The Blanket

The Blanket - A Journal of Protest & Dissent
Profiles In Hypocrisy:
George W. Bush - Kissing the Blarney Stone and Blair's Backside

Maitiu Caomhánach

If Machiavelli was to meet Pinocchio in some sort of cosmic clash, what might the encounter produce? My considered opinion is that the scene might look like the three-ringed circus that performed Tuesday April 8th at Hillsborough Castle in Dublin…err, Belfast…Ireland…err, Northern Ireland?

American President George W. Bush managed to make his way up to Belfast (although the presidential luggage is probably somewhere at Shannon Airport) to attend a 'war summit' with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at which the invasion of and subsequent war in Iraq was the principal topic for discussion. As a token gesture of genuine concern, Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was invited to discuss the state of the so-called peace process and Good Friday Agreement. The ensuing spectacle featured Bush and his pocket Brit center stage, draped in red, white and blue (Old Glory meets Union Jack), not an Irish tri-color to be seen, complete with elongated noses of Disney proportion spouting flimsy remarks about the Iraqi people being fully capable of running their own government but the Irish requiring the monitoring of not one, not two but three governments!

First and foremost, it became abundantly clear that the breadth and depth of the Bush administration's understanding of Irish history and political subtleties is about as shallow as the commander-in-chief's vocabulary when engaged in extemporaneous drivel. May it please the right honorable court of public opinion, for example, White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer said that the President would be visiting Dublin but then adroitly corrected himself with a mea culpa of "I'm sorry, I'm sorry…I was not a geography major," (The Boston Globe, 04/08/03 Anne E. Kornblut). We forgive you Ari. Furthermore, Bush's itinerary was a true Republican crowd pleaser as it proclaimed "the Trip of the President to Belfast, Ireland",) (ibid.) and in one magic swoosh partition was wiped away. I'm sure William David Trimble was not consulted on that wording! To state it simply, consider the words of Anne E. Kornblut in her article published 04/08/03 in The Boston Globe, "Geography errors underscore Bush's low interest in Belfast."

Listening to Bush opine and wax philosophic in his down home manner, it becomes painfully clear that the President's interest in Belfast ceases entirely when the Westminster tour guides say it ceases. It would therefore seem that Bush might want to register with the Justice Department under F.A.R.A. as a foreign agent of Tony Blair. With the devolved Northern Irish partitionist assembly suspended for six months now, Bush and Blair have called on all paramilitaries to end "irrevocably" their military activities and seize a "historic opportunity for peace." Moreover, the President called on all parties to "take the necessary action to complete this process…This is an historic moment and I would ask all the communities in Northern Ireland to seize this opportunity for peace," [emphasis added]. Bush's phrasing alone might indicate the need for a political prescription medication as he is clearly misinformed. The term 'communities' tends to imply that the nature of this conflict is communal and has no basis in a national liberation struggle against a foreign occupation force. If that is true, then the American revolutionary colonials were fighting solely against their Loyalist and Tory kin and neighbors and the South Vietnamese Catholic 'majority' were fighting against imbedded Communist insurgents. It is common knowledge, however, that the American colonials were primarily waging a war of national liberation against a foreign oppressive regime and the albeit CIA-manipulated populace of South Vietnam, whom were largely Communist themselves anyway, were fighting a war of liberation for true self-determination against the Machiavellian interests of the United States. Presidential symptoms include distortion of fact and misdirection. Prognoses…negative.

Taking his cues from Blair and therefore directing his comments to Sinn Fein and the IRA, President Bush said, "They have signed on to a process that will yield peace. They have agreed to put past hatreds in the past…They have agreed to say history is just that - history, and they look forward to a future in which young generations of Northern Irelanders can grow up in peace." One of my college professors used to say, "All history is derivative," and "History is best read forward." There is a good lesson in those words Mr. President. The present conflict may have a sectarian element to it but that is not the root cause. The thorn in the body politic of the occupied north continues to be the British occupation and presence. Ask the people of Crossmaglen and Carrickmore how they appreciate the spy cameras and other surveillance equipment. Fermanagh is a county under siege Mr. President. Yet still the music of the PR organ grinds on and trained monkeys like Bush dance and perform for puppet masters like Tony Blair. Spin doctor spin.

Still exhibiting delusions of grandeur, Mr. Bush said, "In seizing this opportunity, Northern Ireland will serve as a model to the world for dialogue and negotiation, demonstrating to all that what was once divided can be drawn together in a spirit of reconciliation and respect." Bush's phraseology alone warrant UN bullshit monitors! Notice that "what was once divided" has not been "reunited" or, perhaps more appropriately, "given back," but rather can be "drawn together." According to Bush-lessee, "dialogue and negotiation" must be synonymous with "dictate and impressed upon"; in other words, the British bureaucrat inspired, status quo maintaining, poacher turned gamekeeper document popularly referred to as the Good Friday Agreement. Come on boys, we all know this is a Good-For-Nothing Agreement. Rather than confront the fundamental cause of the conflict in Ireland, Machiavellian masters of the universe Bush and Blair resort to a 'blame the victim' mentality. British moves are contingent upon satisfactory moves by the IRA. For example, if the IRA declare their war is over and decommission weaponry, "in return the Government will reduce troops from 14,000 to 5,000, remove Army watchtowers and pave the way for devolved police and judiciary powers," (, "Bush urges IRA to seize historic chance", 09/04/03 Thomas Harding - Ireland Correspondent). If Britain's record of involvement in Ireland and America's record in, for example, Vietnam are any reliable barometric indicator then take heed people of Iraq. Remember, in 1968 Northern Irish Catholics initially welcomed the British soldiers, but the difference between a liberation force and an occupation force may be a lightly drawn line in the sand. Falls Road curfew; need I say more?

