Comment faire croire que Bush est intelligent? Essayez ceci: en paraissant plus bête que lui

… Sans doute le Daily Telegraph, dans son zèle à regarder Washington avec les yeux de Rita Hayworth regardant Orson Welles (au début), a-t-il trouvé la formule. Il nous signale en effet que la Maison-Blanche vit, rien que ça, “a leadership moment”. A cause du Liban. Voici le passage de l’article qui nous fait croire effectivement qu’à paraître plus con que l’actuel président des Etats-Unis, on parvient à faire paraître ce dernier intelligent. Et c’est ce qui importe, semble-t-il.

« White House aides have said they consider the Lebanon crisis to be a “leadership moment” for Mr Bush and an opportunity to proceed with his post-September 11 plan to reshape the Middle East by building Sunni Arab opposition to Shia terrorism. Yesterday Mr Bush cited the role of Iran and Syria in providing help to Hezbollah. »

Nous n’avons pas la moindre honte à signaler que cette réaction et ce passage du Telegraph britannique, — qui nous montrent que le temps béni des colonies est bien fini (les colonisateurs aujourd’hui plus bêtes que leurs anciens colonisés), — nous viennent d’un blogger américain. Nous lui laissons bien volontiers la parole, parce qu’il nous dit tout, “Billmon”, dans ce commentaire du 23 juillet.

« The Daily Telegraph explains what we've been fighting for these past five years:

» “White House aides have said they consider the Lebanon crisis to be a ‘leadership moment’ for Mr Bush and an opportunity to proceed with his post-September 11 plan to reshape the Middle East by building Sunni Arab opposition to Shi’a terrorism. Yesterday Mr Bush cited the role of Iran and Syria in providing help to Hezbollah. (emphasis added)

The question is whether this astonishing statement is the product of bad writing, the slack-jawed stupidity of the Telegraph's Washington correspondent, or a deliberate Eastasia/Eurasia switch by our fun-loving Orwellians in the Cheney administration.”

» If it’s just bad writing or stupidity – if the phrase “building Sunni Arab opposition to Shi’a terrorism” doesn’t actually modify “post-September 11 plan,” but instead is just another way of pretending that Shrub is capable of the kind of leadership that has its “moments,” then the sentence is only unintentionally hysterical. However, given the current situation on the ground (all 18 zillion square miles of it) it may well be precisely the lie it appears to be, to wit: that fighting “Shi’a terrorism” was the point of Shrub’s post-9/11 master plan all along.

» Either way, it boggles the mind that anyone who isn't a certified graduate of the Minitrue School for Outer Party Members could write an English sentence even suggesting such a thing. Is that why America crushed the most powerful Sunni regime in the neighborhood? Is that why Democracy Boy cheered as an Iran-friendly government took power in Baghdad? Does it explain why the Iraqi Interior Ministry was turned over to the tender mercies of an Iranian-backed militia movement?

» This is the closest thing I’ve seen yet to a flat-out admission that the Iraq War was a disastrous strategic mistake. Or conversely, if you’re a true Orwell disciple, it’s simply another meaningless switch in an endless war whose real purpose isn’t to defeat the enemy, but to keep the prols docile and the ruling party firmly in power in this country. You can take your pick, I guess. »

Mis en ligne le 24 juillet 2006 à 15H16