On Tuesday, in what it labeled an “exclusive,” CNN reported that initial intelligence assessments of the Iran bombing suggested Iran had been set back a couple of months in its quest for a nuclear weapon.
(1) Doing a post-mortem on the bombing raid will provide important information -- not only about how well the plans worked, but by assessing how far back we set the Iranian nuke program. You don't expect the Iranians will simply set aside its nuclear ambitions because of this, do you? The Persians' view isn't constricted by years or decades. They think centuries into the future, and retaliation is a core part of their culture.
(2) JCPOA (2015) was supposed to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. We see where that went. Why would you expect Iran to stick to any peace deal? They have their eyes on the end-game -- an apocalyptic showdown to unleash the Mahdi -- and their religious tenets not only allow but encourage prevarication, especially when it is practiced on their perceived enemies.
My solution is the same as Israel's: We need to insure that Iran's nuclear capabilities are obliterated, not merely set back a few months or years; and regime change.
I have two friends who are Iranian immigrants. One fled shortly before the Shah was deposed. (His father was the Shah's Minster of Education.) The second is gay and Jewish and snuck out of the country as a 16-year old on a stolen passport with the help of a Vienna-based Jewish group. He was unable to reunite with his family for 8 years. His stories of life under the first ayatollah are harrowing. He applauds the bombing last week louder than anyone I know.
I believe we are finding out that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been obliterated, but the Left hopes not. This is why the Iranian leaders agreed to take about peace.
Regarding "regime change," that would be nice, but no one knows if a better group would take over. It could even be worse. It's up to the Iranian people.
I trust President Trump to insure that the Shias can no longer harm Israel.
I can see Lisa’s point, but that risk dragging us into another endless war.
Like you, I’m trusting our President to do what he can to secure a peace in the Middle East and closely monitor the situation, and if necessary take corrective action as the situation requires.
If Trump is able to pull this off, he deserves the Nobel Peace prize better than anyone else right now. He should have gotten one for the Abraham Accords, but Theodore Roosevelt is the only Republican to win a Nobel Peace Prize (1906).
That sounds absolutely nutty to me Bob P. That is not the world that I live in. I am in front of the public everyday. What kind of "jeopardy" dost thou speak? No it is not: it is what it is. You sound like MIchelle. Look what an unhappy messed up soul. I am leaving for Ireland in the morning. Maybe I shall find sanity there. Meanwhile my wonderful neighbors will be guarding my home with 21 guns and booby traps for anyone who walks on my property in my absence. Sheeesh.
Erick, your incessant whining about mainstream media sources is rather unbecoming. Why do we need to know that a certain reporter rushed out an "exclusive" to the effect that intelligence officials had signed a letter casting doubts on stories regarding Hunter Biden's laptop? If in fact they had just signed such a letter, what was she supposed to do? And why do you paint the mainstream press as orchestrating a cover-up of Biden's alleged cognitive decline when their being taken in by Biden's staff, right along with the rest of us, is just as plausible an explanation?
Other conservatives in media may need to discredit alternative sources, lest the foolishness of that conservative's perspective be exposed. Your analysis is generally sound and well reasoned enough that you don't need to do that.
As for the substance of this post regarding the destruction of Iran's nuclear program, anybody who says they know one way or the other, doesn't. And that includes Trump. Nor, in my opinion, does it necessarily matter. Once you have hit someone in the mouth, he thinks twice about doing again whatever caused you do that. So the strikes were a good thing either way. If we have to, we hit Iran in the mouth again, and then yet again until they get tired of getting hit in the mouth.
A big difference is the main stream media folks don't go deep with questions when it seems to be an issue they favor. Laptop? Few questions. Intelligence folks and "the letter"? Few questions. Biden? Few questions. With Trump they'll deep dive until they are blue in the face.
What I want is a press that doesn't take a side, but investigates hard.
Investigative reporters go on sabbatical when a D is in office.
You make some excellent points, Erick. The media should be reporting on the incredible achievement of our military. This morning, the WSJ has the Institute for Science and International Security report. Definitely worth a read if you are a subscriber.
