|
|
||
Were Plans for a Middle East War Escalation Exposed in Bush-Blair
Exchange?
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
quickly.
What is “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 –
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. |
