And you thought that New York Times is stupid on the Middle East? Some of you sent me this article from the Daily Telegraph. And the Daily Telegraph is as reliable on the Middle East, as Israeli media are on the three dead Iranian soldiers found in Lebanon last summer. First, notice that it said that the source of the article is "Lebanese security officials." That means the Hariri government. This is as credible as writing an article on Jumblat, based on Syrian intelligence sources. Also, the story that `Awn has been to Damascus for meetings, is just silly, and discredits the rest of the article. Hariri officials control the border between Syria and Lebanon, and he would have been spotted and photographed, if he really has been to Syria. And why would `Awn need to travel to Syria to coordinate with Syrian officials? There are no phones, and messengers? Just silly. But this is almost laughable: "The Syrians have promised to provide extensive funding for Aoun's election campaign and to put pressure on "floating members" of the Lebanese parliament to support their candidate." This is funny on more than one count. First, the Syrian regime never EVER funds its allies and clients. Even when they were in Lebanon, they would not even fund the pro-Syrian gangs. They basically let them fund themselves by themselves through extortion, theft, blackmail, and other unsavory means. That is how Sa`iqah was funded in Lebanon. Secondly, the Syrian regime has no influence whatsoever over the "floating members" of parliament. If you think that US newspapers are stupid on the Middle East, you need to read this British article NOW.