The seemingly unending wars in the Middle East have sparked much controversy. When Bush announced the War on Iraq (which is often confused with the War on Terror); a quarter of a million people protested by marching in Washington. However, most, were intoxicated by the political propoganda, believing that the protestors were in fact supporting terrorism. Contrary to the majority opinion, Lion for Lambs is composed of three individual storylines, hoping to expose the truth of America’s current political stance but just fallin short to allow space for the liberal judgement of the audience .
American politicians’ penchant to control mass media is not a shocking revelation. Jasper Irving, a Senator in Lions for Lambs is no exception. When “the future of the Republican Party” calls on TV journalist Janine to discuss a timeline for the War on Terror, it is merely a pretext for selling his “real story” (his new military strategy in Afghanistan) to Janine (the TV network). Although the interview was originally requested for the Senator’s own purposes, the conversation eventually progresses into an entertaining ping pong match between the journalist and the Senator about politics and policy. Janine is incisive in delving deeper into Irving’s sugar coated words. In response to “…whoever takes the high ground has the ability to observe, prerogative to attack and the oppurtunity to preside,” Janine concludes the whole matter by asking, “So we’re going to be there for good?” in which the Senator only smiles and says “I said constant presence, not permanent”. For Afghanistan, there is only a fine difference between the two.
While Meryl Street embodies an entirely fictional TV journalist, she raises many pertinent questions about America’s present political stance (the war in Iraq and other wars in the Middle Eat). Perhaps most people are aware that (thanks to the mass media) “Sadaam violated 16 UN resolutions while America… all the while France, China and Russia...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document