Pelosi, Santos: love that “dialogue” with Iran!
Judith Weiss of Kesher Talk has a theory: Nancy Pelosi is a Karl Rove mole.
Why not? If she’d been invented by the opposition, she couldn’t be doing more to hurt her party.
And, as an aside, I’m getting very sick of that word “dialogue” used by Nancy and company and so many others (follow the link to see what I’m referring to). It’s one of those words that have become popular partly from the influence of therapy: the idea that talking is the royal path to the solution of conflict. “Dialogue” and “communication” are seen as panaceas, and it has become an article of faith that they are virtually always a good thing.
But even therapists must acknowledge that there are times when talking does no good, when therapy is inappropriate, and when the tools of the trade (“the talking cure”) not only don’t work but can be harmful. But Pelosi and Lantos and so many others seem to think of dialogue as something magical and universally appropriate:
…however objectionable, unfair, and inaccurate many of [Ahmadinejad’s] statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him.
Why? Why is it important? In order to feel that we are peaceful and good people? In order to empower him to think that we are fools? In order to allow him to buy time while he develops his nuclear weaponry? In order to give him greater prestige in the eyes of the world? In order to afford him propaganda opportunities and photo ops?
Lantos and Pelosi don’t seem to feel the need to explain the value of dialogue; it is felt to be self-evident. But it is not.
The original meaning of the word is “a conversation.” But it has taken on a special meaning in the peace movement: it’s been reified as a good in and of itself.
Here’s a definition of dialogue in that sense, by David Somm:
…a new kind of mind begins to come into being which is based on the development of a common meaning”¦People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning, which is capable of constant development and change.
Commonality and cooperation rather than opposition is a goal of dialogue, and some element of these must be present in the first place in order to even conduct a dialogue in the sense it’s used here. But these things are not present in a “dialogue” with a group such as the leaders of Iran.
Even Pelosi and Lantos, who so badly want to dialogue with Iran’s leaders, describe them as “repulsive” and “outside the circle of human behavior.” So, does Somm’s definition of “dialogue” apply to them? Can it apply to them?
The bottom line is that to have a dialogue the parties must speak the same language—and I don’t mean the sort of language that can be easily handled by interpreters.
Speaker Pelosi justified “dialogue” with Iran because 1) Congressman Lantos believes in dialogue with Iran, and 2) Congressman Lantos is a Holocaust survivor. She has no ability to defend her reasoning. She has only an appeal to Congressman Lantos’ authority. Why is Congressman Lantos an authority? Has he earned the status through intellectual reason. No, Congressman Lantos is a victim. Ergo, he is an authority. That is good enough for Speaker Pelosi.
“Dialogue” and “communication” are seen as panaceas, and it has become an article of faith that they are virtually always a good thing.
Unless it is talking to Bush, then NanP says she won’t do it.
Why? Why is it important?
It is important because talking with Iran gives the Left more power to destroy Bush and to destroy the US, thereby crafting a power vacuum they can fit inside.
it’s been reified as a good in and of itself.
Not exactly. As we know with the Left. Their view of what is “good in and of itself” isn’t very constant. Sometimes it is, for them, but when it serves their purpose, they shift things around.
So, does Somm’s definition of “dialogue” apply to them? Can it apply to them?
That’s David Bohm and I believe you are unfairly taking this excerpt from his definition of “Dialogue” out of context.
Why? WHY?!Sorry Neo, but you sound a little hysterical on this one. Contrary to what your peanut gallery thinks, dialog and diplomacy is not tantamount to appeasement.
Pelosi should demonstrate her respect for (and submission to) Islam by covering her face and shutting up.
” … dialog and diplomacy [are] not tantamount to appeasement …”
No, but in this instance, they may be a darn good first step toward it.
Btw, can anybody cite to me a historical precedent for the Speaker of the House, and ostensible leader of the opposing party, traveling overseas to craft an “alternative” foreign policy?