I will believe whatever the IAEA is able to discover. Praying that the ceasefire continues, and that Trump is able to get Iran to agree to unannounced nuclear inspections.
Many are stating here that the report(er) has no credibility, yet when I listen to the left leaning XM channel every talk show analyses this to the n-th degree. Imagine if they did the same with the Hunter laptops??
I know, that doesn't mean there is credibility, but it gives all those talking heads an excuse to do this.
I am curious about those images of all the trucks lined up at one of the sites. Was the fake? Was it an old pic? What?
The legacy media does not want to change. I support this space, but other than that, I have no idea on how to get them to be less biased. They are counting on people not remembering how they have lied to us.
I read some of the Fox News criticism in the thread today but I hold out that Bret Baier and Shannon Bream are straight shooters. Fox is far better than ABC et al, but expecting pure un-biased reporting is probably unattainable. MSNBC’s business model is selling blue-dyed, red meat to leftists, and CBS, NBC, and the rest of legacy media aren’t much better.
Everyone knows Trump uses inflated language when he speaks. That’s a feature and it’s unlikely to change. It’s possible to frame questions to him in a manner that’s not disrespectful, while trying to winnow out truth. The leftist writers/reporters could try harder to hide their obvious disdain for everything Trump ever says…but they can’t. I think the only way they’ll ever change is by this administration continuing to win, and win more, and crush them with good news, until the country is fully tired of their entitled, leftist, bilge, where they can never acknowledge a win for our country, brought by a Trump Administration decision.
Hearst created “Yellow Journalism” at the end of the 19th Century. We need a new term for it to define left wing lies about anything positive a Republican has done. Not sure of a catchy name, but BS Artist, Liberal Liars or Democrat Dupes is a start.
When the initial report came out I could sense the joy from Trump and American haters - from the journalists to individuals commenting on social media. Now they won’t believe this new report that shows the bombing was effective, but the same sickos also believe Hitler was right (Owens) Putin is a good man (Carlson) and men can have babies (any western lib). The thing about truth is it’s black and white, and the truth always wins in the end. Thank the good Lord, Kamala is not the President.
Love the Wile E. Coyote reference. Been using it for years in reference to the Democrats’ attempts to get Road Runner (Trump). Keep using it. Highlights Trump’s oppositions utter incompetence.
The media, with their TDS in full display seem to be in a race to discredit themselves even more. CNN, caught reporting only a portion of the intell is defending it's actions. It's as if the reporters at CNN are trying to destroy what little credibility they have left. Truly a race to the bottom with CNN currently in the lead on the way down.
How is this lady able to walk a street in the USA without being at least trashed by people telling her what a scum bag she is. Or even sucker punching her just. crazy she is not fired or eliminated from the media job
The problem is there is no credibility here. Bertrand has no credibility, but neither does Trump who clearly pulled his "obliterated" assessment out of his rectum. Because reporting on the damage has now turned into a referendum on Trump, none of it can be fully trusted. Everyone in the admin now needs to repeat the obliterated message (this has echoes of rigged election). Even Israel who is grateful for US assistance may have to take into account Trump's desired messaging when reporting on the damage. The simple answer is we don't yet fully know.
The context about Bertrand and CNN is fair, but I don't recall seeing the same context about Fox News whenever they report anything. A simple paragraph to be used whenever mentioning fox news would suffice - i.e. Fox news was led for decades by pedophile sexual predator and not surprisingly fostered a culture of sexual harassment and assault while pretending to care about family values on air. Fox News "talent" constantly railed against the Covid vaccine with bizzare theories in spite of all having been up to date with their does per company policy and lastly, but most importantly - Fox News was also proven to repeatedly lie and mislead it's audience in the discovery evidence of the dominion lawsuit suggesting they tell you what you want to hear vs. the truth because they don't want you to turn the channel to Newsmax. In short, Fox news's business model relies extensively on propaganda that tickles your ears.
