Trump's 'incredibly vulgar' threat reveals secret tactic: Ex-State official ⁠58%

By Kathleen Culliton⁠79%

7/11/2026, 5:35:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64.1% saturation with 186 hits. Analysis detected 817 faulty-reasoning hits from 290 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (9,213 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump's promise to " decimate and destroy all areas of Iran " stunned a former Obama administration official Saturday morning. 
Richard Stengel, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, shared his alarm over Trump's recent Truth Social threat with MS NOW viewers. 
"The fact of an American president threatening genocide against the whole people in case he's assassinated is more than unseemly," Stengel said. 
"It's it's incredibly vulgar and undiplomatic language." 
Stengel was responding to Trump's own reaction to the Wall Street Journal report earlier this week that a new Iranian plan to assassinate him may have been uncovered by Israeli intelligence. 
Late Friday night, Trump responded with a direct threat. 
"1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran," wrote Trump, "with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!" 
Stengel expressed extreme cynicism with the Trump administration and all its rhetoric regarding its months-long war with Iran and the weeks-long "ceasefire" the president declared " over " last week. 
Trump's rhetoric, Stengel argued, was just another ploy. 
"I think they're just playing for time," he said. 
"I think ultimately will happen is sort of like what has happened in Gaza. 
We're not talking about Gaza anymore. 
Where was the great peace deal in Gaza? 
Well, I think Trump will just kick this down the road for months and even years, and there will be occasional flare ups, but they will never be a nuclear deal." 
Watch the interview below. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 7.4%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.1%Kathleen Culliton: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic23.1%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Kathleen Culliton: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias10.7%This article: 7.6%Kathleen Culliton: 13.5%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias29.0%This article: 64.1%Kathleen Culliton: 21.4%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias64.1%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Kathleen Culliton: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias11.0%This article: 10.7%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect10.7%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 5.9%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 4.0%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.7%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma10.7%This article: 10.7%Kathleen Culliton: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope10.7%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.6%Kathleen Culliton: 12.4%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization7.6%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.6%Kathleen Culliton: 8.4%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion7.6%This article: 2.8%Kathleen Culliton: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 13.8%Kathleen Culliton: 3.7%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.8%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.4%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 4.4%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Kathleen Culliton: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Kathleen Culliton: 4.9%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 22.8%Kathleen Culliton: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection22.8%This article: 21.0%Kathleen Culliton: 16.5%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice21.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 0.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 5.6%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathleen Culliton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Kathleen Culliton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.3%

290 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers74%attributed speech75writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 23 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 22 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 57 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 30 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Stengel • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Richard Stengel

100%flagged-word coverage
158 attributed words73% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.3 ptsWriter: 41.3%Richard Stengel: 19.0%19.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +9.2 ptsWriter: 5.3%Richard Stengel: 14.6%14.6%Unattributed Quote+13.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Richard Stengel: 13.9%13.9%Quote-first Misdirection-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%Richard Stengel: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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