Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Also, long-impotent village elders are now routinely having erections.
Seriously, I'm amazed at your intransigence on this one. Most of your compatriots are conceding exactly what Club argues here, yet you are not. You're like Monty Python's limbless knight, yelling "get back here and fight - it's only a flesh wound!"
|
I'll say the same thing I posted last week when you told me Bush set a new "tone": I haven't seen any actual reporting suggesting that what happened in Iraq has influenced what happened in Lebanon. Inside the Beltway, among people who spent more time watching the President's last State of the Union speech than they have spent in their entire lifetimes trying to understand Lebanese history or politics, it may be taken as a given that Mr. Bush and the Iraqi people are responsible for all the good that transpires in Lebanon. Whoop de do.
Elections are not new to Lebanon. And what you have there is not exactly a groundswell for representative democracy, except among the Hezbollah supporters who would like to have representation proportionate to their numbers -- something your "pro-democracy" Maronites and Druze have opposed.
If our invasion of Iraq made a difference, I suggest the difference is that Syria feels exposed now in a way that it did not before, and feels compelled to withdraw its forces as a result. That is a good thing -- one hopes, unless the Lebanese start killing each other again, which is what was happening when a Republican administration with Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense invited Syrian troops into the country -- that results from the invasion. But it doesn't have much to do with Hallmark-card-grade sentiment about democracy.
