe.”He later added, “But if NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked but then denying us basic rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement. That’s a hard one to stay engaged in and say this is good for the United States. So all of that is going to have to be reexamined. All of it’s going to have to be reexamined.”After the clip was shown on “Morning Joe,“ co-host Joe Scarborough quickly snapped, “That is such garbage.”“Wait a minute, where is Marco Rubio?” co-host Mika Brzezinski interjected.“That was Marco Rubio attacking NATO,” Scarborough continued. “And it's just a reminder, it's just a reminder that this is also the same guy –– I mean, Jonathan Lemire, this is the same guy that went to Hungary and praised [Viktor] Orban, a guy who is proudly anti-west. He's illiberal, he's an autocrat, he's running in an election for his political life. And Rubio goes there and puts –– I mean, this is a guy who is anti-communist anti-authoritarian for a good reason and now he's completely compromised everything that he believes on these issues.”“Yeah,” Lemire replied. “In fact, new reporting this morning about Hungary's shedding further light on Hungary's close ties with Moscow.”“And let's remember Secretary Rubio's comments there about NATO,” he added. “And I wrote last week, there's real fear in the alliance that President Trump is going to, if not abandon it entirely, but pull back U.S. troop presence in Europe, which of course, would be a gift to Russia." - YouTube youtu.be