In my post yesterday (Limited Debate), I remarked on how constrained the debate is regarding US/Policy. Today demonstrates the power of that constraint: yesterday's interview was the "dissenting" opinion on US policy in the Middle East and today's is an unrestrained endorsement of the policy. Notice that this false "two-sides" construct eliminates any serious, intellectual critique of US policy past/present in Middle East. Essentially the debate is reduced to the question of how should the US play the role of imperial power in the region--never questioning whether being imperial is legally or ethically right and humane.
Today's guest, Robert Satloff is the executive director of neocon thinktank Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He, of course, spins out the Bush administration argument for destroying Lebanon in order to save it. Here are a few "highlights" of this interview:
Renee Montagne asks, "When these strikes against Hezbollah targets have accomplished their objective..." (Is she referring to the ambulances, relief supplies, high rise apartment buildings, power plants, fuel depots, etc.?)
Later Montagne states, "The project of the Bush administration is bringing democracy to the Middle East…." (I swear I'm not making this up!)
Satloff states, "in the end we can reconstruct a new political framework in Lebanon which is to the service of the Lebanese people." Again and again he says "we allowed" "we set up" "we advanced" "we should not have" in reference to the events in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Occupied Territories--and Renee Montagne never once questions who the "we" is and whether "we" have any right to be doing these things.