by Charles
It’s fun watching dictators squirm. The assassination of Rafik Hariri is turning out to be one of Bashar Assad’s biggest miscalculations in his short career as Syrian strongman. The evidence of course isn’t all in, but clearly the motivation for the assassination lies with the Syrian government. They thought they could get away with it.
In a quasi peace offering yesterday, Assad offered up Saddam’s half-brother and 29 other Iraqi Baathists to the Iraqi government. Apparently the group was arrested over the weekend, but the real question is how long Assad allowed these Iraqis to freely operate within Syrian borders. I suspect Assad has let this happen since April 2003. This one-off gesture is nowhere near good enough. Syria sponsors and harbors terrorists and terrorist groups, they provide aid and comfort to Iraqi "insurgents", they keep Lebanon under lock and key, and they are responsible for attempting to scuttle the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. From the Washington Post:
Palestinian and Israeli security forces arrested seven Palestinians on Saturday in connection with a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv the night before, while leaders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Syria asserted responsibility for the attack.
Emphasis mine. The international lens on Assad and Lebanon is having its effect. Publius Pundit is reporting on protests by the Lebanese opposition, even though the government instituted a ban on such activities. Assad would only make it worse if he applied Hama Rules to these protests, especially now that the number protesting approached 200,000. In effect, Assad is losing control of Lebanon, and it’s about time. The Caveman in Beirut is also covering these historic events. Importantly, Lebanese business leaders are also in full support:
Leaders of Lebanon’s banking, industrial and commercial sectors said they would shut down next Monday to demand the country’s pro-Syrian government resign and that a "neutral" one replace it.
The strike would coincide with an expected vote of confidence in parliament, two weeks after the murder of former premier Rafiq Hariri in a bomb blast for which the opposition has pinned blame on the government and its Syrian backers.
[Update: The snowball is gathering speed. CNN has just reported that pro-Syrian Lebanese prime minister Karami has just resigned and his government has collapsed.]
While Joshua Landis has reservations about "pushing Syria to the wall", the pushing is having its effect. Nuance only takes you so far. In a later post, Landis recognizes that the Syrian government is in over its head, and that the Syrian Baathist Party has no real power when it comes to the national leadership. As Tony at Across the Bay has written, Assad is clueless. And as friend Streiff has written, Assad has not absorbed the impact of what took place on January 30th. His dreams of a consolidated Baathist Party are to dust, and soon he’s going to lose Lebanon.
None of this would’ve happened if the dangerous principle of human freedom hadn’t been spread to the unfree peoples of the Middle East.
These are autocrats whose regimes had remained unaltered, and unchallenged, for decades. There has been no political ferment in Damascus since the 1960s, or in Cairo since the 1950s. Now, within weeks of Iraq’s elections, Mubarak and Assad are tacking with panicked haste between bold acts of repression, which invite an international backlash, and big promises of reform — which also may backfire, if they prove to be empty. They could yet survive; but quite clearly, the Arab autocrats don’t regard the Bush dream of democratic dominoes as fanciful.
Update II: One other thing. While it’s been clear that Assad has been with the terrorists, in Lebanon the terrorists are with Assad.
As Parliament convenes Monday to discuss former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination and most likely renews its confidence in the government, eyes are turned to Hizbullah, which has become the center of political polarization between the opposition and loyalists.
For the first time since its participation in Parliament in 1992, Hizbullah is expected to vote for the government, this time for purely "Syrian" reasons that have nothing to do with the Cabinet itself.
The party, which over a decade has either abstained or voted against the successive governments, will make a different choice Monday, amid a political battle whose real slogan is not the continuation of Prime Minister Omar Karami’s government, but the persistence of Syria’s hegemony over the country.
Update III: A Beirut dispatch by way of Belgravia Dispatch.
My, my, my. How quick we are to say ‘it’s Syria’ when, as you note, the facts are not all in. Syria has always been a target (see “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” written by Richard Perle, Douglass Feith, and others). When you ask yourself ‘who has the most to gain’ and ‘who has the most to lose’ by killing al-Hariri, Syria comes to mind as the country or political power with the most to lose in the killing. Yes, al-Hariri denounced Syria’s influence in Lebanon, but condemnation of Syria’s involvement in Lebanon was not exactly gaining momentum since the UN Security Council last took up the matter. While it is entirely possible that if Syria was involved, it greatly miscalculated the backlash that would be heaped upon it for the killing. I am not convinced that Syria would have risked the certain increase in hostilities with Washington.
