May 9, 2008, - 3:39 pm

What is George Bush Doing in Lebanon? ZILCH to Stop Hezbollahstan

By Debbie Schlussel
This morning, former Bush campaign spokesman, John Truscott, went on a major Detroit radio station to flack and shill for Hezbollah agent and federally convicted insurance fraud perpetrator Ali Jawad, whom the John McCain campaign wisely and swiftly dumped as soon as they learned of his identity.
And it made me wonder on which parallel planet they were living. While this Hezbollah agent and Bush operative together told the pandering, ignorant radio host that Lebanon is controlled by many peoples of many religions who are living together in peace, Lebanon was actually being taken over by Hezbollah through blood, guns, and violence.
Yesterday, Hezbollah captured Beirut. And George Bush did nothing. They will soon have control of the whole country, and Bush will do nothing. In many ways, Bush is to blame for this fiasco, as is Israel.


By invading Iraq and handing it over to Shi’ites, Bush completed the mission that neither Khomeini, nor Ahmadinejad never could. By removing Saddam Hussein and the entire Sunni government structure from Iraq and giving it to Shi’ites who won’t hire Sunnis for any government and law enforcement positions, Bush ignited a Shi’ite revival–an extremist revival throughout not just the Middle East, but throughout the world. He created a contiguous, non-stop crescent-shaped Shi’ite region, ruled by Iran and its partner Syria–two terrorist states. And he did nothing to buffer or hinder it.
In one of its darkest days, when Israel wantonly pulled out of South Lebanon in 2000–in just an hour–it started the Shi’ite revival and began the handover of Lebanon, once a Christian Phoenician country, over to Hezbollah. Shi’ite moderates and others who helped Israel keep the peace in South Lebanon feared for their lives. Many left, many others were murdered, and still others were persecuted or had to move away from the South. It taught those peaceful forces of moderation and western influence a lesson: Don’t trust Israel, at least not the Israel of Ehud Barak, and since, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. They threw the good Lebanese to the wolves of Nasrallah and Iran and Syria.
Then, Israel did it again, in the summer of 2006, when the country haphazardly invaded Lebanon, under Olmert–the first Israeli Prime Minister with no real military experience. When a lawyer runs a war, you know you’re not in it to win. Olmert could have defeated Hezbollah, had he known how to conduct a ground and air campaign. Or had he even wanted to win.
But, tragically, none of those necessities of war applied to Olmert’s malpractice-ridden war. Instead of defeating Hezbollah soundly, which he could have done had he wanted to, he wasted Israeli lives–especially the lives of poor, religious settlers (the ones whose families’ homes he took away and continues to). And he emboldened and strengthened Hezbollah for decades and for its current successful bid in finally taking over Lebanon completely, once and for all.
Even under Ronald Reagan, who is given far too much credit for “fighting” terrorism, we were attacked–300 U.S. Marines and civilians murdered while they slept–by Hezbollah, and we did nothing . . . except pull out and run away from the country. We should have decimated Hezbollah then and allowed Israel to clean house.
But instead we ran, and we pressured Israel to do the same, which they ultimately did with the 2000 cut-and-run, now celebrated annually by Hezbollah over there and Hezbollah agents, Osama Siblani, Ali Jawad, and others here in Little Hezbollahstan a/k/a Dearborn, Michigan. The same goes for the Hezbollah torture-murder of Navy Diver Robert Dean Stethem on the plane it hijacked, TWA 847, in 1985. He was murdered. We did little or nothing in response.
When Bush pressured Lebanon for more free elections, just as he did in Gazastan, he got the mirror image of the resulting HAMASastan . . . Hezbollahstan. More Hezbollah Members of the Lebanese Parliament were elected where before there was just one, and Hezbollah literally married its alliance with the Shi’ite Amal militia, headed by Lebanese Parliament speaker Nabih Berri. Berri’s immediate family is married into Hezbollah. As a result of Bush-Rice engineered elections, Hezbollah gained control of most of the major government ministries, several seats in Parliament, and essentially the slow, complete emasculation of the Fouad Siniora Lebanese government that we now see essentially toppled this week, with the loss of Beirut.
So, now, will George Bush enter Lebanon to end the Shi’ite Hezbollah/Iran Revolution he started? With only 7.5 months left of his administration, not a chance. He blew his capital in Iraq, starting up the revolution that he now can neither stop or even put partially back into the bottle. For all the claimed “Texas swagger,” wimpitude and dhimmitude to the Shia Revival is all he shows the scared Cedars Revolution democrats in Lebanon who want to be free of Hezbollah.
While meeting with Assad of Syria and pressuring Israel to give in to terrorists and give them half the state, Bush and Condi Clueless missed the opportunity of a lifetime to finally free Lebanon of Iran and Syria by annihilating Hezbollah. He’d have enjoyed the support in such an effort from Lebanese Christians all over America–the largest and most patriotic group of Arabs in the U.S.–and from his Sunni, Gulf State oil buddies the Saudis and their neighbors, all of whom badly fear and want to put down this Shia rebellion and swath of takeover that now spans the Mid-East.
So, now, Beirut has fallen. And it’s long been only a matter of time until the entire Lebanon becomes Hezbollahstan.
But instead of fixing the problem he helped create and expand geometrically, Bush is coasting to retirement and high-paid speeches. And Lebanon is burning.
But this Hezbollah takeover, as I said, is not confined to the Mid-East. I see it on the streets of the Detroit area, where Shi’ite Hezbollah agents like Ali Jawad are neither embarrassed of their criminal records, nor do they shy away from their open support of Hezbollah–a group that willingly killed 300 U.S. Marines and embassy staff and blew up the Jewish Community Center and Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires.
And such is their power that a spineless radio talk show host sees no problem in that. Nor does he see a problem in Jawad’s claim that Hezbollah didn’t commit the Beirut bombings of Americans. That’s a settled question.
But the Shi’ite Revolution that Bush jump-started and which has reached its latest pinnacle, this week, with the takeover of Beirut, has unsettled all established fact.
And it will be a problem for America in the near future that we created and now ignore.
But we will soon learn that was a huge mistake.