When everything is a superlative, it becomes discrediting. It's fair to question Trump's assessment because after all, EVERYTHING with him is the greatest, the most beautiful, the biggest, the best, etc. What I don't agree with is how it was done. Bertrand's piece is intentionally divisive and now is simply not the time for that. Report it? Yes, but do so in a way that leaves the door open for updated intel and doesn't discredit the NATION (leave your feelings on the president out of it, please).
Fox News is mostly right wing leaning commentary - it is what it is. However, Brett Baier is one of the best in the business and seems to be pretty black and white. He is not afraid to ask Trump or any Republican hard questions. His news hour also features leftwing commentators for balance.
He may be fair, but I am sure he is aware of what his corporate overlords deem is good or bad for business and that has to influence his reporting.
Also, once your employer is proven to be a lying propagandist organization you have a choice to stay or leave. If I was a reporter and if I had integrity, I would leave once that information came to light. Now in my case neither of those are true, but in Brett / anyone else's case at Fox one of them now can't be true. I get that options in MSM are limited, but by deciding to continue to work for a propagandist organization once it is well established some of the shine has to come off the apple.
I am not saying that the rest of MSM is not biased. I am saying that we only have extensive evidence of one network knowingly participating in a months long disinformation campaign to preserve their profits. And yet although everyone on here can recognize the bias and corruption of the other networks, they still view Fox as somehow trustworthy.
Erick keeps promoting Newsnation as a more straight news organization and he may be correct. I have never watched it so can't comment.
What Blair said. And also, Trump seems incapable of ever starting a sentence with a qualifying "I hope," "I wish," or "I think," as any normal person would do. Rather, everything has to be completely definitive, and unquestioned by all on his staff and the press, even if not verifiable or even provably false -- "The election was stolen," "My inauguration was the largest in history," "I never met Jean Carroll," and now "The site was totally obliterated." For this reason, the real press (not FOX) has learned that Trump is the used car salesman of presidents, who is overselling in each and every utterance, and that it therefore must verify everything he says before presenting it as fact or truth.
They received an early report from a government source. Of course they were going to run with it. That's what's called a scoop in the news business. You are simply assuming that they released it to only to contradict Trump. But actually, it was not the news media that contradicted Trump, it was the report that contradicted Trump. Perhaps Trump is a bit overly sensitive about being contradicted, you think?
I'm saying that if they must verify everything Trump promotes then maybe do the same for things for things that contradict him, especially with matters so dire. And yes, I did assume that, rightfully or not. And yes, he is a bit sensitive to being contradicted. It's quite the love/hate relationship they have.
Well, usually a report from a government agency would be considered verification. I think CNN only reported what was stated in the report, and as more information came in, they updated their story. I think Erick went a bit overly ballistic on this one. Just think if an intern at Walter Reed had given FOX a report that showed Biden tested positive for dementia. Would they have held the story waiting for verification from a senior MD?
Ah, but an equal problem is that the press has proven time and again how incapable they are of objectively and factually presenting “the truth”. Plenty of reason to be skeptical of the entire cast of characters in this reality TV show we are subjected to daily…
Rather than arguing about the efficacy of our bombing run, we should be brokering a permanent peace deal between Iran and Israel.
Couldn't disagree more.
(1) Doing a post-mortem on the bombing raid will provide important information -- not only about how well the plans worked, but by assessing how far back we set the Iranian nuke program. You don't expect the Iranians will simply set aside its nuclear ambitions because of this, do you? The Persians' view isn't constricted by years or decades. They think centuries into the future, and retaliation is a core part of their culture.
(2) JCPOA (2015) was supposed to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. We see where that went. Why would you expect Iran to stick to any peace deal? They have their eyes on the end-game -- an apocalyptic showdown to unleash the Mahdi -- and their religious tenets not only allow but encourage prevarication, especially when it is practiced on their perceived enemies.
So, what's YOUR solution, Lisa? You seem to have an apocalyptical view of that situation.
My solution is the same as Israel's: We need to insure that Iran's nuclear capabilities are obliterated, not merely set back a few months or years; and regime change.
