Saturday :: May 27, 2006

The George And Tony Show

by pessimist

In the comment thread for the article covering Bush's Staged “Mea Culpa”, you readers expressed great scepticism concerning the honesty of the admission. In the comment thread for Yesterday's Men, you also expressed doubts that this was the end of the line for George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

Based on the following articles, it looks like you all just might have been correct. They aren't going away - nor are they truly repentant. They appear to have plans. But the British media - unlike their lap dog American counterparts, are showing these leaders no respect - nor any discretion.

While the American media is attempting (as paradox points out below) to play up a heterosexual angle to the (not-so) humble 'admission' by King George that 'he'd made mistakes in Iraq', the British media isn't following suit. In a vein similar to that now-stilled thread of coverage concerning Jeff Guckert's visits to the White House and George's 'myrthful' college activities, the British media hints at something that would trouble the televangelists and Red Stater Baptists if proven true:

The lame-duck double act take their final bow
by Tom Baldwin

There was genuine pathos in this meeting of two lame-duck leaders. The root cause of their political problems is, of course, Iraq. Their introspective and retrospective remarks of contrition were suggestive of men seeking to justify their place in history.

In Washington one of the most commonly asked questions to visiting Britons is: “What made your Mr Blair do this to himself?” The answer is that he genuinely believed the removal of Saddam Hussein to be a moral cause that cannot be separated from issues of national security.

With Mr Blair, the two have always gone hand in hand.

So, too — well almost — have the President and the Prime Minister.

In their first summit at Camp David five long years ago, Mr Bush revealed that they shared the same brand of toothpaste. “People will wonder how you know that, George,” the Prime Minister said. In their 20 or so summits since, this banter has evolved into a familiar double-act, in the ever-so-faintly homoerotic fashion of Morecambe and Wise.

This observation was triggered by the following exchange:

Mr Blair came close to admitting that Iraq was never going to be a modern, functioning democracy and that, instead, the summit of his ambition was now merely to make the country better than it was before. But the President appeared to have stopped listening.
“Can I buy you dinner?” he asked. “Certainly,” replied Mr Blair.
So off they went, perhaps for the last time.

While this is meant to look like this was the closing act in this not-so-funny comedy, that isn't the real plan at all. It may be that George and Tony won't be national leaders when next they meet, but that doesn't mean that they won't be the heads of something else - something much bigger and much more dear to neo-confidence man planning:

The PM: can he really be eyeing UN's top job?
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
27 May 2006

So why did the speech that Mr Blair delivered in Georgetown yesterday read like a job application? Tony Blair could well be tempted by the job of UN secretary general, which just happens to fall vacant at the end of this year.

Sounds far-fetched? It is, because Britain is one of the five veto-holding powers on the UN Security Council. So Gordon Brown shouldn't hold his breath if he hopes that Mr Blair could be about to cross the pond for the mother of all cocktail parties. As one senior UN official put it yesterday: "Blair? No way, Jose!"

Why not Tony?

Nobody from the five big powers has ever been head of the UN, whose secretary general has always hailed from a biddable small state so that he or she won't get ideas above their station. And the big five are the ones who actually pick their servant, the secretary general, even though the full 15-member Security Council takes the decisive vote. Naturally, the five permanent members want the ideal candidate to be more secretary than general.
The fact is that at this stage in the selection process, the big five are stuck.

What opposition does this Bu$hCo scheme face?

Although the Asian states continue to insist that this time it is "Asia's turn" for the top job, the Americans and British say the "best" candidate should go forward. None of the three declared candidates from Asia - a Sri Lankan, a Thai and a South Korean - has caught the imagination, and no consensus emerged from the first private discussions of the big five on the matter. Two alternative candidates from eastern Europe (Latvia and Poland) have been rejected, by veto-holding Russia. China is said to be holding out for an Asian secretary general.

It is at moments like this when the first real contenders step out of the shadows and into the limelight to claim the crown.

And, according to the plan, this 'real contender' is supposed to be seen as Tony Blair, the 'good cop' of the Iraqi Imposition. But the results aren't going according to the plan. Instead of meek acceptance of the Will of the United States, probing and important questions are being asked:

[W]ould the Security Council tear up its own (unwritten) rules by considering someone from their own inner circle? And how would Britain's colleagues on the Security Council - not to mention the Arab representative - react to the candidacy of the man who brushed aside the UN in his haste to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam?

I didn't know George was in the running!

Oh wait - they meant Blair. Actually, it will prove to be both - Tony the Lap Poodle puppet - with George's hand stuck up his dorsal port!

Based on this next article, it is clear that Tony is supposed to present a 'reasonable' international statesman visage to attract support for his taking over at the UN - and to be in position for rebuilding it in the Bu$hCo image:

Blair wants overhaul of UN to meet 21st-century challenges
By Rupert Cornwell
27 May 2006

Tony Blair set out a sweeping blueprint yesterday for a new international order, built around an overhauled United Nations, an enlarged G8, and a multilateral system for the supply of enriched uranium for peaceful nuclear energy. It was built around a single overarching theme: that the challenges of today's interdependent world meant that countries had to act together and, in some cases, that action had to be pre-emptive not reactive.

Note here how the New Blair (why am I reminded of 'New Coke'?) sets out a proposal for a new definition of 'pre-emption':

The heart of the Georgetown speech was Mr Blair's vision of a new international institutional system, complete with a more effective system not only to respond to crises, but to head them off in advance.

But Tony can't hide the fact that this proposal is still nothing more than a bald bid for increased Bu$hCo power and control:

The centrepiece of what the Prime Minister termed his "tentative suggestions for change" is an overhaul of the United Nations and its sister organisations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and of the G8 group of major powers, now a de facto parallel directorate to oversee world affairs.

The plan has six points:

* Security Council changes to bring in countries such as Germany, Japan and India [The G8 becomes the Security Council]

* New powers for the UN secretary general, especially to appoint top officials in the secretariat and to allocate UN resources [weakens the powers of the General Assembly]

* A possible merger and sweeping reform of the IMF and the World Bank [both firmly under US control]

* A multilateral system for "safe enrichment" for nuclear energy, featuring a "uranium bank" run by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) [intended to ensure that another Iran or North Korea can't arise]

* An expanded G8, that includes China, India and Brazil among others; [the sop to attract international support]

* A UN Environment Organisation that reflects environmental issues. [the sop to attract popular support]

Now comes the final clue which exposes the plot - and the plotters:

The idea is believed to have featured during talks between the two leaders.

Bu$hCo remains undeterred in its plans for world domination. Iraq was a false start, but they have now decided to abandon that mess and go for the gold. The sub rosa approach is no longer viable, and since they can get away with the most egregious outrages without consequence, they are upping the ante by going for the more open approach. They still think that their words will be believed while their actions will be ignored, and thanks to a compliant media, they just might be right in this assertion. Thus, once their actions do attract attention, their control of the world's major international organizations would be a fait accompli, and no one will be able to do a thing about it. They will be the champions of the world - and the rest of us can like it.

The purpose of all of these moves by Bu$hCo is to establish an elite upper class modeled on Plato's Guardians. They will enjoy all of the benefits and luxuries they feel are due their class while they toy with the rest of us for their own amusement.

I hope we need lots of batteries.

Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.


This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 10:45 AM :: Comments (4) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!