Truthout74%

Fetterman Casts Deciding Vote Against Resolution to Rein In Trump’s War on Iran 53%

By Sharon Zhang79%

7/23/2026, 8:59:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.7% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 487 faulty-reasoning hits from 513 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.6% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,433 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.30% of the article peer group.

Conservative Democrat Sen. 
John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) has cast the deciding vote to defeat yet another Senate war powers resolution aimed at reining in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, just hours after the House passed a provision to do so. 
The resolution, introduced by Sen. 
Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), failed to advance in a 47 to 49 vote on Thursday. 
The resolution would require the U.S. to withdraw from hostilities against Iran until the action was authorized by Congress. 
This is the 12th attempt in the Senate to pass such legislation. 
“The day after starting the Iran war, Trump said it would last ‘four to five weeks.’ 
It’s now been 146 days,” said Van Hollen. 
“Thousands of civilians have been killed. 
Prices are spiking again. 
We must end this war.” 
Fetterman, who has centered his brand around being vehemently pro-Israel, was the only Democrat to vote “no.” 
If he had voted “yes,” the vote would have ended in a tie. 
Last week, Fetterman said that he would leave the Democratic Party if it moved to “officially become the anti-Israel party.” 
“Democrats, we’ve always  should support Israel. 
That’s our special ally, you know?” 
he said. 
Israel, which has been pushing for war with Iran for decades, is currently sitting out as the U.S. continues bombing the country, with one Israeli government official saying that this arrangement is “best” for them. 
Meanwhile, one Republican, Sen. 
Susan Collins (R-Maine), broke with the party in voting to advance the resolution. 
Four other Republicans did not vote: Senators Katie Britt (Alabama), Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Ron Paul (Kentucky). 
During the ceasefire in June, Sen. 
Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Collins, Paul, and Murkowski all voted to advance a resolution to stop the war. 
This caused the Senate to pass the war powers legislation for the first time during the current war, in a 50 to 48 vote. 
However, the White House was livid over the vote. 
President Donald Trump berated the Republicans who voted for the legislation, calling them “losers” and singling out Cassidy as a “lunatic.” 
In a stunning reversal, the Senate then voted against the legislation the next day, sinking the measure 47 to 50. 
Cassidy, who had previously protested the lack of briefings to Congress on the war, flipped his vote after being chewed out by Trump. 
Paul switched his vote to “present,” saying that the “hostilities seem to be over.” 
Trump then thanked Paul and Cassidy for switching their votes in a post on Truth Social. 
Thursday’s vote came just hours after the House voted to pass its own war powers resolution, 214 to 208. 
The resolution garnered support from 210 Democrats and four Republicans. 
However, just the day before, the House also passed a bill with $73 billion in supplemental funding for the Pentagon that’s expected to go toward the war efforts. 
The legislation passed 216 to 214 in a largely party line vote, with two Republicans  Representatives Warren Davidson (Ohio) and Thomas Massie (Kentucky)  voting “no.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 7.6%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Sharon Zhang: 4.8%Truthout: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Sharon Zhang: 13.5%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.8%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias1.0%This article: 9.2%Sharon Zhang: 21.3%Truthout: 12.2%Negativity Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error4.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias1.2%This article: 6.8%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.8%This article: 3.3%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 1.0%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.7%Truthout: 1.2%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 1.9%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem4.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 5.3%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.5%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.8%Truthout: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 10.1%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.8%Sharon Zhang: 11.4%Truthout: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion7.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.7%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.5%Sharon Zhang: 2.9%Truthout: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.8%Sharon Zhang: 3.2%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.6%Sharon Zhang: 3.0%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote8.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.2%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.0%Sharon Zhang: 15.2%Truthout: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice9.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.9%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 8.6%Truthout: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.6%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

513 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers8.8%attributed speech468writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageChris Van Hollen • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
57%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words82% of attributed speech49% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.