XPost: alt.news-media

President Donald Trump went on offense on Saturday when he authorized
precision strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, sending B-2 bombers to deliver the payload and quickly return to U.S. soil, but now Democrats and legacy media are trying to put him back on his heels and force him to play defense, demanding that he and his surrogates justify the move.

For those who don't spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television --
and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week's worth of
network and cable news media spin -- The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.

Across the major network shows on Sunday morning, the hosts brought in Trump administration officials to defend the strike on Iran -- and Democrats to
claim that the Trump administration did not have the authority to take
military action against Iran without the express approval of Congress.

On ABC News' "This Week," the first concern was the potential threat to American civilians following the U.S. military's precision strike on the nuclear sites in Iran.

"One of the most immediate concerns is the threat of cyberattacks by Iran or hackers tied to Iran's proxies," Chief Justice correspondent Pierre Thomas explained.

"One of the most immediate concerns is the threat of cyberattacks
` by Iran or hackers tied to Iran's proxies."@PierreTABC analyzes the
threat to domestic security after U.S. strike on Iran nuclear sites.
https://t.co/cjymi6c47e pic.twitter.com/1Y1Q4pdad0

-- This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 22, 2025

Host Jonathan Karl then brought in Vice President JD Vance to talk the
American people off the ledge after he asked "the big question": "Is the
United States now at war with Iran?"

Vance made it clear that a broader war with the Islamist nation was neither
the intent of the administration's action nor the desired result of any retaliatory strike: "No, we're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program. And I think the president took decisive action to destroy
that program last night."

.@JonKarl: "The big question, is the United States now at war with
Iran?"

Vice Pres. JD Vance: "No, we're not at war with Iran. We're at war
with Iran's nuclear program. And I think the president took decisive
action to destroy that program last night." https://t.co/522rI06gRm
pic.twitter.com/0OWc1eYsJX

-- This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 22, 2025

Vance did clarify, however, that any retaliatory strikes from Iran that targeted American troops would result in decisive action from the United States: "If they decide they're going to attack our troops, if they decide they're going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon, then we are going to respond to that with overwhelming force."

"If they decide they're going to attack our troops, if they decide
they're going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon, then we
are going to respond to that with overwhelming force," Vice Pres.
JD Vance said after U.S. strikes on Iran nuclear sites.
https://t.co/eyQd9uftab pic.twitter.com/WJe8ATp08H

-- This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 22, 2025

Karl also brought in Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) to defend the strike -- and he warned Iran, "Our message to the supreme leader is: look at the lessons of history. Do not -- do not tempt fate. Do not target Americans. Heed Donald Trump's warning."

"Our message to the supreme leader is: look at the lessons of
history. Do not -- do not tempt fate. Do not target Americans. Heed
Donald Trump's warning," Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom
Cotton told @JonKarl after U.S. strikes on nuclear sites.
https://t.co/F7DJPeZFSD pic.twitter.com/jkTlaaIXPb

-- This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 22, 2025

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) also spoke with Karl, warning, "The president has taken
a massive, massive gamble here."

He went on to say that if past was prologue, the likely outcome of provoking Iran would not be optimal. "If you look at the history of our military involvements in the region, they almost never end with the best-case
scenario. In fact, they usually end in something approximating the worst-case scenario."

"If you look at the history of our military involvements in the
region, they almost never end with the best-case scenario. In
fact, they usually end in something approximating the worst-case
scenario," Democratic Rep. Jim Himes said. https://t.co/Tu9QJdMF61
pic.twitter.com/oO3jZqbpbX

-- This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 22, 2025

Former Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), who typically opposes the Trump administration, took the president's side and praised him for making the call to strike Iran. "The president saw an opportunity that he might never have again," he explained.

Former NJ @GovChristie told @JonKarl that Pres. Trump "deserves an
enormous amount of credit" for making the decision to strike Iranian
nuclear sites.

"The president saw an opportunity that he might never have again."
https://t.co/Tn3pnj8BJg pic.twitter.com/3IBCNcvTPX

-- This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 22, 2025

On CBS News' "Face the Nation," Senator and failed vice presidential
candidate Tim Kaine disputed Vance's assertion that the United States was not "at war with Iran," telling host Margaret Brennan, "When you're bombing
another nation, ask them if they think it's war. They do. Would we think it
was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would."

Vice President JD Vance's argument that the U.S. is "not at war with
Iran" after carrying out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites is "BS,"
says Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), telling @margbrennan: "When you're
bombing another nation, ask them if they think it's war. They do.
Would we think... pic.twitter.com/ubslPxGOec

-- Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) June 22, 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also spoke with Brennan on Sunday and defended the strikes -- and confirmed that the Trump administration would prefer to
see Iran move forward on a path to peace.

"We'll see what Iran decides to do. I think they should choose the route of peace. What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next. If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready. If they choose another route, then there will be consequences for that," he explained.

"We'll see what Iran decides to do. I think they should choose the
route of peace," Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, when asked
about what intelligence the U.S. has on Iran's capabilities to
retaliate for the U.S. strikes on its nuclear sites.

"What happens next will now... pic.twitter.com/gav60W1k2z

-- Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) June 22, 2025

And on CNN's "State of the Union," a panel discussion got heated when former Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa claimed that the Trump administration had not shown any proof that Iran presented a clear and present danger. Republican commentator Scott Jennings -- who was visiting Israel when the missiles began to fly between Israel and Iran -- pushed back: "Fiery but mostly peaceful Iranian butchers?"

Are Democrats really going to go with "Fiery but mostly peaceful
Iranian butchers?"

This was a RIGHTEOUS strike and the world is safer thanks to
President @realDonaldTrump's bold leadership.
pic.twitter.com/wTgBM1i2L9

-- Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) June 22, 2025

"You're arguing that after 46 years of the Iranian regime killing Americans, threatening Americans, saying over and over and over again, 'Death to
America,' that maybe they just didn't mean it?" Jennings replied. "That
they're fiery but mostly peaceful Iranian butchers? I mean, I don't
understand! This is a righteous strike!"

--
Not a joke! Don't jump!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)