Saturday, December 01, 2007

Lebanon, Another Victim Of Annapolis

The Israelis weren't the only ones who were gang raped at Annapolis.

Lebanese democracy has apparently become another victim.

Apparently the Saudis and the Syrians used Annapolis to conduct a little meeting of their own on the subject behind the back of the US and came up with the latest `compromise' candidate for Lebanon's presidency..General Michel Suleiman, head of the Lebanese Army and a Syrian puppet.

A little background...Suleiman was hand picked by the Syrians to head the Lebanese army back in 1999 when Lebanon was still occupied by Syria's Army, and he reportedly has personal connections with the Assad regime. During the 2006 war with Israel, Suleiman ordered the Lebanese army to cooperate with Hezbollah and allowed Hezbollah to use the army’s facilities, including a coastal radar station used to aim and fire the missiles which hit and damaged an Israeli ship on July 15.

Since the war, General Suleiman has been covering for Hezbollah during their rearmament in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and has refused to use the Lebanese Army to cooperate with UNIFIL to patrol the borders or stop Hezbollah from moving back into its old positions in south Lebanon.

Not surprisingly, Suleiman is Syria's number one pick for Lebanon's presidency . Michel Aoun , a prominent Syrian tool who wanted the office is backing him, now that it's clear the Syrians aren't supporting Aoun for the job. And Hezbollah is also now supporting this man. This should tell you something about whom he is.

Saad al-Hariri, Druse leader Walid Jumblatt and the rest of the March 14 democratic anti-Syrian majority had been opposing Suleiman as a presidential candidate ever since the Lebanese political crisis began. Yet right after Annapolis, they agreed to a constitutional amendment that would allow Suleiman to be elected president. The leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea also signed on to the deal.

This took place almost solely because the Bush Administration invited Syria to Annapolis, and the March 14 leaders aren't fools. They saw that Syria being invited to Annapolis was a clear sign that Washington was very likely going to cut a deal with Syria over Lebanon, so they made their own bargain with Hezbollah and Syria to protect themselves.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saudi al-Feisal announcing his support for Suleiman's candidacy as well was another clear sign to the March 14 anti-Syrian bloc to make their own deal with Hezbollah and the Syrians while they could.

This means that Suleiman will almost certainly be elected, the Syrians and Hezbollah ( an dthus, Iran) will be back in control and the UN tribunal on the assassinations of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other Lebanese politicians that points directly at the top ranks of the Assad regime as the perpetrators will be stonewalled and blocked, just as it was under the last President Emil Lahoud, who was `elected' literally under the guns of the occupying Syrian army.

The odd thing is that there may not even be a US-Syrian deal on Lebanon, but simply a deal between Syria and the Saudis.The Annapolis event was pushed through by Condi Rice for one reason placate the Saudis by backing the Saudi `peace' ultimatum, creating a second Arab Palestinian state no matter what the cost, and laying the groundwork for pushing Israel into major concessions. So of course the Syrians were bribed to attend, and promised that the strategic Golan Heights would be on the agenda, per the Saudis.

To the Lebanese, this was a deja vu experience, since this is exactly what happened to them back in the 1990's under the first President Bush, who allowed Syria to `handle' Lebanon as it's personal fiefdom. They have absolutely no reason to think they aren't on the block as part of Syria's `price' for going along with Rice's Middle East agenda.

The Assad regime supports terrorism, allows al Qaeda fighters across its borders into Iraq to kill Americans and has whittled down the March 14 majority in Lebanon by murdering its members one by one, along with anyone else who got in their way, but aside from rhetoric, the US has done absolutely nothing about it.

So those Lebanese who risked their lives to try to put together an Arab democracy in the Middle East and resisted a terrorist regime end up betrayed, in the end. And the Lebanese journalists, politicians, and dissidents who were killed and maimed by Hezbollah and the Syrians and who died for that dream will have died in vain.

If part of the the Bush Administration's rationale of the Annapolis meeting was to pry Syria away from Iran and safeguard Lebanon's fragile democratic government, it failed - miserably.


Anonymous said...

"The Assad regime allows terroris, allows Al Qaeda fighters across its borders into Iraq to kill Ameircans..." That won't be happening for much longer. Once the tours of duty for the soldiers who make up the surge is completed, they will be coming home. The level of violence in Iraq will likely go back up to what it was before the surge. This will increase the pressure for withdrawl of US military personnel. Wholesale withdrawl will begin around February 2008 and it will be completed by the end of August 2008. By 8/31/2008 there will not be a amember of the American military of any type in Iraq. In fact, there will be no American personnel of any type in Iraq by the above date. So Assad can continue allowing Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq but they will be no Americans there for them to kill.

