For the first time in three years, the New York Times concedes that Bashshar Al-Asad--whether you like it or not--has some support among the Syrian population

"although many Syrians have stuck by him, seeing him as a symbol of the nation or fearing that an opposition victory could lead to Islamist rule."  But wait: I thought that I read in the Times that he was only able to stay in power because Hizbullah sent its fighters to Syria? I am confused now, but not dazed.