The US Government Supports An Internal Government for Lebanon. Some brilliant mind at the White House (most probably Elliott Abrams of the NSC) came out with this statement today: (My comments are in red)
"Support for a sovereign, democratic, and prosperous Lebanon is a key element of U.S. policy in the Middle East. We are therefore increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hizballah, and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically-elected government led by Prime Minister Siniora. (So here, we see that the US government is standing opposed to the toppling of a government. Notice that Iran and Syria are added to the mix of "Hizballah and Lebanese allies." The statement talks about "mounting evidence" without presenting such evidence. But then again; you have to accept at face value whatever comes from that White House. You trusted them when they talked about evidence of Iraqi WMDs and you just have to trust them on this one too. Their credibility is very high indeed. So the US government is now officially in favor of the ETERNAL government of Lebanon. Any attempt to change the government--a key democratic ingredient--is now rejected by the US in such cases when the losers are puppets or clients of the US. And why is the US government expressing an opinion regarding a very internal Lebanese issue when it still sanctimoniously condemns Syrian intervention in Lebanon (and remember that Syrian intervention and domination in Lebanon were approved and sanctioned by the US government)?
Any attempt to destabilize Lebanon's democratically-elected government through such tactics as manufactured demonstrations and violence, or by physically threatening its leaders would, at the very least, be a clear violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680, and 1701. (Here there is a warning against demonstrations (notice that the statement conveniently added "violence" to the mix just for extra effect when the Lebanese opponents of the government pledged civil and peaceful methods of protests--unlike the methods of March 14th Movement who attacked, killed, abused and beaten Syrian workers around Lebanon during their glorious Cedar and Potato Revolution, which was fiercely supported (in more ways than one) by the US government. And do you notice that the US government supports demonstrations when they fit with US policies (are you kidding me? The US in facts supports acts of thuggery and mayhem when perpetrated by clients and puppets of the US as by Dahlan gangs in Gaza and West Bank or the Somali warlords in Somalia or Ministry of Interior gangs in Iraq or warlords in Afghanistan), and oppose demonstrations when the demonstrators are opposed to US and Israeli policies and plans? Could you imagine the US opposing demonstrations against Chavez or against Castro? Would Annan not fly into that capital and issue blustering statements (written for him by US officials no doubt?) And can you help me out here. How does the preservation of a Lebanese cabinet becomes an issue of international law and Security Council resolutions? I would really, I mean really, like to meet the mind that produced this document. I really really would like that very much, and would promise to refrain from mocking and ridiculing that person for 3 full minutes. Really. So according to the US, if a government becomes loyal to US interests, it has to stay in power forever? Would the US apply that policy universally? I mean, can you imagine the US government saying that the Blair government has to stay in power forever? Would the US government warn those who want to DEMOCRATICALLY topple the government? Is democracy not about toppling governments peacefully?
There are indications that one goal of the Syrian plan is to prevent the current Lebanese government from approving the statute for an international tribunal that would try those accused of involvement in former Prime Minister Hariri's assassination. Any such effort to sideline the tribunal will fail, however, for the international community can proceed with establishing it no matter what happens internally in Lebanon. The United States is committed to working with its international partners and the legitimate Government of Lebanon to ensure that the tribunal is quickly established and that all those responsible for the assassinations of Rafiq Hariri and other Lebanese patriots since 2005 are brought to justice. (I am so bored with the Hariri investigation, and some Lebanese could care less about this issue. And for your information, all Lebanese factions and parties and leaders supported the formation of an international tribunal. So the statement is lying here. I oppose the international tribunal, but all Lebanese through their representatives (Syria's allies included) have accepted the tribunal. So what are you talking about here?