During Monday’s CNN This Morning, panelist Susan Page of USA Today suggested President Trump missed an opportunity to negotiate with Iran after President Masoud Pezeshkian made a video statement on Saturday as a pledge to Gulf countries that they would stop attacks against them.  Spoiler alert: the attacks against gulf countries had not stopped since Pezeshkian has little to no power over the IRGC, something CNN contributor Brett McGurk pointed out earlier in the panel segment. McGurk, while he reminded the viewers that Pezeshkian was an “accidental president,” pointed out the IRGC’s rejection of the president:  So, Pezeshkian is known as being, you know, somewhat of a moderate guy. That word is overused, but he's not really kind of totally aligned with the real hardliners. He came out with a statement on Saturday morning apologizing to gulf states, saying, we're going to stop these attacks, offering an off ramp, even. And President Trump then put out a statement saying that, you - they're basically surrendering when it comes to the Middle East states but we're going to continue the attacks. In any case, as soon as Pezeshkian spoke, within an hour or so, the hardline in Iran, the revolutionary guards said that is not our policy. And attacks against the gulf continued. Cornish then added, “So the president [of Iran] came out and said one thing, but we have the world of the supreme leader, the guard, the people who are in charge of this violent police state saying, not so fast that's not the direction.”   USA Today Washington Chief Susan Page says Trump "missed an opportunity" to negotiate with the "conciliatory" President Pezeshkian whose promise to end attacks on Saturday has, obviously, not occurred as he holds no real power in the IRGC. pic.twitter.com/ddAJrqQUNa — Nick (@nspin310) March 9, 2026   Just a few minutes later, Page decided to take Pezeshkian’s Saturday statement as a moment for illustrious peace, ignoring that attacks have continued to take place since the statement from the start of the weekend: (...) And there's some speculation, and I'd be interested in what our experts here thought, that President Trump missed an opportunity with the Iranian president's kind of conciliatory gesture there. Would it have been possible to have encouraged that a little more as opposed to rejecting it (...) Page conceded “maybe that die was already cast” before a shift to public opinion of the operation. Maybe Page should listen to the panelist before her about the realities of the Iranian President, who had no control over the religiously radical clerics in Iran’s system. Later on in the show, Cornish promoted the CNN team in Iran with correspondent Fred Pleitgen, as she gave a disclaimer on CNN’s reporting in Iran: So, our team on the ground operating in Iran, they are doing so with government permission. This is required by local regulations. And CNN does maintain its full editorial control over the reporting.    Later on CNN This Morning, host Audie Cornish read a disclaimer over Fred Pleitgen's reporting in Iran. The note said CNN in Iran is "operating" with "government permission" but "CNN does maintain its full editorial control over the reporting." https://t.co/HUnDm9i1Hp pic.twitter.com/nhnp9fveVM — Nick (@nspin310) March 9, 2026   Pleitgen reported on “Black Rain,” oil mixed with rain, after strikes on Iran’s oil. It’s a simple concept to understand that if your access to Iran is given with government permission, one’s reports would be shifted to more favorable viewpoints of a radical government in order to maintain access.  Instead of gaslighting, maybe they should just admit the realities of reporting in Iran. Or they could just do the same thing they did with their coverage of Saddam Hussein's regime. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning March 9, 2026 6:05:45 AM Eastern (...) BRETT MCGURK: Well, over the weekend, the most dramatic internal political developments we've seen in decades. Iran's only had two supreme leaders since the ‘79 revolution. On Saturday morning when we woke up here early, President Pezeshkian, the current president, and by the way he's an accidental president because the president before him, Ebrahim Raisi, who wA likely to succeed Khamenei, was killed in a helicopter crash back in 2024 - AUDIE CORNISH: Plane crash. Yeah, which people didn't notice. It was a while back. MCGURK: - So, Pezeshkian is known as being, you know, somewhat of a moderate guy. That word is overused, but he's not really kind of totally aligned with the real hardliners. He came out with a statement on Saturday morning apologizing to gulf states, saying, we're going to stop these attacks, offering an off ramp, even. And President Trump then put out a statement saying that, you - they're basically surrendering when it comes to the Middle East states but we're going to continue the attacks.  In any case, as soon as Pezeshkian spoke, within an hour or so, the hardline in Iran, the revolutionary guards said that is not our policy. And attacks against the gulf continued. CORNISH: But let me underscore what you just said. So the president came out and said one thing, but we have the world of the supreme leader, the guard, the people who are in charge of this violent police state saying, not so fast that's not the direction we’re going. MCGURK: We are in charge. You had Ali Larijani, who's a longtime advisor to the now deceased supreme leader. And then within a day - yesterday, on Sunday, you had Mojtaba, Ali Khamenei's son, named. And that shows continuity of the system. And what does that mean for where we're heading? I think it closes what President Trump might have hoped was a possible off ramp in which you'd have a new leadership emerge and maybe be willing to talk to us. The Iranians have shut that door. (..) 