Has Big Media Global Warming Bias Begun to Endanger the Public?
Bill Tate
When Maine officials tried to warn residents of the dangers of this winter's near-record snowpack, Big Media slanted the story, hampering efforts to warn folks of the danger. "This winters [sic] near-record snowfall has created a flood potential that is above normal," began a news advisory released by the Maine River Flow Advisor Commission on March 6th. "Statewide water content readings from this week's snow survey are some of the highest since 1969, the 'snow season' of record, and in some locations higher than the record." In case there was any doubt, the banner headline on the release reads: "Spring Flood Potential Elevated Due to Near-Record Snowfall."
However, the lead in the Associated Press story in the next day's edition of the major regional daily, the Boston Globe, downplayed the threat posed by the snowpack, referring to it as just "above-average," and shifting the emphasis to concern about an approaching storm. "The National Weather Service says weekend rain could cause some flooding of streets and small streams."
The story does eventually reference "near-record snowfall", in the 13th paragraph of a 17-paragraph story, with a spin that turned the Maine officials' warning on its head. "While this winter's near-record snowfall has created a flood potential that is above normal, that doesn't guarantee flooding will occur this spring...."
The result? "There are people who are losing their property, their homes and their livelihoods," Maine Governor John Baldacci said after the flooding that officials had tried to warn the public about did occur last week. Why did the AP and the Globe de-emphasize Maine officials' snowpack warning, especially when doing so endangered the property and safety of the public they are supposed to serve? The Globe is owned by the New York Times Company. Both the Times and the Associated Press are heavily invested in the myth of Global Warming, or -- as I like to call it -- Global Warning. Record snowpack means higher than normal amounts of snow, colder than usual temperatures, or both. None of which readily fits into the MSM's chosen story line that mankind is giving Mother Nature a fever. Big Media's Global Warning bias has largely remained in the realm of theory; now it has begun to endanger people's lives and property in real time. The AP and the Globe had the choice of reporting a truly inconvenient truth -- for them -- or of perpetuating Global Warning, of facilitating officials' efforts to protect the public or advancing their ideological agenda. Why are we not surprised by the decision they made?
William Tate is a former award-winning broadcast journalist and the author of the new book, A Time Like This.
Matthews: Whites Seeking 'Permission' to Vote Against Obama
Marc Sheppard
During yesterday's installment of his Hillary Must Go Show, Chris Matthews smugly suggested that white people are just itching for any excuse not to vote for Barack Obama. The haughty Hardball host is no stranger to racial swordplay -- but Wednesday's declaration by Hillary that Obama can't deliver the white votes needed to defeat McCain appears to have shifted him into PC overdrive. After a back and forth with Clinton communication director Howard Wolfson in which he mocked Hillary's comments about "working white Americans" with almost every breath, Matthews rolled out David Bonoir. The former Edwards campaign manager barely began explaining his recent affliction with Obamamania when Matthews swayed the subject back to Hillary, and why she dared continue her irreverent challenge to providence. Well, began Bonoir: She's a fighter. She's got a following. But eventually she'll ...... Snapped Matthews: "Are you worried that she's giving white voters a permission slip to vote against an African-American candidate the longer she's in the race?"
A permission slip? As in a written proxy a parent conveys to another grown-up via and empowering an underage progeny? Is that how Chris sees white Americans -- as juveniles awaiting adult authorization prior to action? Who seek sanction to vote their own political choice rather than the trendy politically correct cause du jour? The way an employer might seek an Affirmative Action waver? And just who the hell is this sanctimonious blow-hard to dare suggest any such approval necessary to vote against a black man? Does he really believe than any but the most hopelessly intoxicated by loony liberal libation see electing a black president as some strange sacrament for the centuries past sin of slavery? Or that racism alone must explain a white person's electoral victory over one of color? Perhaps the pontificating Matthews would be good enough to clarify why 9 out of 10 blacks voting for Obama in Tuesday's North Carolina Primary was just dandy while 6 out of 10 whites not doing so reeks of racism. Watching the media swoon over their anointed one has been distasteful enough of late. And what they've done to Hillary, whose station as the PC candidate was all but "inevitable" until the smooth young black senator came along, is truly a wonder to behold. Of course, seeing Matthews ladling out portions of pompous political propriety to his guests and viewers every night since Super Tuesday has been particularly stomach-turning. But last night, sporting his mysterious new Richie Cunningham coiffeur, the man attained a new level of opprobrium when he turned the very gray process of candidate preference into a simple matter of black or white.
