Right Wing Nut House

The question of the ascension of Alcee Hastings to the position of Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is one that will go along way toward answering the question uppermost in many people’s minds in this post election Democratic honeymoon”

Are the Democrats serious about national security?

Forget for a moment that Hastings would replace a steady, if unspectacular Jane Harmon who has taken a common sense approach to her duties, including a thoughtful appraisal of the domestic spying allegations. Also forget about Hastings impeachment nearly 20 years ago from the federal bench. He was, after all, found innocent by a jury of his peers. And reading this account by Byron York, one can see where reasonable doubt could have played a role in the juror’s decision.

On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of damning evidence as well - including Hastings’ behavior immediately after discovering that the FBI had arrested his co-conspirator. But it is all water under the bridge. It is what Hastings has done since his election in 1992 that should concern us.

And that record reveals a man who believes that the United States is the root of most of the problems in the world today. It reveals an admirer of Fidel Castro. It reveals a man with enormously troubling positions on issues vital to the security of the United States.

A sampling:

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

The bill was supposed to deter arms and technology sales to China. Is it good that a potential chairman of the House Intel Committee doesn’t care about a potential enemy improving the quality of it weapons which could someday be used against the US?

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)

While this might be expected of any your run-of-the-mill liberal members of Congress, the fact is that the bill required the UN to initiate common sense reforms on things like budget and personnel matters - issues that any well run organization should be held accountable for. More should be expected from an Intel Chairman than knee jerk ideological reactions.

Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)

Here’s a jawdropper. I’d love to hear Hastings justify lifting the travel ban on Cuba, especially after this bill made the minimum demands that the ban be lifted “only after the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the US on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.”

Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

Should we have withheld our UN payments until a genuine democracy (us) was returned to our seat on the Human Rights Commission? Or should we go ahead and acquiesce while Libya, Iran, and other hell holes and human rights nightmares sit in judgement? Hastings didn’t think so.

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Even with amendments that addressed many civil liberties objections, Hastings still didn’t think it necessary to support the bill.

Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries. (Jun 2006)

The recent spike in gas prices was not so much a crude oil supply problem but rather a refined gasoline supply problem. That’s because we haven’t built a new refinery in this country in 20 years. We actually import refined oil products. This bill would have allowed for expedited refinery approval.

Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.

It all makes perfect sense. Not only oppose new domestic refineries but oppose finding new domestic supplies.

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

A small matter but experts say that such nationwide standards would make it easier to spot illegal entrants to the US. And the bill also had a provision to toughen asylum requirements by expanding the number of relevant factors - another small but important step in keeping the homeland secure.

Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

Where are tomorrow’s officers going to come from? Hastings wants to make it harder for both the military and students to find out.

Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)

While not necessarily a bad vote, reforming the intelligence community was the number one priority spelled out by the Commission. One would think that someone deadly serious about our intelligence agencies would have voted for the measure and then worked to shape the reform measures that he though necessary.

****************************************

It should be noted that Hastings, while getting close to a zero rating from most conservative groups, also supported the deployment of SDI as well as voting to continue the Iraq War - despite voting against it at the outset which no one should hold against him. He is not entirely disinterested in improving our military and his record on veterans affairs is exemplary.

But the votes above reveal someone who, in my opinion, does not share the urgency nor the seriousness of purpose that the times demand. For that reason, the Democrats would do well to find another candidate (if Pelosi is deadset on allowing her personal vendetta against Harmon to potentially harm national security) who shows the same kind of thoughtfulness as Jane Harmon brought to the position of Intel Chairman.

Whether that is possible within the current ideological context of the Democratic party will determine whether the nation can trust the party to carry out its responsibilities of governance during a time of war with the zeal and seriousness that our situation requires.

Despite the frantic efforts of Middle East diplomats, it appears almost certain that the March 14th Forces and the opposition led by Hezb’allah are headed for some kind of confrontation - possibly in the streets of Beirut - over the continuing cabinet crisis brought about by the resignation of the Shiite bloc of ministers.

Compromise plans to head off the escalating crisis have come from a variety of sources including the Saudi Arabian ambassador who huddled with Iranian officials yesterday in order to draft a plan that would be acceptable to both the anti-Syrian majority in government led by Prime Minister Siniora and the opposition bloc made up of Hezb’allah, the Amal Party, and the mostly Christian Free Patriotic Movement led by ex-Prime Minister Michel Aoun.

Based on reports from local media, the Saudi plan, which would seem to have the blessing of the Iranians, would include a call for immediate resignation of pro-Syrian President Emil Lahoud and his replacement by a candidate not connected to either side. The next step would be a reform of the outdated electoral laws that tend to favor Christians and Sunnis at the expense of Shia representation in Parliament. This would be followed by a Presidential electoral contest and a pitch for early Parliamentary elections after that.

There have also been calls from western diplomats to restart the discussion for a unity government in the context of the National Dialogue. Breakdown in these talks is what precipitated the cabinet crisis in the first place.

But it appears almost certain that Hezb’allah has no intention of returning to the talks:

Resigned Labor Minister Tarrad Hamadeh ruled out any possibility Thursday of Hizbullah resuming national talks, saying “peaceful street protests” were likely. “This dialogue is a waste of time and does not yield any good results,” Hamadeh, one of two Hizbullah members who resigned from Cabinet, told The Daily Star.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt have called recently in separate statements for the opposition to resume the talks.

“The only way out of the crisis is to sit at the dialogue table and deal with our fears and worries,” Siniora said during a televised interview on Wednesday night

Indeed, one might wonder why Hezb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah would consider any kind of compromise at this point; not when it is clear that he holds the whip hand both politically and psychologically.

Any compromise offered brings the March 14th Forces closer to total capitulation. And, like any good gambler, Nasrallah appears ready to double his bet as he ratchets up the fear and tension in Lebanon by threatening to practice “civil disobedience” in the streets:

[A] senior Hizbullah official warned that the Shiite group was “putting the final touches on its choice toward resorting to the streets.”

This solidified another statement by Hizbullah’s politburo member Ghaleb Abou Zebib who warned that “civil disobedience is a legitimate option.”

He assured that any attempt by the interior minister to refuse licensing demonstrations or sit-ins by Hizbullah and its allies “will not hamper our actions or activities.”

Acting Interior Minister Ahmad Fatfat has stated that no group has asked for permission to protest yet. But he added that any such demonstration would be considered “an uprising against the government.”

