What did President Bush say about Syria and Hezbollah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a leaked conversation between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, where Bush expresses that resolving the conflict in the Middle East hinges on getting Syria to persuade Hezbollah to cease its actions. The conversation, which included casual remarks and expletives, highlights the informal nature of their dialogue and the complexities of diplomatic communication. Participants reflect on the use of expletives by politicians, suggesting that such language can convey frustration or serve as a concise expression of a situation's gravity. The conversation also touches on the broader context of Middle Eastern conflicts, emphasizing the challenges and stakes involved for global players. Overall, the exchange illustrates the contrast between private and public political discourse, with some arguing that candid language can sometimes provide clearer insights into the realities faced by leaders.
Rach3
"The irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh**, and it's over," Mr Bush was heard to say.

Soon after Mr Blair noticed that the microphone was open and switched it off, reports say.
(BBC) (audio)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For some reason, I hear someone saying "oh god" in the end of the tape.
 
Another slip from the same conversation - seems Rice is going to the M.E. after all.

Bush: Yeah I think Condi's [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) going to go soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters but if you... You see at least it gets it going.

Bush: I agree it's a process...I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only if she needs the ground prepared as it were. If she goes out she HAS to succeed whereas I can just go and...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5188258.stm
 
I think we should have more microphones. I think everyone would benefit if there were hidden microphones surrounding all politicans and ministers, than we'd always know what they're thinking.
 
How diplomats think
Well, it would appear that the problem is that they don't.

"The irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh**, and it's over," Mr Bush was heard to say.
He's probably correct though. :smile: Well, actually it may be somewhat more difficult.

The moral of this story is - watch what you say in front of a microphone - no telling who's listening. :smile:
 
What is it with Bush and expletives? I suppose it might be an outlet for someone with very poor communication skills.
 
Rach, saying **** in a private conversation isn't really an expletive... most people say crap like that (see? right there) just as a way of identifying the worthlessness of the object at hand
 
Rach3 said:
What is it with Bush and expletives? (snip)

Same thing as with FDR, Harry, Ike, "John-John," Lyndon, Nixon, Jerry, Jimmy, RR, Bush 41, and Willy --- and, their predecessors, and, their successors yet to win office --- concise communication.
 
  • #10
Rach3 said:
What is it with Bush and expletives? I suppose it might be an outlet for someone with very poor communication skills.
Well, Nixon used expletives. Lots of people use expletives in private, but not in public.

Politicians will say one thing in private, and something completely different in public - I've seen it first hand. :rolleyes:

Reagan is famous for his on-air blooper "My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." He was 'joking' during a mike check before a radio broadcast, but it was caught on tape and aired. It caused a slight panic.

What you see now is Bush's true side, which is normally kept out of the public spotlight.
 
  • #11
Listening to the clip, I see nothing wrong with what he said. Whats the big deal?

I must say, you always put spin in your threads Rach. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Four letters, one syllable, sums it up nicely --- gets people on to handling it that much more quickly, rather than endless polysyllabic discourses on what to call it.
 
  • #13
Bystander said:
concise communication.
On the contrary, I think expletives often get used when the speaker has no idea what he's talking about and an expletive serves the role of substitute for a more precise description.

A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!
 
  • #14
Gokul43201 said:
A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!
Well, B is probably correct. :biggrin: He summed up the current situation in a nutshell.

Given the context - the personal conversation between Blair and Bush, I think Blair probably understood Bush's point. Bush wasn't talking to the public - he was talking to a colleague and an apparent friend.
 
  • #15
Gokul43201 said:
On the contrary, I think expletives often get used when the speaker has no idea what he's talking about and an expletive serves the role of substitute for a more precise description.

A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!

If "A" has been in a state of suspended animation for the past 8ka, it might be necessary to furnish more detail; likewise, Aztecs, Incas, or other pre-Columbian Americans snatched with a time machine would require an "orientation." As it is, it's a little difficult to avoid familiarity with the roots of the conflict, perfect understanding of what's necessary to resolve the conflict, and full awareness that no one on the planet at the moment is going to take any of those necessary steps.

The ME is a "losen" scenario for everyone with a stake in the region (that's the whole world) --- face, lives, congregations, money, oil, commerce, trade routes, resources, markets --- all up in smoke over the usual "sh*t."

A': Same ol' sh*t.
B': What 'r we going to do?
A': Same ol' sh*t --- let the Israelis look like Ghengis at Samarkand, or Martel at Tours, or Vlad --- but, stop em' before they actually accomplish what has to be done eventually.

"Sh*t" is a perfect descriptor for the situation, its history, and its future. Perfectly clear and "concise."
 
  • #16
Gokul43201 said:
On the contrary, I think expletives often get used when the speaker has no idea what he's talking about and an expletive serves the role of substitute for a more precise description.

A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!

Huh? I think both speaks in the conversation obviously knew what was going on in the ME. You're statement is a stretch.
 
  • #17
cyrusabdollahi said:
Huh? I think both speaks in the conversation obviously knew what was going on in the ME. You're statement is a stretch.
I guess I didn't get the idea across well enough, but "A" would have been me, after not getting the news for 24 hours.
 
  • #18
Sure, but he was not giving a speech. Everyone uses a curse word once in a while when talking casually to a friend.
 

Similar threads

News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?
6
Replies
298
Views
72K
News Syria Chemical Warfare: Analysis & Probabilities
Replies
43
Views
14K
News Bush & Blair: Making & Breaking Rules for Agendas
Replies
37
Views
5K
News GW Bush borderline insane?-the Gog Magog episode.
2
Replies
56
Views
11K
Whale 'Asks' For Help From Fishermen
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Bush says operates secret prisons
2
Replies
86
Views
9K
News UK Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush is leaving a fiscal train wreck for the next president
Replies
27
Views
5K
News US congress approves interrogation techniques
Replies
30
Views
5K
My experience as a hostage
Replies
2
Views
113

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top