6:09:07 AM Eastern CORNISH: We know here in the U.S., according to, at least, CNN polling earlier in the month, particularly independents, didn't feel the president had quite a grasp on Iran and like the goals and what's going on. When you look at the way the administration came out and talked over the weekend, do you have more clarity on what they would consider success? SUSAN PAGE: Well of course, President Trump said that this would be an unacceptable choice for the United States as supreme leader. The Iranians have clearly paid no attention to that. And there's some speculation, and I'd be interested in what our experts here thought, that President Trump missed an opportunity with the Iranian president's kind of conciliatory gesture there. Would it have been possible to have encouraged that a little more as opposed to rejecting it, maybe -  CORNISH: To bolster that voice. PAGE: Maybe that die was already cast. You look at American public opinion, Americans were not prepared for this war. They do not understand why we have engaged in this war. That's the case the administration has yet to make. And traditionally, in these kind of wars, approval is the highest at the beginning right before all the costs, the cost of blood and treasure begin to [inaudible]. CORNISH: Though, in fairness with Iraq, because there was 9/11, I think that the public sentiment, we were all positionally in a different place. Where as this, people are unclear and you have Hegseth, etcetera. People over the weekend saying we reserve the right for boots on the ground. They don't want to rule anything out. PAGE: But with 9/11, as with Pearl Harbor, there was a reason that we went to war and went to war then and Americans understand that - Americans have no sympathy for this regime in Iran. But why did we go to war now? That's a question that has yet to be answered. (...) 6:34:34 AM Eastern CORNISH: This morning, fires still burning at one of Iran's largest oil fuel storage facilities. Israeli forces striking multiple sites. You can see this thick black smoke is hanging over Tehran. It triggered a rare weather phenomenon of black rain.  So, our team on the ground operating in Iran, they are doing so with government permission. This is required by local regulations. And CNN does maintain its full editorial control over the reporting. So I want to show you now, CNN's Fred Pleitgen, who visited one of the hardest hit areas. [Cuts to video] FRED PLEITGEN: It's an absolutely apocalyptic scene here. We've just made it to the Shahran Oil Depot, which was attacked last night in a massive wave of airstrikes. We heard those going on for about an hour, maybe an hour and a half with massive thuds and explosions that we could hear, and that thick black plume of smoke. We saw that last night, and now we're actually seeing it up close.  And what we’re also seeing is that some of those destroyed storage tanks are still on fire. There's still flames originating from them. You can also see here that the area around here is also completely destroyed. There's people here actually working on this electricity pole to try and get the electricity back.  And then this tanker vehicle here also that is right in front of the gate has been completely destroyed as well. The front gate of the facility, also in complete ruins. The facility appears to be completely in ruins now after these massive airstrikes and, again, still on fire, still burning, and you can see that thick black smoke through the entire city, across all of Tehran. It's been raining this morning in Tehran, there was oil mixed into the rain. So this is definitely a massive incident that is still going on.

Hours after an Oliver Darcy underling screeched Sunday about CBS News’s social media platforms as having gone full MAGA for covering unsavory stories such as a Jewish Insider investigation into the radical social media history of New York City’s first lady, Monday’s CBS Mornings showed the liberal media are unsurprisingly not living in reality as the newscast welcomed far-left Texas senatorial candidate James Talarico (D) for an embarrassingly soft interview. In just over six minutes, the co-hosts never offered an adversarial question to Talarico and strayed from the network’s own role in arguably endorsing Talarico’s primary campaign or any mention of the litany of radical statements over the course of his young life, such as these compiled in one convenient mash-up by our friends at Conservative War Machine: SUPERCUT: Some of Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico's most radical views: “You can't call yourself a Christian and destroy God's creation with greenhouse gases.” “I love ... the trans children.” “No need to sit and cry over your whiteness or your masculinity. Use… pic.twitter.com/JXMrz7spRz — Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) March 9, 2026 “Coming up, fresh off his huge victory in the Texas Democratic primary, James Talarico joins us here in studio. Why he thinks he can finally turn Texas blue,” beamed featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers in a tease. Duthiers further was ebullient with Talarico sitting next to him, boasting Talarico “defeated Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett in a race that captured national attention” and now “looking forward to a general election where he will face the winner of a Republican runoff between incumbent Senator John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton.” What a complete ass-kissing of Texas Democrat James Talarico on Monday's 'CBS Mornings' Absolutely useless. David French would have