Another compromise plan floated by the Siniora government itself would expand the cabinet to 30 ministers and grant Hezb’allah and its allies “at least” 10 seats according to Walid Jumblatt, an important member of the March 14th Forces. This would seem to give Nasrallah everything he wants. But the canny Siniora included a deal breaker in the compromise; the opposition would have to accept the formation of an International Tribunal to try the criminals who assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

The Tribunal in a very large sense is the root cause of this crisis. The United Nations Commission looking into the assassination has pointed the finger at high level Syrians (including President Assad’s brother in law Assef Shawkat, head of Syrian intelligence) as well as several prominent Lebanese. The revelations of Syrian involvement in the assassination of the beloved Hariri would have reprecussions both internationally and domestically for President Bashir Assad as well as harm those in Lebanon seen supporting him - namely Hez’ballah and Amal.

It appears that the UN is ready to authorize the Tribunal now that Siniora’s Shia-less government approved its formation on Monday. But President Lahoud has called the cabinet’s action “unconstitutional” given the resignations. And Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri who heads up the Amal party also has called the cabinet’s approval of the Tribunal illegitimate despite his statement last Monday that he believed that as long as 2/3 of sitting Ministers approved, the action by the cabinet was indeed constitutional:

“Any (cabinet) session held now is unconstitutional because it would be in breach of Lebanon’s national pact,” which guarantees a representation for the country’s different religious communities in the government, Berri said

The fact that Berri just returned from 4 days of talks with Iranian leaders probably had something to do with his abrupt about face.

The Iranians, for their part, are willing to bide their time, confident that Lebanon will fall into their lap like a ripe piece of fruit. And Nasrallah can continue to manipulate the fears of the populace over a renewal of the civil war, forcing the March 14th Forces into a political corner where they will either have to accede to his demands for cabinet control or face the fact that his thugs and bully boys will take to the streets. Tensions are high in the capitol and the people are apprehensive of the future.

The next act of the drama may play out in the Parliament as Siniora sends the enabling legislation for the Tribunal to Speaker Berri for action. It is thought that there will then be mass resignations of MP’s loyal to Nasrallah that will force Siniora to call for early elections.

If that happens, anything is possible - including a wave of political violence that would pull down the March 14th Forces and bring Hezb’allah to power. In the uncertainty fostered by Nasrallah, anything can happen.

UPDATE

I contacted Lebanese blogger Anton of the great blog Across the Bay and asked him to double check the translation of Hezb’allah’s proposed “civil disobedience.” I thought the term very western and not something Nasrallah would embrace. Here is his thoughtful response:

Hi Rick, and thanks for your email.

In other words, it’s supposed to sound “western”! Nasrallah openly said, that you (March 14) took to the streets to topple a government (and the West looked kindly on that), we could do the same. It’s obviously a distortion of reality and a perversion of democratic practice — a fig leaf — but there are enough gullible Third Worldist journalists and writers to buy it and support it.

Bookmark Tony’s blog. His perspectives on Lebanon (and Syria) are valuable additions to our understanding of what’s going on in that confusing part of the world. Also, he was just recently interviewed by Michael Totten for a podcast you can find at Pajamas Media. You can listen here.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category was yours truly for my post “Irony So Thick You Can Bathe In It.” Finishing second was American Future for “Why Not Turkey.”

Taking top honors in the non Council category was “The Demand For Perfection” from Rants and Raves.

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

THE BELMONT, CA CITY COUNCIL CELEBRATES AFTER VOTING TO BAN SMOKING EVERYWHERE IN TOWN

No smoking in theaters? Absolutely. Restaurants? Okay, but don’t expect me to eat there. Offices? Fine. Workplace? Ditto.

How about your car? Your apartment? Your front lawn?

Welcome to Belmont, California:

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.”

First, get off you moral high horse about the dangers of smoking, of second hand smoke, how much you hate it, how you’re glad you quit, and how you think people who smoke are idiots.

Look at what the government is telling you with this law. Take a good, long, hard, look. Do you really think the nannies, the busybodies, the do-gooders, the health nazis, the activists are going to be satisfied and go home once they achieve their goal of either making smoking illegal or forcing it underground? Do you really believe that they will pat themselves on the back for a job well done and retire from the public arena, content to let you live, breathe, eat, and drink whatever you want whenever it suits you?

People like this get a rush out of butting into other people’s affairs. It’s what they live for. In their determination to save lives (how heroic of them, no?), they brook no opposition, refer to their opponents as tools of industry, and with the insufferably superior air of someone convinced that they have the right to control your life, will work like busy little bees, tearing down your freedoms one at a time.

I can guarantee you that their “retirement” will be shortlived and that they will find something else they don’t like and go after it, probably fast food. Or sodas. Or trans fat. Or red meat. Or sugar. Or caffeine.

See something in there that you don’t want these buttinskies to start lecturing you about? If not, they’ll find something. It’s what they live for. They want to save you from your own stupidity. Of course, if they have to knock individual liberty for a loop in the process, so be it.

They will have us eating sprigs and dandelions and drinking herbal tea by the time your infant reaches adulthood.

Don’t believe me?

“I would just like to say ‘no smoking’ and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket,” said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach.

The council’s decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction.

“I’m astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support,” said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California.

Chen has worked in this area since 1991 and helped many cities and counties pass no smoking policies, but not one has been willing to draft a complete ban.

“I feel like the revolution is taking place and I am trying to catch up,” Chen told the council.

These are your future overlords. Learn to love them. For every bric-a-brac you throw at me for wanting to smoke in my own yard, or outdoors (where the smoking particulates drop to as close to absolute zero as is measurable), I will point to that person “pumping their fist in satisfaction.” Not for saving any lives. No lives are at risk if I want to smoke in my yard.

The person is pumping their fist because of the control they have suddenly gained over your behavior. They have taken your liberty and it makes them feel good. It makes them feel superior. And I guarantee that person will not hesitate - will, in fact take enormous personal pleasure - in calling the police the first chance he gets when he sees someone violating this ordinance.

It is not about health. It is about control. And if you don’t recognize this, if you don’t stand with smokers in opposition to these kinds of draconian, un-American. illiberal, liberty busting laws, then there is little hope for you when they want to take away something that either you like to eat or drink.

Think about it.

UPDATE

The blog 186 K Per Second asks:

Why is it that every “Socialist” city and town in this country that wants to ban smoking are the same ones that want to legalize drugs?

