HOME / hot document: Primary sources exposed and explained.

G8 Open Mic Night

hot document:
entries
1

By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, July 18, 2006, at 5:51 PM ET

While the nation titters over the president being caught uttering a barnyard epithet over an open mic, a larger point is being missed. President Bush and Tony Blair, prime minister of Great Britain, were having the sort of conversation that world leaders only conduct when they think nobody is listening. The topic--the outbreak of war between Israel and the Hezbollah faction in Lebanon--was extremely significant. Ordinarily we'd have to wait at least a decade or two for the National Security Archive to retrieve through the Freedom of Information Act whatever imperfect record existed of this sort of conversation. But thanks to the miracle of satellite feeds, we may eavesdrop on history in real time.

Transcripts of the overheard Bush-Blair conversation thus far have a somewhat tentative quality; different news organizations have produced divergent texts of what was actually said. I decided to go with the BBC's, because it seemed the most plausible and because I assume the BBC has more transcribing experience than do other news organizations. In the footnotes below (to read them, roll your mouse over the portions highlighted in yellow) I offer where I think relevant alternate readings (from transcripts by CNN and the London Independent, which conducted a similar footnoting exercise) on what Bush and Blair said. No doubt there will be much arguing over whose transcription is most accurate, so I can hardly claim to be definitive. Nor can I claim that my version is the most complete. The Independent's transcription starts at an earlier point in the conversation, and covers a brief, vague, and not terribly exciting discussion about trade. The most interesting part is the characteristically adolescent way that President Bush addressed his fellow statesman: "Yo, Blair." Disappointly, Blair failed to respond, "Yo, yourself."

I'd like to extend thanks to James Bennet, former Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York Times (and current editor-in-chief of the Atlantic), and Slate's chief political correspondent, John Dickerson, for helping me puzzle out a coherent interpretation of what was said. Any misinterpretations are entirely their fault.

If you have a document you'd like to submit to this column, please send it to . Please indicate whether you'd like to be referred to by name.

Bush turned 60 on July 6. Obviously this was Blair's birthday present. Why Blair (or an underling) thought sweaters were an appropriate summertime gift for anyone living in Washington, DC--where, as I write, the high is expected to reach 100 degrees Farenheit--is anybody's guess.
"It" or "them"? Blair doesn't seem to know whether he sent one sweater or many. Bad staff work!
There is no "plan" per se, at least that we know about. But Blair and Annan jointly called for a stepped-up UN presence on the Israel-Lebanon border. Incidentally, a separate transcription by CNN has Bush saying not "his ceasefire plan" but "the sequence of it." The meaning would remain the same.
Blair is referring to an international peacekeeping force, which he and Annan favor but which Bush deems insufficient. Bush also may worry that the UN would request a heavier US presence than the US is willing to provide.
Blair is offering to make preliminary inquiries into which countries would be willing to participate in a peacekeeping force. Or perhaps he is offering to help negotiate a ceasefire. The "inaudible word" in the previous sentence is most likely "UNIFIL." UNIFIL stands for "United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon." It has been present for many years, but with only 2,000 troops, it's too small to be anything other than a somewhat pathetic spectator.
This is a slightly humiliating admission from the British prime minister: All that matters is that the US try to impose a ceasefire. Everything else is just talk.
See above.
"...fail. And it won't matter because I'm just the prime minister of lil' old Great Britain." Blair's assessment of his relative clout is accurate, but his admitting weakness so freely is cringe-inducing. Throughout this conversation, Blair sounds more like an overeager White House intern than the leader of a sovereign nation. Winston Churchill would be appalled.
Not clear what "irony" Bush is referring to. Bush is expressing frustration that the United Nations won't simply pressure Syria to reign in Hezbollah.
Blair is launching into a counterargument, the gist of which is, "you're wasting your time trying to influence Syria."
This "yeah" doesn't signify agreement. Bush may be trying to interrupt, but that's hard to do with your mouth full.
The most baffling question surrounding this document is: "Who is 'he'"? At first I thought "he" was Kofi Annan, and that what follows is a discussion of Annan's mounting disgust with Hezbollah and Iran. Wise counsel from James Bennet, former Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times, persuades me that "he" is much likelier to be Assad. Blair is describing Assad's worst nightmare. Things calm down in Lebanon; peace blooms between Israelis and Palestinians; Iraq becomes a western-style democracy that maintains a strict boundary between church and state. Blair is saying that if all these things happen--and Blair knows that's an enormous "if"--then Assad is screwed. So why would Assad want to stop the current mayhem?
Bush is hearing only what he wants to hear. He agrees that Assad stands to lose from all the outcomes we're rooting for. But he assumes these outcomes are enough of a fait accompli to make Assad feel desperate and cry "uncle" by reining in Hezbollah. (Incidentally, the London Independent's transcription says the "indistinct" word here is "sweet," and that Bush's tone is sarcastic. That's consistent with the reading that Bush is talking about Assad; it's unlikely Bush would speak so scornfully of Annan.)
Blair isn't agreeing with Bush. He's merely continuing with his sentence. If all these things were to happen, Assad would be screwed. Iran would be screwed, too. Therefore, don't expect cooperation from Syria or Iran. (CNN's transcript has Blair saying "He's done it" rather than "He's had it." I presume CNN is in error, and that CNN's transcriber thought Blair was talking about Annan, not Assad. The Independent, meanwhile, has Blair saying not "He's had it," but "He's honey," seconding Bush's sarcastic put-down of Assad. That sounds wrong to me, too, because Blair is rather urgently trying to make a point here, and probably wouldn't pause to mimic Bush's lame wisecrack.)
Why is Bush using the past tense here? Is he saying, "I wanted Annan to pressure Assad but then I came to my senses?" That doesn't sound like our boy. Probably he's describing what he'd still like to do now.
Once again, a merely rhetorical "yeah." Blair doesn't see any point in asking Annan to call Assad.
CNN's more complete transcription is "We're not blaming Israel and we're not blaming the Lebanese government." This is consistent with Bush's pro-Israel tilt.
hot document:
entries
1

By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, July 18, 2006, at 5:51 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The Berlin Wall.4/091109_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on guns and shootings.2/091109_TC.jpg
Ins and outs.73/091109_TD.jpg