"a lot of engagement from both sides, and a thoughtful conversation, like this interview provided, is perhaps our next step in trying to improve and reform the media that we have."

This always seems to be the solution, at least from the media's perspective. However, as in past periods of reflection (WMD, Katrina, the Clinton Polling,) it never goes on for very long and obviously, has little lasting impact---since the media are constantly repeating the same "errors" in judgement. The structure is rotten to the roots, I'm not sure there is any reforming it...

Bucky1, I think you know the answer to this question, and it's not Al-quada or the taliban or even Hamas.

Only China (and possibly India) have the resources to invade us. If we manage our relationship with these countries successfully, we will have no more reason to fear them than we do NATO.

I hope the US's policy of death will end. And I too despair that I don't see how. All I can say is that I'm joining BHO in placing a bet on the American people that when they understand the things that their government does in their name they will put a stop to it.

It's how Mussolini was brought down, wasn't it?

We use the generals to explain what is happening on the ground and why.

Even if were true that the generals were "apolitical" and used only after the war had begun, it would still represent a failure on the media's part to provide the public with the whole picture. Since when are just tactics the only relevant discussion during the war? The "conditions on the ground" can speak volumes about the strategic realities as well.

The Iraq war was a perfect example of this. When things started to turn bad in Iraq (pretty much from the beginning), it rapidly became clear that not only were there grave errors in the prosecution of the war, but also in the justifications for the war to begin with.

In the final analysis, in an actual functioning democracy, there is no point before, during or after a war where discussion of any aspects are "irrelevant."

"...USAF recently launched a Cyber Command, which is a big deal for them. The mission has to do with preventing hack-attacks from overseas; given their current struggles to define their mission and budget justifications (a story going back to 1991), and their lack of involvement in NSA looking in everyone's orifices, I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that that's really what they want to do."

________________________________________________________

I'm curious about this. What happened regarding the Air Force in 1991?

What I find about Aaron Brown is a certain technique he uses to innoculate his views. Similarly, anyone in a military uniform today knows they can shut you down by snarking something like "you've obviously never served in combat ..." etc. What Brown does is engender a tone of serious rumination as he hems and haws and 'struggles' mightily to do what is just and right. He wants to portray the image that he has a very sensitive conscience and tortures himself over how to do a deeply thoughtful and concerned job. What bullshit! Andrew Sullivan uses a similar technique to innoculate his own views from criticsm. The lie is that deep rumination and thoughtful struggle somehow means your motives and agenda are pure. Yet Aaron Brown proves totally that he was just as gullible to be a pawn of the Pentagon as Chris Wallace or anyone else at FoxNews.

"... I hope the US's policy of death will end. And I too despair that I don't see how. All I can say is that I'm joining BHO in placing a bet on the American people that when they understand the things that their government does in their name they will put a stop to it. ..." -- JimPharo

If I recall, it took losing a bitter war to bring down Il Duce. I am afraid that losing a bitter war, or total financial ruin seems to be the only way empires stop invading or intimidating others.

I agree that China would have the most chance of invading the US. They have almost 2 billion people and tons of cash sitting around. However, invading a nation our size with 300 million armed citizens is out of the question --- besides having to chance 30,000 nukes falling on your head.

I forecast that we will finally see we can no longer afford it; as god knows the morality argument is a loser in this country.

I ain't no expert, but I believe the USAF was bombing the hell out of Iraq in 1991.

NYTimes Editorial:

April 16, 2002

Venezuela's Political Turbulence

Hugo Chávez, back as Venezuela's president after an evanescent coup, sounded like a changed man yesterday. He talked of the need for reconciliation in his divided nation and showed none of the combative, demagogic style that brought thousands of Venezuelans into the streets last week in opposition to his autocratic rule. We hope Mr. Chávez will act as a more responsible and moderate leader now that he seems to realize the anger he stirred. Venezuela, one of the world's largest oil producers, desperately needs a steady hand in the presidential palace to encourage political and economic reform.

In his three years in office, Mr. Chávez has been such a divisive and demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew applause at home and in Washington. That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer.

Mr. Chávez's record as president is terrible. He has failed to keep campaign promises to end corruption and diversify the sputtering economy. He has blocked independent press coverage, stacked the government and state companies with cronies and built alliances with Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein.

Venezuela's health and stability matter to the United States not only because of oil. Mr. Chávez is also said to have stirred trouble in neighboring Colombia by aiding left-wing guerrillas.

There remains every reason to worry about his policies and plans, despite his promises yesterday to repair relations with his opponents. Mr. Chávez needs to rebuild a meritocratic and professional bureaucracy in government and state-run companies, encourage entrepreneurship across the society and investigate allegations that his civilian support groups have been arming themselves. Venezuela desperately needs to rebuild civil discourse and strengthen relations between the poor and dispossessed who see Mr. Chávez as their savior and the middle and business classes who view him as a Castro clone bent on seizing their assets. The only hope for Mr. Chávez and Venezuela is for him to step back from his confrontational agenda.

http://tinyurl.com/682rcp

Cruel irony or biting satire?