If the violence some how stays down after the surge ends, pressure from the world community will grow to remove US troops from Iraq. The result will be the same. They will be gone from Iraq by 8/31/2008.

Even if the US wanted to maintain a presence in Iraq, it cannot do so. The Army is worn down and nearing the breaking point. Regardless of the political situation the US military cannot continue past August of 2008. As such, the United State government will have no choice but to withdraw the troops.

"...but aside from rhetoric, the US has done nothing about it." There is nothing the US can do. Its military is worn down, undesized and stretched close to the breaking point. Due to its massive national debt and huge unfunded liabilities, such as social security and medicare it is nearly bankrupt. In addition to this, its industrial base has been hollowed out. Finally, it is heavily dependent on others for imports of many of the raw materials that make its economy operate. In light of this reality, the US should have kept its mouth shut. Experential common sense would seem to suggest that one should not engage in rhetoric that they have no hope of backing up. Obviously the Bush Administration and much of the rest of the US government is lacking in such common sense.

If the US wants to support democratic movements around the world, it will need a much larger and stronger military than it currently has. Getting such a military in place is problematic becuase of the issues mentioned in the above paragraph.

The US would have gotten more marginal utility for its national security interests by securing the borders, monitoring the mosques, and closely monitoring who enters the US than it would have with its current policy.

I think Annapolis and other actions that have taken place recently need to be udnerstood within the context of the coming complete withdrawl of the US from the middle east. All of the major players know that the US will be withdrawing from the entire middle east by the end of 2008 and they are acting according to this reality to position themselves in the best manner that they think they can.

Btw, wil the Democrats please, pretty please make themselves useful and impeach this president. I think the plan is to initiate impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney sometime around March to April of 2008 and have them wrapped up around the end of September 2008. this conincides nicely with the Iraq withdrawl and with the elections. The Democrats will submit both the Iraq withdrawl and impeachment of the President and the Vice President to the American people as a gift from them to the Ameircan people. This will ensure their electoral victory, assumimg the country survives long enough.

The only problems with this are they are playing politics with American national security and we need this President out NOW. Even if there are no high crimes or misdemeanors that this President is guilty of he is so widely unpopular the Democrats should be able to invent the crimes and allow the media to do the rest. As unpopular as this President and Vice President are, I don't see top legal talent lining up to defend them.

Impeachment of this President should be quite easy. For the good of the country, the House and the Senate need to GET IT DONE.

Freedom Fighter said...

Poster, it's not about legal talent, it's simply about votes. That's why Clinton was able to stay in office, even though he was impeached by the House.

Also, one would have to make the case in the public arena..which would take much more evidence then the Dems appear to possess thus far.

Anonymous said...

"Its not about legal talent, it's simply about votes." This is true. I just assumed that, if one is being tried for high crimes and misdemeanors, that one would have legal counsel. Given the fact that this president is wildly unpopular, is opposed by the House, the Senate, the main stream news media, and the Governmnet bueracracy I don't see any top notch legal talent rushing to the defense of this President.

I would also assume that the prosecutors in the House would want to have legal talent to help them to make their case. Given the situation as mentioned in the above paragraph, I would think that most every top lawyer and top law firm in the nation would fall over themselves lining up to make the case for those supporting impeachment.

"Also, one would need to make the case in the public arena.." This is true. Clinton was so popular it would not have mattered what he did. He could not have been impeached by the Senate. That is if Senators wanted to keep their jobs. It may not be right but that is how it is in the US. He or she who fights the electorate loses in the end. As former Clinton advisor Dick Morris once pointed out Bill Clinton is obsessed by his popularity. in the end his popularity is what saved him from impeachment.

George W. Bush is so umpopular that the Democrats and their lackeys in the media would have no problem makiing a case in public. If need be, they can simply manufacture evidence. This President can be run out on a rail any time the Democrats want to do it. I don't forsee anyone of consequence coming to this President's defense.

He has shown himself to be incompetent. If evidence needs to be manufactured to get this man out of office, why don't the Democrats go ahead and do it? I think it is becuase they feel it will maximize their electoral chances if they start early next year, say around Feb to March and conclude the hearings by late September to early October. If they were to start now and have the hearings done by say June, the President is a non issue or a much smaller issue by the time the voters go to the polls.

The Democrats would likely get a boost in the polls if Bush is impeached. They probably think it is better to have that boost in November than it is to have it in June or July. I think this explains the delay in getting this done.

In the mean time they are playing politicis with American national security. I want them to stop playing politics. Do their duty and get impeachment done.

With all of this said, in spite of the spectaular pettiness and down right incompetence exuded by the leaders of both political parties, I pray for President Bush and all of our leaders both Democrat and Republican every day. The Holy scriptures admonish us to pray for our leaders.