Most municipalities want to legalize grass because it frees up law enforcement to go after more serious crimes - like smoking.

Rather than sitting back and allowing the Iraq Study Group to dictate an endgame for the Iraq War, George Bush has decided to go all in and make one final effort to turn the security situation around and get the political process moving so that our troops will be able to start coming home and America can claim some kind of victory in Iraq:

An offensive on several fronts is in the works that includes more troops, political progress on Iraqi reconciliation, a regional summit, and increased funds for training:

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts

In effect, Bush has co-opted the ISG and forced them to concentrate on “a strategy for victory” rather than “phased withdrawals” and timetables.”

As recently as a month ago, the Baker Commission was all set to declare the war lost and begin bringing the troops home:

A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, “Stability First” and “Redeploy and Contain,” both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, “Stability First,” argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

Bush has altered the Commission’s deliberations and changed its dynamic by engaging the bureaucracy in a long delayed (too long?) review of Iraq policy from which these recommendations have sprung. Baker’s group had little choice but to incorporate them into their report or risk being shunted to the sidelines in the policy debate.

Given the amount of flack I’ve taken from both the left and right recently whenever I write about Iraq, I am hesitant to lay it all on the line here. At times, I’ve truly felt battered and bruised by friend and foe alike. It’s one of the reasons I’ve altered my comments policy (see below). However, if y’all promise to be gentle, I will sum up for you exactly how I feel about this plan:

Too little. Too late.

The fact is 20,000 American troops is less than half of what people who know a helluva lot more about the subject than I do have been begging for. And any plan for “National Reconciliation” may be good on the macro level. But the violence in Iraq has now degenerated into micro conflicts:

General Maples said that the violence continued to increase in “scope, complexity and lethality” and that it was “creating an atmosphere of fear and hardening sectarianism, which is empowering militias and vigilante groups.”

. . . Reinforcing this view, General Hayden said the C.I.A. station in Baghdad assessed that Iraq was deteriorating to a chaotic state, with the political center disintegrating and rival factions increasingly warring with each other. “Their view of the battlefield is that it is descending into smaller and smaller groups fighting over smaller and smaller issues over smaller and smaller pieces of territory,” he said.

National polity has been shattered. It is doubtful whether even the 50,000 troops recommended by many observers - including Senator McCain - could restore any semblance of peace and security in the 4-6 months that General Abizaid says we have before the situation becomes irreversible. Unless we are willing to stay for 5-10 years with this level of commitment and expenditure of blood and treasure, I can’t see how the faith of the Iraqi people in government, in law and order, in civil society can be re-established.

I doubt whether there would be very much support in America for that kind of commitment. Especially since there is absolutely no guarantee that Iraq won’t devolve into a jungle anyway.

There is still good that can be done that has a small chance of improving the situation. Going after the militias with those additional troops would at least solve one of those macro problems that are bedeviling the Iraqi government. And the idea of a regional summit is intriguing. Not direct talks with Iran and Syria but rather engaging them in the context of regional security with other nations might be just the ticket. Because once we leave, the real bloodbath begins. And unless the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States as well as Syria (although the ruling class in Syria are Alawis, the country is 90% Sunni) want to see their co-religionists in Iraq led to the slaughter, their best course may be to assist in securing a modicum of peace prior to our departure.

The idea that we can accelerate the training and deployment of the Iraqi army is all well and good except that to date, the Iraqis have been close to useless. When we moved additional troops into Baghdad to help with security back in August, Prime Minister al-Maliki promised us 3,000 Iraqi troops to assist us in holding neighborhoods where our sweeps ferreted out terrorists and death squads. To date, less than 1,000 have shown up. The reason: wholesale rebellion by entire units of Iraqi troops who refuse to serve in Baghdad.

I will let that fact speak for itself regarding the accelerated training of Iraqi troops.

I am going to support this last roll of the dice by Bush even though I don’t think it will work. I am glad he is trying it. But if this is the best we can do at this late date, I fear that we will have to be satisfied with achieving the noble goal of kicking Saddam Hussein and his murderous henchmen out of power while falling short in our efforts to stabilize Iraq and bring some form of democracy to that bloody, tragic country.

Far short of victory, I’m afraid. And despite the catcalls and bric-a-brats thrown by the left, a noble undertaking, botched from the start, incompetently prosecuted, and in the end, a failure.

UPDATE

Allah’s thoughts bear reading in their entirety but here’s some first class analysis:

The Guardian’s source expects that if things don’t look better within six months of the new deployments, the pressure on Bush — including from Republicans worried about the party’s prospects in ‘08 — will be so intense that he’ll have no choice but to withdraw. To which I say, what prospects in ‘08? If he doubles down and craps out, we’re done. He’s betting everything here; whether it’s because he believes that fervently in the cause or simply because he can’t bear to lose face is almost beside the point.

And of course, he’s not the only one who’ll be making a last big push. If I were in charge of AQ and feeling “reinvigorated,” I’d target those 20,000 new troops with everything I have. I’d even reassign resources I was saving for attacks on the west if it’d help. Nothing would strengthen the anti-war crowd’s hand like a mass slaughter of people who wouldn’t have been there had Bush listened to the Democrats. One spectacular attack, especially if it involved WMD, would purchase years of American isolationism.

Yup.

Ed Morrissey is even more dubious of the plan than I am:

Forgetting about the “democracy crap” means that all of that long-range strategy has just disappeared. Instead, the US presumably would put a strongman or military junta in place in Baghdad, probably secular, as a way of achieving stability. The new junta would likely attract the Ba’athist elements that have operated the majority of the insurgencies in Iraq, helping to end one form of terrorism in the country — but putting the terrorists back in charge again. The Iraqi people, who turned out in force for three elections and who want democracy to work, would essentially be sold back into some form of authoritarian executive by the US.

Pardon me, but I hardly see how this strengthens us in the Middle East. If we send 20,000 troops to Baghdad in order to stand up a strongman, why would anyone in the region support democracy? Why would anyone trust us if we promised to back their activism for freedom and liberty?

Are we back to “He may be a sonufabitch but he’s our sonufabitch?” I sincerely hope not. As Ed points out, such a policy would not help the small group of democrats in the Middle East who are attempting to reform their governments. In fact, it cuts the legs from underneath them just when they need us the most.

