They lied on Iraq. Why should we accept their word about Iran and Syria? [View All]

[bigtree]

They lied on Iraq. Why should we accept their word about Iran and Syria?


Why should anyone, especially Americans, take the Bush regime's word, without concrete proof, that Iran and Syria have anything directly to do with the violence committed by Hizbollah? It's clear that Syria and Iran have a relationship with Hizbollah, financial and more, but, the accusations against them about their relationship to recent incidents of violence come without proof.

I agree that Syria and Iran (and others) should be challenged to confront Hizbollah (if they are able) and influence them away from violence. But saddling Syria and Iran with blame for Hizbollah's continued violence - by transferring responsibility and blaming Syria and Iran - every action of Hizbollah will be seen as a surrogate action for them.

But, I'm sure Hizbollah will be more than happy to have Syria and Iran carry the brunt of responsibility for their actions. Thr problem with that is Hizbollah will be able to carry out their acts as presumptive agents of larger entities instead of as isolated minors.

It would be smarter to set aside the dispute about the Harri investigation and deal directly with Syria (and Lebanon) to marginalize Hizbollah. These early moves by the Rice and the Bush regime are destined to become their next major blunder in their hapless surrender to developments in this conflict.


related:

NYT: Wedging Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/washington/23diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2006072117540004&Take=10