12 Responses

I agree with almost all of this post, but I do have a couple of doubts. I’ve wondered whether it might have been better to go after Iran than Iraq, and am still undecided. But once we went into Iraq, what if we had vigorously used Iraq as a base to go after Syria and Iran? Maybe in that case the Government would have more Sunnis and not be completely Shi’ite, and blunted the revival; I don’t know, just wondering. While Bush did nothing to curb the Shi’ite revival, I think there mght be additional explanations, like 9/11 spilling over to the Shi’ites, Bush and Israel’s general appeasement policies, Shi’ite encouragement over Europe’s surrender, etc. None of this is meant to defend Bush, Rice, or the Israeli Government’s current policies or the lunatic ‘Democracy” policy.
And, as you say, almost all the phony conservative talk-show hosts with one or two honorable exceptions buy into the institutionalized ‘peace process’.

c f on May 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Both the U.S and Israel have focused on the wrong agenda. Suddenly, they’re waking up to find the wolf at the door. Iran is not only pursuing a campaign to put Lebanon and Gaza under its control, its seeking to topple the U.S-led Iraqi government to complete a Shi’ite Crescent stretching from Iraq into Syria (which is already an Iranian satellite) to Lebanon. Its about a Pax Persica minus Israel. The issue is no longer the Palestinians. The issue now is stopping Iran and the U.S and Israeli political class still don’t grasp the implications of Hezbollah’s takeover in Beirut. They will soon find out.

NormanF on May 9, 2008 at 4:49 pm

As Churchill put it:
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Keep appeasing the muslims, and eventually we’ll get eaten ourselves.

mplumb on May 9, 2008 at 5:20 pm

“What is George Bush Doing in Lebanon? ZILCH to Stop Hezbollahstan”
.. for that matter, what is Bush doing anythign for America. Has he not used the white house to sell American borders to anyone (La Raza, Vicente Fox, American busiensses that line his poket to let illegal labor in)?
Am surprised Americans still cannot see that Bush has never been for America or Americans. Bush has sold anything, includine American lives, borders, tax-dollars, to anyone with a peso or a petro-dollar. To that end, Bush cleverly added terrorists as “allies” to his phony “war-on-terror”, thus funding his terrorist friends and family. Can’t believe how dumb Americans are!

Alert on May 9, 2008 at 8:18 pm

I think that when Barrack Obama is President the world will be much better. I think that other people will like us better then.