been proud of this. pic.twitter.com/GOoCOVUqsF — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 9, 2026 Duthiers also had the first question, which was wildly predictable in strategizing with him about how they’ll finally take down those damn Republicans: So, it seems as if we’ve been hearing about Texas turning blue for years. I’m old enough to remember a governor who’s still who looms very large in the state of Texas, Ann Richards. Explain to us what the strategy is in terms of how the congressional makeup of Texas means that it’s been red for the last couple of years and how you hope to turn it blue. Talarico went on for 78 seconds with boilerplate progressive, faux-Christian jargon about his campaign revolving around “lov[ing] my neighbor as myself, not just my neighbor who looks like me or prays like me or votes like me” and ensuring everyone has quality schools, a safe home, and stable job because Texans possess “deep hunger for a different kind of politics, not one that’s rooted in fear or hate or division, but one that’s rooted in love,” not a “blood sport.” The panel was mesmerized by this love-without-justice, one-sided God that’s malleable to our biological delusions.  Duthiers continued to embarrass himself by asking Talarico to explain a second time how he’ll turn Texas blue even though “the combatant-in-chief has yet to weigh in” (click “expand”): DUTHIERS: You mentioned politics is a blood sport, the combatant-in-chief has yet to weigh in, but he is expected the way in on the Republican runoff race. How do you think that will impact the race? TALARICO: Well, no matter —  DUTHIERS: We’re talking about Donald Trump, of course. TALARICO: — you know, no matter what happens in this Republican runoff, we already know who we’re running against. It’s the billionaire mega donors and their corrupt political system. It’s — you’re seeing it already, the billionaires who run the algorithms, who run the cable news networks, who run the — the — so much of the politics in our state and our country. They try to divide us. They divide us on an hourly basis by party, by race, by gender, by religion. And so, we don’t notice that they are picking our pockets, that they are closing our schools in Texas. They’re gutting our health care, they’re raising taxes on working people while they cut taxes for themselves. So, this is the — it’s the oldest strategy in the world. DUTHIERS: Mmmm. TALARICO: Divide and conquer. And what we’re trying to do in Texas is bringing working people together across all those divides, so that we can take power away from those at the very top and bring it back into our community. Saturday co-host Adriana Diaz had the next two questions that were also unoriginal: So, representative, going into this race, it was really unclear who was going to win. What does your win signal you think about what Democrats in Texas voters want? (....) But what do you think it was about you in particular that appealed to so many? Talarcio enamored them with more slick talk about how “people, again, not just Democrats, but independents and Republicans too, they’re really sick of this politics that we’ve had for the last 10 years” and so he’s “building” a movement “across partisan, racial, cultural, or religious divides” to “take power back for ourselves” and “the American Dream.” Co-host Nate Burleson asked his only question, which was a softball on Iran. Following another unchallenged mouthfull, Duthiers had the final question wondering if congressional Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and Chuck Schumer (NY) are on the same wavelength as him (click “expand”): BURLESON: Let’s talk about the war on Iran. What are you hearing from your constituents in Texas about how they feel about this war that’s happening right now? TALARICO: Well, you know, as a millennial, I saw how military disasters like the Iraq War robbed this nation of young lives, of billions of dollars of our moral standing in the world, and I worry that our current leaders are repeating those same mistakes. I was in San Branch, Texas, which is a community south of Dallas that doesn’t have running water. It doesn’t have basic sewer infrastructure, so every dollar we spend bombing people in the Middle East is a dollar we’re not spending in San Branch, Texas, or in our communities here at home. We’re — we’re always told that we don’t have enough money for schools or for health care or for our veterans, but there’s always enough money to bomb people on the other side of the world. And so, we can support the democracy movement in Iran. We can prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, all without bombing innocent schoolchildren or sending our American troops off to die on the other side of the world. DUTHIERS: Representative, but are the leaders in your party, specifically Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, bringing that message home to the Republicans to the President? TALARICO: I don’t know. All I know is what’s happening in Texas and people across the political spectrum are deeply worried about another forever war in the Middle East, and especially young people who are seeing not only gas prices rise, but they’re seeing this affordability crisis that continues to go unaddressed by our leaders in Washington. And so I — I think a lot of us are mystified that we’re starting another forever war instead of focusing on lowering costs for working people. This would have been an embarrassing supposed interview for CBS even before the Skydance/Bari Weiss takeover, but Monday’s canoodling masquerading as journalism was all the more embarrassing considering Weiss is at helm. To see the relevant CBS transcript from March 9, click here.

The New York Times was apparently so eager for an economic win to skewer President Donald Trump’s military achievements in Iran that it ended up making itself look foolish. As the saying goes: Curb your enthusiasm! “Oil Prices Spike Over $110 a Barrel, Highest Since Pandemic,” read the March 8 headline from Times  reporters Rebecca F. Elliott and Joe Rennison. Of course, zeroing on the “ since the pandemic” angle allowed Elliott and Rennison to avoid mentioning President Joe Biden’s name at all, when Brent crude oil spiked to $119 a barrel June 6, 2022, and when gas prices surged to the highest average on record at over $5 June 14, 2022. And guess what: That happened without the U.S. leading a joint international effort to finally topple an entire, bloodthirsty regime. But Elliot and Rennison railed that the brief oil market shock was a “sign of growing concern that” the successful mission to cut the head off the “Death to America” snake in Tehran “will continue to take a toll on energy supplies, raising gas prices for American consumers and weighing on the stock market.” Here’s the problem: That narrative just had an hours-long shelf life. Both West Texas Intermediate (U.S.) and Brent crude oil prices (global) fell under $100 as finance ministers from G-7 countries discussed releasing up to 400 million barrels of oil. WTI Crude plunged as far as beneath $92.50 barrel after peaking over $119 early Monday morning. As popular economics-focused social media account Geiger Capital wrote in an X post around noon, “Oil is now in a bear market… Down -20% from [its] recent highs.” Industrial commentary company The Kobeissi Letter contextualized around 6:00 am that this complete 180-degree turnaround was reflective of “one of the biggest daily crude oil reversals in history.”  BREAKING: US oil prices extend their reversal to drop below $92.50/barrel, now up just +1% on the day. We may actually see a +30% to negative reversal today. pic.twitter.com/75uFLYk0va — The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 9, 2026 The closest Elliott and Rennison came at first to an update for their sky-is-falling item was 9:15 am, which allowed the authors to get ahead of and gloss over a clear free-fall trend to avoid admitting initially that prices were about to fall under $100 a barrel: The price came down below $110 a barrel after reports that governments were taking steps to ease concerns about tightening supplies of oil. As of 12:48 p.m., Kobeissi noted that oil prices were on “the verge of turning negative.” Natural Gas Futures as of 1:37 pm erased “all gains on the day and turn negative, now down -2%.” Talk about slipping on an oil slick! No other update was posted to Elliott and Rennison’s item until 3:31 pm, around the time that Brent crude dipped below $90 and WTI crude fell to $85, but the headline still reflected the scareporn the authors were pushing the day prior as if that narrative was still the case. There could be a nefarious reason for that. BREAKING: US oil prices extend reversal to -$26/barrel in 13 hours after President Trump says he will be holding a "news conference" at 5:30 PM ET. Oil prices are now up just +2% on the day and on the verge of turning negative. pic.twitter.com/16yqcELnU2 — The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 9, 2026 As Fox Business senior correspondent Charles Gasparino stated on X, impulsive commodities traders “trade off headlines, totally myopic in short-term thinking and predicting.” Elliot and Rennison’s item was no exception to that rule. All the media doom mongering and trading meltdown to boot, concluded Gasparino, was that it ignores the likely outcome “that within days we will 100% control the supply of oil coming out of the Straits of Hurmuz, or that Iran will be 100 decapitated as a military force and a financier of terror.”  But if you were a trader reading The Times, you’d be instigated into an anxiety attack. “The huge jump in oil prices suggests that traders are increasingly worried about being able to access oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf,” suggested Elliott and Rennison. That’s interesting, because International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol just told European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen and EU commissioners a couple of days ago that “There is plenty of oil, we have no oil shortage … There is a huge surplus in the market,” according to The Economic Times. The current downward trend on oil prices appears to be reflective of Birol’s sentiments. Well, what gives! 

