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
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.
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.
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
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 quickly.
�reliable�? What needs to be done quickly?
Bush: Yeah, she's
going. I think Condi's going to go pretty soon.
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 �
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.
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 government."
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 conducted?
complicit, or is he being set up?
As noted by William
Arkin, in his Washington Post analysis of the Bush-Blair exchange, "Early
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.
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.
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.�
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.
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.�
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 na�ve would think they have any desire to