And then pronounced the only civilized choice.
Is one political party racist?
Danny Huddleston
It's a provocative question isn't it? Some might say we shouldn't even be discussing it. But just as Jonah Goldberg in his best selling book Liberal Fascism set out to destroy a long held myth of the liberal elites that fascism is just an extreme version of conservatism, I think it's more than time we take a look at the other self-serving liberal belief: that all conservatives are bigots.
And now is the right time, because after the battle between Obama and Hillary is over, the Democrats are going to turn their attention to McCain. If he dares to mention Rev. Wright the mainstream media will cry racism. In fact the New York Times has already put Republicans on notice:
"Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial - complete with video of Mr. Wright - that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.
"If Mr. Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, we fear that there will be many more such commercials. And Mr. Obama will have to repudiate Mr. Wright's outbursts many more times.
"This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama's repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that. His opponents also have a responsibility - to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops."
If you mention Rev. Wright it's race-baiting? A 20 year relationship wiped out by a series of denials, excuses, and finally a 5 minute repudiation? And yet Democrat Hillary Clinton said this: "There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me and in independents I was running even with him and doing even better with democratic leaning independents."
Dick Morris (former Clinton Adviser) said this about Hillary's comments: "This was a overtly racist appeal..." and "...here she's absolutely coming right out and saying it, vote white.... She is using race to win the election, she is using the identification of whites vis a vis blacks to polarize the society racially and win the election."
Pretty strong stuff.
The Democrats are a party of special interest groups, they include: working class whites, African Americans, union members, ivy league elites, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, and anyone else who feels left out of the mainstream. The one common appeal to all these groups is that they are supposed to feel they have been victims of discrimination or need help in some way. (The exception of course is the liberal elites, they are the leaders of the party) And the Democratic Party is helping each group with government handouts, affirmative action and a bewildering array of other government programs, all financed by the middle class and "rich" people.
But these groups don't always get along; a good example of this is how African Americans and college elites are lining up behind Obama and working class whites are lining up behind Clinton. Normally in order for the Democratic Party to bring all these disparate groups together they select their presidential candidates from the South. This is to keep middle American moderates on board.
But this year Bubba and his gal have been pushed aside by a fella' who represents two of the groups. Obama is a curious combination of two powerful liberal groups. He represents the aggrieved underclass and the ruling elite class all in one person. There are two personalities inside Obama fighting to dominate. That is why he can't decide whether or not to reject his pastor and why he can't decide if he should wear a flag pin or not.
In Hillary's case she is simply a politician who follows the polls. She first tried to go to the left of Obama. When that failed and after he made those unfortunate remarks about rural Pennsylvanians, she veered to the right and regained her stride. But it was too late, even an appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show didn't help.
So, this year the two Democratic candidates have really made a mess of things. Obama is pulling in the black voters and latte elite's and Hillary is getting the blue collar vote. If they cannot bring these two groups together they are in big trouble. In fact 18% of Hillary's supporters say they will not vote for Obama in the general. Is it possible there is some latent bigotry in the Democratic Party?
A hero's tale
Thomas Lifson
Whatever else one may think of his politics, only seriously deranged people fail to credit John McCain with heroism. The son and grandson of prominent Admirals, John McCain's refusal to leave behind his fellow inmates in the Hanoi Hilton reflects a glorious strain of fidelity to duty and to the nation that leaves lesser beings like me in awe. Part of that heroic character is an aversion to bragging or wallowing in self pity. John McCain never uses his captivity to score political points, just as he avoids bragging about his two sons serving in active duty in hazardous theatres of war. The contrast with John Kerry could not be greater. But John McCain's modesty about himself does not prevent others from telling what they know about him. Fox News interviewed his cell-mate at the Hanoi Hilton, George "Bud" Day, himself the most decorated service man since Douglas McArthur. Read the interview here. Hat tip: Paul Shlichta
Liberal intellectuals start to get a clue about Reagan
Thomas Lifson
Two decades after the end of his presidency, some of the smarter intellectuals are starting to realize the greatness of Ronald Reagan. Newsweek runs a fascinating interview with Princeton University's Sean Willentz, the very definition of an academic liberal, and George Will, about the strange new respect some liberals are developing for Ronald Reagan.It is brief enough to be read in a minute or tow, but long enough for Will to catch Willentz in his self-absorbed assumptions, and for Willentz to back away from some of them. For example: SW: "...it took people a long time to catch up with Ronald Reagan. But I think that now they can no longer ignore him."
