People listening to talk radio often like to guess how scripted it is. Would this person have come on without some assurances as to how it would go?
Case in point: this morning NPR interviewed some political analyst in the context of positioning NATO as instrumental in preventing a new Cold War. Talk about oxymoronic right?
The interviewer asked Lamberto Zannier if Russia's bombing in the Middle East could have been to destabilize Europe by triggering waves of refugees, but without really specifying what a motive would be in doing that other than "behaving badly" (as "bad guys" are wont to do).
The response sounded professional in giving Russia more the benefit of the doubt, without getting into the timeline at all. When did the refugee phenomenon start happening? The move to couple it with the Russians' bombing seems more the hidden agenda of this interview.
In point of fact, Iraq was destabilized intentionally, by a Coalition seeking vengeance for war crimes not yet redressed (Kuwait). George Bush Sr. had wisely pulled back from attacking Iraq directly, but his son could create no such discipline and at best put a comic tip on it (acknowledging when a farce is a farce may be the only way to preserve gravitas).
So by the same token, we may see the US as perhaps intentionally destabilizing not only Iraq, but Libya and of course Europe, as the flood of refugees started quite awhile back, and from all those places, not to mention Central America.
However, had this been the script, I doubt our interviewee would have consented to the sound bites. NATO would have seemed too much the cause of Europe's woes. That would seem too "bad guy", so better to blame the Russians. That's Cold War redux. Yawn.
Another story nearby was more interesting: the CIA's art museum has some new commissioned pieces, including a "puzzle piece" with allusions to ongoing operations we'll maybe learn about someday. Fun.
Case in point: this morning NPR interviewed some political analyst in the context of positioning NATO as instrumental in preventing a new Cold War. Talk about oxymoronic right?
The interviewer asked Lamberto Zannier if Russia's bombing in the Middle East could have been to destabilize Europe by triggering waves of refugees, but without really specifying what a motive would be in doing that other than "behaving badly" (as "bad guys" are wont to do).
The response sounded professional in giving Russia more the benefit of the doubt, without getting into the timeline at all. When did the refugee phenomenon start happening? The move to couple it with the Russians' bombing seems more the hidden agenda of this interview.
In point of fact, Iraq was destabilized intentionally, by a Coalition seeking vengeance for war crimes not yet redressed (Kuwait). George Bush Sr. had wisely pulled back from attacking Iraq directly, but his son could create no such discipline and at best put a comic tip on it (acknowledging when a farce is a farce may be the only way to preserve gravitas).
So by the same token, we may see the US as perhaps intentionally destabilizing not only Iraq, but Libya and of course Europe, as the flood of refugees started quite awhile back, and from all those places, not to mention Central America.
However, had this been the script, I doubt our interviewee would have consented to the sound bites. NATO would have seemed too much the cause of Europe's woes. That would seem too "bad guy", so better to blame the Russians. That's Cold War redux. Yawn.
Another story nearby was more interesting: the CIA's art museum has some new commissioned pieces, including a "puzzle piece" with allusions to ongoing operations we'll maybe learn about someday. Fun.