A congressman suggests playing by Hama rules.
r. johnson:
you must be new to this blog, or else you would have realized that this is just typical of Charles/Bird Dog’s usual commenting style – especially when he has an easy target-of-opportunity like Syria. The opening statement casually fixing the blame for Rafik Hariri’s murder on Bashar Assad – and the “evidence isn’t all in, of course” disclaimer comes across as disingenous (PS, CB: the Lebanon Daily Star link didn’t work for me: who are they?) is just par for the course.
Which is too bad, since the rest of the post seems to be relatively intelligently written (if a bit overheated about how Syria’s regime is heading to dustbin tout suite).
A respectful hint, Charles: this isn’t LGF: don’t lead off an otherwise cogent post with lurid “facts” which aren’t actually, you know, factual. Just sayin’
I think the Syrians were as guilty of the assasination as Hussein was guilty of stockpilling WMD and planning 9-11.
Al-Queda and Al-Queda Lite sure seem to take the credit for all these terrorist attacks and we are sure willing to pin the blame on other people.
“the Bush dream of democratic dominoes as fanciful.”
I dislike the easy concept of “autocracy.” Bush has advisors, allies, associates; he is influenced, can face consequences, has constituencies to assuage, etc. The idea that Bush makes decisions in total isolation and has complete and absolute power strikes as dangerously simplistic. 🙂
Yes, I read “Syria comment.” and the conclusion was that the “Baath leadership” made some final decisions. I could be wrong, but I think Assad has people to answer to, internal pressures on him, etc. I dislike the pattern where Mubarak decides on more open elections; the insurgency will stop when Saddam is captured, or maybe it is now Saddam’s relatives in Syria;where Sharon decides on settlements or Abbas will determine if there is peace;Sistani will determine if Americans stay or go, etc. You get my point.
Now individuals can be important, even critical. Hariri in Lebanon appeared to be one such leader. Perhaps the Syrian calculation(if they were responsible) was that there would be hell for a while, but 2 or 6 months down the road, the opposition without Hariri as a leader would be fatally weakened. It is good to be optimistic and cheer the Lebanese, but I am not so certain the Syrian gamble is absurd, and I think the Lebanese are going to need a lot of support.
Regarding “Democratic Dominos” could someone, anyone, offer up some sort of empirical evidence that A (invasion of Iraq/Iraqi elections) caused B (Lebanese “Intifada”, Mubarak’s “reforms”)
Because that would be, you know, interesting. And responsible.
This is what rilkefan linked to:
2shoes: it’s simple. If it’s good, Bush caused it. If it’s bad, Bush bears no responsibility for it.
Sam Johnson (R-Texas) doesn’t speak for me. With his motor mouth, he shouldn’t even be speaking for his constituents.
“Sam Johnson (R-Texas) doesn’t speak for me. With his motor mouth, he shouldn’t even be speaking for his constituents.”
More than fair enough, CB.
“It’s fun watching dictators squirm.”
I just like watching them fall.
it’s simple. If it’s good, Bush caused it. If it’s bad, Bush bears no responsibility for it.
As proven by Muppet Labs.
CB: the Lebanon Daily Star link didn’t work for me: who are they?
Don’t know what happened. I tried the link and it works fine. Here’s something on them. They’re affiliated with the International Herald Tribune, which is a subsidiary of the NY Times:
They sound legit to me.
The daily star is a real paper, the only English paper in Lebanon. It’s kind of a rag, but what can you do?
PS – Ay, yallah! Suriyya tla’ la barra!
Re:updates
Of course, I could be wrong, Bashar is in charge. I had always thought him the idiot son.
Does update #1 conflict with #2? What happens in Lebanon now? Parliamentary systems, dissolve the gov’t, hold new general elections? Who runs the water dept? Never quite understood these things.
I have to admit I love the title.
“it’s simple. If it’s good, Bush caused it. If it’s bad, Bush bears no responsibility for it.”
I should clarify what I mean by this: Charles gives Bush almost all of the credit for everything good that may have come out of the Iraq War, but does not blame him for anything bad that may have come out of the Iraq War–even if the link between the invasion and the bad event is much clearer than the link between the invasion and the good event.