I have two friends who are Iranian immigrants. One fled shortly before the Shah was deposed. (His father was the Shah's Minster of Education.) The second is gay and Jewish and snuck out of the country as a 16-year old on a stolen passport with the help of a Vienna-based Jewish group. He was unable to reunite with his family for 8 years. His stories of life under the first ayatollah are harrowing. He applauds the bombing last week louder than anyone I know.
I believe we are finding out that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been obliterated, but the Left hopes not. This is why the Iranian leaders agreed to take about peace.
Regarding "regime change," that would be nice, but no one knows if a better group would take over. It could even be worse. It's up to the Iranian people.
I trust President Trump to insure that the Shias can no longer harm Israel.
I can see Lisa’s point, but that risk dragging us into another endless war.
Like you, I’m trusting our President to do what he can to secure a peace in the Middle East and closely monitor the situation, and if necessary take corrective action as the situation requires.
If Trump is able to pull this off, he deserves the Nobel Peace prize better than anyone else right now. He should have gotten one for the Abraham Accords, but Theodore Roosevelt is the only Republican to win a Nobel Peace Prize (1906).
I’m suspicious of all y’all who don’t use your real names. Credentials, Credibility. Who’s talking?
How do you know the 'real' names are real?
I look them up to see if they are real, or my minions and handlers look them up for me and verify their identity.
Yes ma’am, Erick Erickson, know’s who we are and collects our membership fees.
It’s a dangerous world we live in and it’s irresponsible to intentionally place yourself in jeopardy.
I’m sorry that it bothers you, but it is what it is. That is my thoughts on your post.
Have a good evening.
That sounds absolutely nutty to me Bob P. That is not the world that I live in. I am in front of the public everyday. What kind of "jeopardy" dost thou speak? No it is not: it is what it is. You sound like MIchelle. Look what an unhappy messed up soul. I am leaving for Ireland in the morning. Maybe I shall find sanity there. Meanwhile my wonderful neighbors will be guarding my home with 21 guns and booby traps for anyone who walks on my property in my absence. Sheeesh.
I don’t know Michelle, but my wife tells me that I’m messed up on a regular basis, nothing new there.
I hope that you have a safe trip and find what you’re looking for.
Peace to you and yours.
Erick, your incessant whining about mainstream media sources is rather unbecoming. Why do we need to know that a certain reporter rushed out an "exclusive" to the effect that intelligence officials had signed a letter casting doubts on stories regarding Hunter Biden's laptop? If in fact they had just signed such a letter, what was she supposed to do? And why do you paint the mainstream press as orchestrating a cover-up of Biden's alleged cognitive decline when their being taken in by Biden's staff, right along with the rest of us, is just as plausible an explanation?
Other conservatives in media may need to discredit alternative sources, lest the foolishness of that conservative's perspective be exposed. Your analysis is generally sound and well reasoned enough that you don't need to do that.
As for the substance of this post regarding the destruction of Iran's nuclear program, anybody who says they know one way or the other, doesn't. And that includes Trump. Nor, in my opinion, does it necessarily matter. Once you have hit someone in the mouth, he thinks twice about doing again whatever caused you do that. So the strikes were a good thing either way. If we have to, we hit Iran in the mouth again, and then yet again until they get tired of getting hit in the mouth.
A big difference is the main stream media folks don't go deep with questions when it seems to be an issue they favor. Laptop? Few questions. Intelligence folks and "the letter"? Few questions. Biden? Few questions. With Trump they'll deep dive until they are blue in the face.
What I want is a press that doesn't take a side, but investigates hard.
Investigative reporters go on sabbatical when a D is in office.
Absolutely.
You make some excellent points, Erick. The media should be reporting on the incredible achievement of our military. This morning, the WSJ has the Institute for Science and International Security report. Definitely worth a read if you are a subscriber.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/attacks-effectively-destroyed-irans-program-5ac3f991?
When Mamdani is mayor, I can't wait to see AOC being forced to wear a burka! 🤣🤣🤣
Maybe a black and white checkered one?
