Right Wing Nut House

Join me today from noon until 2:00 PM central time for the return of The Rick Moran Show.

We’re still working on getting the second generation software installed and working. When we do, it will open up a whole new set of wonderous possibilities for interaction with you, the listener with me, the host. Instant messaging as well as instant links to articles and websites we’re discussing will become available.

I’ve also figured out how to use my Skype/Hot Recording software to tape interviews. Expect a slew of conversations with important and stimulating personalities over the next few weeks.

Today we’ll summarize what’s been happening in Lebanon. We’ll also look at recent revelations regarding the use of disinformation by the enemy in Iraq and how our media has fallen for it. And is there a civil war in Iraq? I report - you decide.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

Let us for a moment indulge the wildest fantasies of those on the left who want every soldier, sailor, and airman out of Iraq as quickly as transport could be rounded up to bring them home.

Let us further indulge the fantasy by patting our lefty friends on the back and congratulating them on coming up with a war winning strategy.

How’s that? No responsible nation would leave Iraq in the state that it is in now, would they? The consequences would be catastrophic - especially for Iraq’s neighbors.

Wait a minute…hold the phone. Aren’t Iraq’s neighbors Iran and Syria? Of course, Saudi Arabia is also a neighbor as is Turkey. But this is war. Sometimes allies or innocent bystanders have to suffer for the victory to come.

Besides, perhaps giving the Saudis a little taste of what their myopic and dangerous policies toward al-Qaeda has wrought wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all…

To indulge this fantasy, we would have to look at some of the fallout that would be the result of our immediate and precipitous pullout from Iraq.

Certainly the government would collapse and the men with guns would rule. It would be Somalia times ten. Sectarian violence would spiral completely out of control and militias would battle for turf. Millions might flee the country.

Where would they go? Here’s where the pain would be inflicted on Iran and Syria.

Shias would stream toward their co-religionists in Iran as would the Sunnis toward Syria - unless one or both countries were forced to intervene. As it stands now, the Syrians and Iranians will probably help us just enough to stabilize the security situation so that we would leave Iraq. But suppose we left the stabilization and security problems with them?

It would be Iran and Syria not only in a quagmire of their own making but also forced to deal with hundreds of thousands of refugees - unwanted visitors that the Saudis are already preparing for by building a massive wall that will separate the Kingdom from Iraq. And the Saudis wouldn’t remain untouched as they would be forced to watch the Sunni slaughter in Iraq. Such a horrific bloodletting would not sit well with their own population and could force the Kingdom to intervene themselves.

This would all be grossly irresponsible of the United States, of course. But do the Iranians know that? Are the Syrians sure that we’d never do it? Such a scenario hanging over the heads of diplomats during our coming talks with the terror states might make them a little more prone to cooperate.

It will never happen this way - but Iran and Syria would royally deserve to have to pick up the pieces in Iraq after they have done everything possible to destroy civil order and keep the country embroiled in violence.

As a former professional actor, I can always appreciate a good performance when I see it. But the production put on by the six Imams who were dragged off the tarmac at the Minneapolis-St. Paul in handcuffs after, what they claim, was simply praying on board a parked airplane may just take the prize for Best Original Performance by a Put-Upon Minority.

In truth, I was halfway through a piece I called “Making America Look Ridiculous” that incorporated the original reporting of the story which made it appear that stupid, ignorant Americans over-reacted to a bunch of quiet, peaceful Muslims saying their prayers in public.

As it turns out, that isn’t even close to being the real story. In fact, it is more than likely that the entire episode was planned to force the authorities into removing the men from the plane for the sole and exclusive purpose of crying “discrimination” and “profiling” to the media. Even more amazing is that the aftermath of the incident may also have been planned for maximum public relations effect in order to capitalize on this egregious example of Muslim persecution:

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

“I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

“That would alarm me,” said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. “They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.”

A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline’s ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

AJ Strata smelled this stratagem out more than a week ago. The fact is, there are so many discrepancies between what the Imams (and CAIR) are saying what happened on the plane and what passengers, ground personnel, security people, and gate employees are saying that one wonders how the Imams and CAIR thought they could get away with lying through their teeth so brazenly.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she “found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting.” Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

“That’s like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You just can’t do that anymore,” said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

“They should have been denied boarding and been investigated,” Mr. MacLean said. “It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit.”

So either a couple of dozen people who weren’t able to meet in order to get their stories straight on the incident or the six Imams and CAIR are lying.

But why? This quote says it all:

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline’s ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

“It’s a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim,” Mr. Bray said.

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.

Mr. Bray’s colorful characterization aside, he has a point. But not in this context. The fact that so many agree that the imams were being deliberately provocative in order to be booted off the plane could only mean that the “protest” at the ticket counter was a planned event as well, designed to milk the incident with the media for all it was worth.

If the imams were simply praying as they claim, then the actions of the authorities would indeed have to be considered outrageous and ignorant. But this cheap bit of vaudeville by CAIR and their supporters to try and attach “victimhood” status to their religion in order to get Congress to take the dangerous and unnecessary step of banning the “profiling” of Muslims approaches the absurd. TSA authorities already bend over backwards to give everyone from old, grey grannies to middle aged whites like me the same kind of attention given to Muslim men. The fact that CAIR’s co-religionists are much more likely to blow a plane out of the sky than little old me seems to be lost on our Muslim brethren. Is CAIR actually saying that a middle aged white man is as likely to hijack a plane as a male Muslim who acts suspiciously like the 9/11 hijackers?

Ethnic minorities whose motherland is fighting Americans do not fare well in this country during a time of war. Just ask the Japanese. Or the Germans for that matter. To ask people to suspend their vigilance in the name of “fairness” is suicidal. No one has suggested rounding up Muslims and penning them in concentration camps. So it would seem a logical course of action (and simple, common sense) to pay closer attention to those whose ethnicity is the same as those who are trying their hardest to kill us.

Does this mean that other ethnic groups - including white middle aged males - aren’t a danger? Of course not. If you want to shut down the air transportation system in this country, you would view everyone with the same amount of scrutiny as we do Muslim males. That simply isn’t going to happen.

I suspect that if we ever do get to the point where Muslim males are not singled out for scrutiny when boarding an aircraft, civil aviation will die. The American people could care less about the sensibilities of Muslims as it relates to keeping hijackers off of airplanes that they want to fly on. They don’t care to commit suicide in the name of some nebulous kind of political correctness that flies in the face of logic and common sense. And as long as Muslims continue to threaten us, the profiling of Muslim males will continue - and the American people will thank the government for doing it.