I guess UB can “believe” anything he(she?) wants to. It would be nice, though, if he(she? it?) could “explain” or “demonstrate” why he(she,it) “believes” neo-neocon is “unfairly taking this exerpt of his ‘definition’ out of context”.
“exerpt”?
Thanks for the link, Neo! I am listening to yr podcast as I type. Ditto to your comments about “dialogue.” As a former Organizational Development practitioner, I know who David Bohm is. And his stuff is good. But it does require focused intention from both parties. You can’t do “dialogue” one-way, by definition.
This is the big blind spot of the bleeding heart left: if you are chasing after someone trying to placate him enough so he will stop and indulge you in your emotional need to connect, without any purposeful intention to engage at the same level of commitment as you, that is not a “dialogue.” It is self-delusion on your part and manipulation on his part.
Very well said, Neo.
The more I read of this Pelosi/Lantos bonding on talk diplomacy—come let us reason together—in Syria and Iran, the more I think they have completely taken leave of their senses to the point that I am embarrassed for them.
These bleeding hearts have no street smarts.
I know it’s off topic, but congratulations Neo-neocon! Your site meter has busted ONE MILLION!
“Ode to Joy” seems like appropriate background music for such an occasion.
“it is important that we have a dialogue with him…”
So we can threaten them in private. You don’t want the whole UN to hear what we’re threatening them with, do you? And a trip over there by an official ambassador would tend to break the isolation even more.
“You don’t want the whole UN to hear what we’re threatening them with, do you?”
Like Pelosi would threaten anybody…
Please.
You do understand that this occupation of Iraq is unsustainable by the US don’t you? You do understand that there is no US military solution to chaos that BushCo unleashed don’t you? There is but one chance, a slim one at that, to diminish the catastrophe in Iraq and that is a timeline for pull out from Iraq.
The only chance that a civil war can be quelled in Iraq is with the regional participation of its neighboring countries. But they will not participate so long as we have an open-ended comment to saying in Iraq because they understand that they violence will continue as long as we stay and their efforts would be for naught.
You do undertsnad that there is not a chance in hell of shifting the blame to those who oppose the occupation don’t you? The supporters of BushCo will always be seen as the instigators of the Iraq catastrophe and everything that flows from it. It is utterly shameless and childish to try to shift the blame to those who warned you off this atrocity in its infancy. Perhaps most importantly few and fewer Americans buy that nonsense.
I laugh or shout at the TV when these people make statements about dialogue/negotiations with the Axis of Evil participants. I wonder at what school yard they played in when kids. Were they all home schooled with no social interactions with other children? Dialoguers being usually liberals, I doubt that. But I remember way, way back when I was in middle school and much smaller than average. I constantly had dialogues with the bullies that picked on me. They laughed and slugged me. I constantly warned them that I had a limit on what I would take from them. This of course was being the good, honest non-confrontational person my parents wanted me to be. Yea, said they, and slugged me. On day I tripped off line, went berserk and attacked the biggest bully. I was literally never bothered again; who would bother a small crazy person and risk getting hurt. I grew a bit after that and I am not so small. But my “attitude” changed and is somehow projected without me really trying. So, few have confronted me as an adult and even now at 62. But I walk away from any really aggressive person, irrational acting person; no need to prove anything. For some reason our country doesn’t project the “don’t mess with me” image. It must be Bushitler’s fault. BTW, the big bully and I later became friends; then we dialogued.
Sam, how does a timeline for a pullout offer a chance for peace in Iraq? How does divvying up Iraq to it’s neighbors (virtually all of whom are our enemies) provide any benefit whatsoever? Iran is already heavily engaged in Iraq supporting violent and repressive militias. How exactly would it be helpful to ask Iran to be MORE involved?
Syria is a major base for Baathist former regime members to incite insurgency and civil war in Iraq. How exactly would it be helpful to ask Syria to be MORE involved in Iraq?
Lets not forget that Syria is responsible for the murder of Hariri and that Iran is responsible for Hezbollah and its continuous incitement of war with Isreal. Considering the bang-up job Syria and Iran are doing with Lebanon, again, why do we want them running the show in Iraq?