Bush isn’t the one out there protesting in Lebanon. He gets credit, though, because the protestors may be motivated by the Iraqi voters. But Bush wasn’t the one who stood on line and risked his life to vote. He gets credit, though, because he did decide to hold the elections. But this was at least as much Sistani’s idea as Bush. He gets credit though, because the elections never could have taken place without the invasion.
There is a long list of other things that could never have taken place without the invasion. The mutilation of the contractors’ bodies in Fallujah. The deaths of over a thousand American soldiers and the injury of tens of thousands. The beheading of Nick Berg and Margaret Hassan and enough other innocent people that I’ve literally lost count. The torture at Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper. The cousins of an Iraqi bloggers pushed into a river by American soldiers. The deaths of God knows how many Iraqi civilians lost to American cluster bombs or Zarqawi’s band of murderers. The bombing that killed 122 Iraqi troops and wounded over 170 today, the most deadly single attack since the statute fell.
Charles does not appear to hold Bush at all responsible for any of these things. He says that it’s the insurgents committing the most brutal murders and targetting civilians, and Charles Graner was a sadist who has been prosecuted for his crimes, and the U.S. killings of civilians are awful but to some degree unavoidable in defending themselves, and if we withdrew now more people would probably die. Most of this is correct, but again, it was also not Bush himself who risked his life to vote last month. And for Abu Ghraib and Zarqawi’s murders no less than the elections, the event would not have happened if we had not invaded Iraq. (This is much, much MORE clear for the bombing in Baghdad today than for the protests in Lebanon.) It’s probably true that Bush wanted one thing to happen and did not want the other, but that’s not a good way to measure responsibility or evaluate policies. When it comes to measuring responsibility, either you are responsible for all of your actions’ indirect as well as direct consequences, or you are responsible for direct consequences and reasonably foreseeable indirect consequences, or you are only responsible for their immediate consequences. But Iraq war supporters tend to switch back and forth so that Bush gets all credit for good things and no blame for bad things.
PS: CB: tried the link for the Daily Star again, and it works, now. Dunno, probably an AOL thing (old advice from a former techie: when in doubt, blame AOL: the odds are probably in your favor!).
Tx.
Second the title-awesomeness.
Katherine,
“But Bush wasn’t the one who stood on line and risked his life to vote.”
Nope, just his entire political career and his place in history.
But, really should we really be talking about Charles and how he never blames anything bad on Bush? That just seems rather hypocritical coming from you.
Couldn’t something similar be said for many posters like yourself who seem to blame 99% of the bad things that do happen as completely Bush’s fault?
Maybe, you should hold back a while because even though there are positive developments all over the Middle East alot still could go wrong and then you can go back expressing your extreme dislike for Bush. If that happens then you won’t sound quite so bitter.
I’m encouraged that the pro-Syrian government was intimidated by the crowds into quitting. That is truly a step in the right direction.
I’m so encouraged, in fact, I’m willing to give Bush credit for it as well. One could argue that this is an example of the domino effect the Neo-Cons had been hoping for.
Maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe not. Doesn’t matter. It did. Now we wait and see what happens.
I’m nowhere near ready to say that this justifies the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis though. Those deaths were not ours or the Lebanese peoples’ to offer in sacrifice to get to this point.
“But Bush wasn’t the one who stood on line and risked his life to vote.”
Nope, just his entire political career and his place in history.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Bravo!
Is the proposition under discussion really that we had to spend $150B and 10,000’s of lives in order to rile up Lebanese citizens and make Mubarrak uncomfortable? We couldn’t have achieved these through diplomacy, well-placed donations, and a moderately competent CIA, at a fraction of the blood & treasure?
Because that seems kind of silly. Another of my misunderstandings, I hope.
And praising these (very welcome, if tentative) pro-democracy trends as a consequence of the Iraq war strikes me as praising someone for running his car over a cliff because the vehicle landed on a rattlesnake.
(Though I don’t see why we’re jumping on Bird for the assertion that Syria was behind the assassination. Syria has worked very hard to make itself a likely suspect in such things, and if the suspicion’s unjust this time around, don’t cry for Syria. The Lebanese who are “voting with their feet” certainly don’t think Syria’s an innocent bystander.)
I can’t see a relationship between the stand made by the Lebanese and the invasion of Iraq. If the Lebanese were inspired by anyone, it is more likely the Ukrainians for their brave demonstrations.
Bush is using the Cold War as his model. The Soviet Uion fell and western style democracies broke out all over the former regime’s sphere of influence. The problem is tha the Middle East is not a comparable situation. Saddam didn’t have control or even influence over his neighbors. They aren’t freer because of his fall. The internal affairs of the neighboring countries are just that–their internal affairs. Each situation is unique.
I am thrilled by what’s happening in Lebanon — the Lebanese people deserve a shot at basic freedom and peace, and they haven’t had one for decades. I also don’t think there’s any reason to think that this had much of anything to do with our invasion of Iraq — it’s only, what, around 6 hours since the government fell, and to my mind that’s way to short a time to say much ore than: it had to do with the murder of Hariri, and the general unpopularity of the Syrian occupation, neither of which, as far as I know, we arranged. I’d also suggest the Ukraine as a possible influence, but again, that would just be speculation.
lily,
The problem is tha the Middle East is not a comparable situation. Saddam didn’t have control or even influence over his neighbors
Perhaps, the fall of Saddam was a signal to the people of ME that their dictators no longer have perpetual rule. That Assad (who controls Lebanon) might not be around forever?
The Lebanese have led interesting lives and I’m sure they’ll continue to lead interesting lives regardless of who’s in the whitehouse and no matter what America is doing. So this looks like the end of one occupation, how many more in the world are there…Palestine and Iraq, is that all?
A teensy bit of a tangent, but did anyone see the Sunday NYT editorial on global poverty and how easy it would be to save millions of lives each year? Much cheaper than invading and occupying Iraq. It’s linked to the present topic in my mind because if people really are serious about spreading sweetness and light and so forth, why would they spend hundreds of billions of dollars and cause tens of thousands of deaths when there are so much more cost effective ways of doing good?
And then we could take credit whenever someone, anyone, improved sanitation somewhere or vaccinated a child. And terrorists would squirm as they tried to explain how America was really evil when it was busy fighting malaria and AIDS in Africa.
Frankly, I don’t know why Bush wouldn’t be doing both if he really cared. Even from a cynical viewpoint, the AIDS fighting would provide a kind of propaganda cover for the empire-building, kind of the way the money we gave to the tsunami victims was a golden opportunity for us to display our generosity and prove to the world that we’re not just about dropping bombs and building little gulags.
Donald,
And then we could take credit whenever someone, anyone, improved sanitation somewhere or vaccinated a child.
I thought the vaccinations were really American doctors injecting black babies with AIDS?
What abou the tsunami aid? Oh, yea, it was really the evil zionists setting off a nuclear bomb in the ocean..
Donald,
And then we could take credit whenever someone, anyone, improved sanitation somewhere or vaccinated a child.
I thought the vaccinations were really American doctors injecting black babies with AIDS?
What abou the tsunami aid? Oh, yea, it was really the evil zionists setting off a nuclear bomb in the ocean..
I knew there a reason (or two) to feel bad that the makeover deadline for the Tacitus site was missed by a week or so.
I just got the title…that is funny.
I’ve got $500 that says Johnson hasn’t got the guts to put two nukes into Syria all by his lonesome.
I’ll advance the $500 to help pay for the mission, if he’ll do it.
His mouth. My money. Let’s start a pool.
Charles gives Bush almost all of the credit for everything good that may have come out of the Iraq War, but does not blame him for anything bad that may have come out of the Iraq War–even if the link between the invasion and the bad event is much clearer than the link between the invasion and the good event.
I take issue with that, Katherine. I’ve said frequently that Bush is at fault for the poor post-war planning and execution. So many more American and Iraqi lives could have been saved had they spent more time and preparation on contingency planning, and deployed more troops to maintain security. The buck also must stop at Bush for the pervasive ill treatment of prisoners and detainees. The mistreatment of detainees, as I wrote here, happened on Bush’s watch. I think you’re engaging in an unfortunate practice of making vastly overexaggerated generalizations.
Then there is this!!!
Will A Popular Uprising In Lebanon Lead To The Rise Of Antichrist?
Why The Antichrist Will Originate Within Lebanon
“I’ve got $500 that says Johnson hasn’t got the guts to put two nukes into Syria all by his lonesome.”