Either we are at war with those who use Islam as an excuse to murder us or we are not at war and CAIR is correct. You cannot have it both ways and have a viable air transport industry and an American public willing to fly.

The professional victimologists at CAIR think that they can put on this idiotic production and rally the American people to their cause. They have, as usual, miscalculated badly. And if this Muslim “civil rights” organization spent 1/10 the time it spends on weeping about “Islamaphobia” as it could on denouncing without reservation or qualification the madmen who seek to destroy us, people would probably listen more closely to what they had to say.

UPDATE

Jay at STACLU reports that CAIR is filing a complaint “with the relevant authorities” over the treatment of the imams:

Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane, as 1.7 billion Muslims around the world do every day, Shahin said. He attributed any concerns by passengers or crew to ignorance about Islam.

“I never felt bad in my life like that,” he said. “I never. Six imams. Six leaders in this country. Six scholars in handcuffs. It’s terrible.”

Six actors in search of a play.

Talk about useless gits…

Both right and left are engaged in what is quite possibly the silliest, the stupidest, the most ridiculous debate on the war to date.

And that’s saying a lot.

Is Iraq now “officially” at war with itself? Is there “civil war” in the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere?

According to the left, Iraq has been “sliding into civil war” or there has been a “de facto” civil war” in Iraq at least 7 different times since Saddam’s statue fell. Of course, they were laughably wrong. Just as their warnings about imminent disaster in Iraq over the last three years were wrong as well. Their reading of what was actually happening in that country was so consistently off target that any accuracy that can be ascribed to their analysis to today’s Iraq might be placed in the realm of blind luck. Keep repeating the same Cassandra-like warnings of disaster over and over and over and eventually when the explosion happens, you can pretend that you weren’t so unalterably wrong for three years running.

For my fellow conservatives, I’ve also just about had enough of this nonsense. Whether the nomenclature “civil war” should be used to describe what is happening in Iraq is not the issue. The issue is dead people. Lots of them. Not just in Baghdad but all over the country. They are dying because they are Shias or because they are Sunnis and for no other reason. They are being dragged off the streets and tortured and shot or being blown up in massive car bomb attacks. People are terrified. Militias from one side are ordering people from the other side to leave or be killed. There is chaos. The rule of law and civilized society no longer exist. Whatever tenuous bonds existed between the people and their government has been ripped to shreds and it is a mystery at this point whether or not those bonds can be re-established no matter how many militia men we kill or how many insurgents are eliminated.

Call it whatever you want. “Civil War” is a handy enough descriptive but I’m not picky. Just don’t call it “progress” and don’t try and convince yourself that things aren’t as bad as what’s being reported. Things are that bad. And no amount of fauxtography, stringers who pass along disinformation, biased reporting, or outright lies will change the reality that Iraq has slipped beyond anyone’s control and only a massive effort - probably costing thousands of more in civilian casualties - will be able to bring the violence down to a level that will allow us to leave.

These dead people are not the inventions of a biased press. They are not the imaginings of idiot lefties who are so desperate to see America humiliated in Iraq that they are willing to abandon the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis - just like they were perfectly willing to abandon many, many more South Vietnamese - to whatever fate awaits them after we leave. Our enemies are winning in Iraq partly because of this refusal by both sides to see the reality of what was happening and formulate tactics and policies to confront the problems. Instead, we got a partisan food fight for three years while our enemies - roundly and soundly defeated on the battlefield day after day - directed their efforts to maximize their propaganda in order to sap the will of the American people to stick it out for the long haul.

Now we have American paralysis in Iraq as the Administration scrambles to change gears from managing the conflict to exiting the country. This paralysis has emboldened all sides and the results are there for all to see; death, chaos, and a government teetering on the edge of absolute irrelevancy.

We are about to go hat in hand to Iran and Syria, begging them to allow us to leave with some dignity intact rather than giving the American people a replay of the last helicopter leaving our embassy in Saigon. The price we pay for the help of these two terrorist enabling and supporting states will be steep - bet on it. It may involve further betrayals - not just of the people of Iraq who placed their trust in the United States not to abandon them to the forces of chaos and darkness but also friends elsewhere in the region like Lebanon and perhaps even Israel. Bargaining with despots and fanatics will always be a crapshoot. And there will be absolutely no guarantee that they will live up to any bargain we strike with them.

So stop this silly assed argument about whether Iraq is in a state of “civil war” or not. There’s enough stupidity on either side of this debate to fill the monthly quota of blogosphere angst over absolutely irrelevant issues. Best now to concentrate on what we can do to salvage something out of the Iraq mess rather than lefty “I told ya so’s” about something they’ve been wrong about 7 times over the last three years or righties seeing Iraq through rose colored glasses regarding the reality of the butchery that’s taking place.

Maybe y’all could start writing about something really important…like Brittany’s divorce or Michael Richard’s hypocrisy. At least then you wouldn’t have to pretend that you’re arguing about something important.

It was 1940 and the Germans had the drop on the British. The Nazis had just pushed the British literally into the sea at Dunkirk and despite a heroic evacuation of nearly 350,000 men, almost all of the British Expeditionary Force’s armor and artillery had to be left behind.

England was hurt badly but not defenseless. Her navy still commanded the Channel and the North Sea thus blocking any realistic effort by Germany to invade the Island. And of course, the Royal Air Force was poised to do battle with the Luftwaffe whenever Hitler decided the time was ripe to strike.

But the Nazi dictator was hesitating. After conquering most of Europe, his armies stood a scant 22 miles across the Channel from the White Cliffs of Dover. But Hitler and the German General Staff had barely even thought of how to go about invading and occupying the British Isles. Operation Sea Lion, the German war plan for the attack on Great Britain was just that - a plan. And not a very good one at that.

So Hitler decided on trying a gambit that had worked like a charm on other occasions; a major speech in which he would offer England “peace” in return for a free hand on the continent. Hitler, so in love with the sound of his own voice and so confident in his ability to sway people failed to realize that times had changed.

In describing the scene at the Reichstag where Hitler delivered his “Peace Speech,” noted Nazi chronicler William L. Shirer commented that he thought that the address was one of Hitler’s finest - and certainly his most brazenly dishonest. He didn’t want war with the English. The Germans and English were historic friends. It was that demon Churchill and the Jews that started the war. He outlined a future where Germany and Great Britain would be partners in peace, united in racial brotherhood and comity.

The response from the British was lightening fast. Within a half an hour after the conclusion of Hitler’s speech, the BBC was on the air rejecting all of the dictator’s proposals out of hand. Britain would never make peace with Germany as long as Europe was enslaved by Hitler. The BBC’s towering denunciation of the speech sounded like an official response from Churchill’s government. But it wasn’t. On its own, the BBC had taken to the air and given the only response a free people could give. As Churchill said later, no one from government had contacted the BBC nor encouraged it in any way. The response was entirely the idea of the BBC staff.

In this instance, the BBC crossed the invisible line between reporting the news and making the news. No doubt they felt they had good reason to do so. They weren’t taken in for one second by Hitler’s propaganda. This despite the fact that all during the 1930’s when Hitler was building his war machine and carrying out his bloodless conquests, the BBC (along with most other major newspapers like the New York Times and Chicago Tribune) took whatever Hitler had to say at face value and swallowed his disinformation whole. This despite warnings from disgusted correspondents in Berlin like Norman Ebbut of the London Times whose editor Geoffrey Dawson famously wrote to a correspondent that he did his “utmost, night after night, to keep out of the paper anything that might hurt their (German) sensibilities.” This meant that most of Ebbut’s brilliant reporting on the depravity of the Nazi regime went unread.

Contrast the experience of the BBC with today’s reporting from Iraq. Both the BBC then and the media today know that there are agents of disinformation seeking to spin the news by giving slanted even erroneous reports. The question we should be asking the media - like the question directed by Churchill at the BBC and the London Times prior to the World War II - is how hard are you trying to get the story right?

Once it became clear that Hitler was a threat to the existence of the nation, the BBC and other British news outlets started to view what the Nazis were saying with a much more critical eye. But couldn’t they have figured this out sooner? Why did they swallow enemy propaganda so willingly?

We asked similar questions during the Israeli-Hizbullah war when it became readily apparent that the AP (and thus hundreds of media outlets around the world) were using photos and stories from outright Hizbullah sympathizers whose job could only have been to give enemy propaganda to western reporters. And in Iraq, many critics have pointed to the almost total reliance by the mainstream press on Iraqi “stringers” for news of what’s happening around the country.

First of all, I am constrained to point out that reporting from Iraq is a nightmare. Going outside of the “green zone” is an invitation to being kidnapped or killed if you’re a western reporter. It is not a question of courage. It’s a question of common sense. Reporters are not combatants and are not armed. The use of stringers in order to assist in the news gathering process is an absolute necessity. Without them, reporters would be limited to writing from CENTCOM news releases and Iraqi government press handouts. And while some may consider that sufficient, I don’t think very many of us truly want the press that much in the pocket of the government.

Having said all of this, I have a few pointed questions that I’d like to ask the New York Times, the Washington Post, the news nets and others who use stringers in gathering the news.

Who are they? What are their backgrounds? Are they journalists? If so, what kind of experience have they had? Have then been vetted to make sure they aren’t out and out insurgent sympathizers? Or militia mouthpieces?

Do they have axes to grind against America? How does the reporter in Iraq or the editor back home establish their objectivity or accuracy? Does the reporter on site even try and confirm information from the stringers? If so, how many sources are used to confirm their stories? How do you gauge the reliability of those confirming sources?

This is the nuts and bolts of journalism. Raw information is not news. It has to be poked and prodded, examined and re-examined in a process that is supposed to reduce that information to its most basic and understandable parts and then massaged by the reporter and polished by the editor to appear as “news” in the newspaper or on the TV broadcast.

Reporters here at home have established rules regarding sources and story confirmations that are carefully followed (for the most part) and a level of trust that what we are reading is reasonably accurate has been established. Bloggers are very good at pointing out where this system fails and, depending on the news outlet, the failure is either swept under the rug or actually addressed. The news business is far from infallible and everything from out right bias to downright laziness can infect the news.

But there seem to be different rules for war reporting from the Middle East. It appears to this observer that there is too much trust between the parties involved in news gathering and not enough hard, slogging, verification of information that is reported on a day to day basis. I have no doubt that reporters trust the information they get from their stringers (and other sources as well). And the editors here at home feel they have to trust and support their reporters in the war zone who, after all, are still taking a tremendous personal risk despite them being largely confined to living and working in the green zone.

But it doesn’t appear to be good enough. Curt at Flopping Aces, a longtime supporter and linker to this site, has done an extraordinary job of ferreting out a piece of disinformation passed along by a source who evidently is not who he says he is and has also proven to be unreliable in the past. Read the entire post as Curt digs deeper and deeper into how this one Iraqi “police captain” (who CENTCOM reports is not on any police roster) passed along a bogus story about Sunni civilians set on fire this past weekend that created a huge sensation internationally but is almost certainly no true.

While it is unclear whether the AP reporter who “broke” this story interviewed the fake policeman personally or whether he received the information from someone else, the fact that editors around the world (it was front page news in my local suburban daily) ran the story without question is enormously troubling. All Curt possessed to discover this information about the fake police captain was a computer and a modem. He didn’t need any special expertise to ferret out this information. Are you trying to tell me the editors of mutli-million dollar enterprises don’t have the time or the energy to do exactly what Curt did regarding this story?

I totally reject that notion. This is pure laziness on the part of the media. There is no excuse, no other explanation possible. They didn’t bother because either their pre-conceived notions of the violence in Iraq came into play or they felt it wasn’t necessary because the AP had supposedly vetted the story. If the former, that kind of bias has no place in a newsroom. And if it was the latter, it shows that the editors of those newspapers care little about what appears on the pages of their publications.

And what do we make of Patterico’s brilliant work regarding the stringer’s story told to the Los Angeles Times Iraq reporter about an American “bombing” in Ramadi; a bombing that never occurred. The stringer’s report of civilian deaths is also apparently a hoax (or disinformation). The fact that all we are getting is silence from the LA Times is par for the course but it does make one curious about the answers to all those questions I asked above. Read Patterico’s analysis and then start contemplating what else we might be hearing and reading about that has no basis in fact.

