Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Lebanon - The Story So Far

The September Tenth News Agency, also known as (al)Reuters has found another one of those 'experts' to weigh in on the hidden effects of America's support for Israel, well not even ... it's America's 'tacit' support that's going to cause further violence. Sheesh.

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration's tacit support for Israeli military strikes on Lebanon may have increased the danger of militant retaliation against the United States and U.S. interests abroad, some experts say.

What form this increased danger will take is not clear; an extra stick of dynamite in every suicide belt? Arabs states will try to wipe Israel of the map twice? The next attack on American soil will involve five hijacked aircraft? Their 'expert' doesn't say. The headline to this piece of drivel is 'Mideast violence may raise odds of US attack: experts'. As I understand it, if the odds of something occurring increase [become greater] then the likelyhood of that thing happening DECREASE. But then I don't write headlines for Al Reuters so what do I know?

But intelligence officials said the group [Hezbollah] was believed to have suspended hostilities against the United States in the 1990s. There was currently no evidence of an imminent attack or any sign Hezbollah had changed its policy, officials said.

Historical Note: Hezbollah 'suspended hostilities against the United States' the same day pigs learned to fly. You can look it up.

The United States could face spontaneous violence soon from local Islamist groups inspired by al Qaeda, or well-planned attacks over the longer term by professionals from Hizbollah or al Qaeda, former intelligence officials said.

Al Reuters is doing what it can to fan the flames of uncertainty, but then that appears to be their role in life.

Hezbollah has overplayed it's hand and none of the bit-players in the region seem to mind what's happening to it. Even today's National Post headline 'Majority Supports Israel' has Canadians on side, all be it 'tacitly'. The Post quotes and Ispso Reid poll indicating 64% of Canadians support Israel.

Some global and European whiners are only critical of Israel’s degree of response, calling it 'disproportionate'. Ben Stein isn't buying it.

From Mark Steyn's interview with Hugh Hewitt last Thursday... (scroll down)

HH: Mark Steyn, your assessment of the war against Israel, a week into it?

MS: Well, I think the interesting feature so far, really, is the poodles that didn't yap, to pacify Sherlock Holmes. Normally, by this stage, the public rhetoric of the Europeans and the Arabs would be ferocious. And instead, I think both of them have been very circumspect in public. And certainly, the ones I've talked to in private are in fact, in a strange way, and possibly unprecedented, at least in the last thirty years, they're rooting for Israel. Amazing.

HH: Why is that?

MS: Well, I think because they have actually seen that...they've had a tremendous glimpse of their own future, and what has happened to Gaza, and what has happened in Southern Lebanon, and to Lebanon as a whole, and in effect, even to Syria, because Syria is, in fact, playing Mini Me to Iran's Dr. Evil at the moment, and that they've seen a terrible portent to where things could go, both for Jordan, for Egypt, for Saudi Arabia, and down the line, for certain European countries, too.

HH: What do you make of the Lebanese prime minister's on again/off again, we support Hezbollah, the Lebanese army will fight for Hezbollah, then it's not our war. What's going on with his game?

MS: Well, I think to a certain extent, he's hemmed in. And although he is the prime minister of Lebanon, Lebanon is effectively a state that's been hijacked. What he doesn't know is how popular the hijacking is. Lebanon has a very peculiar electoral system, essentially where the parliament is allocated on the basis of religious beliefs, and the census that determines who gets what seats, in part goes back to the 1930's. In fact, it's way out of date. Basically, if they were to redesign the Lebanese Parliament to reflect democratic reality, there'd be an awful lot more Hezbollah seats in there. That is just a sad fact. But as much as we like seeing those hot Beirut babes chanting for freedom in the streets not so long ago on TV, they look fabulous...fabulous looking women, Westernized women, chanting for freedom. There is a side of the Lebanese population that is solidly behind Hezbollah, and that is a problem for anybody in that state.

Israel's present is Europe's future and they know it, they just don't want to say it out loud and accelerate the process. Having Le Grande Poodle go quiet is almost unheard of in history.

Another story appeared today, well poll result really, but that's considered news in the MSM world. It's from The Washington Times, '50 percent of U.S. says Iraq had WMDs'. That's up from 36% last year. The story also reports that ...

Seventy-two percent of respondents said the Iraqi people are better off now than under Saddam Hussein's regime -- a figure similar to that of 2004, when it stood at 76 percent. In addition, 64 percent say Saddam had "strong links" with al Qaeda, up from 62 percent in October 2004. Fifty-five percent said that "history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

The New York Times; (the paper of treason) isn't on-side of course, here are their headlines from yesterday;

Rice Makes Surprise Visit to Beirut

U.S. Government Plans Overhaul in Disaster Aid

Wary Iraqis Are Recruited as Policemen

Israeli Missile Hits Fleeing Family


At 11:39 AM, Blogger Marshall Darts said...

Condi's Stroll Through Middle East Politics

Condoleezza Rice's first trip through Middle East diplomacy certainly doesn't exude the frenetic pace of Henry Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy of the 1970's, does it? It took her more than a few days from the end of the G-8 summit just to get on a plane.

Now, at a leisurely pace, she is acting though she is on a state visit without the banquets, rather than on a diplomatic mission. She shows up in Lebanon to say she's sorry innocent people were hurt. She goes to Israel, supposedly to talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians about a "solution" to the problem.

She'll stay just long enough to ask the Israelis how much more time they need for their offensive. Then she is scheduled to go to Rome to have more meetings with European nations about an "immediate" ceasefire, about two weeks after fighting started.

Meetings are useful for one of two things. To produce results or to stall. It's pretty easy to see U.S. strategy. Stall until the Israelis feel they are finished. You can tell by the pace and the tenor of her tour that Condi is going to consult, consult, consult, until the U.S. and Israel get the result they want.


Post a Comment

<< Home