Between Saturday night and Monday morning, ABC, CBS, and NBC used their flagship morning and evening newscasts to put “far-right,” “insurrectionist” Jake Lang on equal footing for blame alongside two ISIS-inspired Islamic terrorists for the latter allegedly chucking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at a crowd Lang had assembled outside New York City’s Gracie Mansion to protest the city’s far-left, Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani. The worst example came on Sunday’s CBS Weekend News as — in a moment first flagged by the great Johnny MAGA — they placed a still photo of a Trump supporter under the caption “Terrorism Investigation,” as if to imply the terrorism had been perpetrated by MAGA. Anchor Jericka Duncan was wildly vague: “Tonight, the FBI is investigating two men after an explosive device with bolts and screws was thrown into a crowd. It happened in New York City on Saturday during a protest that turned violent outside the mayor’s official residence.” CBS Evening News shows an image of Trump supporters when describing the attempted IED attack in New York City that’s now being investigated as ISIS-inspired terrorism. Unreal. pic.twitter.com/566TOs0Fnw — johnny maga (@johnnymaga) March 9, 2026 “New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is Muslim, was inside Gracie Mansion when a small anti-Islam protest took place here yesterday afternoon. A larger counter-protest then showed up and police say two men who were part of that group brought those homemade devices,” correspondent Shanelle Kaul began. After showing the moment 18-year-old Emir Balat tried and failed to detonate one of the IEDs, Kaul said NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch told reporters, in Kaul’s summation, “it could have caused serious injury or death.” Once she named Balat and “his 19-year-old friend Ibrahim Kayumi” as his accomplice, Kaul blamed the incident on the “anti-Islam demonstration led by Jake Lang...a pardoned U.S. Capitol insurrectionist” (click “expand”): KAUL: Authorities say they were part of a group of nearly 125 people counter-protesting, a much smaller anti-Islam demonstration led by Jake Lang — LANG: The violent left! They hate freedom of speech. KAUL: — a pardoned U.S. Capitol insurrectionist who has frequently sought out political confrontations in the months after President Trump gave him clemency. In a statement, Mayor Zohran Mamdani saying “yesterday, white supremacist Jake Lang organized a protest outside Gracie Mansion rooted in bigotry and racism,” adding, “what followed was even more disturbing. Violence at a protest is never acceptable.” And police also say they found a third device in a vehicle just down the street from here the FBI, now investigating this as terrorism and, Jericka, sources telling CBS News authorities are also now working to determine if either of those two men were inspired by ISIS The first network coverage, though, came Saturday on ABC’s World News Tonight with an esoteric news brief by weekend anchor Linsey Davis  Next tonight, two people arrested after a suspicious device went off during an anti-Muslim protest here in New York. The protests outside Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s residence, prompting counter protesters to show up as well. Two were arrested for allegedly throwing what is believed to be a smoke bomb. No injuries reported. By Sunday, ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Sunday Today featured three combined news briefs on the bombs. In ABC’s second, co-host Janai Norman left it so vague that one could have easily concluded someone connected to “far-right, anti-immigrant figure Jake Lang” was responsible (click “expand”): GIO BENITEZ: And we have a lot of news to get to here this morning, starting with the security scare at the New York City mayor’s residence, the FBI’s joint terrorism task force is now investigating suspicious devices thrown during a protest as possible acts of terrorism. (....) NORMAN: New this morning, New York City police say six people were arrested during a protest and a counter protest near the official residence of New York City’s mayor. Police say two suspicious devices were found. Jars filled with nuts, bolts and screws, and a hobby fuse they say one protest of about twenty people was organized by far-right, anti-immigrant figure Jake Lang. About 125 people were part of the counter protest. The FBI’s New York’s Joint Terrorism Task Force says it is investigating the throwing of suspicious devices as possible acts of terrorism. As for NBC, host Willie Geist said the “incendiary devices” were thrown “towards a small group of anti-Islam protesters led by a right-wing influencer.” Shifting to Monday morning, the both-sides-ing continued.  Duncan shifted from the anchor desk to field correspondent for CBS Mornings and, while she didn’t have the misleading graphic, she led with this and relegated the IEDs to the second sentence: “Protesters and counter-protesters of an anti-Islam rally clashed on New York City streets outside Gracie Mansion, Saturday. Police allege 18-year-old Emir Balat threw an improvised explosive device into the crowd.” Monday's 'CBS Mornings' concedes "investigators are now looking into whether" the two Islamists outside Gracie Mansion in NYC with explosives "were inspired by ISIS extremist messaging," but emphasizes they only came b/c of "far-right influencer Jake Lang" attacking Muslim Mayor… pic.twitter.com/uOCy8ewfMZ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 9, 2026 For those who stuck around long enough to watch the piece, Duncan increasingly focused on the bombs and terrorism (click “expand”): DUNCAN: You can then see him grab what may be a second device from 19-year-old Ibrahim Kayumi. Balat appears to try and light it before police chased him down the street, tackled Balat and handcuffed him. Neither device exploded. Police also arrested Kayumi. Investigators are now looking into whether they were inspired by ISIS extremist