This is not to minimize what is happening in Iraq. And I don’t agree with those who believe that the efforts of Curt and Patterico reveal that things aren’t really that bad in that bloody land. Independent sources far and wide - including our own military and military sympathizers - paint a portrait of a country spinning out of control and headed for tragedy. But it is clear from these two deliberately planted stories that the insurgents in Iraq wish to keep the pressure on the White House and the American people in order that they not change their minds about withdrawal.

Beyond that, the questions these stories raise for the media are very troubling. It is not a matter of accusing them of bias. It is a basic question of trust between the reader and journalist without which the news becomes meaningless drivel. And if the media are not going to reveal answers to some of those questions I asked above, I would sincerely hope that they start asking them internally.

One way that a different perspective on the news from Iraq could gain currency is if the American media bothered to embed themselves with our armed forces. At last report, there were only 9 authorized embeds by the American media. This is shameful. We have 130,000 men and women in harms way and the American media can’t find eager reporters willing to face the danger in order to tell their stories? As we wind down our involvement in this tragedy, let’s hope that more reporters are willing to see what it is our forces are doing so that the American people have a complete picture of the conflict.

Reporters and editors are human. But somehow, I can’t escape the feeling that they are not carrying out their responsibilities to tell the story of this war to the best of their abilities. They are letting us down. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

The government of Prime Minister Siniora has approved the International Tribunal that will try the perpetrators of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri despite questions about the legality of their actions:

The Cabinet of Prime minister Fouad Siniora has defied its pro-Syrian opponents Saturday and gave its final approval to a U.N.-created international court to try suspects in the Hariri assassination.

Prime Minster Siniora has earlier offered to delay the meeting if the Hezbollah and Amal ministers agree to return to the government but they refused.

The legal morass created by this approval is confusing and without precedent in Lebanese history. Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri, who calls the action “unconstitutional,” outlines some of the legal quagmire:

Berri said the emergency meeting called by anti-Syrian Prime Minister Fouad Saniora breached the constitution.

“This meeting is not in conformity with the constitution and this government is de facto,” said Berri, whose pro-Syrian Amal party pulled its ministers out of the cabinet two weeks ago along with those of Hizbullah.

“Under Article 52 of the constitution, an emergency meeting of the cabinet must have the approval of the president of the republic,” he said, in reference to pro-Syrian head of state Emile Lahoud.

Berri had also dismissed as unconstitutional a previous meeting of the cabinet on November 13 which agreed to submit the court blueprint to the U.N. Security Council for the endorsement it gave on Tuesday.

He said then that the rump anti-Syrian cabinet left after the departure of the six pro-Syrian ministers breached Lebanon’s national pact, the unwritten arrangement providing for all of the country’s myriad religious and ethnic groups to be represented in government.

The need for ratification by Lebanon’s pro-Syrian head of state, President Emile Lahoud, is also the subject of heated debate between Damascus’s friends and foes.

Pro-government leaders argue that the constitution gives ministers the authority to override the president if he refuses to ratify a treaty agreed by both the cabinet and parliament twice in the space of a month.

But opponents — and some lawyers — argue that that would be a breach of the national pact and therefore unconstitutional. The unwritten national pact provides for all of the country’s myriad religious and ethnic groups to be represented in government.

Siniora at first refused to accept the resignations of the Shia ministers. This is how he was able to pass the initial enabling law that was then sent back to the UN for final approval. With that approval given on Thursday, it is now up to the government to send the measure along to Parliament where it awaits a very uncertain future.

Berri appears to have settled into the position that the Tribunal cannot be approved without the presence of the Shia ministers. This will probably mean that he will not even call Parliament into session. This will bring about a confrontation with the March 14th Forces. If the governing coalition attempts to convene the Parliament without Berri’s approval and then strong arm passage of the Tribunal, this would no doubt precipitate a crisis where wholesale resignations by Hizbullah, Amal, and Aoun’s FPM deputies would ensue and totally delegitimze Siniora’s government and March 14th.

For this reason, Siniora’s next move is uncertain. Blocked by Berri in Parliament, he could ask the President to call the legislature into session but that’s a non starter considering the fact that President Lahoud doesn’t want the Tribunal to convene any more than President Assad of Syria. For the moment, the Tribunal appears to be stillborn.

All eyes now turn to the streets where Hizbuallah will be next week. The outpouring of support for the government at the funeral of Pierre Gemayel not only didn’t impress Nasrallah but also barely affected his plans to bring down the government “within a month:”

Ghalib Abu Zaynab, a Hizbollah politburo member, speaking in the group’s southern Beirut stronghold, said: “As far as street protests are concerned, we have postponed these as we are waiting to see what will happen in the coming days. But the protests will go ahead, and we hope they will achieve our political aims within a month.”

He said tactics would include mass street demonstrations, strikes, and “other legal and peaceful means of achieving our goals. We gave blood for independence but we want true independence, not influenced by outside parties, and this government is a puppet of the United States, run by Jeffrey Feltman [the American ambassador to Lebanon].”

March 14th had called for a 2 day general strike following the funeral, asking all businesses to close up and cease activity. This tactic apparently is a flop:

Most businesses in Lebanon’s capital resumed regular operations on Friday, ignoring a joint call from major business groups for a two-day strike across all commercial sectors. Business leaders had hoped the move might break the political deadlock over Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s Cabinet and discourage rival parties from continuing to threaten street protests.

Though supportive of the strike in principle, most merchants, industrialists, and traders were not in the financial position to adhere to such a demand, the head of the Hotel, Cafe, and Restaurant Syndicate said.

“The decision was taken at a bad time,” Paul Ariss told The Daily Star. “It’s the end of the month and restaurants need the extra cash to pay salaries. We requested by SMS and telephone last night that everyone comply with decision, but let’s just say people were not enthusiastic about it, because they need to make some money.”

It’s hard to gauge whether this is an indication of a flagging of support for Siniora’s government or whether it is a reflection of practical realities as indicated in the article. It could also mean people are tired of the confrontation and wish a resolution.

Meanwhile, Hizbullah continues to plan - with the help of their friends in Tehran:

[T]he Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are using the Iranian embassies in Damascus and Beirut as command and control centers — an allegation that was also confirmed to TIME by Israeli military sources. Obaid says there appear to be direct communications links between the Iranians and Hizballah, via Hizballah officers working inside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, and Iranian officers in the field with Hizballah fighters; in the past, some Middle East analysts have rejected the popular notion that Hizballah takes direct orders from Iran.