Everybody making fun of Mr Johnson, but remember, he said it to the President first. In the context of what discussion?
Hypothetical: Syria decides it has to leave Lebanon, but decides it should do a Kuwait or Kosovo on the way out. Strip Lebanon of everything valuable, kill anyone who might be a future danger(thousands, tens of thousands, millions).
How are going to stop Assad if he chooses to do this? With what army? Especially if Assad might have WMDs. This might have the context in which Rep Johnson mentioned nukes.
What is going on has very little to do with Iraq or elections. It probably reflects a power struggle within Syria.
What’s missing from CB’s analysis is the fact that since Assad’s death, Syria has been run incompetently by his son. There is no clear cut Syrian government at the moment — rather a number of individuals manuevering for power, while the idiot son presides over nothing in particular. This lack of direction explains more of what is going on. I doubt that things would be unfolding this way if Assad was still around.
For a while, Syrian policy toward Lebanon has been a slow withdrawal — giving up control while trying to maintain as much leverage as possible. From that point of view, the assasination makes no sense whatsoever.
The assassination seems to have been by one of the Palestinian terrorists groups based in Syria, who acted on their own agenda or, more probably, with direction from one faction of Syrian leadership. Their probable goal — to reverse the ongoing Syrian policy of a slow withdrawal from Lebanon. The lessening of Syrian influence in Lebanon also marginalizes Palestinian terrorists who have used Lebanon for a base, and marginalizes that faction of Syrians most in league with these terrorists.
Assad always kept the terrorists operating out of Syria somewhat under control — they would never dare to cross him with terrorist acts that undermined Syrian interests. Now they have apparently become involved in the power struggle over the direction of Syrian policy, and seek to reverse it.
That’s why the assassination may simultaneously look like it was contrary to Syrian goals and interests and also look like it was directed by Syrians.
I’ll take your word for it as far as the actions of U.S. troops Charles. I have a slightly different recollection but there’ve been so many conversations I may be overlooking some important ones. I do think you tend to apply a different logic to the abuses by Zarqawi and the abuses that Hussein would have committed had we not invaded. In both cases, obviously Zarqawi and Hussein and their subordinates are most responsible–but the U.S. bears at least as much responsibility for the foreseeable results of our actions as for the foreseeable results of our inaction. And as I said above, we are as responsible for the indirect negative consequences as much as the direct positive consequences.
Also, I FINALLY got the joke in the title & I don’t want to fight with the Einstein who came up with it. 😉
BTW, did you notice my question about Farsi translators on the previous thread on democratization?
Didn’t this happen after 9-11, Al-Queda took the blame and other people said it was Hussein?
Bob McManus:
Well, you may be right. But I suspect characters like Johnson are short on the analysis and long on the testosterone-drenched tough talk, with their smaller johnson in one hand and some rhetorical nukes in the other, with, you know, no hands left free to actually create some smithereens, otherwise known as vaporized humans. So, I reiterate, let’s diaper him and strap him into the F-15 and let him “go in there”. It would be funny, all that death and all that tough talk accompanied by some chest-thumping muzak and reported by the immaculately flossed death-lovers over at FOX.
I suspect, too, that Johnson’s thoughtful analysis brought smirks to the faces of his fellow porch-jockeys and torture-lovers.
The context I love is the Suncreek United Methodist Church. When I brag about nuking I usually do it AFTER I’ve actually nuked, and I do it in the confessional.
Incidentally, Bob, I am in full agreement with your remarks over at Yglesias recently that very few people, including liberals, are sufficiently aware of the danger the Bush Administration poses to our government and the social contract in regard to domestic policy.
Also, I hope the people of Lebanon achieve their goals and I hope there is no bloodshed.
Karimi resigning might be a way to put some distance bewtween himself and Syria. 500k gathered in Beirut.
I’ll ask again. Are we prepared and able to help and protect the Lebanese people if Syria starts shooting, or can we just avenge the dead?
Reminds me of Hungary in 56. And Tianamen Square. Both Republican presidents with big talk and closed wallets.
“Reminds me of Hungary in 56. And Tianamen Square. Both Republican presidents with big talk and closed wallets.”
Tianamen Square: so far as I’m aware, we can and should have done a great deal more to protest after the fact, and to warn against before the fact. But while we could have made far more vigorous protests, in various ways — the government of George H. W. Bush, that is — right up to and through the event, I’m not clear there’s much we could have done to actually prevent it, actually. Do you think there was, Bob?