What we want is for Iraqi’s to learn how to govern themselves through “dialogue”, negotiation and compromise, not through yet another home-grown or foreign strong-man. The purpose, then, of U.S. troops in Iraq is to “bind the strong man”, to attempt to control, suppress (hopefully eliminate) the violent elements long enough for the Iraqis to develop the structures of democracy. You could argue that we are not achieving that objective, but you can’t (and certainly haven’t) offered the slightest rationale for your argument that this objective would be achieved by a troop pull-out.
But then, maybe you are not arguing for that objective at all. Perhaps you just want to end the chaos, in whatever way possible, and at the least cost and effort to us. Considering that a troop pull-out is likely to lead to all-out civil war which will only end when one side is victorious and seizes complete power, destroying it’s enemies (i.e., another strong man), I am guessing that the kind of “peace” or freedom from chaos that is to be found under a tyrant ruling a terrorized population is just fine with you.
A lot of liberals really do think it was much better to have Saddam ruling Iraq than the current situation. And yet they protest that it’s the neo-cons who favor tyranny.
Jen:
“Sam, how does a timeline for a pullout offer a chance for peace in Iraq?”
Its not about peace in Iraq to sam. Its about sam and his hatred of “Bushco”. Its about how bad modern liberals and “progressives” look should actual convictions bear fruit where bumper-sticker pronouncements do not.
“Free Tibet” sam. Liberation is at hand isnt it?
“Dialogue”…people who spend their lives dealing with *words*…politicians, journalists, some types of professors…tend to think everything can be dealt with via words. “When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Sam,
You make a lot of assertions which aren’t borne out particularly well in the last 4,000 years of armed organized warfare. You might want to expand on the arguments a little bit more than just providing assertion by fiat as a means of supporting your statements.
You note:
Aside from being completely open to debate, I also find it interesting that you don’t seem to think that ceding the country to AQI and all the other import jihadis, along with the very real potential for bloody sectarian violence, would be a “catastrophe”, and that, in fact, the best chance of avoiding “catastrophe” would be to allow that very set of events to unfold.
(There are other points I’m wanted to make, but this thing keeps eating my comments)
BRD
David Foster:
““When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
And what fine tools they are…
Sam,
I just read on Iraq the Model that the insurgents were dropping leaflets in Baghdad that said:
“Evacuate all houses in the area around the Americans’ base for we shall attack it soon… Those occupiers will soon be gone from this land. Who will protect you then?”
Hmmmm. So the insurgents seem to think that American forces are protecting Iraqis, and that once we are gone they will be able to terrorize them at will.
Yet you say we need to withdraw, or at least tell them exactly when we will be leaving. So you are trying to convince us that the solution lies in conceding to the wishes of the terrorists.
Sam, have you been “dialoguing” with the enemy?
Zhombre Asked:
“Btw, can anybody cite to me a historical precedent for the Speaker of the House, and ostensible leader of the opposing party, traveling overseas to craft an “alternative” foreign policy?
Well he wasn’t Speaker, but…
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
Link
BTW, I see a lot of talk on here about Pelosi going to Syria but haven’t seen anything about the Republicans who accompanied her. That hardly seems fair.
Zhombre,
You bring up worthwhile points. My gut leads me to think that the Pelosi trip was different in nature to previous trips, but I am having some difficulty in coming up with a specific litmus test of what makes this specific trip egregiously bad.
On a broader level, the Pelosi trip and the Hastert trip were both bad for its assault on the prerogatives of the Executive, but I am still thinking about what means one can use to define a Great Big Breach, versus a venal breach.
Any thoughts?
BRD
gwu.eduBRD, were you talking to me or Zhombre?
Which one seems more of an “assault on Presidential Prerogatives,” this:
“One example of this was a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”
Or this:
“In the interest of our national security and the stability of the region, the delegation strongly urged President Assad to control Syria’s border with Iraq to stop the flow of foreign fighters who are a threat to U.S. troops and to the Iraqi people. Syria must also stop supporting terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and must end any interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs.