It is apparent that Tehran and Hizbullah are moving in for the kill. The next few weeks will be painful to watch for the friends of Lebanese democracy.

I wasn’t going to vote for him for President anyway, But Chuck Hagel has just proved why he is unfit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces:

There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis — not the Americans.

Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.

First of all, I hardly think we should be taking lessons in what constitutes victory or defeat from Henry “Peace with Honor” Kissinger. Iraq will go down in the books as a loss - changing that brilliant line in Bill Murray’s biting satirical film Stripes - “Hey! We’re the Ewnited States army! We’re 5 and 1!”

The press will be referring to Iraq as a defeat. The left will be referring to Iraq as a defeat. It will go down in history textbooks as a defeat. For every generation of American schoolchildren in the future, Iraq will be taught as a defeat, a loss, a drubbing, a licking, a whipping, a nonsuccess.

And most especially, our enemies will definitely be celebrating Iraq as a defeat not just for America but, being stupid ignorant jihadis who celebrate their own slaughter and call it a triumph, also see our coming exit from Iraq as a defeat of American arms.

The North Vietnamese weren’t that stupid. To this day, they celebrate their victory over the American people and government, recognizing they outlasted our capacity as a nation to maintain our commitment to the South, not that they defeated the American military on the field of battle.

Chuck Hagel is a ninny. No? Well what else do you call someone who celebrates the increased influence of Iran and Syria in the Middle East?

It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America’s options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication. The next installment would be this weekend’s unprecedented meeting in Iran of the presidents of Iran, Syria and Iraq, if it takes place.

What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest — without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.

Hagel is celebrating the fact that Iran will now be able to meddle in Iraqi affairs without the big, bad old United States to stop it. This “encouraging set of actions” involve two nations who train terrorists, sponsor terrorism. and, by expanding their influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere, will be able to project that terrorism (Who knows? Maybe they’ll make it all the way to Omaha, Chucky) to the far corners of the globe.

The fact that Hagel believes that the fact that Iran and Syria will be free to “fill regional vacuums” (wonder what the Saudis think about THAT) and that this is somehow a positive development makes one question not only Senator Cornpone’s judgement but perhaps his sanity as well. Both nations will now feel empowered and emboldened.

This is especially true of the fanatic Ahmadinejad who sees American defeat in Iraq as the fulfillment of prophecy. Great, Chucky. That’s all we need. A meglomaniacal religious nut, soon to have the ultimate defense against cartoons that mock the prophet, who thinks that history is unfolding according to plan and that very soon, we can expect a visit from his buddy the 12th Imam and then, the fire this time.

Finally, Hagel goes Jim Baker and the Democrats one better regarding bi-partisanship:

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder — one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.

No word yet on the price to be paid by the Lebanese or other American friends in the region for this “bi-partisanship.” Certainly Hizbullah will support our coming rapprochement with Syria and Iran, seeing quite rightly that it will involve a lessening of American interest in what happens in Lebanon. And a weakening of America’s position in the Middle East is certainly being looked upon in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States with not a little trepidation.

But hey! All in the name of “bi-partisanship” right Chucky?

When the last American troops are leaving Iraq, it will be a photo op that will prove itself absolutely irresistible to the press. There will be comparisons with that last helicopter taking off from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon. AL-Jazeera will carry the images live across the Middle East and there will be much dancing and celebrating from the refugee camps on the West Bank to the bazaars of Karachi. Al-Jazeera will carry those images too.

What do you think Senator Hagel’s response to those images might be? What will he say then about “no defeat” in Iraq? Will he wonder what these people are celebrating for? Will he have a clue?

Hagel’s myopia matches that of the new Soviet government in 1917 who were negotiating with the Germans an end to Russian involvement in World War I. The Germans were being extraordinarily harsh in their terms and the new Soviet government was balking.

Finally, the government hit upon a brilliant idea. Why not simply declare that the war was over and the German had won? Enormously satisfied with their own cleverness, Russian troops began to abandon their positions and start the long trek home.

The Germans didn’t quite know what to make of this. They were amazed. They decided to take the most direct approach possible and launched a massive attack against the retreating Russians. Only after slaughtering tens of thousands of more soldiers and gaining a hundred miles of territory did the Soviet government wake up and go back to the bargaining table where the Germans became, if anything, more demanding.

Hagel’s thinking may not be quite as muddled as Lenin’s. But it certainly reveals a man either lying to himself or so overcome with his own cleverness that it has blinded him to the simple realities of what is going to happen when we leave Iraq. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, let’s just consider him self-deluded.

After all, he’s running for President…

Abe Lincoln used to tell the story about two country boys who were walking in the woods when they came upon a wild hog. Taking an instant dislike to the interlopers, the hog set off after the two kids who ran like hell through the forest, the hog gaining on them, when one boy shimmied up a pine tree to avoid the beast’s lethal tusks. The other lad wasn’t as lucky but managed to grab hold of the hog’s tail and went round and round the pine tree, his friend watching helplessly from above. Finally, the young boy on the ground looked up and called out to his friend, “come on down Bill, and help me leave go of this hog!”

Lincoln told several variations of this anecdote, including the exit line coming from the treed youngster who dryly observed that it was hard to tell from his vantage point who was chasing who. Needless to say, either story serves as a perfect metaphor for any discussion regarding Syria and what the United States can do, must do, or desires to do about engaging that country in efforts to bring some semblance of stability to Iraq, Lebanon, and by extension, the rest of the Middle East.

There is just no easy response to the question of Syria and whether or not to engage her in negotiations. There is little doubt that President Assad could help us in Iraq but at what price? And how much help could he really be?

The most recent bloodletting in the streets of Baghdad calls into question whether negotiations with regional troublemakers Iran and Syria will have the desired effect on the security situation in Iraq. The insurgency and the accompanying sectarian violence is not being directed or controlled from Damascus or Tehran. Those two nations have simply decided to throw gasoline and phosphorus on an already raging fire. Take away the accelerants and you still have the fire - out of control with plenty of kindling and firewood left to feed the conflagration for years to come.