In ’56, I don’t think there was much of a lack of government-to-government protest, but I’m equally unaware of much that Eisenhower and Dulles and Co. (and, mind, I really, overall, despise John Foster Dulles, though Eisenhower not so much) could have done to prevent the invasion of Hungary (not to mention that we were a bit busy over the Suez confrontation at the time); or are you just saying that U.S. rhetoric shouldn’t have encouraged Hungarian hopes, given our inability to help them, which is reasonable?
It’s definitely not at all clear to me that we gave the Chinese students any reason to think we were going to, in some way, intervene to protect them. Am I missing something?
BTW, did you notice my question about Farsi translators on the previous thread on democratization?
I did, but I’m not sure what to conclude from it. Accidentally outing Cigarchi is just the sort of thing you would expect from a government-funded radio station with unqualified personnel and minimal political savvy. As for the report on the radio network, I can’t tell if this is some sort of turf battle or whether there is fundamental incompetence at play. Perhaps a little of both.
I am thrilled by what’s happening in Lebanon — the Lebanese people deserve a shot at basic freedom and peace, and they haven’t had one for decades. I also don’t think there’s any reason to think that this had much of anything to do with our invasion of Iraq
Hilzoy, I’m happy that you are thrilled. Just one question on your other observation, if Saddam was still in power, would this be happening in Lebanon?
no, I meant further down: does Pejman YoujaIcan’tspellitfadezh or anyone you know speak Farsi? I’ve been copying some of the blog entries into Word for, I don’t know, posterity or something, in case the Google cache disappears too, and would be really interested in a translation of some of the entries. But I don’t know anyone who speaks the language. I guess there’s no harm in emailing him and asking.
“Do you think there was, Bob?” [China]
Seriously promising to end all economic trade and diplomatic relations? Stopping the transfer of Hong Kong?
Recognizing Taiwan’s independence? There are always things we can do. Many of them are expensive, politically and economically.
But those were superpowers, nations we could not even threaten militarily. This is Syria. And if there were 2-3 divisions available, created in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 by a Republican gov’t, it might make a difference. Heck, Syria probably knows this congress won’t want to spend a 100 billion dollars on an air campaign. We don’t have it. Assad should feel pretty safe.
This was predictable, like so many other things. If you are going to “transform the middle east” you shouldn’t try to do it on a credit card with no new troops.
“… big talk and closed wallets”.
That’s about right. If there is nuking to be done, tra-la-la, the tax-haters will refuse to pay for the action while using it as a pretext for cutting Medicaid. Dual-use nuclear holocaust.
hilzoy,
Check out this photo from Beirut. Is that a Ukranian flag she’s holding?
hilzoy
Some interesting observation by Josh Marshall
I spoke to Von before the Iraqi conflict of leverage and the impact that American leverage would have on the region, if eliminated Saddam and his Baathist regime. We are still in the early innings of this ballgame but the situation looks positive.
does Pejman YoujaIcan’tspellitfadezh or anyone you know speak Farsi?
Oops. No, I don’t know, Katherine. We may be fellow Redstaters, but I’ve had next to zero communication with him.
In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. . . .
Speaking of scaring a nation into supporting a war that’s primarily a social re-engineering experiment because you think they’re too stupid or selfish or whatever to support it for the real reasons you want to wage it, what about credibility? Is the thinking that now that we have troops over there we’ll just go along with whatever it takes to see the experiment through? Should we expect that now the architects of this plan will be straightforward with us?
Lying to achieve your goals, however noble, should have a price, no?
Or does it simply all melt away, the deceit?
Ok, for us slow-pokes in the audience, what’s the joke in the title?
“Ok, for us slow-pokes in the audience, what’s the joke in the title?”
Google “Yahoo Serious”
The NYT says that Syria didn’t turn over Saddam’s 1/2-brother. Also a piteous image.
Hilzoy, I’m happy that you are thrilled. Just one question on your other observation, if Saddam was still in power, would this be happening in Lebanon?
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | February 28, 2005 10:38 PM
——————–
According to this logic, wouldn’t the question be “Would Hariri have been killed if the U.S. hadn’t invaded and occupied Iraq?”
Neodude- Good point. We could also ask if conservatives prefer Hariri dead.