A microphone unintentionally left open at Monday's G-8 summit luncheon
picked up snippets of unguarded talk between George Bush and Tony Blair. While
most media coverage focused on the embarrassing, stupid and profanity-laced
portions of the comments uttered by Bush, a closer examination of the transcript
confirms the targeting of Syria and Syrian president Bashar Assad.
It also suggests that severe Anglo-American pressure, via the UN, will continue
to be applied to Syria and Iran, both of which have been broad-brushed as the
“terror masterminds behind Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.”
More than an idiot’s profanity
The worldwide media, Bush’s damage control apparatus, have spun the Bush-Blair
exchange in the most deceptive Bush-friendly manner. The New York Times spun
it as a “blunt call for diplomacy,” while another New York Times
piece refers to “wise-guy Bush’s blunt and coarse chit-chat.”
Other headlines hailed the performance as “straight-talking Dubya,”
Bush “lets fly,” “curses Hezbollah actions,” “Bush
urges Assad to end fighting,” etc. All false.
First, Bush demonstrated what seasoned observers already know: Bush
is a grotesque simpleton suffering from some mental afflication, who is also
a ruthless intimidator wielding violence and power without intellect, and without
regard. In short, a gangster. Gangsters do not need a great intellect to successfully
conduct criminal activities, or head criminal empires. (In fact, intellect gets
in the way.) Bush (and Cheney) routinely speaks using profanity.
More importantly, the Bush-Blair exchange was not a “call for peace.”
They were caught talking in practical and casual fashion about covert back doordeals,
and geostrategic plans that are either in the works, or in process.
The precise nature of their plan is hard to ascertain, but what can be interpreted
should be cause for alarm. The key passages, from the complete
transcript from the Washington Post [my comments in italics-LC]:
Bush: What about Kofi? That seems odd. I don't like the sequence
of it. His attitude is basically ceasefire and [then] everything else happens.
You know what I'm saying?
Bush finds it “odd,” and “doesn’t like” how
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has apparently put ceasefire ahead of “everything
else.” What is this “everything else” that will “happen”?
Conditions for ceasefire? Or a new attack by some party or another? Has this
“everything else” already been put into place? What are the US,
UK, Israel and the UN really up to? Bush is not liking the choreographed order,
of some future event. What is the event?
Blair: Yeah. No, I think -- the thing that's really difficult
is we can't stop this unless you get this international presence agreed. Now,
I know what you guys have talked about but it's the same thing.
What are they seeking to “stop” with “international presence”?
Does “stop” refer to ending the current violence, or “stopping”
as in a multinational conquest (of Syria, Iran or both)? What have they “talked
about”? Does the international “presence” refer to diplomatic
talks, or military forces? If it applies to military force, are they talking
about a peacekeeping force in Lebanon, or a new multinational operation that
has been “agreed” upon?
Blair: . . . see how reliable that is. But you need that done
What is “reliable”? What needs to be done quickly?
Bush: Yeah, she's going. I think Condi's going to go pretty
Condi is going to do what? Given the known Bush administration position,
she is not going to negotiate a ceasefire that offers anything whatsoever to
Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorists,” nor will she make overtures towards
what she and the Bush administration have insisted are their masters, Syria
and Iran. What back doordeal is Rice cooking up?
Blair: Right. Well, that's, that's, that's all that matters.
If you -- see, it'll take some time to get out there. But at least it gives
people a –
What “people”? Is he referring to political players, who need
time to negotiate something, or is he talking about creating the propaganda
illusion of diplomacy for the benefit of the masses (“people”)?
If it is the latter, it would be a political cover for what?
Bush: A process, I agree. I told her your offer too.
Should this be read at face value as “diplomatic process,”
or a process towards something else? Is he talking about a real or fake (propaganda)
process? More importantly here, some sort of “offer” has been made
between Blair and the US, and Rice is aware of it. What is it?
