I don't want to get into a huge defense of Syria, but do find the latest actions by Bush toward Syria to be very strange.
Here is a link to an article on Bush's insistence Syria stay out of lebanon.
Here is an excerpt:
President Bush said Friday that he was disturbed by reports that Syria might still have intelligence agents operating in Lebanon.
"Obviously, we are are going to follow up on these troubling reports and we expect the Syrian government to follow up on these troubling reports," Bush said during a media availability with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.
Bush said the message of the United States and the United Nations is for Lebanon to be free, Syria must remove both military and intelligence personnel.
Syria originally entered Lebanon for legitimate reasons during a tim of civil war. Whether they have overstayed their necessity or welcome is reasonable. So is whether they wish to continue meddling in Lebanese affairs.
However this seems quite a bit the pot calling the kettle black, when a leader who invaded a nation for no legitimate reason and is now driving a specific governmental agenda on the Iraqi people, including killing those Iraqis opposed to US goals, gets upset that Syria might still have intelligence and military people in Lebanon.
Is there any credibility to our position in this while we are presently doing the same thing?
The article goes on:
A senior State Department official told CNN that the United States has received what it believes are credible reports that Syria has drawn up a "hit list" of Lebanese political figures targeted for assassination in an effort to regain control of the country.
The official said "credible" Lebanese politicians in recent days contacted political officers at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and told them about the list, which they say includes Lebanese opposition leader Walid Jumblatt and other anti-Syrian politicians "who pose a threat to Syrian political hegemony" in Lebanon.
"We haven't seen the list and we don't know for sure it exists," the State Department official said. "
But given that the Lebanese are scared, given the fact that a number of people to date have been assassinated and given that Syrian intelligence officers are still in Lebanon, we are convinced and have to give it credibility."
Jumblatt, in an interview with CNN's "Your World Today," said
he and other Lebanese politicians had no "proper" evidence against Syria but because of the climate of uncertainty and the recent assassination of anti-Syrian journalist Samir Kassir, he was certain Syrian intelligence agents were "roaming around in the mountains and in Beirut."
This is the worst part for me. Bush's actions have made
me come to inherently doubt anything we say. That is one of the real dangers he has posed to the US, making us hypocritical liars to members of our own nation as well as the world.
Just looking at the above, how can anyone grant us credibility in that position, given what just happened in Iraq? This one they are even saying they have no real proof, but we should believe them anyway. Does this even make sense to do when we are supposed to be fixing our intelligence errors?
Is there any way for the US to renew its credibility in challenging occupying powers, and making charges against other nations based on intelligence info, after the Iraq fiasco? Besides having Bush and Co resign en masse, what would you suggest they do to repair US credibility if in fact it can be.
AbE: I should also add that this case appears to be deja vu all over again. Here we have people with vested interests against Syria making claims which drive our policy, even without a shred of evidence. Chalabi anyone? Is the US being made a second rate dupe as well?
This message has been edited by holmes, 06-11-2005 04:35 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2