The answer in both cases is - obviously - yes.
Nobody loves US militarism and violence more than US journalists. It’s what gets their blood pumping. They demand people be killed. They’re bloodthirsty. Just look at this justification:
Nobody loves US militarism and violence more than US journalists. It’s what gets their blood pumping. They demand people be killed. They’re bloodthirsty. Just look at this justification:
The US invaded Iraq in 2003 - 17 years ago.
It’s been bombing and occupying that foreign country since then.
But US journalists complain about “Iranian interference” there - because the prevailing orthodox of the US media is that the US owns the world. It’s our Iraq.
It’s been bombing and occupying that foreign country since then.
But US journalists complain about “Iranian interference” there - because the prevailing orthodox of the US media is that the US owns the world. It’s our Iraq.
If Iran invaded, occupied and bombed Mexico for 17 years, with tens of thousands of troops near Texas, do you think the US would react?
Do you think the US might try to act against Iranian influence in Mexico? Maybe the US would try to “influence” and “interfere” there?
Do you think the US might try to act against Iranian influence in Mexico? Maybe the US would try to “influence” and “interfere” there?
Maybe this model of an omnipotent president - enthusiastically built and ratified by both parties over the last several decades - is bad and dangerous. washingtonpost.com/posteverything…
Here’s Tucker Carlson — whether you like it or not — offering some of the most vehement & unflinching denunciations of Trump’s assassination attack on Iran of anyone in the media: the kind of #Resistance which Dem outlets largely failed to offer for Obama