messaging. TISCH: The devices appear to be a jar wrapped in black tape along with a hobby fuse. DUNCAN: On Sunday, a third suspicious device was found in connection with the investigation. [SHOUTING] The original anti-Islam protest was organized by far-right influencer Jake Lang, a January 6 insurrectionist who was granted clemency by President Trump. Mayor Zohran Momdani, who is Muslim, said “white supremacist Jake Lang organized a protest outside Gracie Mansion rooted in bigotry and racism...What followed,” he said, “was even more disturbing.” CBS News law enforcement contributor Richard Esposito. RICHARD ESPOSITO: They will work CIA’s in there. They’ll work hard now to take apart who else these people might be connected to. And, in the longer term sense, are there people we need to watch? DUNCAN: The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is now investigating which could mean federal charges could be next. Now, we’re expected to learn more at a news conference right outside of Gracie Mansion later today[.] ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Michael Strahan merely alluded to “a potential act of terrorism” is “under investigation here in New York after authorities say at least one explosive device was thrown into a protest outside the residence of Mayor Mamdani.” ABC's 'Good Morning America' says the Islamists hurling IEDs on Saturday in NYC did so "during the chaotic, dueling protests that were started by far-right provocateur Jake Lang under the banner 'Stop the Islamic takeover of New York City.' The mayor said that protest was rooted… pic.twitter.com/IXvV35pli6 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 9, 2026 Chief investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky said the crowd “began anti-Muslim protest at the home of New York’s first Muslim mayor,” but quickly grew and “ended with a counter-protest that’s now being investigated as a possible act of terrorism.” He said the devices were chucked “during the chaotic, dueling protest that were started by far-right provocateur Jake Lang under the banner, ‘Stop the Islamic takeover of New York City’” that Mamdani denounced as “rooted in bigotry and racism.” Only then did Katersky concede the suspects with IEDs allegedly “told investigators they had watched ISIS propaganda videos and were there to defend Muslims.” NBC’s Today went a completely different route. While they focused more on the real story that two Islamic terrorists nearly carried out a mass casualty event, correspondent Sam Brock tied the crowds to WABC’s “polarizing talk show host” Sid Rosenberg’s comments last week calling Mamdani “a jihadist before later apologizing.” NBC's 'Today' mentioned the two men arrested in connection with the IEDs in New York City "allegedly made pro-ISIS statements," but quickly dispatched with that to blame the series of events on WABC's Sid Rosenberg calling Mamdani a jihadist and Mamdani lamenting the Islamphobia… pic.twitter.com/x5j0yoexXG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 9, 2026 “According to two people familiar with the investigation, initial tests of the device revealed TATP, a volatile and dangerous type of homemade explosive. Also according to two sources familiar with the matter, both men allegedly made pro-ISIS statements during their arrest and investigators are now looking at their past travel outside the country,” Brock added. To see the relevant transcripts from March 9, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from March 7 and 8, click here.

After having true conservative guest co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck wipe the floor with the cast last week, ABC’s The View needed to bring on yet another anti-Trump “Republican” for balance out the rest of the anti-Trump ladies. This time they trotted out “comedian” Sheryl Underwood, who wasted no time trying to exploit her past military service to attack Trump over the Iran strikes by citing how she was deployed during the First Gulf War. But a NewsBusters investigation discovered disturbing inconsistences that pointed to possible stolen valor. At the top of the show, while still being introduced by moderator Whoopi Goldberg, Underwood made it clear that it was her mission to target President Trump: “…they need somebody to say ‘that's not what we should be doing!’” While falsely claiming Trump never mentioned the threat of Iran on the campaign trail, it was obvious Underwood planned to exploit her military service as a cudgel against the strikes. The View even put up a photo of her in her Air Force uniform from the early 80s. She even suggested that Trump needed to be impeached over the strikes, claiming they were “unlawful”: UNDERWOOD: That's me in the air force reserve. Why are we doing it? And I do believe when they say you should not follow an unlawful order! Why is this not impeachable?! And where are the politicians to say this dude don't have it all the way together! He cannot be the commander-in-chief! HOSTIN: And thank you for your service! UNDERWOOD: Thank you.   Sheryl Underwood falsely claims Trump never mentioned Iran and how much of a threat they were during the 2024 campaign, wants him impeached because he's crazy, and claims he has a "personal interest" in toppling Iran: UNDERWOOD: See, here's my problem with it, if it was such a… pic.twitter.com/eL63xFf3HL — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 9, 2026   Without evidence, Underwood also claimed that members of the U.S. military didn’t trust Trump as their commander-in-chief and argued that America needed to make a law that presidents needed military experience: We want to know why and we want to hear it from someone who we feel we can follow into battle. We don't want to hear it from somebody that's a TV personality who may have limited experience. I think this country is going to have to go back to the issues that we have, maybe the commander-in-chief would have to have some military experience, and understand that your order leads us into something that could reverberate around the world. According to a Pew Research report from the 2024 election, they found that military veterans supported Trump by a wide margin 61-37 percent vs then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump held similar margins against Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton. So, Underwood’s suggestion was a lie.   