Gee, Professor Willentz, as I recall, the American people caught up with President Reagan by electing him president twice by overwhelming margins. It was intellectuals, with their acquired imperviousness to reality, who proudly stayed mired in their own ignorance, calling it sophistication, and fooling only themselves. (But since they only care about each other's opinions, that was enough for them.) George Will was a little too nice to point this out. Still, I credit Willentz for his honesty here. Better late than never. He's better than a lot of other academics who remain convinced they are smarter than ordinary people, when in fact academics are one of the most pampered and privileged segments of American society, and consequently often unaware of some of the basic realities of society. There's no fool like an educated fool. Hat tip: Susan L.
Why Hillary Won't Quit
Andrew Sumereau
As the Clinton campaign ramps up for the battle in West Virginia it is amusing to see the chagrined liberal media questioning why. Doesn't she get it? It is pathetic. The new savior has arrived and the end of the Clinton years has come at last! Why doesn't she quit? Perhaps the most profound difference between the true conservative and true liberal approach to things in the modern era is the influence of history. Liberals look to a bright shining future unhindered by knowledge of fallen human nature as a guide while conservatives view the future as a continuation of the long narrative of successes and failures, opportunities and disasters. History teaches lessons and history has taught the Clinton's well. But its lessons are obviously lost on the twenty-four hour chattering classes. Hillary was there. Only in her keen awareness of history can she be considered a conservative. And what a history! Remember Bill Clinton angrily and forcefully declaring that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." Only to be refuted by DNA and the famous blue dress. Pundits declared the end of his Presidency. Any other normal person would have slinked out of office in shame. Not Clinton. Remember Bill Clinton lying to a federal Grand Jury, the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch who appoints judges lying to a federal Grand Jury! Pundits declared surely this is the end of the Clinton Presidency. No. Remember the infamous eleventh-hour pardons of scores of felons friendly to the Clinton's as they packed up the White House furniture to abscond to Westchester. Pundits declared this must be the end of any political future for the shameless couple. Enough of the short list reminders Time and time again (pages could be taken up in listing the instances) the Clinton's have been in a position of no retreat. And always they wait things out. They never give an inch more than they have too, and only begrudgingly admit the most obvious points while spinning, spinning, spinning to their often ludicrous benefit. And yet to date, no matter how preposterous and damaging their circumstances, they always survive. Little wonder than that Hillary sees recent events as mere bumps in the road. There is always hope. Audacity is not exclusive to Obama and the reverend. Wright. In her world and the world of her disciples there are "metrics" and nuances and processes you see, like counting votes that don't count, adding States that may vote Republican that don't count, States full of typical blue-collar white racists that chug booze like her. Momentum may come back to her in West Virginia and to the feckless undecided super-duper delegates the "electibility factor" returns. And don't forget, something big may happen to Obama, some great scandal, or worse.
Viewing this spectacle with great antipathy many conservatives are uneasy. Operation chaos may be great fun, but keeping Hillary in the race may be costly in the long run. Already we see, prematurely, obituary-style pieces praising the virtues of the fallen warrior. Her "grit" "bravery" "toughness" may be admired by some, but Clinton has shown in her dogged fight for the nomination, against an adversary with whom she agrees with 99% of the time, against the prototypical affirmative action candidate, a need for personal power divorced from any good it can produce.
History teaches Clinton that quitting gains one nothing. Honor, graciousness, dignity are not the measure. The only premium worth cashing in is prerogative. Guiding your footsteps through the perceptions of historical experience may be wise but monomania in pursuit of power is not admirable.
A revised prayer for Israel
Ethel C. Fenig
As the over 5000 year-old nation of Israel celebrates the 60th anniversary of its return to sovereignty in its ancestral homeland after 2000 years of rule by foreign powers,Israeli commentator Uri Orbach composed a not so tongue in cheek prayer based on the prayer for the State of Israel said in many synagogues world wide. It opens asking
Our Father in Heaven, Rock and Redeemer of Israel, bless the State of Israel, the first manifestation of the approach of our redemption. Shield it from its own ministers, leaders, advisors, contractors, merchants, celebrities, beggars, journalists, and bureaucrats, and bestow Your light and truth upon its statesmen, rabbis, judges, and intellectuals, and grace them with Your good counsel.
