Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Lost In The Rhetoric: When A Cease-Fire Is Not A Cease-Fire, But Still Considered A Cease-Fire

Well, if you followed the title of this post, you should know we are talking about more rhetorical shenanigans from the W, Rove and Co.

Just the other day, they (including our favorite Doctor, Rice) were talking about successfully encouraging a "cease-fire" in the whole Lebanon situation. Tuesday, Tony the Snow-job blows some confusion up our skirts as to what a "cease-fire" really is.

Have a look and see if you gather how easy it is for the W, Rove and Co. to spin the rhetoric to ensure their rose-colored glasses stay firmly in place:

Q My question is, how does the President feel about the breaking of the temporary truce in Lebanon?

MR. SNOW: Well, I was reading this out the other day. I think the way this thing was characterized in some press reports was different than the way it had been presented to the White House, which was that the Israelis said that they would suspend bombing except for sites that had activities aimed at Israel or Israelis. And this is the way I read it out the other day on the plane.

So you know, I will direct all questions about Israel's tactics and how it matches up with rhetoric to them. But the way it was presented to us was not just a blanket cease-fire. The one thing that was blanket was 24 hours of free passage for humanitarian aid, and also for people to get out of the area.
But, just what are the W, Rove and Co for (sure for them and not us, but hey, that's their problem not ours):
Q The President is still against a cease-fire?

MR. SNOW: No, the President is for a cease-fire, but he's for a sustainable cease-fire and a lasting peace.

Q An immediate cease-fire?

MR. SNOW: An immediate cease-fire is something that at this point doesn't seem to be in the cards. Neither side is headed that way. But what the President is working on and what our allies are working on are providing those conditions for a sustainable cease-fire, which means being able to move into southern Lebanon -- the Lebanese armed forces. They're going to need some support, certainly at the outset, by a multinational force. There are contribution talks that are beginning to take shape on those.

And so the President is very supportive of diplomatic efforts that involve the United States, France and other members of the United Nations Security Council to put together conditions that achieve all of the things that everybody says they want. Everybody wants a cease-fire, a cessation of hostilities; also a recognition that Hezbollah has been responsible for this; and in keeping with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, it cannot operate as an independent militia within Lebanese borders.

There is also the recognition that there is going to be need for humanitarian aid, and the United States was first to that. And we continue to support humanitarian efforts. There will be a need for reconstruction efforts in time. In other words, there is a comprehensive approach to trying to deal with the situation in Lebanon so that the people of Lebanon do not once again have their hopes lifted by false promises. In this case, we are trying to look for a practical way to make good on promises that have been made in the past, in the form of U.N. Security Council 1559.
Then, Helen whips out the cast iron skillet of hers and smacks Tony with the snowball crusher:
Q May I just add?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Doesn't that mean many more people are going to die?

MR. SNOW: I hope not. I think everybody hopes not.
I love Helen Thomas: telling it like it is by questioning the lions in the lions' den. So, we see that while the rhetoric spins out of control from the bully pulpit, more innocents (to which the W himself has professed to care about) will end up deceased. Hmmm...sounds just about as good and effective (and sustainable, I might add) as the W, Rove and Co Iraq solution.

No comments: