President Trump’s repeated use of a self-imposed “two-week deadline” for making decisions, specifically regarding Iran and previously regarding Russia-Ukraine, has raised concerns about his commitment to these timelines. This pattern, highlighted by CNN, shows multiple instances where the deadline passed without any announced action. His press secretary attributed the recurring two-week timeframe to a pursuit of diplomatic solutions, citing past negotiations as evidence. However, critics point to a lack of concrete results following these self-imposed deadlines.
Read More
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended President Trump’s two-week deadline for deciding on potential action against Iran, despite his history of setting similar deadlines and failing to meet them. Leavitt attributed past missed deadlines to Trump’s pursuit of diplomatic solutions, citing past negotiations between Russia and Ukraine as an example. However, a reporter highlighted Trump’s repeated use of this tactic, referencing instances related to the Ukraine conflict and the resulting skepticism surrounding this latest deadline. Leavitt countered criticism by blaming the Biden administration for the current global conflicts.
Read More
Trump’s announcement that a decision on Iran will be made within the next two weeks has sparked a wave of skepticism and cynicism. The consistent use of a “two-week” timeframe for significant decisions, a pattern stretching back years, has led many to believe this is merely another instance of delay and posturing. The general sentiment is that this timeline is not a genuine indication of impending action, but rather a tactic to deflect attention or buy time.
The recurring “two weeks” promise has become a running joke, frequently associated with unfulfilled pledges across various policy areas. From healthcare plans to tax returns, and even peace deals in the Middle East, the timeframe has become synonymous with inaction and broken promises.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood