I know that the press is generally completely ignorant on foreign policy issues, but the extent to which they are simply parroting partisan talking points and insisting they represent a consensus right now is genuinely shocking.
Like what convinced outlets that the whole “Trump doesn’t have Congressional authorization to take out the head of a designated terrorist group operating and planning attacks in a country where US troops are lawfully engaged” was a good point that should be uncritically repeated?
How do they present claims about us likely starting a war (the least likely outcome btw) without presenting the context of escalating Iranian attacks specifically led by Soleimani on our troops and allies over preceding months?
How do you cite statements insisting this was an error and suggesting that the priority should have been to avoid potential conflict at all costs from politicians like Warren without questioning what such a policy would mean and what those costs might be?
I get it. You don’t like or trust Trump, but not everything is about him as an individual. There are serious considerations here, but we (as a country) just took out one of the worst terrorists of the 21st century. That should be the headline.