For our part, we’ve got a hold of the tail of the hog and no one is inclined to come down and help us leave go of it, even if anyone had a clue where to begin. Too violent for United Nations peacekeepers and with no NATO member or Arab country willing to see its soldiers die for what they consider an American blunder, the Iraq problem is incredibly resistant to the kind of glib solutions offered by the internationalists and collective security advocates who have made it their business since the war began to admonish the United States for its unilateralist approach.

Which brings us to the “realists” and their apparent eagerness to engage Iran and Syria in dialogue over Iraqi security. I have no doubt that both countries would be open to such negotiations - if for no other reason than all the goodies they may be able to extract from American negotiators who will come hat in hand, begging for help. But as I wrote here, there is another reason the Iranians and Syrians may be willing to cooperate in trying to tamp down the violence in Iraq; neither wishes a failed state on their borders that would be a magnet for Shia terrorists (Syria’s worry) or a boost for Kurdish independence (Iran’s fear).

This is the meat of the realist’s argument; that any government which holds power when we leave Iraq - a process coming sooner rather than later - must be able to contain the raging violence that threatens the stability of the entire region. It is self evident, the realists say, that such a result would be in all three country’s interest. And lest we forget, the majority Shia in Iraq seem disinclined to stop the slaughter of the Sunnis, a fact of this war that seems to have taken on a life all its own with death squads on both sides that answer to no authority save their own warped and twisted desire for revenge. This is a situation that could turn into a genuine tragedy of historic proportions if the United States were to leave precipitously with potentially millions dead unless some kind of political settlement could be brokered that would both satisfy the majority and protect the minority.

How much good could Syria really do in such a chaotic situation and more importantly, what would they want in return for their cooperation? Having met with James Baker (who is rapidly emerging as a leader of the “realists” among Administration advisors), Syria seems “encouraged” by the results of the contact. What could Baker have said that would have piqued the interest of Damascus? Michael Young:

If political “realism” is about interests, then realists must prove that a country that has ignored successive UN resolutions demanding Syrian non-interference in Lebanon could somehow be a force for stability in Iraq, to which it has funnelled hundreds of foreign fighters. Engaging Mr Assad over Iraq will mean the gradual return of Syrian hegemony over Lebanon, since neither the US nor the UK will be in a position to deny Syria in Lebanon while asking favours in Iraq.

If one has no qualms about abandoning a rare democratic success in the Middle East, as Lebanon has been, then by all means talk to the gentlemen in Damascus. But first someone should remind Mr Blair of a name oddly absent from his recent rhetoric of engagement: Rafiq Hariri. To which we can now add another: Pierre Gemayel.

Turning a blind eye to Assad as he crushes freedom in Lebanon as a price for his efforts to stabilize Iraq seems an extraordinarily bad bargain from the US standpoint. First of all, no one will be able to quantify just what Syria might be able to accomplish with its efforts in Iraq (the same goes double for Iran). Secondly, besides it being unbelievably cynical and immoral to allow the Lebanese people to fall under the tender mercies of Assad’s secret police again, such a betrayal would reverberate throughout the Middle East with the forces of reform that are taking the first small steps toward democratic government in places like Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar and some of the other Gulf States. Even Saudi Arabia has taken some baby steps toward more representative government. A betrayal of the Lebanese democrats who we encouraged to put their lives on the line to try and bring democracy to that country would be a slap in the face to reformers all over the Middle East who face similar dangers daily. It would send exactly the wrong message at the wrong time.

If not Lebanon, what then does Assad desire? What Syria has wanted since its 1967 war with Israel; the Golan Heights. Assad would want us to put “pressure” on Israel to negotiate its return.

The idea that American could “pressure” Israel into committing suicide by allowing the Syrians access to that strategic bit of land is ludicrous. Syrian artillery emplacements from 1948-67 regularly bombarded Israeli civilians living in the Huleh Valley, killing dozens and forcing residents to sleep in bomb shelters. It is doubtful whether the Israelis would even consider it, despite the importuning of their desperate American ally.

Blocked by conscience (we hope) from giving away Lebanon and by strategic necessity into pressuring the Israelis to give back the Heights, when one looks closely at our bargaining position with Assad, it appears that there is precious little good we can do for him. And given the state of violence in Iraq, I daresay that there is equally little he can realistically do for us.

We can’t sell him military equipment given that he is still technically at war with Israel. We could offer economic aid but the Syrian economy is such a basket case that in order to truly do some good, it would have to take the form of massive assistance, forgiveness of debt, and cooperation gained from the Europeans to pitch in and help - the prospects for all of which occurring dim to non-existent.

In short, what Assad wants, we cannot give him. And what we want, he cannot deliver.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t open a dialogue with Syria? Emphatically no. The fact is, engaging Syria in talks, however futile they might be in dramatically changing the situation in Iraq, may lead to lifting the veil of isolation around Syria and driving a wedge between the axis of Damascus and Tehran. These two strange bedfellows have found common cause in Lebanon and in bleeding America in Iraq. Outside of that, the two nations are as dissimilar as could be expected when one considers that Syria is ruled by a small clique of secular Alawites and Tehran, a Shia theocracy. If their areas of commonality in Lebanon and Iraq can be taken away, there is a chance that Assad (with the help of some of America’s friends in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia) can be weaned away from the influence of the mullahs and brought back into the community of nations.

A long shot, that. But there’s no chance of it happening unless we start to engage the Syrians in some kind of dialogue on regional issues like Iraq and Lebanon. It is clearly in our interest to do so and I expect that Bush will reluctantly agree.

What that means for the Iraqi people is unknown. But at this point, even grasping at straws is better than the kind of deep seated fatalism infecting the country and where there is no end in sight to the bloody, unspeakable violence that has become an every day fact of life for many in that tragic land.

Even though it’s Thanksgiving, there is so much going on in Lebanon today that I thought I’d gather some news from around the web and from local Lebanese media to update you on what’s happening on this dramatic day.

I will add to this post if necessary as the day goes on.

CROWD AT FUNERAL ESTIMATED IN THE “HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS”

No official estimate yet (Update: Via al-Jazeera, Red Cross reports half a million), but Martyrs Square is still filling up as of 2:00 PM Lebanese time.

Pierre Gemayel’s funeral was underway Thursday at Beirut’s St. George Cathedral as hundreds of thousands of mourners gathered to bid farewell in a show of force against opponents led by Hizbullah and their Syrian backers.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy and Arab League chief Amr Mussa were among the dignitaries attending the 1:00 p.m. funeral service lead by Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir in a rare move.

