Trump's national intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, told Congress in March that Iran's supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program.

Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.

The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.

But Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

    • @dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11•21 hours ago

      Didn’t matter. Look at the three elections that Trump ran, and his performance against the candidate with a penis vs. the ones without one.

      The American electorate will vote for a Black penis-haver (particularly if he is a baller) over any vagina-haver right now. They still won’t say “I’m a sexist pig” in the exit polls, though, so we get reasons like “She didn’t explain her policies enough” or “She wasnt authentic enough” instead.

      • @Soulg@ani.socialEnglish
        1•5 hours ago

        The idea that the only reason she lost is because of being a woman is incredibly stupid.

      • LasherzM
        5•14 hours ago

        I don’t flatly disagree, but I think to call Hillary or Kamala as “electable” as Obama is a hard sell. He was a better public speaker than any president in my lifetime and he played things off well. Kamala was certainly more likable than Hillary, but she didn’t have as much sauce as the sauce king at least before he was usurped by the sauce god Mamdani.

      • @sunnie@slrpnk.netEnglish
        13•21 hours ago

        Maybe I’m just being hopeful, but I don’t think the vagina thing is as big of an influence as it seems. First, we only have a sample size of two.

        One of them, Clinton, was just an objectively awful person. She wasn’t popular with anyone, including women.

        The second, Harris, had an abbreviated campaign caused by Biden’s unwillingness to step down. She also wasn’t built up in preparation fora campaign during her VP term. On top of that, she was very unexciting policy-wise. Basically status quo when everybody is clamoring for progress.

        Contrast that with Obama, who ran on “hope and change” and got people excited for actual progress. Which he didn’t deliver, but that’s another story.