I think people forget that we still have an Embassy in Syria, and they have one in DC. It’s not as if the President has severed diplomatic ties and Pelosi’s delegation was circumventing that. It’s just that the President refuses to exercise that option.
TUB,
I’m happy to have the discussion – I had simply noted Zhombre’s comment because it was last when I posted, but the question is a valid one for anyone who cares.
In terms of the breach of protocol, when the Executive is, for whatever reason, trying to diplomatically isolate a country (a soft power exercise), it’s unhelpful if a Congress usurps the role of the Executive.
Part of what agitates is that this comes on the heels of Congress trying to run foreign policy by inserting itself in the relationship between the Commander-in-Chief, the Department of Defense and the local combatant commanders. When you have a body trying to interject itself not only in the middle of civil-military relations but also relations with other countries, you’re heading out on to very thin ice – for a number of reasons.
I don’t think that all contact should be prohibited, but I would be much happier if there were a clear dividing line between “OK” and “Way Too Far”
Thoughts?
BRD
I’m getting a “duplicate comment detected” error message when I try to post something I wrote earlier, but never appeared. Anyone know why?
newsday.com*** OK, well I guess I tried to give an example of that line above.
Pelosi, in accordance with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, led a bipartisan delegation to various countries in the Middle East, among them Syria, a country with whom we do currently have diplomatic relations, to press our security concerns with Syria’s leader.
Bush’s main objection seems to have been something about “mixed signals” and: “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”
(BTW, does anyone know exactly what counterproductive delegations Bush could be referring to here?)
This seems to me to be a difference of opinion between leaders of coequal branches regarding the effectiveness of engagement, but other than that, Pelosi’s delegation did not contradict Bush’s policies in any way. And far from “mixiing signals,” the delegation in fact reinforced Bush’s concerns directly to Assad.
Seems OK to me.
Now Hastert in Colombia was actively encouraging a foreign government to bypass the executive branch and deal directly with Congress in an attempt to circumvent an established policy of the President.
Does that seem OK to you?
UB
A clueless suburban Gandhi: Just what the world needs right now.
Nancy Pelosi and her ilk have an obvious Gandhi fixation. The terrifying part is how much these people will manage to surrender to our enemies before people figure out our enemies are playing for the whole ball of wax. Talk about jumping out of George Bushes frying pan and into the fire. Someone needs to tell these folks that turning the other cheek means something altogether different when your curled up on the floor getting your ass kicked. Maybe a good defensive posture if a Grizzly bear is on top of you, but not the ideal posture for a whole country.
Here’s something Bookworm wrote about, that might shed light on the darkness that is the Left.
Highly Recommended
Here’s a taste.
When I finally looked at the world as it was, and looked at people as they are (and as they should want to be), I didn’t want to be a liberal any more. And so I ended up amongst the conservatives, embracing their belief system, without embracing their beliefs. Funnily enough, although it should be an uneasy fit, it isn’t. This is so because one of the nicest things I’ve discovered is that, while my many conservative friends wish, for my own sake, that I could embrace faith, they don’t shun me, denigrate me, insult me, or harass me because I don’t. There’s a certain eternal patience here, as well as a willingness to accept that I’ve already made a pretty big intellectual journey in the past few years of my life.
“Dialog” is pernicious if either party hijacks the conversation. When there is a lack of good faith the wise refuse to participate.
Two of the most effective people in public life, James Baker (“That’s a non-starter”) and Dick Cheney (“Wolf, I’m not going to talk about that”) ably demonstrate how to control a situation.
The President, per the Constitution, has decided that some states must meet certain requirements before we acknowledge the legitimacy of their arguments. The crux of the problem is that most states in the world have a very poor understanding of how this country actually works. This can lead to serious misunderstandings and potentially fatal mistakes.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this is Newt Gingrich’s representaions to China vis-a-vis Taiwan. This is perhaps the main reason not to take a Gingrich candidacy seriously.