Hilarious
I will believe whatever the IAEA is able to discover. Praying that the ceasefire continues, and that Trump is able to get Iran to agree to unannounced nuclear inspections.
Many are stating here that the report(er) has no credibility, yet when I listen to the left leaning XM channel every talk show analyses this to the n-th degree. Imagine if they did the same with the Hunter laptops??
I know, that doesn't mean there is credibility, but it gives all those talking heads an excuse to do this.
I am curious about those images of all the trucks lined up at one of the sites. Was the fake? Was it an old pic? What?
They appear to be dump trucks. Iran was said to be reinforcing the entrance areas with dirt.
The legacy media does not want to change. I support this space, but other than that, I have no idea on how to get them to be less biased. They are counting on people not remembering how they have lied to us.
I read some of the Fox News criticism in the thread today but I hold out that Bret Baier and Shannon Bream are straight shooters. Fox is far better than ABC et al, but expecting pure un-biased reporting is probably unattainable. MSNBC’s business model is selling blue-dyed, red meat to leftists, and CBS, NBC, and the rest of legacy media aren’t much better.
Everyone knows Trump uses inflated language when he speaks. That’s a feature and it’s unlikely to change. It’s possible to frame questions to him in a manner that’s not disrespectful, while trying to winnow out truth. The leftist writers/reporters could try harder to hide their obvious disdain for everything Trump ever says…but they can’t. I think the only way they’ll ever change is by this administration continuing to win, and win more, and crush them with good news, until the country is fully tired of their entitled, leftist, bilge, where they can never acknowledge a win for our country, brought by a Trump Administration decision.
Hearst created “Yellow Journalism” at the end of the 19th Century. We need a new term for it to define left wing lies about anything positive a Republican has done. Not sure of a catchy name, but BS Artist, Liberal Liars or Democrat Dupes is a start.
When the initial report came out I could sense the joy from Trump and American haters - from the journalists to individuals commenting on social media. Now they won’t believe this new report that shows the bombing was effective, but the same sickos also believe Hitler was right (Owens) Putin is a good man (Carlson) and men can have babies (any western lib). The thing about truth is it’s black and white, and the truth always wins in the end. Thank the good Lord, Kamala is not the President.
Instead of using the word "reporter" to describe members of the press, I think "disinformation specialist" is more appropriate.
Love the Wile E. Coyote reference. Been using it for years in reference to the Democrats’ attempts to get Road Runner (Trump). Keep using it. Highlights Trump’s oppositions utter incompetence.
The media, with their TDS in full display seem to be in a race to discredit themselves even more. CNN, caught reporting only a portion of the intell is defending it's actions. It's as if the reporters at CNN are trying to destroy what little credibility they have left. Truly a race to the bottom with CNN currently in the lead on the way down.
How is this lady able to walk a street in the USA without being at least trashed by people telling her what a scum bag she is. Or even sucker punching her just. crazy she is not fired or eliminated from the media job
Doesn’t this prove to the average person - if they believe CNN - so Iran was doing something and they’re not stopping?
Ms. Bertrand also gave heightened credibility to the Steele dossier......she would appear to be someone who is happy amplifying partisan talking points: https://archive.ph/20211115051200/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/28/how-politicos-natasha-bertrand-bootstrapped-dossier-credulity-into-tv-gig/
The problem is there is no credibility here. Bertrand has no credibility, but neither does Trump who clearly pulled his "obliterated" assessment out of his rectum. Because reporting on the damage has now turned into a referendum on Trump, none of it can be fully trusted. Everyone in the admin now needs to repeat the obliterated message (this has echoes of rigged election). Even Israel who is grateful for US assistance may have to take into account Trump's desired messaging when reporting on the damage. The simple answer is we don't yet fully know.