PrincessKaren on May 9, 2008 at 9:27 pm

I agree many ‘like’ America 3rd rate, groveling and our leadership mouthing multicultural platitudes. But in truth when America, the world’s whipping boy, is weak the world is afraid, deeply afraid. There is nothing then that stands between freedom and the triumph of spin, lies and chaos.

poetcomic1 on May 10, 2008 at 9:51 am

Why would the US want to be involved… you are acting like Hezbollah are an outside force invading and taking over Lebanon when the fact of the matter is Hezbollah represent a large number of Lebanese and aren’t seeking to control the state… they have specific grievances and the Lebanon Army has recinded the political orders which led to the unrest. Israel created Hezbollah with their ‘wanton’ brutal invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon (sound familiar)… not the withdrawl which was inevitable. Poor SLA… give me a break.

lexhamfox on May 10, 2008 at 5:11 pm

All of this was created for the government to get more control of our lives. There is a true threat from terrorist organizations. The problem is, the threat from our government is even greater. Why would the government do a darned thing about terrorists? It’s expanded itself creating departments such as DHS and ICE and that demands funding and more government influence. Without terrorists in the U.S.A, what else would this government have to do? Remember the war on drugs? There is a bureaucratic thrust to keep a constant flow of terrorist activity to validate these government departments. After all, the government said they’d create more jobs, right? Innocent Americans will die, so that someone can sit at the throne of the world as President.

TruthSleuth on May 11, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Wasn’t the UN supposed to disarm Hezbollah?
How come George Bush isn’t pressing THIS enforceable UNSC resolution? (That’s a rhetorical question).

There is NO Santa Claus on May 11, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Didn’t Reagan sink the Iranian navy in retaliation for the Beirut attack? I believe it was the largest navel battle since WWII.

JSobieski on May 12, 2008 at 10:02 am

Correction: The navy battle occurred in 1988 for different reasons. Still, better late than never.

JSobieski on May 12, 2008 at 10:10 am

point one: your argument is ad hom and from hom. to counter it one must counter you personally. this is unprofessional and entirely too jewish (not as a racial determinate, but as an influence overstressed).
speak from the objective and argue the policy, i cant argue against bush or for him and adress the point, nor can I argue you and address the point. no i’m not antisemitic, i’m trying to help you out and keep people reading you instead of letting you divert their attention and then split. if you cant figure that out then youre really not that smart. alexander conquered the world but couldnt conquer himself etc..
second point: American capital cannot be gambled on Israeli politics. you have said yourself that olmert and the rest of the have it both ways reformed (into what?) party cant win anything but another s sandwich to chew on. if they dont want to win, we arent going to win it for them. and on top of that, israel doesnt think straight until they get punched. before now lebanon was a catfight between multiple mixedup factions, with a clear winner we have a clear target. thats just life. think about it..
point three: the US is sick of settling squabbles only to have everyone blame us in the end. no one makes it easy for us and then bitches when things get dicey. in the end it is the responsibilty of every person on earth to live freely and defend themselves. never before in human history has so much treasure and blood been spent for other’s to be free and how many times are we thanked, recognized for that? its for oil right?
this coming from someone who did serve in the infantry and jump out of perfectly good aircraft to do what meals on wheels?!! put the pants back on grown adults?!
point four:
just because you dont get what you want out of W doesnt mean everything else he has done is a wash.
he didnt create the shia/sunna idiocy. if anything the long view is that it all brings Iran closer to the brink within their own society as the rest of the shia are brought closer to the 21st century before their eyes.
point five: it sucks that lebanon is being overrun by the enemy. this is war, men will die. what matters more is that we are not drawn in by the enemy and follow his ploys. we must maintain the first things first attitude and win in Iraq.
first. then let the free arabs handle the plutocrats within their own culture, the mullahs in iran and the dictators in riyadh, cairo etc.
personally, i like you and presonally i couldnt care less what people think of me personally as i was born with self esteem and a sense of my true self worth which no argument over the internet can effect. this is very important stuff that is worth discussing and it compromises your efforts to inject so much personality into the debate. so dont.
the media idiots and the local hezbos want to slyly change the subject and get us off point. we need to make it plain to them that we dont budge. hezbollah is a force for tyranny. why should we allow parties to stand for election that are anti constitutional? when do they allow us to stand for election in their elections when we are anti tyranny?
this whole debate centers around our stupid belief that all elections are the same. its a stupid argument that the south vietnamese wouldve voted for the communists so therefore we had no business there. now we have the same argument going on in the Leb but the subject gets changed to something as stupid as bashing W.
show me a country that doesnt allow the rules to be changed regarding elections every election (the US) and doesnt allow all this parliamentary bs. why do we free peoples and then have them erect parliaments instead of copy our system completely? why do we kiss ass to the same system we defeated in 1776?
answer that and I’ll start caring about propping up lebanese people that want to play games.

playertwo on May 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field