Prominent Lebanese leaders and ambassadors packed the cathedral as the casket was placed on the altar along with the coffin of his bodyguard, Samir al-Shartouni.

Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hizbullah ally, surprised the mourners by showing up unexpectedly.

The protesters are nothing if not blunt:

Young men stamped on portraits of Lahoud and his Syrian and Iranian counterparts, Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the principal backers of Hizbullah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah.
“Nasrallah, come and see who is the majority” in Lebanon, chanted the crowd.

“We want only the army to bear weapons,” the mourners chanted, referring to Hizbullah’s persistent refusal to lay down its weapons in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions following the devastating summer war with Israel.

This should raise the spirits of the democrats. Whether it translates into political muscle remains to be seen.

HIZBULLAH CANCELS MARCHES

Showing that he has more than an ounce of common sense, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah has cancelled street demonstrations planned for Thursday to avoid a confrontation with the hundreds of thousands of angry anti-Syrian Lebanese who will be in the streets paying their last respects to Minister Gemayel.

As I’ve said before, Nasrallah does not want a civil war - not when he is on the verge of getting what he wants without a messy, destructive sectarian conflict. While the atmospherics of the political situation may have changed, the reality is that the Sheik still holds the upper hand - as long as his bully boys have the guns to threaten the government and the population.

Strangely, Nasrallah has blamed Israel for the assassination. Given that Gemayel’s uncle, ex-President Bachir Gemeyal was a huge supporter of Israel during the civil war, it is doubtful too many Lebanese outside of the fanatics who follow him believe Nasrallah. It may prove that the assassination has thrown Nasrallah off his game slightly. Let’s hope the million or so people who flood the streets of Beirut today continue that process.

US-BRITAIN CONDEMN THE ASSASSINATION BUT FAIL TO MENTION SYRIA BY NAME

Both the US and Great Britain have issued strong official statements condemning the assassination and supporting Prime Minister Siniora’s government - except neither one specifically mentioned Syria as the probable perpetrator of the murders. (Bush and Bolton have both fingered Syria and Iran in off the cuff remarks but the State Department nixed any mention of Syria in the official communique.)

This is no accident, of course, Nothing can be said that might derail the coming ass kissing session with Assad as we seek his blessing to withdraw from Iraq without the Syrian President causing the country to descend into chaos in the meantime. Given that the thug has just cold bloodedly murdered a man committed to democracy and freedom and was opposed to the kind of Islamic fundamentalism embodied in Nasrallah’s Hizbullah, our State Department and the British Foreign Office may as well have spit on Pierre Gemayel’s grave.

SYRIA REJECTS TRIBUNAL

Not surprisingly, the Syrian Foreign Minister has announced that if any Syrians are indicted by the International Tribunal, they will not appear. He says that the Syrian justice system is perfectly capable and doesn’t need the assistance of any foreigners.

“Syria is 100 percent innocent from the crime and we don’t need to assure that,” he said, adding “if there were any Syrian who is involved in this crime, then he is a murderer and will be punished as criminals are penalized by the just Syrian judiciary.”

I think I’ll let that quote pass without comment.

LEBANESE GOVERNMENT HOLES UP IN GOVERNMENT BUILDING

In order to avoid the prospect of losing two more ministers which would cause his government to fall, From Beirut to the Beltway is reporting that Prime Minister Siniora has ordered his cabinet to bed down in the government building until the International Tribunal is approved:

After the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, March 14 cannot afford to lose any more ministers. If one more is killed or resigns, the cabinet will lose the quorum required by the constitution. For that, Siniora has reportedly turned the government building into temporary sleeping quarters for the remaining ministers, who will be barred from leaving the building until a session is held to approve the plan, possibly as early as Monday. After the funeral today, and if they all make it back to the Serail safely, it would require blowing up the government headquarters to stop the cabinet session form taking place.

At this point, blowing up the massive government building would be a shocker but not a total surprise. Anything is possible in Lebanon over the next few days.

MIDDLE EAST “EXPERTS” ON THE ASSASSINATION

Tony Badran has a revealing piece on what various Lebanese “experts” are saying about the assassination:

Helena Cobban: Syrians murder Lebanese Christian leader. Conclusion: Lebanese Christians are murderers who may massacre people.

Rami Khoury: Syrians murder Lebanese Christian leader. Conclusion: We must stop this “cycle of violence.”

Juan Cole: Syrians murder Lebanese Christian leader. Conclusion: The evil George Bush wants the Lebanese moderates to crush poor innocent Hezbollah.

Joshua Landis: Syrians murder Lebanese Christian leader. Conclusion: The US should make a concession to Syria to let Hezbollah run Lebanon.

And all agree: Syrians murder Lebanese Christian leader. Conclusion: This proves we should forget about the last time they murdered a Lebanese leader!

That about sums it up.

PICTURE OF THE DAY

Stay safe, kid. Carrying a sign like that in public is serious business in these times.

LIVE AUDIO OF EVENTS

The blog Beirut Spring has a link to an Arabic language broadcast of events in Martyrs Square. The crowd sounds restive with angry undertones. Some Lebanese blogs are reporting that after the funeral, the crowd will march to the Presidential Palace and demand the ouster of President Lahoud.

Even if Lahoud resigned, it wouldn’t solve any of Siniora’s problems. But it would be nice to see the toady kicked out.

BERRI EMERGING AS POSSIBLE KEY FIGURE

A surprise guest at the funeral today was Parliamentary Speaker and leader of the Amal Party Nabbi Berri. Amal is ostensibly allied with Hizbullah and Berri’s show of independence is not only incredibly brave but could be significant. (There is some confusion as to whether or not Hizbullah even bothered to send their own delegation to the funeral.)

Immediately after the cabinet approved the formation of the Tribunal, Berri made a statement that the action was constitutional despite the absence of the Shia ministers who had resigned over the previous weekend. This despite President Lahoud calling it “illegitimate” and Nasrallah referring to it as “illegal.” Berri did an about face when he got back from Iran earlier this week after 2 days of consultations with the mullahs when he called the action “unconstitutional.” But in the same statement, he has called on the Shia ministers to return to the cabinet and for the National Dialogue, which broke down over the issue of Shia representation in the cabinet, to reconvene.

Berri has also hinted that he would indeed convene Parliament to take up the approval of the Tribunal once the cabinet sends the measure along.

