Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Great points, both in the culpability of almost all media outlets and of Fox's ongoing avoidance of those questions. In many ways I think they're using the threat of Iran as a distracting talking point as a way of avoiding asking those questions.
But I think that the difference between what went on before Iraq and what's going on right now is that right now it tends to be just Fox: you don't hear the same imflammatory rhetoric on other networks for the most part (at least not on CNN); experts are brought in on either side of the debate, which is decidedly different than before Iraq. Iran is a red-herring. Their threat to the US is marginal, and the likelihood of the US escalating the situation to a war isn`t that great, either. You hear some strong rhetoric from government mouthpieces, but at the same time, the government has quietly opened up discussions with Iran for the first time in ages.
|
I totally agree. Iraq was a much weaker country when the U.S. invaded--a war with Iran would be counterproductive, and frankly, given how stretched the U.S. military is, doomed to failure.
One of the ironic effects of Bush exerting U.S. power abroad has been to reveal what the limits of U.S. power are. If anything has "emboldened our enemies," it's that.