Mediaite71%

Senator Grills Hegseth on Wildly Different Statements on Iran, Says They ‘Don’t Add Up’ 87%

By Zachary Leeman74%

7/21/2026, 11:43:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Post Hoc (False Cause), and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.4% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 1,091 faulty-reasoning hits from 586 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,762 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.00% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) got into a heated exchange with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as she grilled him during a hearing on past statements on Iran she said just “don’t add up.” 
During a Tuesday Senate hearing , Gillibrand confronted Hegseth with past statements from him and the administration on the Iran war that she called contradictory, leading to confusion among the public about the actual status of the conflict. 
The reason why they are so upset with you and this administration is because the words you have used in the past don’t add up about Iran specifically. 
You said that we had obliterated, quote, unquote, Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. 
The president made the same claim, yet eight months later in February of 2026, the president launched an active war claiming Iran was within two weeks of having a weapon. 
So when you say two very different things, the American people don’t know who to believe or what to believe. 
They just know they can’t afford their healthcare, they can’t afford their food, they can’t get affordable housing, and our farmers are continuing to suffer. 
So, which is true, was it obliterated or wasn’t it? 
What’s the status? 
Hegseth said Iran’s nuclear sites were destroyed in Operation Midnight Hammer last year, but the regime continued attempting to procure “nuclear capabilities.” 
The secretary accused Gillibrand of trying to make “campaign commercials” with her time. 
“The nuclear sites under Midnight Hammer were obliterated, but Iranians foolishly continued to attempt to pursue nuclear capabilities, which is why we destroyed their defense industrial base and so many of the other capabilities to ensure they can’t get to a nuclear weapon. 
So we’re staying laser focused on the objective and you’re trying to make campaign commercials,” Hegseth said. 
Gillibrand answered by pulling out another quote from Hegseth on the war. 
No, we’re not. 
So listen to this. 
You also say that you made the missile program, quote, destroyed and made combat ineffective, quote, Iran’s entire ballistic missile production capacity, every company that builds every component of those missiles has been functionally defeated and destroyed, and that the missile program, existing stockpiles were depleted and decimated, almost completely ineffective. 
So why are there missiles left to hit Jordan and result in the loss of life of our brave men and women? 
Hegseth said Iran is using “underground facilities” where they have stored missiles. 
“The Iranian defense industrial base is effectively gone, but they do have underground facilities because they’re the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and they’ve spent 47 years trying to hide their missiles under mountains, just like their nuclear capabilities, because they would like to get a nuclear weapon,” he said. 
Gillibrand moved on from the war after telling Hegseth Americans don’t know “which version” of the war to believe. 
“We just don’t know what version of the war to believe because it’s either over or it’s not over. 
It’s within two weeks or it is not two weeks,” she said. 
“We have no missiles or we have missiles. 
And that consternation is why so many New Yorkers are perplexed, stressed out, and find this war to be incredibly unpopular because they don’t understand the choices that the president’s making. 
They don’t agree with those choices.” 
Watch above via CSPAN . 
The post Senator Grills Hegseth on Wildly Different Statements on Iran, Says They ‘Don’t Add Up’ first appeared on Mediaite . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.8%Zachary Leeman: 8.2%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.1%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Zachary Leeman: 4.3%Mediaite: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.2%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.8%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.1%Zachary Leeman: 1.1%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Zachary Leeman: 7.0%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 4.3%Zachary Leeman: 1.0%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.3%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.4%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Zachary Leeman: 1.3%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias5.3%This article: 18.4%Zachary Leeman: 17.8%Mediaite: 14.6%Negativity Bias18.4%This article: 7.3%Zachary Leeman: 2.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 3.7%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.2%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 2.0%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Zachary Leeman: 2.9%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias8.7%This article: 3.6%Zachary Leeman: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Zachary Leeman: 3.8%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem5.1%This article: 8.7%Zachary Leeman: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man8.7%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 4.8%Mediaite: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 11.8%Zachary Leeman: 3.5%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma11.8%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.6%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.3%Zachary Leeman: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning7.3%This article: 5.3%Zachary Leeman: 10.1%Mediaite: 7.5%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.7%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.1%Mediaite: 0.8%Bandwagon1.0%This article: 13.3%Zachary Leeman: 8.5%Mediaite: 6.7%Appeal to Emotion13.3%This article: 1.7%Zachary Leeman: 2.5%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 15.4%Zachary Leeman: 4.2%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.4%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.5%Zachary Leeman: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.5%This article: 8.7%Zachary Leeman: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature8.7%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 3.8%Mediaite: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.9%Zachary Leeman: 2.6%Mediaite: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.9%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.0%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.1%Zachary Leeman: 5.6%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote11.1%This article: 2.4%Zachary Leeman: 3.8%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 2.4%Zachary Leeman: 8.3%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice2.4%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 2.7%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Leeman: 1.1%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

586 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers69%attributed speech182writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 3 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 13 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 43 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 4 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 51 words • 100.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 31 words • 0.0% coverageKirsten Gillibrand • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kirsten Gillibrand

97%flagged-word coverage
246 attributed words61% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+13.0 ptsWriter: 7.7%Kirsten Gillibrand: 20.7%20.7%Quote-first Misdirection-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Kirsten Gillibrand: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Kirsten Gillibrand: 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.