The prayer joyously concludes with several final, optimistic requests and thanks. Our Father in Heaven, prevent uprooting from you estate and needless hatred from your sons, grant wisdom to your leftists and responsibility to your settlers (in some synagogues this shall be recited the other way around,) as well as dignity, and fraternity, and consideration, and understanding among all Your believers and heretics, as is written in the Torah: "Even if your outcasts are at the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, from there He will fetch you."
Manifest yourself in the splendor of Your boldness before the eyes of all inhabitants of Your world, and may everyone endowed with a soul affirm: What a state! What a state! What a state, special and unique. Amen forevermore.
Amen for eternity.
Thomas Lifson radio appearance
editor's note
AT editor Thomas Lifson will appear on the KSFO Morning Show with Lee Rodgers today at 7 AM PDT. The program can be heard in San Francisco at AM 560, and an internet feed is available here.
State penetration of terrorist organizations
Thomas Lifson
An important debate is underway over the role of states in Islamic terror. Some observers emphasize the primacy religion in Islamic terror, while others see states using terror groups to advance their own ends without leaving fingerprints.Today in the New York Sun, Laurie Mylroie and Andrew McCarthy take up that debate in an exchange over a review of McCarthy's new book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad, written by Mylroie. More than just an academic dispute, this debate has profound implications for the war on terror.
Burmese Junta Stalling on Cyclone Relief
Rick Moran
While up to 100,000 rotting corpses pile up in Myanmar - the name given Burma by the ruling military junta - western governments are begging the government to allow the massive relief supplies that are stockpiled in next door Thailand to be given to people before a man made humanitarian catastrophe is added on to what nature was able to inflict:
Relief agencies say decomposing corpses litter ditches and fields in the worst-hit Irrawaddy delta area as survivors try to conserve fuel for transporting much-needed supplies.
The international community is growing increasingly frustrated with the junta's lack of progress in granting visas for relief workers and giving clearance for aid flights to land.
They are concerned the lack of medical supplies and clean food and water threatens to increase the already staggering death toll.
Myanmar's military government says more than 22,000 people died when the killer cyclone battered the country's low-lying delta region over the weekend. The top U.S. diplomat in the country has said the toll could top 100,000.
But aid workers from the United Nations and other organizations were still concerned that supplies weren't getting into the country fast enough.
"This is a real worry for us," said Tony Banbury, regional director in Asia for the U.N. World Food Programme, which unloaded a plane carrying 7 million tons [ed. -- obviously an error] of high-energy biscuits on Thursday.
"The longer we're held back, the more desperate the situation of the people becomes, so when the food does start getting to the remote areas, the hardest-hit areas, there is a real risk that there will be food riots, social disturbances, people attacking the convoys," Banbury said.
The paranoia of the military government is massive. They fear the US military's role in any western relief effort (there are two US ships off the coast of Burma filled with supplies as well as experts who can get the relief to who needs it quickly). While it is true the State Department has repeatedly called on the junta to step down and hold elections, their fears would seem misplaced at a time like this.
The EU executive nixed the idea of countries going into the disaster zone without government permission, fearing quite rightly that the Burmese military would not look upon such a move kindly. But if this keeps up for another 48 hours or so, the UN will have to get involved before the death toll doubles - or worse.
Hillary and the 'Death Star Option'
Rick Moran
Roger Simon of Politico sums up Hillary Clinton's strategy from here on out:
In a relatively short amount of time, Clinton has gone from being the inevitable winner to being the underdog to being a dead woman walking.
She needs superdelegates to win the nomination, but what is her argument to superdelegates?
Can she promise them she will win a majority of the pledged delegates that voters have chosen in primaries and caucuses? No.
Can she promise them she can take the lead in the popular vote? No.
Can she promise them she can win a majority of the primary and caucus states? No.
But can she get the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters, slap African-Americans and young voters in the face and shatter the party? Well, yeah, she can try for that Death Star option.
It would be more than a slap in the face if Hillary took the nomination from Obama at this point. It would destroy the Democratic party and block any chance that the party could win in November.