This means two things: First, Berri is a marked man now, in Assad’s crosshairs as well as probably some Sunni and Christian groups. Secondly, Berr’s independence could mean that he has tired of Hizbullah’s constant brinkmanship and wishes a political settlement.

If the latter, this could be hugely significant. They have a small representation in Parliament (12 seats out of 128) and Amal is much more secular oriented than Hizbullah. Berri himself is respected in some quarters outside of the Shia community. Does Berri have enough clout to broker some kind of deal? We’ll probably find out next week.

A MOST CURIOUS STORY

This story has been making the rounds of the blogs as well as appearing in Ya Libnan:

Kuwaiti Newspaper Alseyassah has reported that a SANA (Syrian Arab News Agency) editor has contacted a Lebanese pro-Syrian newspaper 55 minutes prior to the assassination of Lebanon’s minister Pierre Gemayel inquiring about details of his murder.

The call took place at 3:05 pm Beirut local time. Alseyassah did not name the Lebanese newspaper to protect its identity.

The Alseyassah added that the Lebanese newspaper was extremely surprised about SANA’s call which prompted the SANA reporter to call 10 minutes later and apologize for the original call.

This kind of story pops up every time there’s a tragedy of some kind. The bombing in Britain, the JFK assassination, even 9/11 have had similar stories reported. A cursory check into the facts however, reveals people are simply mistaken about the time frame. No one is lying. It’s just a symptom of what happens when great events occur.

Would I be surprised if the story were true? Not really. This assassination appeared well planned and the plot could have leaked out prior to its execution.

But I’m doubting it…

UPDATE 1

Check out Jim Hoft’s extensive coverage that includes some pretty dramatic pictures.

The blog Beirut Live has a picture taken from An Nahar’s window that’s extraordinarily impressive (click on the picture for a full screen view) and adds this:

This is our day. Not that of the March 14 coalition, nor that of the March 8 coalition! This is the day when Lebanon shouts to the criminals:

“Enough. Lebanon will not die today, it will not die tomorrow. No bombs or bullets from Israeli, Syrian or Iranian regimes will ever bring us down.”

It is time for all Lebanese, from all religions and all sides to join hands to uphold and save our bleeding Lebanon.

UPDATE II: HARIRI AND JUMBLAT THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO HIZBULLAH

Two fiery speeeches to the hundreds of thousands gathered in Martyrs Square for Minister Gemayel’s funderal from March 14th leaders Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblat made it absolutely clear that the democrats still have a lot of fight left in them:

“They will not nail down our determination for life. They will not nail down our determination to refuse the culture of sorrow and death,” Jumblat told the hundreds of thousands massed in Martyrs Square near St. George Cathedral where the industry minister’s funeral service was held.

“They will not nail down our determination to keep the arms in the hands of the state, and our demands for the truth, justice and the international court,” he said.

He was alluding to the ruling majority’s insistence on an international tribunal to try the February 2005 assassins of five-time premier Rafik Hariri, and to the refusal of Syrian ally Hizbullah to lay down its arms in accordance with U.N. resolutions after its summer war with Israel.

Jumblat said the slain minister joined “the previous martyrs… who had refused … the regime of tutelage, killings and assassinations.”

Hariri told the crowd waving red-and-white Lebanese flags: “You are here for a new revolution to show the entire world that the sons of Rafik Hariri and the brothers of Pierre Gemayel are the majority in Lebanon.”

“They said that you are a virtual majority, but we are the reality and they are virtual.”

“National unity is stronger than their arms … and their terrorism.”

The slain minister’s father, Amine Gemayel then took the podium to call for a new Lebanon, without pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.

He hailed “the start of the second revolution for the independence of Lebanon, which should start at the top.”

This is a direct challenge to Nasrallah. He will probably answer it next week when he turns out his own bully boys for street demonstrations.

UPDATE III: THE DAY IN PHOTOS

PART OF THE MASSIVE CROWD ESTIMATED AT 500,000 THAT TURNED OUT TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY AND HONOR PIERRE GEMAYEL

PIERRE’S FATHER AMINE GEMAYEL. HE LOST ANOTHER SON TO AN ASSASSIN AS WELL.

MARCH 14TH PARLIAMENTARY LEADER SAAD HARIRI (CENTER). HE ALSO LOST HIS FATHER RAFIQ TO AN ASSASSINS BULLET. DRUZE LEADER WALID JUMBLAT (FAR LEFT) WHOSE FATHER WAS ASSASSINATED IN 1975 AND LEBANESE FORCES HEAD SAMIR GEAGEAS WHO SPENT 12 YEARS IN PRISON DURING THE OCCUPATION (RIGHT)

VIA ALLAH, HARIRI, GEMAYEL, AND GEAGEAS UNITED IN GRIEF

UPDATE III

Abu Kais from BTHBW has plenty of video.

One thing you notice immediately. These are angry people. These are not the smiling, cheering reform-minded citizens we saw in the spring of 2005. These people seem to want blood and know where to go to get it.

I fear that unless passions cool between now and when Hizbullah takes the to the streets - possibly next week - clashes will be inevitable. Looking at the video, one sees sadness but also a fatalism that is very alarming, almost as if people have resigned themselves to violence.

UPDATE IV

Still with me? Good. This will probably be my last update for the day.

Beirut Spring informs us that Nasrallah never called Amin Gemayel to offer his condlences nor apparently were there any Hizbullah representatives at the funeral (I have been unable to identify a Muslim cleric in an excellent photo montage at Daily Star. He appeared to be in Shia garb.) Instead, Hizbullah media headlines the funeral “The Authorities take to the streets.”

Mustapha also informs us that there appeared to be heavy representation by the Free Patriotic Movement, Michel Aoun’s party who is allied with Hizbullah in Parliament. Given the attendance of Nabih Berri of the other major Hizbullah ally Amal, this would seem to isolate Nasrallah.

It doesn’t matter. He’s got the guns. At this point, he has the fate of Lebanon in his hands. It’s up to him whether their will be civil war or a return to the uneasy peace that existed prior to the cabinet crisis.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is Joshuapundit for “The March of Folly.” Finishing second was American Future for “The Politics of Iraq.”

Finishing first in the non Council category was TCS Daily for “Why Intellectuals Love Defeat.”

If you’d like to participate in the Watchers weekly vote, go here and follow instructions.