Comments on: Greg Mitchell http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/ Interviews of foreign policy experts, writers and activists. Sat, 26 May 2012 22:42:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Marina http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-430 Marina Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:54:48 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/#comment-430 I wasn't really satisfied with some of the answers to Scott's questions. I mean WHY is quality of mainstream media so appalling? Who is promoting these third-rate journalists/editorialists? There's more to it than just laziness on behalf of the reporters... I wasn’t really satisfied with some of the answers to Scott’s questions. I mean WHY is quality of mainstream media so appalling? Who is promoting these third-rate journalists/editorialists?
There’s more to it than just laziness on behalf of the reporters…

]]> By: Druthers http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-423 Druthers Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:41:49 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/#comment-423 A really interesting interview covering many diverse questions. Another and perhaps the most important question that was almost never discussed by the media was the "Preemptive War" policy. It is this policy that allows intervention anywhere, anytime for reasons real or fabricated and that can now be invoked by the executive at will. This policy, publicly announced, then put into action was hardly mentioned by the press; only the mismanagement of the invasion of Iraq seems worthy of interest. One can only cringe at the thought of what further extensions would have occurred if the delusional fantasies of Cheney & Co. had materialized. Congress has so renounced its prerogatives as to be non existent even in the face of an immensely unpopular president A really interesting interview covering many diverse questions.
Another and perhaps the most important question that was almost never discussed by the media was the “Preemptive War” policy. It is this policy that allows intervention anywhere, anytime for reasons real or fabricated and that can now be invoked by the executive at will. This policy, publicly announced, then put into action was hardly mentioned by the press; only the mismanagement of the invasion of Iraq seems worthy of interest. One can only cringe at the thought of what further extensions would have occurred if the delusional fantasies of Cheney & Co. had materialized.

Congress has so renounced its prerogatives as to be non existent even in the face of an immensely unpopular president

]]> By: Troy http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-422 Troy Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:02:27 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/#comment-422 I wouldn't doubt that there may be some special interests involved, but even more is that most in the MSM agree the premise that America should be a "World Leader" (military presence all over the world and constant intervention). If you look at the reaction to Ron Paul you can see that most MSM reporters were genuinely in shock, shock, over his platform of non-interventionism. They literally stumbled over themselves about it and could only equate it to isolationism, the reason they believe Hitler was able to gain power and, of course, history would repeat itself if we became isolationist again. I wouldn’t doubt that there may be some special interests involved, but even more is that most in the MSM agree the premise that America should be a “World Leader” (military presence all over the world and constant intervention). If you look at the reaction to Ron Paul you can see that most MSM reporters were genuinely in shock, shock, over his platform of non-interventionism. They literally stumbled over themselves about it and could only equate it to isolationism, the reason they believe Hitler was able to gain power and, of course, history would repeat itself if we became isolationist again.

]]> By: Jim http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-414 Jim Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:33:04 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/25/greg-mitchell-3/#comment-414 Discussion devoid of WHY media has acted the way they have. What forces or should I say lobbying groups(AIPAC?)/corporate interests (military contractors?) are behind the media's push for War. There are plenty examples of how they have behaved; but what's the root cause of this behavior? It can't just be that reporters are lazy. I don't buy that. There has to be forces behind the scenes controlling the message, right? Now, that type of analysis would be truly interesting. I'm guessing that not too many people would want to "go there" for fear of what they may find. Discussion devoid of WHY media has acted the way they have. What forces or should I say lobbying groups(AIPAC?)/corporate interests (military contractors?) are behind the media’s push for War. There are plenty examples of how they have behaved; but what’s the root cause of this behavior? It can’t just be that reporters are lazy. I don’t buy that. There has to be forces behind the scenes controlling the message, right? Now, that type of analysis would be truly interesting. I’m guessing that not too many people would want to “go there” for fear of what they may find.

]]>