Blair: Well, it's only if it's -- I mean, you know, if she's
gotta -- or if she needs the ground prepared, as it were. Obviously, if she
goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can just go out and talk.
She (Rice) needs the ground prepared to “succeed” doing what? “Whereas
I can just go out and talk” suggests that Blair intends for him and the
UK to take a back seat, and let the US and Rice lead the way -- towards what?
Peace, or more war? A ceasefire, or an opportunistic maneuver of some kind?
Bush: See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria
to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over.
This is a key passage. What is “ironic”? Is the irony that
they must ask for Syrian cooperation -- or is it ironic that they are setting
up Syria to take the blame (for “Hezbollah’s shit”)? What
is “over” -- the current violence, or any remaining obstacle to
a full-blown Middle East war?
Blair : Who, Syria?
Blair: I think this is all part of the same thing. What does
he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel
and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's [inaudible ] . That's what this
whole thing's about. It's the same with Iran.
The inaudible word is critical. Without the word, the passage is hard to
interpret. Blair seems to be characterizing Syrian president Bashar Assad as
somewhat naive (a “solution in Israel and Palestine,” and happy
endings in Iraq, as well as Iran are far fetched), as well as a dupe who is
willing to play along with Anglo-American and Israeli plans.
Note: some media reports, including the San Francisco Chronicle, have the
last line of this passage as “It’s the same with Iraq.” An
error, or an intentional lie?
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad
and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel. We're not blaming the Lebanese
What does Bush want the UN to “make happen”?
Is Bush talking about an Anglo-American diplomatic stance (don’t
blame Israel or Lebanon) towards a ceasefire, or he is talking about the creation
of a political cover by which a larger “anti-terror” war targeting
Hamas and Hezbollah, and their alleged masterminds in Syria and Iran, will be
Is Assad complicit, or is he being set up?
As noted by William Arkin, in his Washington Post analysis of the Bush-Blair
“As I've been watching the latest Middle East saga unfold, I've been
struck by the almost universal insights being offered by pundits and talking
heads that Iran or Syria planned the Hamas and Hezbollah kidnappings of Israeli
soldiers and also control what happens now.
“In this narrative, Iran is trying to divert attention from its nuclear
weapons program; Syria is seeking revenge against American isolation and seeking
to enlarge its power base. The two countries provide missiles and supply lines
and sanctuary for Hezbollah and Hamas. Iranian ‘soldiers’ are even
secretly in Lebanon, aiding Hezbollah in its Friday attack on the Israeli naval
vessel, an attack that Hezbollah could not have otherwise mounted.
“In this telling, Hamas and Hezbollah are reduced to almost unimportant
terrorist dupes of Iran and Syria, Lebanon is just a poor victimized country,
and Israel is only defending itself. The United States and the international
community are also absolved of any responsibility for their failures of diplomacy
because what is unfolding is part of a grand conspiracy that no amount of intervention
could have an impact on.
“In this version of history, Iran and Syria can also just snap their
fingers and ‘stop’ the fighting. Even if this is a false characterization,
their failure to do so confirms that the Bush administration's approach towards
them is the only option. The two are thus confirmed as rogue nations and new
axis of evil.”
“In this world, various leaders and factions plot their next moves, plan
covert operations, undertake assassinations, decide on who to support and how
based upon inside information.
“The danger of this type of intelligence, and of leaders obsessed with
gossip and the lurid details of world events, is that pretty soon the geopolitical
double dealing crowds out any true picture and any sense of State responsibility.”
With all due respect, there is not simply “double dealing.” There
is also blackmail and extortion, with violent military ramifications. Outright
thuggery is the basis of much imperial geostrategy.
It remains to be seen what Bush, Blair, and the brutal Israeli government
have in store. The gates of hell have already been opened. Only the naïve
would think they have any desire to close them.
Read from Looking Glass News
for Bush and Blair. What man involved in Middle East policy is "sweet,"
according to Bush and "honey," according to Blair?