Has anyone noticed that revolution is fine, as long as those revolting are poor? The Asia Times, ever the voice of reason, is accusing the U.S. of Making Iraq out of Lebanon:
After having made a Lebanon out of Iraq, the United States, duly assisted by France and other West European powers, has embarked on a policy that is likely to make an Iraq out of Lebanon...
According to reliable accounts, the anger against Syria is confined to a small section of the population, many of them from the Westernized upper classes (hence the sarcastic title "Gucci revolution"). Through electronic manipulation of the visuals it has been projected as if large masses of the local population have revolted against the Syrians.
To quote from a dispatch of Kim Ghattas of the British Broadcasting Corp: "Some people here are jokingly calling the phenomenon 'the Gucci revolution' - not because they are dismissive of the demonstrations, but because so many of those waving the Lebanese flag on the street are really very unlikely protesters. There are girls in tight skirts and high heels, carrying expensive leather bags, as well as men in business suits or trendy tennis shoes. "
Apparently if you are well groomed and dressed nicely you have no business leading a revolution. We need to send them a few thousand gallons of pachouli oil and half a million tie-dyed shirts for the left to take them seriously.
Or, they could just join Hezbollah. No electronic trickery is needed to inflate the number of people at the pro-terror rally today- the international media will take care of that. Was it 200,000? 500,000? 1.6 million? I have no idea. How many Syrians or Syrian surrogates might have been there, though? I love this line from the San Francisco Gate, delivered without a hint of irony:
Trained dogs sniffed for bombs.
Hezbollah has dogs trained to sniff for bombs. Poor creatures must go nuts at home.
To change topics, I've received a few e-mails asking for comment on what I think of the nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton to be Ambassador to the UN. Take a look at these headlines:
- Bush names hard-liner as ambassador to UN
- US names hawk as ambassador to UN
- Dismay as US sends hawk to UN
- Bush names fierce critic to UN role
and my favorite: The Neocons' Wet Dream: John Bolton- Bush regime sends a WMD to the U.N.
Now, what do you think I think about? All I can say is, it's about time. Welcome to the second term, Kofi. Hopefully this will be enough to bring the Diplomad out of retirement, even if briefly. A few reasons to like this nomination:
The French don't like him: ``Talk about reopening old wounds,'' said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research think-tank. ``This sends entirely the wrong message.''
The Syrians don't like him: ``This is an extremely bad message that Bush has submitted to the neo-conservatives,'' said Imad Shoueibi, a Syrian political analyst in Damascus. ``They should have a more moderate figure representing them at the United Nations, but instead they have one of the most radical.''
The Germans don't like him: Eberhard Sandschneider, a policy scholar at the German Council on Foreign Relations, said many Europeans were relieved when Bolton was passed over for the secretary of state's job in favor of Condoleezza Rice.
The Iranians don't like him: ``The presence of hard-liner Bolton in the U.N. prepares the ground for U.S. intervention in the organization,'' Iran's state-run radio said in a commentary. ``But Bolton will not achieve this because the world community will resist him.''
All that, and the mustache to boot.