The context about Bertrand and CNN is fair, but I don't recall seeing the same context about Fox News whenever they report anything. A simple paragraph to be used whenever mentioning fox news would suffice - i.e. Fox news was led for decades by pedophile sexual predator and not surprisingly fostered a culture of sexual harassment and assault while pretending to care about family values on air. Fox News "talent" constantly railed against the Covid vaccine with bizzare theories in spite of all having been up to date with their does per company policy and lastly, but most importantly - Fox News was also proven to repeatedly lie and mislead it's audience in the discovery evidence of the dominion lawsuit suggesting they tell you what you want to hear vs. the truth because they don't want you to turn the channel to Newsmax. In short, Fox news's business model relies extensively on propaganda that tickles your ears.
When everything is a superlative, it becomes discrediting. It's fair to question Trump's assessment because after all, EVERYTHING with him is the greatest, the most beautiful, the biggest, the best, etc. What I don't agree with is how it was done. Bertrand's piece is intentionally divisive and now is simply not the time for that. Report it? Yes, but do so in a way that leaves the door open for updated intel and doesn't discredit the NATION (leave your feelings on the president out of it, please).
I didn't read Bertrand's piece since CNN now has some sort of paywall but don't doubt that it was poorly written.
Fox News is mostly right wing leaning commentary - it is what it is. However, Brett Baier is one of the best in the business and seems to be pretty black and white. He is not afraid to ask Trump or any Republican hard questions. His news hour also features leftwing commentators for balance.
He may be fair, but I am sure he is aware of what his corporate overlords deem is good or bad for business and that has to influence his reporting.
Also, once your employer is proven to be a lying propagandist organization you have a choice to stay or leave. If I was a reporter and if I had integrity, I would leave once that information came to light. Now in my case neither of those are true, but in Brett / anyone else's case at Fox one of them now can't be true. I get that options in MSM are limited, but by deciding to continue to work for a propagandist organization once it is well established some of the shine has to come off the apple.
Easy to Say when you’re not making $10 Million a year. Also, what new organization isn’t slanted? ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN aren’t it.
I am not saying that the rest of MSM is not biased. I am saying that we only have extensive evidence of one network knowingly participating in a months long disinformation campaign to preserve their profits. And yet although everyone on here can recognize the bias and corruption of the other networks, they still view Fox as somehow trustworthy.
Erick keeps promoting Newsnation as a more straight news organization and he may be correct. I have never watched it so can't comment.
Yep, but sadly Brett is the ONLY shining star left at FOX, except for the occasional weigh in from Britt Hume.
What Blair said. And also, Trump seems incapable of ever starting a sentence with a qualifying "I hope," "I wish," or "I think," as any normal person would do. Rather, everything has to be completely definitive, and unquestioned by all on his staff and the press, even if not verifiable or even provably false -- "The election was stolen," "My inauguration was the largest in history," "I never met Jean Carroll," and now "The site was totally obliterated." For this reason, the real press (not FOX) has learned that Trump is the used car salesman of presidents, who is overselling in each and every utterance, and that it therefore must verify everything he says before presenting it as fact or truth.
Wouldn't verifying anything they report on be the right thing to do, rather than rushing something out simply because it contradicts Trump?
They received an early report from a government source. Of course they were going to run with it. That's what's called a scoop in the news business. You are simply assuming that they released it to only to contradict Trump. But actually, it was not the news media that contradicted Trump, it was the report that contradicted Trump. Perhaps Trump is a bit overly sensitive about being contradicted, you think?
I'm saying that if they must verify everything Trump promotes then maybe do the same for things for things that contradict him, especially with matters so dire. And yes, I did assume that, rightfully or not. And yes, he is a bit sensitive to being contradicted. It's quite the love/hate relationship they have.
Well, usually a report from a government agency would be considered verification. I think CNN only reported what was stated in the report, and as more information came in, they updated their story. I think Erick went a bit overly ballistic on this one. Just think if an intern at Walter Reed had given FOX a report that showed Biden tested positive for dementia. Would they have held the story waiting for verification from a senior MD?
Agree, but the press and Dems pulled the same nonsense on W who is the polar opposite of Trump.
You mean Bushhitler?
Ah, but an equal problem is that the press has proven time and again how incapable they are of objectively and factually presenting “the truth”. Plenty of reason to be skeptical of the entire cast of characters in this reality TV show we are subjected to daily…