I'm a fan of your show but have never gotten in touch before. I'm sure you're all following the Iran situation. A few thoughts have come to me, inspired by listening to your show:
- The Times, the Post, and NPR are all repeating the Trump administration's claim that Soleimani was planning an attack on the U.S. While there's no way for the media to know for sure whether this is true--it could be--none of the media outlets are even raising the possibility that this claim might be a lie. They're not voicing any scepticism. Given the Gulf of Tonkin affair, the Bush administration's lies that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs, and the revelations of the Afghanistan Papers, how can any self-respecting editorial board not at least raise the possibility that the administration is lying in order to rally the public around the flag with a war prior to an election, and to deflect attention away from impeachment? It seems that even "liberal" media outlets are willing to set aside their differences with the Trump administration when it comes to propping up American imperialism and the military-industrial complex. No surprise to listeners of your show.
- Let's assume for a moment that an attack on the U.S. was planned by Iran and that the U.S. action was preemptive. I remember the debate during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The debate was over whether a preemptive strike is acceptable, ethical, or rational. The debate has changed greatly since then: That a preemptive strike is warranted is no longer a matter of debate. Again, none of the editorial sections of the major news outlets are debating whether a preemptive strike is acceptable. I see this change as another step down the road--which we have been on since the end of the Second World War--towards brainwashing the public into accepting permanent war.
Keep up your important work on the air!
Best,
Steve
Beacon, NY
- The Times, the Post, and NPR are all repeating the Trump administration's claim that Soleimani was planning an attack on the U.S. While there's no way for the media to know for sure whether this is true--it could be--none of the media outlets are even raising the possibility that this claim might be a lie. They're not voicing any scepticism. Given the Gulf of Tonkin affair, the Bush administration's lies that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs, and the revelations of the Afghanistan Papers, how can any self-respecting editorial board not at least raise the possibility that the administration is lying in order to rally the public around the flag with a war prior to an election, and to deflect attention away from impeachment? It seems that even "liberal" media outlets are willing to set aside their differences with the Trump administration when it comes to propping up American imperialism and the military-industrial complex. No surprise to listeners of your show.
- Let's assume for a moment that an attack on the U.S. was planned by Iran and that the U.S. action was preemptive. I remember the debate during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The debate was over whether a preemptive strike is acceptable, ethical, or rational. The debate has changed greatly since then: That a preemptive strike is warranted is no longer a matter of debate. Again, none of the editorial sections of the major news outlets are debating whether a preemptive strike is acceptable. I see this change as another step down the road--which we have been on since the end of the Second World War--towards brainwashing the public into accepting permanent war.
Keep up your important work on the air!
Best,
Steve
Beacon, NY