UPDATE II

Buttressing my analysis above regarding the loss of national polity is this piece in WaPo that everyone should read:

Since midsummer, Shiite militias, Sunni insurgent groups, ad-hoc Sunni self-defense groups and tribes have accelerated campaigns of sectarian cleansing that are forcing countless thousands of Shiites and Sunnis in Baghdad to seek safety among their own kind.

Whole towns north and south of Baghdad are locked in the same sectarian struggle, among them the central Shiite city of Balad, still under siege by gunmen from surrounding Sunni towns after a bloody spate of sectarian massacres last month.

Even outside the epicenter of sectarian strife in the central region of the country, Shiite factions battle each other in the south, Sunni tribes and factions clash in the west. Across Iraq, the criminal gangs that emerged with the collapse of law and order rule patches of turf as mini-warlords.

Read the whole sad, tragic, thing.

While the vast majority of commenters here at The House are bright, thoughtful, and well mannered, the fact is that of late, the tone and quality of comments has deteriorated drastically.

I bear some responsibility for the loss of civility here. And realizing this I have hit upon a simple solution; I will no longer tolerate personal insults to me or to other commenters. If, in my judgement, your comment crosses the line, I will simply delete it. No explanation. No apology.

And if you continue to be insulting, your IP will be banned.

This goes for right and left, liberal or conservative, hawk or dove, Republican or Democrat. If you can’t say what you have to say without personalizing your comment, it will be deleted.

No more gross generalizations. No more outrageous exaggerations. No more non-germane, off topic rants.

I will save this as a page on the blog and add a link in the sidebar when I get a chance. In the meantime, everyone has been warned.

One would think that a political party, drunk on power, pork, and perks, who suffered a humiliating and devastating loss at the polls would take a few weeks to sit down and reflect seriously on the root cause of that defeat and make a good faith effort to address the problems that led to the electoral debacle in the first place by making changes in leadership, in message, and in reaching out to disaffected members.

One would think so - unless you’re talking about Republicans.

The first test was coming up with new blood for the position of party chairman - a test they not only failed but ended up deliberately kicking their base right in the teeth. Not only did Bush push his old buddy now Senator Mel Martinez into the slot but to add insult, to injury, to fatal wounding, he is allowing Mr. Martinez to perform his duties at his leisure on a part time basis while still remaining Senator. And in one of the true ironies of this generation, he has chosen a man who represents a position on illegal immigration that caused perhaps millions of conservatives to stay home on election day thus almost certainly contributing to the loss of the Senate and several close House races.

(NOTE: If I were a Floridian, I would be too mad for words at this stupidity. If the fricking Senator doesn’t have enough to do that he can go out and devote constituent time to party matters, then perhaps they can find a way to help him devote full time to his hobby of helping the GOP and let someone who wants to devote full time to representing the people take over. Un. Be. Leivable.)

Obviously, the President and party leaders believe the reason they lost is because they didn’t push their amnesty plan hard enough. I’m sure J.D. Hayworth and a half dozen other Congressmen who will be looking for work come January could disabuse them of that ridiculous notion.

And one word about the obvious Hispanic outreach with this choice. I’m all for expanding the party but you don’t do it by pandering to ethnic and racial groups. Just ask the Democrats where that got them. You expand the party by the force of your ideas and the attractiveness of the personalities of your leaders. Martinez is a nice enough fellow but he has not impressed me as being much of Senator or a leader. And strike three is his statement that he “wouldn’t be an attack dog” in 2008. Okay, not an attack dog but how about a forceful advocate for the party and a solid hand at the thrust and parry of partisan politics. If the guy is not going to be a good partisan, why appoint him in the first place?

Not content with flushing the party down the crapper, Senate Republicans just today elected Trent Lott as Minority Whip, the number 2 slot in the leadership.

Yes, THAT Trent Lott. Time may heal all wounds but it doesn’t hide the fact that Lott fulsomely praised a man who ran for President for the sole and exclusive purpose of blocking efforts by the federal government to relieve southern blacks from the obscenity of second class citizenship. As a side benefit, Lott has dismissed people who complain about pork barrel spending as ignorant. So, with one stroke, the Senate has reinforced the myth that the GOP is a party of southern race baiters and big government spenders.

Bee. Utiful. Just what the Democratic doctor ordered.

Finally to Grandma Pelosi’s House we go to look in on Republicans who lost almost 30 seats (final count still not set) and whose very first instinct appears to be to elect as Minority Leader a man who bravely led them to that singular electoral debacle as Majority Leader. John Boehner is another nice fellow who has advanced far beyond his abilities. Uninspiring to a fault, one of the architects of the “K Street Project” that gave lobbyists unprecedented access to the legislative process (and almost unlimited opportunity to stuff bills with pork), Boehner’s selection would scream “stay the course” when the ship has already foundered on the shoals of disaster. Mike Pence would be better but his recent mea culpa for his advocacy of the immigration bill smacks of an insincerity that the GOP could do without.

But the absolute most shocking choice that Republicans in the House seem poised to make would be to reelect Roy Blunt to Tom DeLay’s old post as whip. To say that this close DeLay ally’s election would send exactly the wrong signal to the rest of the country about cleaning up the party is to state the obvious. To have House Republicans even contemplating Blunt’s reelection is the height of arrogance and hubris. They are spitting at the base. They are spitting at the House as an institution. And they are spitting right in the eye of the American people and telling them to go screw themselves.

The fact that Blunt spent last weekend at a golf course sponsored by some lobbying outfit not only makes him one arrogant son of a bitch but tone deaf as well. Blunt needs to be kicked so far out of the leadership that they would have to put a chair outside in the Capitol Hill parking lot just to make sure he was as far back as a back bencher could get.

Representative Shaddeg would be better but not ideal. At least he’s honest. And his colleagues evidently respect him. Fine. Minority Whip in this caucus isn’t quite as important given its reduced numbers and the loss of so many of the more moderate members of the party. This should make it a little easier to gather votes in opposition to some of the Democrats more outrageous proposals.

The day after the election debacle, I looked at many of the districts where the GOP lost close races and thought that if the party can turn itself around, kick out the deadwood, and elevate a new generation of leaders who could forcefully advocate true conservative principles and positions, then many of those blue Congressmen who got elected in very red districts could be defeated in 2008 and the GOP could retake the House.

But today, I am much less sanguine about the chances for a Republican resurgence. In fact, I see more losses in 2008 even if we win the Presidency and another several years or more in the political wilderness. This is the consequence of putting amoral, arrogant, power hungry people in charge of the party. And the hell of it is, an election debacle like the one we just went through should have given the entire party an excuse to change. And so far, all I see is more of the same.