There are some who argue we are close to that point already, that the machinations of Clinton with the Superdelegates is turning off young voters who signed on to the Obama campaign because of his promise of the "new politics."
This is why the party is so anxious to get the primaries behind them. And Hillary Clinton - for the moment - won't let them.
Obama's Support Similar to Kerry's in '04
Rick Moran
In what is mostly good news for Republicans, a new Gallup poll shows support for Barack Obama very similar to what John Kerry experienced in 2004:Much of the talk following Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries has focused on just how electable Obama -- now the highly probable nominee -- will be in the general election. The Clinton campaign has argued that Obama's weaknesses among white voters and blue-collar voters will hurt him against McCain in the fall.
But it appears that the way Obama stacks up against McCain at this point is similar to the way in which Kerry performed against Bush in 2004 within several key racial, educational, religious, and gender subgroups. That is, the basic underlying structure of the general-election campaign this year does not appear to be markedly different from that of the 2004 election. This conclusion is based on an analysis of exit-poll data from 2004 compared to the Obama-McCain matchup in 4,000 Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews conducted during the first five days of May.
McCain wins among churchgoers, non-college graduates, and men. That's a pretty good start to a winning coalition.
'What's Wrong with Republicanns?'
Rick Moran
Victor Davis Hanson asks the question why Republicans are depressed going into the 2008 campaign.
His solution is to stand up for conservativism on some key issues:
E.g., Gas Prices? More nuclear power, hydro-, refineries, clean coal, drilling off coasts and in ANWR. And why? As a necessary bridge to next-generation cleaner and non-petroleum energy so that in the time lag, we don't empower our enemies, demand that others abroad who are less environmentally sound produce the oil we consume, and watch our hard-won way of life decline.
Taxes? Not hikes, since revenues went up, not down with past cuts, but more fiscal discipline to end the deficits. The problem was not tax-cutting, but wild-eyed spending that ran up debt and discredited tax cuts.
The border? Close it, not out nativism or racism, but out of respect for the rule of law, the tradition of national sovereignty, the need to promote integration and assimilation, the need to be more concerned with American entry-level low-paid workers, and a desire to help Mexico wean itself off remittances and make the tough-love decisions to modernize its archaic government and economy.
Judges? We need constitutionalists, because they alone follow the rules of the legislative branch and what is written in the Constitution, do not turn rarified, laboratory theory into the law that millions must suffer under, and bring respect to the judiciary sorely damaged by aristocratic elitists on the bench. VDH also points to framing the national security debate in more realistic terms and not tolerating ethics violators.
And Hanson has a cautionary note for McCain: "Moving toward a lite version of the Obamian/European "bipartisan"and socialist view of government and calling it a new conservatism is a prescription for utter disaster."
Instead, Hanson asks McCain to embrace conservative principles and articulate them during the campaign. Good advice - but probably the wrong candidate to give it to.
Democratic Train Wreck Approaching; Due to Occur May 20
Rick Moran
Why May 20th? That's the day that Politico's David Kuhn is saying Barack Obama will declare himself the nominee of the Democratic party for president.
Meanwhile, the other train on the same track - the Hillary Express to Nowhere - will almost certainly dispute that claim by Obama thus setting up a scrumpdedelicious scenario with Obama boasting, Hillary whining, and Democrats across the country at each other's throats:
Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And, until at least May 31 and perhaps longer, Hillary Clinton's campaign plans to dispute it.
It's a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race.
The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates-a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination-a tally that includes Florida and Michigan.
"We don't accept 2,025. It is not the real number because that does not include Florida and Michigan," said Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton's two chief strategists. "It's a phony number." Tell that to the followers of Obama who will fight tooth and nail to prevent Hillary from altering the fact that Obama has passed the magic number and is the de facto nominee of the party.
It may be well to point out a couple of caveats for Obama that his people aren't mentioning when talking about declaring victory on May 20:
1. He may lose both Kentucky and Oregon. Talk about ridiculous, he would be laughed at if he were trounced at the polls and then came out to make the case that he was the winner.
2. Superdelegates are perfectly able to switch sides. It's a long time between now and the convention in late August and given the number of time bombs that may be in Obama's past, one or more of them might go off before the convention that would make Obama unelectable thus causing a wave of defections to Hillary.