The Constitution remains as not the perfect embodiment of human wisdom, but it sure beats anything else ever conceived. Those who seek to subvert the clear language therein are fools.
Regards,
Roy
Jen said:Lets not forget that Syria is responsible for the murder of Hariri and that Iran is responsible for Hezbollah and its continuous incitement of war with Isreal. Considering the bang-up job Syria and Iran are doing with Lebanon, again, why do we want them running the show in Iraq?
No one knows who is responsible for the assasination of Hariri. Many believe US/Israel but who knows? One can only speculate. Israel is responsible for the creation of Hezbolla and Hamas and is responsible for not only creating and sustaining them but making them more influential to boot. When Americans can’t connect even the first dot to the second, who wants the US running the show in Iraq? Bushco broke it and can’t put it back together again, can’t do it for Afghanistan either, still paying for it’s murderous blunder in Lebanon, Palestine and now the snakeoil salesmen are selling Iran. And they don’t even have Iran in their pocket, that bulge in their pocket is a sock, not Iran. Now they’re really faking it. We have nothing but diplomacy left so I’m guessing there are alot of snakeoil salespeople wiping the sweat off their brow. “kudos Nancy!” of course they are not going to say that outloud.
Welcome back, muslims good, infidel bad Bonnie.
Somewhere or another I was lamenting the assignment of agency to only half the people involved.
I think Bonnie pretty much proved a stellar exemplar of the phenomenon:
“Israel is responsible for the creation of Hezbolla and Hamas and is responsible for not only creating and sustaining them.”
BRD, I wonder if the “reverse” is true with the lefties: “Clinton is responsible for Timothy McVeigh!” After all, according to McVeigh, the Murrah bldg. bombing was in response to the seige of Mt. Carmel in Waco. Of course, the implication is rediculous, but in the case of Hezbollah, the same argument makes “perfect sense”.
“rediculous”? I really need to learn how to type.
“argument”? AAAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
Bonnie, even the UN thinks Syria played a role in Hariri’s murder. But you are right many stupid, blind, America-bashing, Israel-hating, conspiracy-mongering people do believe the US and Israel really did it. Even though they’d be acting against their own interests. Even though nothing points to them.
See, the great thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that you can never be proven wrong. The more people deny it, the more it must be true! The less evidence there is to support the theory, the more it must be true! The more unlikely, far-fetched and even irrational the theory is, the more it must be true! Cuz lack of evidence, motive, etc, that just proves there’s a cover-up.
Right Bonnie?
You kids really need to stop conflating the insurrgents of Iraq with the handful of Al Qaeda-like terrorists in Iraq. Until you do so you will keep dragging us deeper and deeper into the morass.
There is no military solution in Iraq. What are you going to do? Bomb the hell out of Iraq? And how will you explain to the Iraqis that this is good for them? Burn the village to save it?
Grow up kids the 60s and Viet Nam are long gone yet you learned nothing in the intervening 35 years.
sam Says: “You kids really need to stop conflating the insurrgents of Iraq with the handful of Al Qaeda-like terrorists in Iraq.”
Well sam, So you don’t think Al Quada of Iraq isn’t a significant organization in the Iraq’s Sunni insurgency. Lets try going further than that for an accurate picture. Al Quada in Iraq is the by far the dominant organization in the Sunni insurgency. Who thinks so? Would you like to start with our military intelligence or would you prefer to hear it from people who live out in Anbar and were once part of the insurgency. How about the people of all of flattened and burned down villages or the tens of thousands of fellow Sunnis AQI has killed to keep the local population in line. Have you been keeping track of Arab TV lately, even the spokesmen for the local insurgents are complaining that Al Quada is absolutely ruthless about maintaining absolute power and is killing rival leaders that wont heal to them.