UPDATE

Malkin rounds up react to the Lott disaster, calling it a “Maalox Moment.” Given Lott’s penchant for exhibiting diarrhea of the mouth, perhaps we should throw in some Imodium as well.

Also, John Little has a superior round up of blog reaction that shows that the GOP is in big trouble with its biggest supporters.

At this point, one can legitimately wonder if these moves will begin to affect fund raising efforts. Less money coming in would be the perfect topper to this disaster.

Dean Barnett is celebrating. Glad to see someone pleased…NOT!

The term “bi-partisan” is taking on a whole new meaning recently as both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scurrying to seek cover behind the apron strings of the Iraq Study Group and its Old Wise Men who are desperately trying to find a way out of Iraq without making it appear that the US is “cutting and running.”

This, of course, is what James Baker’s group was set up specifically to do; provide safe political haven for Republicans and Democrats and take the sting out of partisan recriminations that would accompany any phased withdrawal of American troops that doesn’t take into account what is happening on the ground or in the halls of government in Iraq.

There are two choices in Iraq; win or lose. Those looking for nuance won’t find any. Those looking for a comfortable formula that would come up short in the “win” department but not exactly be a loss either are kidding themselves. There has never been a war that I can think of that didn’t have a winner and a loser. And trying to spin Iraq as a “draw” would be laughable - at least to our enemies who will dance long into the night the day that our “phased withdrawal” from Iraq is announced.

The ISG is just the latest in a long line of Commissions, Panels, and other appointed groups whose job it is to cover the political posteriors of politicians who either won’t or can’t decide tough political questions. Social Security reform, base closings, and budgetary reform are three recent examples of what amounts to Congress abdicating its responsibilities in the face of gridlock.

In the case of the ISG, the appointment of James Baker - the recognized Bush family Mr. Fix-it - was the tip off as to just what the Commission’s role would be. And the make up of the ISG - an array of foreign policy elites from both parties, most of whom are on record for getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible - was also indicative of its mission to extricate America from the Iraq morass before permanent harm could be done to our interests in the Middle East.

Even Mr. Bush, struggling to find a way to if not ignore then certainly minimize the role of Baker’s group, has softened his stance slightly on such things as “timetables” and “redeployment:”

Still, Mr. Bush’s tone has already changed to the point where he is now drawing fewer lines and sounding more welcoming to outside ideas.

Asked yesterday whether he would accept recommendations from the group that included timetables, Mr. Bush did not rule it out, instead saying he will not “prejudge” the report. At a press conference last week, he announced the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and nominated Robert M. Gates, who until Friday was a member of the study group, as a replacement.

Mr. Levin said the change in attitude was apparent.

“I didn’t hear anything about cutting and running,” he said. “I didn’t hear anything about if you are proposing that we begin a phased redeployment in four to six months, that somehow or other that will help the terrorists.”

Bush won’t say it but its hard to see how removing American troops can do anything but help the terrorists. And that is the great trap of any timetable that envisions a phased withdrawal. It is a trap that the insurgents, the death squads, and the militias (and the Democrats but obviously for much different reasons) are devoutly wishing the Administration fall into.

There seems to be abroad among war critics the notion that if we have a timed withdrawal of our forces that this will somehow light a fire under the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki to get busy tamping down sectarian violence, negotiating the sticky problem of oil revenue sharing, coming up with a national reconciliation plan, and a half dozen other Mission Impossible movie scenarios, all the result of the basic notion that the Iraqis just aren’t trying hard enough.

Bursting that bubble should be priority #1 of the Administration:

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

We can tie the withdrawal of American forces to all the “benchmarks” of progress by the Iraqi government you wish. We can grovel before Baby Assad and Ahmadinejad begging them to stop supporting the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq who are making life a living hell for Sunni and Shia alike. We could probably even temporarily increase the number of troops in Baghdad (10,000 max say the experts and that’s only if we don’t rotate our people home for a few months). But in the end, we’re stuck with the question of do we do what it takes to win by expending the resources, the men, and the time so that we can bring order out of chaos, freedom out of terror? Or do we give up and go home?

The Democrats feel that the American people have determined that the war is lost and that the troops should be brought home (arguable but lets run with the premise for a minute). Why bother with a “timetable” then? It blunts the “cut and run” criticism while springing a trap on the Administration and Republicans for 2008.

This timetable will be gussied up with all sorts of signposts and benchmarks of progress by the Iraqis. They will look and sound reasonable while also being impossible to achieve. And here’s where the political trap is sprung.

When it becomes clear that the Iraqis have not achieved the requisite progress that would allow a set number of American troops to come home, pressure will build to bring them home anyway regardless of whether the benchmarks have been achieved or not. The Democrat’s base will see to that. And of course, the question will be asked whose fault it is that the Iraqis are “behind schedule” in achieving those benchmarks? If you guessed President Bush, you win a cookie.

Such is the “bi-partisan” nature of the timeline.

I have little doubt that the Baker group will be able to spin their plan into some kind of blueprint for “victory.” The only people in the world who believe that will be dyed in the wool Republicans and the politicians who don’t have the political courage to come out and call our efforts in Iraq a defeat in the War on Terror. Our enemies will have no such difficulty in determining who won and who lost in Iraq. And neither will the rest of the world.

No timelines. No “phased withdrawal.” Get Maliki to sign off on US forces fighting and killing the militias. Instead of the half hearted attempt currently underway to reform his government, urge him to go much farther by cleaning out the vipers nest in his own Interior Ministry. Find some way to accelerate the training and deployment of the Iraqi army. Purge the police of militias and death squads.

And yes, engage the Syrians and Iranians in a dialogue on Iraq. About the only negotiating stick we have is the threat of our immediate and precipitous withdrawal. The resulting chaos would send refugees streaming toward Iran and Syria’s borders not to mention a bloodletting of their co-religionists that would upset the domestic applecart at home and might force them into becoming reluctant peace keepers or even active participants in a civil war.

There are a half dozen other “benchmarks” of Iraqi progress that would have meaning if victory was our goal. Most of all, it would take time. How long? Five years? A decade? Osama Bin Laden was right. We just don’t have the staying power when standing toe to toe with the terrorists who would gain the most from our withdrawal.

