The Erickson Report, Page 2: Iran lies and the media

The Erickson Report, Page 2: Iran lies and the media

So last time around, in listing some issues I thought were not getting enough attention from progressives, I included war spending and our wars around the world.

And immediately thereafter, the world blows up.

Or rather, it almost did. It may surprise you that I am not going to be spending a lot of time talking about Iran. That's largely because there is a fair amount of useful commentary going around and I prefer to spend my limited time on things not discussed so prominently.

I will say that I was struck - not surprised, but struck - by how robotically and mindlessly the mainstream media fell into the pattern of unquestioningly parroting government propaganda as if it were clearly established truth and how frequently the broadcast media resuscitated known liars and cheerleaders for the Iraq War and wheeled them out to discuss what was happening now.

As Dan Froomkin of PressWatchers.org said, "Lessons that should have been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now ... it’s abundantly evident that the lessons that should have been learned from Iraq haven’t been learned at all."

Want to know how obvious that is? In December, the WaPo published a six-part series on how the government - across three different administrations - has persistently lied for the entire (so-far) 18-year history of our war in Afghanistan.

Yet that same Washington Post, in reporting on Sec of State Mike Pompous's appearance on CNN on January 3, simply quoted without challenge his claims that Qassem Soleimani was killed to head off an “imminent threat,” that it "saved American lives,” and “Washington is committed to de-escalation” even as those claims were already crumbling: The night before, and so well before the Post reported on, his appearance, the Defense Department said the murder was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans” rather than at disrupting an "imminent" or for that matter even any identifiable threat.

Indeed, on "Face the Nation" on January 12, Defense Secretary Mark Esper was reduced to saying that he “believed” that there “probably, could have been attacks” that put Americans in the Middle East in danger, but he “didn’t see” specific intelligence indicating an imminent attack - which if there had been he damn well would have seen  it.

Meanwhile, on "Meet the Press" the same day, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien essentially admitted that Tweetie-pie's claims about attacks on four US embassies were simple bullshit, that His High Orangeness just "interpreted" some intelligence about Iran "wanting to inflict casualties" as somehow meaning that there was an active plan to attack embassies.

And the lies continue to crumble: On January 13, the Tweeter-in-Chief coughed up a regurgitation of the "imminent threat" line but then added "it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!" exclamation point. The same day it developed that seven months ago he signed off on killing Soleimani in the event any American was killed by any force the administration considers to be an Iranian "proxy." Now we only need the final touch of just dropping references to "imminent" altogether in favor of the all-purpose "bad dude" defense to complete the process.

So let's sum up:

We have an assassination of questionable legality based on an "imminent threat" which apparently did not exist based on intelligence which produced what GOPper Sen. Mike Lee called "probably the worst briefing I’ve seen on a military issue," a briefing during which Pompeo and Esper "couldn't even agree" on what the administration's policy goals regarding Iran are, all of which lead to the brink of outright war in the Middle East which we avoided - for now, I emphasize, because the war hawks are still in flight - a war we avoided only because Iran chose restraint even as the US used it as an excuse to send more troops to the region and increase sanctions on Iran.

And I haven't even touched on the possible fallout for Iraq, nor have I mentioned Tweetie-pie's claim - one I will, I promise, give more attention to in the near future - that the US is now building hypersonic missiles, potentially sparking a new arms race.

But for now I'm going to end here with three footnotes:

Footnote 1: Do you want to know just how insane the killing of Soleimani was? Benjamin Netanyahu sought to distance Israel from it. He told a Cabinet meeting that “The assassination of Soleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it.” Hey, if even Bibi isn't on board with this you really should have re-thought it.

Like a crumbling brick wall the lies keep collapsing

Footnote 2: On January 8, a regularly-scheduled Ukranian airliner crashed shortly after leaving Tehran airport, killing all 176 on board. Suspicion immediately arose that it had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile. Iran initially denied it but just two days later admitted responsibility and President Hassan Rouhani said Iran "deeply regrets this disastrous mistake" while offering "thoughts and prayers" and "my sincerest condolences" to the families and promising an investigation to be overseen by a "special court" open to the world. We'll see.

Continuing with the footnote, on July 3, 1988, a regularly scheduled Iran Air flight from Iran to Dubai was shot down over the Persian Gulf by a surface-to-air missile from the US cruiser Vincennes, killing all 290 aboard. After an internal investigation, the Navy exonerated the crew. Eight years after the "terrible tragedy," the US reached a settlement with Iran in the International Court of Justice. The US has never formally apologized.

Footnote 3: One positive development which likely won't make a great deal of difference but still is positive just on base principles is that the House has actually passed a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Act directing Tweetie-pie "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military" unless Congress has declared war or provided specific authorization.

The reasons it likely won't matter are one that it's chances in the Senate are really iffy: Two GOPpers, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, have said they will support the Senate version of the resolution, but with 47 Senate Democrats (including two independents), even if they all vote yea, it'll take at least two more GOPpers to pass it. With people like Joe Manchin around, that still may not be enough.

The other reason is that the last time there was serious talk of invoking the Act was during the bombing of Libya nearly nine years ago - at which time, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a classified briefing that if Congress did try to exercise its authority under the Act, the White House would simply ignore it. I can't imagine the response would be any different now and it's doubtful Congress has the guts to enforce its decision by cutting off funding and so quote abandoning our men and women in the field unquote.