Sep 15, 2026 · 1h 7m
Hosts challenge the case for America’s post-9/11 wars
The Legacy of 9/11
The episode examines whether honoring troops has become a way to avoid accountability for leaders, premises, and interventions that produced civilian suffering.
- 1Bill Maher’s claim that America won the War on Terror is challenged as vague and detached from Iraq, Afghanistan, and U.S. policy.
- 2The hosts argue that debates over terrorism must include state violence and whether military actions create the conditions they claim to prevent.
- 3Jeremy Boring’s defense of the wars is presented as an emotional appeal that honors soldiers while shielding political leaders from scrutiny.
Don't miss
Dave Smith argues that appeals honoring veterans can shield the political leaders and war advocates responsible for failed interventions.
The brief
On the 25th anniversary of 9/11, Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein argue that renewed support for war invokes the attacks while avoiding scrutiny of the wars that followed.
They dissect Bill Maher’s claim that America won the War on Terror, arguing that appeals to safety obscure Iraq, Afghanistan, civilian suffering, and U.S. foreign policy.
The hosts broaden the dispute over terrorism, saying state violence belongs in the definition and that the central question is whether military action creates more terrorism.
Jeremy Boring’s defense of the war emphasizes vengeance, American interests, and power projection; Smith counters that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and power is not morality.
The standout tension arrives when honoring veterans becomes an argument against criticism: Smith says emotional appeals can protect political leaders and war advocates from accountability.