And I can think of nothing more alarming to the future of the War on Terror than giving the terrorists an easy victory that they didn’t win on the battlefield but rather in the hearts and minds of the American people.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey gives a pretty convincing argument for staying in Iraq, echoing some of my concerns and splashing some cold water on the “redeploy now” crowd:

The efforts by Democrats to shift into reverse are based on two arguments: that the US is creating the impetus for violence simply by being present, and that Nouri al-Maliki could solve the problem if we scared him into taking action on his own. Both Zinni and Batiste dispute these assumptions, and for good reason. The forces arrayed against the Iraqi government and Coalition forces consist primarily of native radicals who will not abide democratic institutions, but instead want dictatorships based on sect and ethnicity. A smaller but significant portion are foreign terrorists who have flocked to the al-Qaeda franchise, led now by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Zinni and Batiste know this. Both scoff at the notion that Maliki could stop the violence at his current strength levels, although both agree he could do more politically. Zinni and Batiste agree with John McCain that the US needs additional troops in Baghdad and a better strategy for weakening and destroying the militias. This week, American troops started going after Moqtada al-Sadr’s forces in the capital, reversing an earlier decision to abide by Maliki’s demand to leave them alone. More of that kind of thinking will help, and that will certainly put the kind of political pressure on Maliki that might some changes to his policies.

It’s been almost 24 hours since news broke that a conservative man who posted at Free Republic has been arrested for sending threatening letters to prominent liberals laced with white powder and I have to admit I am ashamed to be a conservative.

That’s 24 long hours - exactly one day - that conservative bloggers have failed miserably in their duty to police their ranks by condemning without hesitation and with a virulence matching those brave, right thinking bloggers on the left a fellow conservative who, as we all know, was only doing what all of us secretly want to do but don’t have the guts - cause the left to go into paroxysms of over the top rhetorical gibberish about us hateful, spiteful, goose stepping, fascists who use “eliminationist rhetoric” with the practiced ease of your average Kluxer. (NOTE: I suggest to confirm my last statement, you lefties might want to check with Senator Byrd…just to be sure.)

I’m talking about domestic terrorism here. I’m talking about condemning this poor, deluded schmuck - who both his lawyer and prosecutor believe to be nuttier than my Auntie Midge’s fruitcake - because he not only posts at Free Republic but because he has a crush on Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin!

Shameful. “Where’s Malkin?” asks that guardian of truth and righteousness Dave Neiwert?

Malkin — who is quick to proclaim random acts of violence on a jihadist terror conspiracy within our borders, but never seems to worry about actual acts of domestic terrorism — has so far ignored Mr. Castagana at her site.

Malkin, the guys at Powerline, even Ed Morrissey should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Not jumping on this story IMMEDIATELY - and by “immediately” I mean they should have been on this story like white on rice (oops! my bad!) at a minimum of 1/4 hour after this story hit the internet - only highlights their TOTAL and UTTER hypocrisy when it comes to terrorists. So what if they guy is LOONIER THAN A JUNE BUG? He’s a conservative, iddn’t he? He loves Malkin, doddn’t he? That’s enough for me.

Who knows…given all the “connections” the left is finding to conservatives on this guy, maybe even it will come out that he’s Ann Coulter’s secret boyfriend. Or Malkin’s pen pal. Or Hitler’s long lost son. Anything is possible.

Neiwert is a stitch. Here he uses one of his favorite “literary” devices - self righteously eschewing blanket condemnation of his subject and in the breathtaking space of a few words, going ahead and issuing the sweeping generalization anyway:

As Bruce Wilson and Evan Derkacz point out, it is unfair to smear all conservatives generally with the acts of loons like Castagana. But there is, as I’ve remarked previously, a level of culpability here as well in cases like these:

What all of these incidents have in common is the mental instability of the actors; and I’ve explored previously how that affects the way society and the law must deal with the perpetrators. In the case of Buford Furrow, for instance, his mental illness became a mitigating factor in his eventual sentence, as prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty in large part because of it.

It’s “unfair” to smear all conservatives like this so let me do it anyway. I just won’t call it responsibility. I’ll call it “culpability.” Such nuance deserves “The Annoyingly Pious Verbal Smokescreen of the Year Award.” Luv it.

More “Where’s Malkin:”

Let’s check in with our doyenne of domestic terror hysteria, Michelle Malkin, seeing as she’s ‘worshipped’ by a suspect now in custody. I think we know what we’re going to find.

The demise of liberal talk radio…
By Michelle Malkin · November 13, 2006 12:32 PM

All I can say is, I’m thinking very seriously of de-linking Malkin over this outrage. And she should probably come clean about any connections she has with this terrorist. Did he ever send her an email? Perhaps we should look into the records of florists in the Washington DC area to see if he ever sent her flowers. Did she accept the flowers? Did she email him back thanking him for the flowers? Just what is her relationship with this terrorist?

Am I sounding hysterical enough? Try this reaction at Democratic Underground:

Their entire board will be investigated. Anyone who communicated with him, too.
But they have nothing to hide, do they?

It’s not like anyone over there encouraged him in any way or engaged in inciteful or hate speech, surely? And hey, who needs Habeus Corpus, right, freeps? Once everyone’s phone records, bank statements, and other transactions have been checked, all computer hard drives and other property seized will be returned, no doubt. Eventually.

For pure entertainment, there is nothing like a comment thread at DU to tickle your funny bone and make you hit your knees and thank the Lord that He gave you a full deck to play with.

But okay, I’ll go ahead and speak for my comrades since no other conservative has bothered to demonstrate the moral outrage, the simpering self righteousness, and predictable, tiresome condemnations required of us by our leftist overseers and guardians of truth here on the internet:

BAD FREEPER! BAD! BAD! BAD!

And make sure you tell your shrink about your crush on Coulter, Malkin, and all the other conservative women who strike your fancy. The lefties deem this as big a sin as being a terrorist which only goes to show how people’s priorities can get all screwed up during a time of war.

UPDATE

Neiwert (sorry Dave, it’s amatuerish and inexcusable to misspell your name - I’ll try harder next time) links here and lets loose the cannons of rhetorical idiocy:

– He doesn’t get that calling these haters to account for the acts that spring from their rhetoric — if by nothing else than openly expressing our moral outrage, and publicly shaming the entities who give them a megaphone — is hardly an attack on their audience. Unless, of course, the audience agrees with them.

Sort of the right-wing version Happy Fuzzy Wuzzy Bunny World.

