Tucker Has Completely Lost It: "I would share condolences with Bin Laden's family"  | WATCH

Then there’s Carlson’s jaw-dropping claim about Osama bin Laden’s family. Offering condolences to the kin of the man who orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 isn’t “human decency,” it’s a grotesque caricature of compassion. Bin Laden’s family, particularly those who shared his ideology or benefited from his legacy, aren’t deserving of sympathy simply because they share his bloodline. Carlson’s attempt to equate this with offering condolences to the family of an executed criminal is a false analogy that collapses under scrutiny. A common murderer doesn’t plot global jihad; their family isn’t complicit in a worldwide terror network. To extend “decency” to bin Laden’s clan while condemning those who applaud Hezbollah’s defeat is to invert morality into a perverse game of contrarian posturing.

He also said that he's not even sure Hamas is a terrorist organization, but that it seems more like a political organization. This is so insane it doesn't even need to be debunked.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was absolutely horrified. He posted on X “Now, @TuckerCarlson doesn’t know if Hamas is a terrorist organization. (‘Elmo is just asking questions….’) What the hell happened to Tucker?? He’s turning into Ilhan Omar.”

In a similar vein (as reported by JewishBreakingNews), "Mark Levin, who once worked with Carlson at Fox News, took to calling his former colleague “Qatarlson” and posted: “Qatarlson doesn’t know if Hamas is a terrorist group.”"

Has Carlson been bought by Qatar, as some MAGA critics have speculated? The accusation, while juicy, lacks hard evidence. Qatar, a known backer of various Islamist movements, might find Carlson’s rhetoric convenient, but there’s no smoking gun proving he’s on their payroll. Still, his alignment with narratives that echo Qatar-funded Al Jazeera’s framing, soft-pedaling Hamas, questioning Israel’s right to self-defense, raises eyebrows. His recent interviews with Gulf state figures like Qatar’s Prime Minister and Saudi royalty suggest he’s cozying up to players who benefit from a weakened U.S.-Israel alliance. Whether it’s cash or just ideological drift, Carlson’s pivot reeks of opportunism at best, and downright terror loving at the worst.

What’s most galling is Carlson’s sanctimonious tone. He cloaks his absurdities in the language of morality, as if those who disagree are bloodthirsty heathens. This from a man who built his career railing against elite hypocrisy, now preaching a sermon of selective empathy that spares terrorists’ families while condemning a nation fighting for survival. His claim that celebrating the pager attack lacks any basis ignores the obvious: it saved lives by crippling a terror network. His moral compass (if he even has one anymore) seems to spin wildly, pointing toward provocation rather than truth.

Carlson’s descent into this rhetorical quagmire isn’t just a personal failing; it’s a betrayal of the clarity conservatism demands. By equating the defense of civilization with immorality and extending olive branches to the relatives of mass murderers, he’s not just lost the plot, he’s rewriting it as a tragedy. If he’s not bought by Qatar, he’s certainly bought into a worldview that’s dangerously unmoored from reality. Shame on him for dragging his audience along for the ride.