3. The party will not bar Florida and Michigan delegates from the convention. That would be suicide for November. The chances of a compromise of sorts that would seat delegates from both states means that Obama's "magic number" will almost certainly be more than 2025.
All of this won't matter to Obama or much of the press who will say the candidate won "fair and square" and that Hillary should drop out and support him.
This is not a likely scenario I think. It is risky in that it may very well turn off Hillary supporters and drive many of them into the arms of McCain. Why Obama couldn't wait until after the primaries and after the Florida-Michigan situation is finalized is a little puzzling.
This may be a trial balloon floated by the Obama people to gauge a reaction. If so, I think they are going to be disappointed.
Hezb'allah Rampage in Beirut
Rick Moran
The situation this morning in Lebanon is very tense. In response to actions taken by the government of Prime Minister Siniora, Hezb'allah supporters have rampaged through neighborhoods, initiated gun battles with Sunnis, and most threateningly, closed the only road to the international airport by setting up roadblocks using dirt to block the highway, and erecting a tent city similar to the one they have set up in downtown Beirut that has paralyzed the city for more than a year.
The war of words between Lebanon's political leaders has translated into actual battles on the streets, as Wednesday's opposition-supported labor strike quickly devolved into violent clashes and rioting. With the labor issue apparently pushed off the agenda, unrest has been stripped down to a contest between the government and Hezbollah, which the government has accused of trying to stage a coup.
In recent weeks, Hezbollah's intractability has become the subject of increased government focus, culminating with the cabinet's removal of Hezbollah-linked Brigadier General Wafiq Shqeir from his position as airport security chief, and the declaration that Hezbollah's private communications network is "illegal and unconstitutional," after a marathon cabinet session ending early Tuesday.
Hezbollah has given the Siniora government a 48-hour ultimatum to revoke the decisions. However, the government remains adamant that any retreat is out of the question.
Today, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will deliver a "historic" address, at his first press conference in two years. It is possible Nasrallah will use the podium to attempt a face-saving exit before the situation fully detonates. However, with so much at stake, it seems far more likely that Nasrallah's words will veer in the opposite direction.
It is a virtual certainty that Hezb'allah's "private" communications network - an extensive set up that handles wireless phone and other telecommunications protocols - is a spy network for Syria and may be used in the future to plan violence and assassinations against the March 14th government forces. Siniora and his government - standing up to Hezb'allah for the first time - has not only shut down that network and fired the pro-Syrian officer who ran it from the airport, but has all but declared Hezb'allah a "state within a state."
Those are fighting words to Hezb'allah.
Today, Hezb'allah chief Hassan Nasrallah gave his first press conference in two years and threw down the gauntlet to the government, daring them to challenge Hezb'allah's status as the "resistance" to Israeili aggression and their privileged position within the state:
I said, before Jumblatt, that any hand that reaches for the resistance and its arms will be cut off. Israel tried that in the July War, and we cut its hand off.
We do not advise you to try us.
Whoever is going to target us will be targeted by us. Whoever is going to shoot at us will be shot by us.
Let's look into who is really harming the people and stealing their money. Unfortunately, this is the government. Jumblatt acknowledges this openly on TV.
Jumblatt is a liar and a killer. He sits up there and draws red lines, and the martyrs and people who defended Lebanon will be handed over to the courts. This is not a government, this is a gang.
Herein lies the real reason Hezb'allah has taken to the streets; Nasrallah's complaint that "people who defended Lebanon" will be put on trial. He is referring to the Hariri Tribunal that may start as early as next month under the auspices of the United Nations. It is a dead certainty that Hezb'allah's role in some of the political assassinations that have rocked Lebanon over the past 3 years will be revealed. Nasrallah, and his patron in Syria Bashar Assad, will do everything in their power to prevent the tribunal from sitting. If it means taking the country to the brink of a civil war, so be it.
In the end, none of the parties want a civil war which makes Nasrallah's gambit of closing the airport a risky undertaking. He is banking on the fact that all sects will do whatever is necessary to prevent the country from sliding into chaos - a good bet to make except it may get to the point where the political leaders will lose control of their followers at which point all hell will break loose.
Instead of trying to calm the situation, Nasrallah's words have thrown gasoline on the fire. Meanwhile, citizens are cleaning and oiling their weapons and preparing for the worst.
|
|
|