As opposed to the left wing Snarling, Spitting, Smear Factory? If you expressed your “moral outrage” at Palestinian suicide bombers or al-Qaeda truck bombers with half the vehemence that you do against your fellow countrymen, your condemnations might have the ring of authenticity.

That said, this amatuerish psychologicizing about a connection between Ann Coulter making one of her stupid, horse’s ass comments about hanging Supreme Court judges and the loon who is in love with her sending baking powder to Keith Olberman is good stand up material but hardly proof of anything except an outrageously stupid attempt to smear people with which Neiwert disagrees.

I don’t care how many cites Dave can come up with from left wing psychologists or other arm chair Jungians, there is not one shred of proof, not one iota of evidence that draws a direct correlation between what Neiwert considers hateful rhetoric and violence or threatened violence against liberals.

Oh, uh..except Bill Clinton said it was so.

To believe that Timothy McVeigh blew up 187 people because of something Rush Limbaugh said (even if McVeigh listened to him every day and was a huge fan) or something Limbaugh hinted at, or something Limbaugh imparted to him via gypsy fortune teller is so ignorant its hard to know where to begin in deconstructing such foolishness. The suggestion by Clinton that “talk radio” was responsible for Oklahoma City was the lowest, the grossest political rhetoric I have heard in nearly 35 years of watching American politics. Nothing Nixon said came close. Nothing since - even Bush’s rhetoric - has come close. It was unconscionable. And it’s silly on its face.

People like McVeigh and this idiot Freeper don’t need Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh to encourage them to act they way they do. These people are in desperate need of attention. They search for identity within a group - McVeigh with the Kluxers, the anthrax loon with the Freepers - and it doesn’t help. They still feel alone.

Oswald, Sara Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromme, and most other 20th century perpetrators of political violence use political greivances as self-justification to lash out at the world that has rejected them. This is the established, recognized forensic determination for why almost all violence directed against political personalities takes place. They don’t need the “trigger” of a Limbaugh or a Coulter (or a Manson or a Castro) to become violent. Neither can they be dissuaded from carrying out their plans by friends or loved ones. Not mentally ill enough to be considered unfit to stand trial, they nevertheless are incapable of functioning in society and are a danger to both themselves and others.

The attempt to change this paradigm is a political effort and not serious analysis. It fits in nicely with the left’s storytelling with regard to conservative bogeymen like Limbaugh and Coulter while giving them a priveleged frame of reference to moralize against the right. And since it makes them feel good, I have no doubt the efforts of Neiwert and others in this regard will continue.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

With the resignation of 5 Hezb’allah and Amal cabinet ministers following the breakdown of the National Dialogue talks last weekend, the tiny nation of Lebanon may be on a downward spiral toward civil strife or worse - a wave of violence that would threaten the stability and safety of the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

It is impossible to overstate the danger to the fragile democratic coalition that took power with such high hopes in the summer of 2005 as a result of millions of ordinary Lebanese taking to the streets demanding and independent Lebanon free from Syrian control. But despite the removal of Syrian troops and the ouster of the hated Damascus controlled Secret Police, the March 14th Forces have been unable to deal effectively with Syria’s armed proxy Hezb’allah whose tentacles have now encircled the neck of the Lebanese government and have begun to squeeze.

Hezb’allah’s spiritual and political leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah seems to have played his cards perfectly. From making the decision to join the government rather than remain outside of it back in 2005 to his current power play against Siniora’s cabinet, Nasrallah has proved himself a canny politician with the instincts of a predator and the nerve of a riverboat gambler. And nowhere was his nerve on display more than last summer when he deliberately provoked the Israelis into a war that he guessed would do more to damage the fragile government of Lebanon than his own armed militia of fanatical followers.

He guessed correctly. While the Israelis tentatively attacked Hezb’allah positions on the border - positions long prepared to inflict maximum casualties on the Israeli Defense Forces - every day that Hezb’allah remained an effective fighting force was a victory for Nasrallah and his “resistance,” raising the level of popular support among ordinary Lebanese of all sects. Simply the act of starting the war made Nasrallah de facto head of government. His pronouncements during the conflict made it seem that he considered Prime Minister Siniora little more than an errand boy who, with his permission, could negotiate for prisoner exchanges but little else.

Siniora’s hands were tied. Faced with massive bombing of his country that was systematically destroying much of Lebanon’s infrastructure and given that the Lebanese army was virtually useless to resist Israeli forces, Siniora acquiesced in Nasrallah’s temporary ascendancy. The rest of the March 14th Forces were placed on the defensive as a result of the bombing and Israeli incursion. After some initial criticism of Nasrallah taking the country to war without the government’s approval, most coalition leaders remained relatively quiet, preferring to let events play themselves out.

Within weeks of the UN-brokered peace deal, Nasrallah began his play for power, starting with calls by his partner, ex-Prime Minister and head of the mostly Christian Free Patriotic Movement Michel Aoun for a “government of national unity.” He accused the Siniora government of corruption and incompetence while calling for more Shia representation in the cabinet. Aoun, whose naked ambition to replace Syrian puppet President Emile Lahoud has driven him into his unlikely alliance with the Shias, has proved himself a thorn in the side of the March 14th forces ever since his return from exile in the days following the Syrian exit from Lebanon.

Throughout the fall as tensions in the country rose, the March 14th Forces resisted calls for the National Dialogue to take up the issue of a unity government and Shia representation. In the end, it became apparent that the only way to head off civil strife was to convene the group of leaders from all parts of Lebanese society to determine if a compromise could be achieved. The group sat down last week for talks in what was described as a “tense and cold” atmosphere.

Of course, Nasrallah was not looking for compromise. He was looking not only to expand Shia representation in the cabinet so that he had absolute veto power over actions taken by the majority March 14 Forces but also head off cabinet discussion of the formation of an International Tribunal to try the perpetrators of the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. That Tribunal will probably indict high level members of the Syrian government as well as several prominent Syrian allies in Lebanon.

For the majority’s part, they no more wanted Hezb’allah in the driver’s seat than Nasrallah wanted a political settlement. By offering to grant Hezb’allah their expanded cabinet representation, the March 14th Forces added a poison pill to the deal; the new Shia ministers would be forced to sign off on approval of the Tribunal.

