Erdogan’s Turkey is no place for the F-35 65%

By Washington Examiner0%

6/28/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 52% saturation with 357 hits. Analysis detected 2,067 faulty-reasoning hits from 687 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.8% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,206 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.90% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump would be justified in striking a $700 million deal to sell jet aircraft engines to the Turkish air force. 
But he would make a serious strategic error if he sold F-35 stealth fighter jets to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government. 
Asked Wednesday about the possibility of doing so, Trump said Erdogan “really is a strong member of NATO. 
Yeah, I’m going to probably do something that’s going to make him very happy.” 
This is not to say Erdogan deserves the disdain demanded by some. 
Turkey is a NATO ally. 
The United States should listen to requests from its allies, even the more problematic ones. 
Selling Turkey jet engines so it can operate its indigenous Kaan fighter jets would be prudent. 
It would show that the U.S. values its military-to-military relationship with Turkey and sees allies as real partners. 
It would also encourage Erdogan to support rather than complicate NATO collaboration and stability in the eastern Mediterranean. 
Turkey’s fierce rivals, Israel and Greece, would oppose the jet engine sale. 
But their own possession of F-35s in Israel’s case and pending possession in Greece’s would ensure their continued air warfare advantage over Turkey. 
This is important because Erdogan is malignant toward Israel, a much more important ally of the U.S.; has ambitions to displace Iran as the regional bully; and continues testing for Greek weakness in territorial tensions. 
America’s willingness to listen should not translate into concessions. 
Erdogan is a paranoid authoritarian. 
He has transformed a once-dynamic democracy and economic powerhouse into a struggling fiefdom of Islamist authoritarianism. 
He has had his main political rivals indicted on trumped-up charges. 
He has unashamedly trampled on free speech while boosting cronyism and corruption. 
He has also treated the U.S. as an ally of convenience rather than a key partner due mutual respect. 
Erdogan proved his scorn for America and its values when, during a May 2017 visit to Washington, he ordered his bodyguards to attack peaceful protesters outside the Turkish Embassy. 
He has used U.S. citizens, such as Pastor Andrew Brunson, as political hostages, retreating only in the face of sanctions during the first Trump administration. 
Most relevant to F-35 concerns, Erdogan betrayed the U.S. and Turkey’s other NATO allies when he bought Russia’s S-400 air defense system in late 2017. 
That deal made Turkey’s additional purchase of F-35s utterly untenable. 
The U.S. and allied militaries rightly fear that if Turkey operates the S-400 alongside F-35s, Russia would gain access to valuable intelligence on the F-35’s electronic and radar signatures. 
Russia could use that knowledge, or share it with China, Iran, or North Korea, to enable more effective targeting of F-35s in a future war. 
Trump would thus make a grievous error if he allowed Turkey to buy the F-35 without first relinquishing the S-400. 
Trump should care less about Erdogan’s diplomatic friendship than he does about the lives of American aircrews and the viability of American war plans. 
Selling turkey F-35s would also signal personal weakness in the president, reflecting deferential submission to a foreign leader after years of disagreement. 
Greece, Israel, and Turkey’s other neighbors would fear that Erdogan might use his new fifth-generation jets against them the moment Trump left office or Turkish-American relations soured. 
Vice President JD Vance noted Wednesday that the Pentagon is working through the legal and bureaucratic challenges involved in selling F-35s to Turkey. 
Congress should not be an idle witness to these deliberations. 
There is concern on Capitol Hill, reflected in legislation to prevent any F-35 sales to Turkey as long as Ankara retains the S-400 system. 
The chairmen of the House and Senate armed services committees, Rep. 
Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Sen. 
Roger Wicker (R-MS), should make clear to Trump that they will resist any move incompatible with American security. 
They will find bipartisan support in doing so. 
Because that is what an unqualified sale of the F-35 to Turkey would entail: jeopardy to American security. 
It would mean putting the patronage of an unpredictable, broadly anti-American ally before the security of America and its better allies. 
It would be intolerable. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Washington Examiner: 6.8%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic17.6%This article: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Washington Examiner: 8.6%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.3%This article: 3.6%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.5%This article: 5.8%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Optimism Bias5.8%This article: 10.6%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias10.6%This article: 52.0%Washington Examiner: 9.8%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias52.0%This article: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 11.1%Washington Examiner: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error11.1%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.1%This article: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 10.9%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Washington Examiner: 4.1%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Ad Hominem15.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.0%Washington Examiner: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority6.0%This article: 14.3%Washington Examiner: 3.0%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma14.3%This article: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope3.2%This article: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.6%This article: 8.0%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Washington Examiner: 9.1%Hasty Generalization8.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.8%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon4.8%This article: 9.8%Washington Examiner: 5.2%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 5.5%Washington Examiner: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question5.5%This article: 14.1%Washington Examiner: 5.4%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.1%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.3%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.9%Washington Examiner: 2.9%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.7%This article: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 3.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.9%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 40.9%Washington Examiner: 20.6%Washington Examiner: 11.8%Biased Writer Voice40.9%This article: 11.1%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination11.1%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 9.7%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.2%

687 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers8.0%attributed speech632writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words58% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+56.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 56.3%56.3%Biased Writer Voice-44.5 ptsWriter: 44.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Donald Trump: 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.