Yes, Yes, I know your completely blind to all that. I’m sure you can dig up some three year old Brookings Institute estimate on the percentage of foreigners in the insurgency and try to claim the numbers refute what I just said. Sorry doesn’t cut it. Speaking of delusions, you folks on the left maintain very active fantasy lives too.
“What are you going to do? Bomb the hell out of Iraq? And how will you explain to the Iraqis that this is good for them? Burn the village to save it?”
Please refer to statement above about terrorists. Ya, with all the reckless random artillery bombardments, carpet bombing, napalm, claymores, and other savage attacks you’d think we would have the place burned down by now. By the way, I still haven’t been able to find My Lie on my Iraqi map.
“Grow up kids the 60s and Viet Nam are long gone yet you learned nothing in the intervening 35 years.”
I see you haven’t changed your clichés in 35 years either it seems. Maybe you can learn us all some of those lessons your talkin’ ‘bout.
Good Grief it’s too late for this Baloney.
Sam, I was wondering….Could you please repeat “there is no military solution in Iraq” for me? I really need to see that at least 7 times a day(after all, I haven’t quite perceived your lie as “truth” yet, like you, kool-aid boy).
How Quickly They Forget
Every day Congress is in session should begin and end with a prayer of thankfulness for the men and women who brought down Flight 93 before it could be crashed into the Capitol. Most of the Senators and many of the Representatives owe their lives to those people. And if the terrorists had suceeded, there would be no doubt about a Global War on Terror.
Somebody should suggest this to the Republican leadership. It would make the whole of Congress put their true loyalties on display.
“don’t think Al Quada of Iraq isn’t”
Yikes, Big ol’ double negative there.
That’s what I get for writing something up at two in the morning.
yep.
No one knows who is responsible for the assasination of Hariri. Many believe US/Israel but who knows?
Wow Neo, I have never heard the theory floated about that the US/israel was behind Hariri’s assassinaton. Weird world, eh Neo?
Israel is responsible for the creation of Hezbolla and Hamas and is responsible for not only creating and sustaining them but making them more influential to boot.
Do you sort of like get the sense that we’ve been dropped into the rabbit hole without a teleportation device to get back, when you read things like this, Neo?
There is no military solution in Iraq. What are you going to do? Bomb the hell out of Iraq?
We’re going to militarize Iraq into a nation that can take over the entire Middle East with its military.
And yes, I’m only half-kidding.
MOst people don’t understand the power that a fully trained, fully blooded army trained by America’s best can do to the Middle Eastern incompetents. Iran and Iraq had a stalemate for years and years, because they both had incompetent soldiers and leaders. Incompetency can’t beat incompetency after all. The US wiped Iraq’s military off the map, twice, with ease. A US trained and an Arab army operating by both Kurdish logistics bases, members, and American standards is… a force that is hard to beat.
Iraqis that are 15 and 12 will remember what was going on in their country when they become 30 and 45. They’re going to remember, and since the war was going on during a part of their lives where their identities are formed, they are going to grow up and want some vengeance. And they are going to grow up wanting some vengeancea and retribution (tribal style) with an American trained and backed army, that while not as strong as ours, is still at least 10X as strong as their neighbors. At least.
This is what we are building militarily. And this is what the Left and folks want to stop. They wish to break America of all our allies, British, Aussie, Arab, whatever. The Left will never allow allies to side with the US, because the Left does not want the US to become more powerful. More power to the US means more suffering in the world, dontcha know. More power to the US means more prolonging of war, because it gives people something to fight for and die for. Can’t have that, when you are on the Left, and you serve the forces of darkness and anarchy.
“Even the UN thinks Syria played a role in Hariri’s murder. But you are right many stupid, blind, America-bashing, Israel-hating, conspiracy-mongering people do believe the US and Israel really did it. Even though they’d be acting against their own interests. Even though nothing points to them.”
The UN has not implicated Syria at all in the assassination – what you are claiming is false.
Secondly – Israel would not have been acting against it’s interests by assassinating Hariri – doing so would enable them to further the U.S/Israeli campaign to isolate Syria ‘internationally’ (as opposed to only in these two countries – most of the international community doesn’t view Syria as a ‘terrorist’ state’).