That ended the National Dialogue and caused the resignation of the Hezb’allah and Amal ministers (as well as the pro President Lahoud environmental minister). In a tactical move to buy time, Prime Minister Siniora has rejected the resignations out of hand and declared that the Shias were still members of the cabinet. Under Lebanese law, if one of the various sects removes themselves or is thrown out of the government, no major issues can be decided by the cabinet. By rejecting the Shia resignations, Siniora is gambling that another round of talks will produce a compromise more palatable to the majority while heading off a possible civil war. And yesterday, his cabinet approved the UN Tribunal despite the absence of the Shia ministers. It is unclear at this point whether the cabinet’s actions have the force of law or not.

Nasrallah could probably care less if the cabinet’s actions were legal or not. He’s got what he wants; a cabinet crisis and fears of renewed civil war. He holds the whip hand on both counts and now must decide his next move. Does he allow the ministers to rejoin the cabinet with the proviso that discussion of the Tribunal is off the table? Or does he force the issue through street demonstrations that will almost certainly devolve into confrontations with armed militias opposed to him?

The answer is perhaps both. In a statement released yesterday, Hezb’allah announced that there would indeed be “peaceful” street demonstrations but that the “timing of the action had not been decided.” Nasrallah may want the political pressure to build on the March 14th Forces to see if they can be convinced to give him what he wants with no strings attached. At the same time, his threat to send his highly trained, fanatical militia into the streets could be seen as a powerful sign that his patience has its limits.

In fact, Nasrallah seems confident that he will get what he wants soon - one way or another:

“This government will go and nothing associates us with it (government) after the resignations,” Nasrallah late Monday told a crowd of about 6,000 residents who lost their homes in Beirut’s southern suburbs during the destructive Israeli war on Lebanon over the summer.

He was referring to the resignation of the six ministers, five of them from Hizbullah and Amal, hours after the national dialogue collapsed on Saturday.

“This country is ours. We sacrificed tens of thousands of martyrs, wounded, prisoners and disabled for the sake of safeguarding it (Lebanon) as well as protecting its dignity and glory; and we will not give up (these sacrifices),” the daily As Safir quoted Nasrallah as saying.

A key figure emerging in the crisis is Speaker Nabih Berri. Surprising some observers, Berri has called the cabinet’s approval of the Tribunal “constitutional as long as more than two thirds (of the ministers) remain in the government.” Whether this leaves the door open for genuine compromise could become clearer once Nasrallah makes his next move.

Speculation on what that might be has centered on the Parliament where Nasrallah controls around 60 of the 128 member body. If, as some speculate, the next act in the crisis would be for Shia, Amal, and Free Patriotic Movement MP’s to resign from Parliament, the country would almost certainly be thrown into chaos. This would make it impossible for Siniora’s cabinet to maintain any semblance of legitimacy and calls for new elections would almost certainly be in the offing.

Mid-East expert Walid Phares plays out this scenario:

The next move is to have Hezbollah, Amal, and their allies in the Parliament also resign, thus creating “conditions” for what they will coin as new elections and a collapse of the cabinet. Most of these moves have already been accomplished or are on the eve of being implemented. The pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud will declare the Government and the Parliament as “illegitimate,” and call for early legislative elections. The latter, if they take place will be under the smashing influence of Hezbollah’s weapons (a show of force was performed in the summer) and of the cohorts of militias and security agencies. Result: a pro-Syrian-Iranian majority in parliament, followed by the formation of an “axis” government in Lebanon. The rest is easy to predict: A terrorism victory.

What it comes down to is what has always been the greatest threat to Lebanon’s democracy; Hezb’allah and their guns. Faling to disarm the militia as they were required to do under UN Security Council resolution 1559, the March 14th Forces paid for their inability to rally enough popular support to suppress Hezb’allah first with the Israeli War and now with an existential threat to the existence of a free and independent Lebanon. Perhaps it was inevitable given the enormous difficulty in governing a country so riven with factional and sectarian divisions. But history’s judgement will be no less severe if the small group of brave democrats cannot find a way to stop Nasrallah from carrying through with his plans.

As for the United States, there is very little we can do to assist. Siniora is already battling charges that he is Washington’s stooge - charges that ring true with many ordinary Lebanese thanks to effective Hezb’allah propaganda spewed forth from Al-Manar, the terrorist media organ in Lebanon. And as Dr. Phares points out, Nasrallah’s push for power has not taken place in a political vacuum; both he and his patrons in Tehran and Syria know how to read US election results:

The perceived results of the midterm elections in the U.S. were read as positive by Tehran and its allies, in the sense that it froze vigorous reactions by the U.S. against any Iranian-Syrian move in Lebanon via Hezbollah. The feelings in Tehran and Damascus, have been that if in the next weeks and months a “thrust” takes place in Lebanon to the advantage of the pro-Syrian camp, Washington will be in no position to react or counter. Ahmedinijad and Assad believe (or have been advised to believe) that “lobbies” are moving in Washington and Brussels to restrain any strong deterrence by the U.S. against the “axis.” The theory is that the Bush Administration is too busy “negotiating” with the new leadership in Congress to “dare” a mass move in the Middle East. The analysis also predicts that strong lobbies within the Democratic Party are now positioned to block any serious response to a change in geopolitics in Lebanon. It is believed that the window of opportunity won’t be too long before the Administration and the upcoming Congress “understands” the Tehran-Damascus maneuver and create a unified response. Thus, the expectation is that Hezbollah and its allies were told to achieve their goals before the end of the year, and before the new Congress begin business on the Hill.

Lebanon is entering a period of enormous tension and trial, the results being difficult to predict at this point. What seems clear is that the forces for freedom and independence are facing their greatest challenge and that the next few days and weeks will determine their fate and the fate of their tiny country for many years to come.

UPDATE

Check out Michael Totten’s piece on the same subject. He quotes Charles Malik who says that Christians might sit out a civil war if one were to erupt, leaving the Shia and Sunnis to duke it out.

I don’t necessarily doubt Malik’s analysis but I wonder how he arrives at that conclusion given the statements recently by Gemayal’s Phalange and Gaeges Lebanese Forces militias. Both seem dead set against a Nasrallah dominated government. And here’s what Malik wrote:

There has been much discussion (including on this blog) about the divisions within the Christian community. Interestingly, this division might make the Christians safer. The Christians proved last year that they would not respond to violence with violence. With the Lebanese Forces in 14 March and Michel Aoun aligned with 8 March, the Christian community will not be at the center of any sectarian clashes for, perhaps, the first time in modern Lebanese history.

What would LF do if the FPM joins Hezb’allah in the streets?

With Lebanon and Lebanese politics, you just never know…