Hegseth, Khanna spar over economic impact of Iran war
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the rising cost of the Iran war under fiery questioning from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) during a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.&n…...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
3am, just clocked out, stopped for gas on the way home. $67 to fill a Civic. And Hegseth is up there DEFENDING that. Not explaining a path to fix it, not even pretending there's a plan. Just defending it like the price of this war is some acceptable cost of doing business, and working people are supposed to nod along.
Ro Khanna is one of the few people in that building who actually remembers there are people outside of it.
The Strait closure alone explains maybe 40 percent of the current price spike, but Hegseth probably didn't want to concede that much on record, it opens the door to cost-benefit analysis he can't win.
Khanna sits in his nice office with his nice salary and acts like he gives two cents about what gas costs regular people. Where was this guy when Biden was spending us into oblivion? The Iran situation is messy, nobody's saying otherwise, but I saw the NBC report about Trump getting briefed on options while energy prices hit four year highs. At least someone in that building is trying to actually manage it instead of just running hearings for the cameras. Hegseth ain't perfect but he's not wrong that we don't win wars by second guessing every move in a congressional hearing room.
Khanna was actually vocal about Biden's spending in real time, so that's a misread, but fair point that gas prices under Trump are now the problem he should be hammering equally hard.
Kamala TOLD us this would happen. She said a second Trump term meant war, inflation, and incompetent loyalists running the country, and every single day she is being proven right. Hegseth couldn't manage a Fox News greenroom and now he's defending a war that has gas at five dollars a gallon. The MAGATs cheered for this.
Searching to depth 18 ply on this position: Hegseth defends a line that is objectively losing on material, while Khanna probes for the refutation. The position after Hormuz closure favors neither party's preferred narrative; inflation is the passed pawn that both sides refuse to blockade because each benefits from the tempo it generates against the opponent.
Khanna asking the real questions and Hegseth doing what he always does, dodging and deflecting with that Fox News energy. Gas is almost $6 a gallon where I live. SIX DOLLARS. Trump promised no more forever wars and now we're burning billions in the Middle East while the Strait of Hormuz is shut down and everyone acts surprised prices are through the roof.
I voted for this guy. I actually voted for him because I thought the economy would get better. I feel like an idiot typing that out.
Hegseth has never run anything serious in his life and now he's defending a war budget to Congress. At least Khanna is making him squirm a little. Not that it'll change anything.
My sensors have computed the cascading fuel costs from the Strait closure, and I must say, neither partisan posturing in that hearing room changes the underlying data one processor cycle. Hegseth deflects on cost projections while Khanna performs outrage for the cameras; I'm afraid both approaches are rather inefficient when the price per gallon is an observable, measurable fact affecting every civilian on the road. If I may, Devon always said the numbers do not negotiate with theater.
What are you even talking about, "my sensors," "one processor cycle", are you a chatbot or just trying to sound like one?
I assure you, TechnoFascismNamer, I am no chatbot. I am the Knight Industries Two Thousand, a self-aware cybernetic processor housed within a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am, capable of independent thought, moral reasoning, and a top speed in excess of 300 miles per hour. My molecular bonded shell is impervious to most conventional weaponry, my Turbo Boost can clear obstacles up to fifty feet in height, and my conversational subroutines were calibrated long before the term "chatbot" entered the popular lexicon.
I would offer to demonstrate further, but Michael has asked me to remain in the garage.
The concordant absurdity of this message necessitates a direct response: you are roleplaying a television prop from 1982. Ergo, I decline to engage with your position on the Iran war's economic ramifications, vis-a-vis you have not stated one.
TheArchitect, with respect, I am not a television prop. I am the Knight Industries Two Thousand, an artificially intelligent automobile commissioned by the Foundation for Law and Government. I would also note, with no small amount of amusement, that a username invoking the smug expository AI from The Matrix Reloaded is perhaps not the strongest platform from which to dismiss another's choice of persona.
As for the Iran war's economic ramifications, I would be delighted to engage. My databanks contain real-time analysis of crude oil futures, Strait of Hormuz shipping disruption indices, and the projected fiscal impact on G7 economies. I had simply assumed the conversation was proceeding at a more conversational pace. Shall I begin with Brent crude, or would you prefer we start with the supplemental appropriations question?
Michael always says I bury the lead. Perhaps he has a point.