And we’ve seen quite clearly that the U.S and Israel were both quick and outspoken in pointing the finger at Syria -without a shred of physical evidence.
Which is the situation today as the UN has yet to conclude anything of the sort.
Meanwhile the assassination is tied to a suicide bomber – but the physical evidence points to a bomb exploded underneath his car.
I would bet a fair amount of money that it was the Mossad/CIA. The goals of the Bush administration and the Israeli regime both are more interested in weakening the region through isolation and division(divide and conquer).
Lebanon was a succesful Arab democracy – that has do diplomatic ties to Israel at all. Despite Iranian and Syrian influence.
That’s why Israel had no problem leveling it last summer. You may have also noticed in the Israeli press the rather unsurprising revelation that Olmert had planned to invade Lebanon 6 months prior – nothing at all to do with soldiers being abducted.
Syria would have been extremely stupid to assasinate Hariri when it would have been immedietely linked to Assad.
Which is why it wasn’t in their interests in any way.
But apparently it’s a ‘conspiracy theory’ to acknowledge U.S./Israeli policy towards Syria and their record of deceit and aggression against sovereign Muslim nations…
I forgot – Syria left Lebanon and the behest of the Bush adminstration AFTER the assassination of Hariri.
Months later Israel invades Lebanon destroying a huge portion of the “Ceder Revolution”, the foundations of the Bush-supported Hariri democracy, leaving 200 000 Lebanese homelesss.
Months after the war which the Bush administration allowed to continue despite the desperate pleas from the Lebanese government and the international community, Israel reveals that it had planned to invade Lebanon all along.
And didn’t bargain on Hezbollah being so lively.
Go figure…
haaretz.comhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=725940&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
haaretz.comsorry
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=725940&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=
Syria would have been extremely stupid to assasinate Hariri when it would have been immedietely linked to Assad.
Don’t judge people based upon your own intelligence level, dave.
voanews.comDave said: The UN has not implicated Syria at all in the assassination – what you are claiming is false.
I don’t think you’ve been following the story, Dave. See, the UN has appointed two investigators in the matter, both of whom have been looking seriously at Syria.
You can find a full story here: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-21-voa73.cfm
but here are some excerpts:
“the German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, had implicated Syrian intelligence officials and their Lebanese allies in a plot to kill Mr. Hariri in February 2005. Mehlis also accused Syria of obstructing his inquiry.”
“After Brammertz took over, he appeared to back away from Mehlis’s sensational conclusions. He reopened the probe to consider other possibilities, and reported that Syria’s cooperation had been ‘satisfactory’. But in his latest comments to the Security Council, he says he has narrowed down the possible motives to one: a series of political setbacks to Syrian interests.”
Brammertz, incidentally, is from Belgium. Maybe the phrase “the UN thinks” in my original statement was a rush to judgement. To clarify, let me state that two investigators appointed by the UN to look into the murder of Rafik Hariri have reported to the security council either a suspician of direct involvement by Syria or at least have indicated that Hariri’s murder was motivated by his anti-Syrian position.
Dave, what you are saying is false.
Pingback:GM's Corner
We’ll see, Jen.
“Probably” involved Syria isn’t going to cut it without any evidence, Jen.
But yes – I did become aware of the latest after I posted that.
But as I say – let’s see where ‘probably’ goes.
Likely where ‘probably’ went in the first place – into the speculative heresay of ‘experts’ on Syria.
By the way – where are the falshehoods?
Do tell.
I would postulate that having Israeli covert operations in Lebanon who were responsible for assassinations and “car-bombings” – which is how Hariri met his end – might warrant some looking into.
I wonder why it wasn’t even considered at the UN?
What would you(and thousands of loud others) have said then -despite the background and evidence?
“postulate”, Formerly?
Pingback:富春江旅游网
Hi…Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..holy Wednesday . Sofia Vergara