Underwood claims the military can't and doesn't want to "follow [Trump] into battle." She then calls for a constitutional amendment to make it so that a president needs to come from the military: UNDERWOOD: We want to know why and we want to hear it from someone who we feel we… pic.twitter.com/GsumAF8ZVU — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 9, 2026   “I'm not against the president. I'm against the person who is in the office right now that does not seem to care about what his actions cause!” Underwood shouted at one point. When discussing weapons of mass destruction, Underwood declared “I was in that one” when seemingly talking about the First Gulf War; even miming (pictured above) how to put on a MOPP (mission-oriented protective posture) gear that was in use during that time because of the concern Iraq would use chemical weapons: But we know what we sold them when you were on our side and we gave you weapons. That's why -- because I was in that one and we thought we were -- I had to put on that chem warfare, everybody in the military know it was in pieces and you had to put on the head first and blow it out and then put on pants. All military people know what I just said.   Stolen Valor? On The View, Sheryl Underwood seems to suggest that she served during the First Gulf War: "...we gave you weapons. That's why -- because I was in that one and we thought we were -- I had to put on that chem warfare..." But a review of what's publicly available seems… pic.twitter.com/wHGgKoSUxs — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 9, 2026   But a NewsBusters investigation discovered that Underwood wasn’t deployed during the First Gulf War, in fact it appeared as though she was out the military long forehand. According to a DoW webpage highlighting Underwood's service, she "enlisted in the Air Force as a field medic in 1981" and was only "deployed in support of several exercises that included two Exercise Reforgers [sic] in West Germany and Team Spirit in South Korea." The website also notes that she was out and competing in comedy contests by 1989, the year before the First Gulf War started (August 2, 1990): "She first became noticed to the public as the first female finalist in 1989's 'Miller Lite Comedy Search.'" ABC did not respond to NewsBusters’ request for comment. Elsewhere in their conversation, Underwood teamed up with Goldberg and co-host Sunny Hostin to depict America’ military as inept and incapable of fighting and winning against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: You know, he's saying well maybe -- he said on the airplane, ‘maybe we will have boots on the ground.’ Our military we are the biggest, the best trained military in the world, but you're going to be fighting in Iran's backyard. That is guerrilla fighting! That is a street fight! UNDERWOOD: Yes. HOSTIN: Our soldiers, many of them will not come home. Am I correct that that is a different type of fighting? UNDERWOOD: And would they adhere to the Geneva convention? HOSTIN: They won't! (…) GOLDBERG: Listen. Basically we are sending people in to lose their lives.   Siding with the enemy. The View suggests the U.S. military doesn't know what it's doing, that it doesn't know how to fight, that fighting Iran means the U.S. is destined to lose, and the IRGC out matches them: HOSTIN: Our military we are the biggest, the best trained military in… pic.twitter.com/sAFGlpASgt — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 9, 2026   Nearing the end of the segment, Goldberg proclaimed that America should NOT have struck back against Al-Qaeda after 9/11 and decried that Trump wasn’t putting his kids on the frontline to fight Iran, getting agreement from Underwood: GOLDBERG: Because we’ve seen how fighting goes. We knew we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. We knew that, and they decided to do it anyway. So, now we are in the same position where someone who doesn't seem to care that human beings are being sent to war, that people's sons and daughters. His kids are not going! UNDERWOOD: No. No. No. No.   Whoopi suggests Trump is only interested in sending other peoples' kids to die in Iran. She's upset that Trump isn't putting a gun in Barron's hand and sending him to fight (she also claims we shouldn't have struck back against Al-Qaeda after 9/11): GOLDBERG: Basically we are… pic.twitter.com/gkFttiHP3h — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 9, 2026   America has an all-volunteer military and it’s the best in the world. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 9, 2026 11:02:27 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Joining us at the table this week, as a guest co-host is life-long Republican and comedian, on a pit stop from her I Need a Job comedy tour, the fabulous Sheryl Underwood. [Applause] SHERYL UNDERWOOD: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ANA NAVARRO: Had you come a week earlier you might be DHS secretary. UNDERWOOD: And I will accept. They need somebody with some sense in this administration. [Applause] GOLDBERG: There is life here. We can all -- we can do this. I know we can. We can do this, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on. If we are shooting to make the country better, we can work it out together. I believe that. UNDERWOOD: That's right. And, Whoopi, to that point, I think when -- you know, the thing is make America great, right? I think when we see people with the hat and the shirt on, we should just walk up to them and shake their hand and go, ‘we already have made America great.’ We did it together. When we come together as a country, come together as Americans, and it's okay to disagree with your leaders because they need somebody to say ‘that's not what we should be doing!’ [Applause] (…) 11:06:17 a.m. Eastern SUNNY HOSTIN: It is very clear that the President and his administration has not made the case for an imminent threat. And I want people to understand that imminent threat is a legal standard, it is a key legal standard, it's from 1837 from a case, the Caroline case. The only way you start a war is if you know that an attack is about to happen. It's anticipatory self-defense. So the definition is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. In response to the imminent threat question on 60 Minutes Pete Hegseth said, well, they've been after us for 47 years. 47 years is not imminent threat and that's why this is illegal, and those soldiers, while they gave their life for this country, they should be alive today. (…) 11:08:58 a.m. Eastern UNDERWOOD: See, here's my problem with it, if it was such a problem, then why didn't the President run on that? Why didn't he clearly say that's what he wanted to do? If you're talking about regime change or you're talking about no more forever wars, but now we are in something that you are not telling us why. And I put on a uniform to serve this country and I always wanted now why am I doing this? [Image of Underwood in an Air Force photo] That's me in the air force reserve. Why are we doing it? And I do believe when they say you should not follow an unlawful order! Why is this not impeachable?! And where are the politicians to say this dude don't have it all the way together! He cannot be the commander-in-chief! HOSTIN: And thank you for your service! UNDERWOOD: Thank you. Because I’m following the commander-in-chief. And to those families of those seven, we should care more about them than someone's personal interests if you are going to wage war! Because at first it wasn't a war, but now it's the department of war, now you are waging war, and you are putting American lives and soldiers at risk! (…) 11:17:11 a.m. Eastern SARA HAINES: Yeah, I had thrown out the question about the idea as someone who served in the military, your command comes from the top. Do you think that being in certain rooms and access to certain national intelligence could change the way you see this? UNDERWOOD: Absolutely. We want to know why and we want to hear it from someone who we feel we can follow into battle. We don't want to hear it from somebody that's a TV personality who may have limited experience. I think this country is going to have to go back to the issues that we have, maybe the commander-in-chief would have to have some military experience, and understand that your order leads us into something that could reverberate around the world. Getting our allies together or go to Congress. You've got control of the House and the Senate, why couldn't you take that vote? Or are you afraid that even your own allies were going to tell you no. HAINES: One thing is every modern president just to be clear, I've said this multiple times, Biden, Obama, Clinton, George Bush, George H.W. Bush, Reagan, they all did this without Congress. So, Congress has ceded a power that they should be taking back if we want that [drowned out by crosstalk] (…) 11:20:07 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: You know, he's saying well maybe -- he said on the airplane, ‘maybe we will have boots on the ground.’ Our military we are the biggest, the best trained military in the world, but you're going to be fighting in Iran's backyard. That is guerrilla fighting! That is a street fight! UNDERWOOD: Yes. HOSTIN: Our soldiers, many of them will not come home. Am I correct that that is a different type of fighting? UNDERWOOD: And would they adhere to the Geneva convention? HOSTIN: They won't! UNDERWOOD: And to your point [looks to Haines], the presidents that you named we trusted them, it was a different time. HAINES: That was the problem with the administration. UNDERWOOD: We didn’t have what looks like an opportunist-in-chief in the White House. I'm not against the president. I'm against the person who is in the office right now that does not seem to care about what his actions cause! That's the only problem I have. HOSTIN: And by the way, let's all remember -- and, you know, I think when you don't remember history past becomes prologue. Weapons of mass destruction, there were no weapons of mass destruction. GOLDBERG: I mentioned that earlier. HOSTIN: We got into a war -- UNDERWOOD: But we know what we sold them when you were on our side and we gave you weapons. That's why -- because I was in that one and we thought we were -- I had to put on that chem warfare, everybody in the military know it was in pieces and you had to put on the head first and blow it out and then put on pants. All military people know what I just said. But we know what we sold them when they were working on our side and that's what we're up against, but this is different. HOSTIN: This is different. UNDERWOOD: They just put in their leader who is an extension of what they are. HAINES: He's actually worse. HOSTIN: So, there is no regime change. UNDERWOOD: I'm sorry, Whoopi. GOLDBERG: No, no, no. I said this a couple days ago at this table. You don't know who is coming in. UNDERWOOD: That’s right. [Crosstalk] NAVARRO: He thinks it's all going to be like Venezuela where he got the vice president -- that was a kleptocracy -- this is a theocracy. These people believe this stuff deeply. It's a completely different ball of wax. GOLDBERG: Listen. Basically we are sending people in to lose their lives. HOSTIN: Yes. GOLDBERG: Because we’ve seen how fighting goes. We knew we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. We knew that, and they decided to do it anyway. So, now we are in the same position where someone who doesn't seem to care that human beings are being sent to war, that people's sons and daughters. His kids are not going! UNDERWOOD: No. No. No. No. (…)