As I’m reading this insightful piece, Congress is in session to determine next steps, all while a “Breaking News” interruption zooms in on the speaker pushing the BBB. This is nothing but a distraction.
I mean, this is the country that’s been chanting death to America for quite some time … can’t we applaud a surgical strike on these nuclear sites … ? I recall this was happening during Obama’s presidency as well - surgical strikes in Syria, Pakistan, Libya. There’s probably a bunch of others, Yemen and Somalia that never had congressional approval (I need to be fact checked there) - I don’t see how this narrative is any different than any other president at
You’re right to point out that the U.S. has a long history of military actions taken without congressional approval—including under Obama. And yes, some of those were framed as “surgical” strikes. But I think we have to be careful not to normalize that pattern—or worse, treat it as apolitical. What’s different now isn’t just the tactic, it’s the context and intent.
This administration isn’t just carrying out strikes—it’s dismantling the checks and balances that once constrained executive war-making. It’s doing so while sidelining institutions, rewriting rules of engagement, and escalating without public debate. The rhetoric may echo the past, but the institutional erosion is sharper, and the consequences more dangerous.
Chanting “death to America” is a political slogan—destructive, yes, but not new. Responding by bombing nuclear sites without congressional oversight crosses a different kind of line. One rooted not just in foreign policy but in our own constitutional order. That’s what worries me most.
GOOD to see the oppertunity to particpate without spending money up front. "Is this comfortable for me.....Is it not TOO intellectual and INSUFFICIENT GROUNDED ?
Don’t attend mass events going forward. It’s all very much that nazi Netanyahu’s doing.
I expect he will suspend habeas corpus any minute now. 🤬
Such a well put together statement: Trump understands spectacle not merely as distraction, but as narrative control.
It’s something I’ve thought about for a while but never managed to summarise succinctly into 11 words before.
As I’m reading this insightful piece, Congress is in session to determine next steps, all while a “Breaking News” interruption zooms in on the speaker pushing the BBB. This is nothing but a distraction.
I mean, this is the country that’s been chanting death to America for quite some time … can’t we applaud a surgical strike on these nuclear sites … ? I recall this was happening during Obama’s presidency as well - surgical strikes in Syria, Pakistan, Libya. There’s probably a bunch of others, Yemen and Somalia that never had congressional approval (I need to be fact checked there) - I don’t see how this narrative is any different than any other president at
any other time.
You’re right to point out that the U.S. has a long history of military actions taken without congressional approval—including under Obama. And yes, some of those were framed as “surgical” strikes. But I think we have to be careful not to normalize that pattern—or worse, treat it as apolitical. What’s different now isn’t just the tactic, it’s the context and intent.
This administration isn’t just carrying out strikes—it’s dismantling the checks and balances that once constrained executive war-making. It’s doing so while sidelining institutions, rewriting rules of engagement, and escalating without public debate. The rhetoric may echo the past, but the institutional erosion is sharper, and the consequences more dangerous.
Chanting “death to America” is a political slogan—destructive, yes, but not new. Responding by bombing nuclear sites without congressional oversight crosses a different kind of line. One rooted not just in foreign policy but in our own constitutional order. That’s what worries me most.
It's The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein. I'm reading that book right now.
GOOD to see the oppertunity to particpate without spending money up front. "Is this comfortable for me.....Is it not TOO intellectual and INSUFFICIENT GROUNDED ?