On the liberation/occupation force dynamic: B&B's post-military campaign plan in Iraq calls for an Interim Authority, described by Bush as a, "transition, quasi-government." A "quasi-government"; would that be anything like a Stormont Assembly, Mr. President? "The Iraqi people," Bush said, "would decide who would be part of the interim authority, which would govern Iraq until the conditions are right for the people to elect their own leadership," [emphasis added]. Who will determine when "the conditions are right," Mr. President? According to an article entitled "Bush, Blair cite 'vital role' for UN in postwar Iraq," posted 04/08/03 on, "Bush administration officials have argued that coalition forces are uniquely qualified to assess the security and volatility on the ground and therefore should continue to control the country - at least in the short run." Will this Interim Authority merely be a mechanism for foreign control of interests in Iraq, Mr. President? "I hear a lot of talk about how, you know, we're going to impose this leader or that leader. Forget it. From Day One, we have said the Iraqi people are capable of running their own government. That's what we believe…And that's precisely what's going to happen." Okay, reference Gerry Adams and Ngo Dinh Diem. Sure, they can run their own government, just as long as we approve, right?

Speaking of approval, the status quo in terms of the Northern Irish conflict has always been to maintain British control however direct or indirect. The status quo in terms of American foreign policy has always been to protect American interests by whatever means possible; whether buttressing an undemocratic and unpopular government or eliminating voices of dissension. Tony Blair has no interest in working to change the status quo. Gerry Adams is merely his Northern Irish puppet. George W. Bush has no interest in allowing the Iraqi people to decide their own form of government. What would the White House do if the Iraqi populace opted for an Islamist government? With that being the case, the strategy has always been to divert attention and shift blame. In Northern Ireland, that means blame the IRA all the way. The British mouthpiece in Boston (a.k.a. The Boston Globe) published an editorial entitled "Peace works in Ireland." Consider the following excerpt:

"These are all improvements over the status quo but pale in significance beside the most important proposal: a call for all paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland (read, the IRA) to renounce violence and do away with the capability to commit violence…To revive the peace process, the IRA has to make a significant public act of disarmament and affirm that it has chosen politics over terror. Once that happens, the unionists need to accept the peace process without reservation. Unionist support for the GFA understandably depends on IRA renunciation of war."

Does The Boston Globe mention Loyalist terrorism (read Holy Cross School in Ardoyne)? Does The Boston Globe address the history of British 'security force' collusion with Loyalist death squads? Does the HMEB (Her Majesty's Editorial Board) at The Boston Globe shed light upon the fact that Northern Irish Nationalist families continue to be targeted for British harassment? What's that Maggie Thatcher? No, no, no. Spin doctor spin.

To develop a clearer sense of the paradoxical policies of Bush and Blair, reference their joint statement on Iraq's future. "The Iraqi regime…It has deliberately put Iraqi civilians in harm's way…It has sent execution squads to kill Iraqis who choose freedom over fighting for a brutal regime…We condemn [the] Iraqi regime ['s]…mistreatment of prisoners of war. These acts are an affront to all standards of human decency and international law." So, when a Northern Irish Catholic youth is injured by a British Army land rover, does that not justify reproach from the White House? When innocent Catholics are murdered by Loyalist gangs who are supplied with vital information and given shelter by the British 'security forces,' does that not upset the moral keel of the White House? When the British Government insists upon retaining a failed policy of forced integration in the prison system and when Irish Republican political prisoners are brutally attacked as a result, does that not call for censure from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? The 'coalition of the willing' puppet show continued with, "we will uphold our responsibility to help the people of Iraq build a nation that is whole, free and at peace with itself and its neighbors. We support the aspirations of all of Iraq's people for a united, representative government…we plan to seek the adoption of new United Nations Security Council resolutions that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity." For the curtain call Gepetto and his real live boy uttered, "Coalition forces will remain in Iraq as long as necessary to help the Iraqi people build their own institutions and reconstruct their country, but no longer." Do America and Britain not have a "responsibility" to help Ireland "build a nation that is whole, free"? Why not consider a United Nations resolution affirming Ireland's territorial integrity? One has to wonder if Britain still has a selfish economic, military, political or strategic interest in Ireland.

If altering the status quo would necessitate dismantling American and British Machiavellian puppets and powerhouses then, evidently, and to use Presidential terminology, "Forget it."



Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews + Letters + Archives

The Blanket - A Journal of Protest & Dissent



Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
- Thomas J. Watson

Index: Current Articles

27 April 2003


Other Articles From This Issue:


The Needle has Entered
Anthony McIntyre


Congress Must Investigate How Brian Nelson Lived in US

Fr. Sean Mc Manus


The Capitalist Veto
Liam O Ruairc


Easter Rising Statement
Oglaigh na hEireann


Letter to the Irish News
Tommy Gorman


Profiles in Hypocrisy
Maitiu Caomhánach


Do You Regret Being American?

Annie Higgins


Propaganda Stinkers

Paul de Rooij


24 April 2003


Collins Abu!
Tommy Gorman


Who Wants to be Non-Doctrinaire?
Jimmy Sands


Wooden Spoon
Anthony McIntyre


The Restoration of National Soverignty is Not a Right Wing Aspiration
Andy Martin


Shame, Shame, Shame
Aine Fox


Savage "New" Times Government Lie

Karen Lyden Cox




The Blanket




Latest News & Views
Index: Current Articles
Book Reviews
The Blanket Magazine Winter 2002
Republican Voices