Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
Questions for the sake of the President Michel Suleiman
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Neither I want to have a debate with the former President Michel Suleiman, nor to respond to his speech, nor to direct any accusation to his person, although everything is possible and legitimate with a person who provokes the appetite for the debates, responses, and accusations.
I just want to address some questions for the sake of the President Michel Suleiman.
Suleiman wants to customize verbal channels to deliver his message, that he has not heard about the donation of the Lebanese army, which as he said « his heart is with it» only through Saudi Arabia. So can he face the former Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour who was a Lebanese ambassador in Tehran? Or who dare to answer among more than twenty ministers who attended the session in which the Minister Hussein Al Hajj Hasan has demanded a formal response for the Iranian offer?
Suleiman wants to indicate that he was uninterested of the presidency, and he has mentioned some witnesses without names like ambassadors and officials who have asked him to extend his reign but he refused, while Suleiman knew that the extension was related to a negation, even if he gave his approval according to the demands and desires of the unknown witnesses, because the President Nabih Berri, Al Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, and the General Michel Aoun, as well as all their allies have settled the matter negatively from a long time ago, so there is nothing left of the story, only what Suleiman has said about the ( uninterested of the presidency ) so is not he like that ? Can Suleiman put his eyes in my eyes and says that he has not informed me in the mid of April 2008 that he admonishes of the forces of 8th of March, which he considered himself that he is of its allies, and that he is from the bosom of the resistance and Syria, and that he expected its support to arrive to presidency, especially after he had succeeded in making his opponents accept him?
Can he put his eyes in my eyes and says that he has not informed me about the assumptions that I asked for, to be able to help him in overcoming the obstacles which caused the reservations of the forces of 8th of March, including his commitment to share the leadership and the presidency with the General Michel Aoun, and presenting the guarantees which the resistance wanted for its security, including the mechanism of nominating the new commander, and the balance in his behavior between the leaders of 8th of March and the leaders of 14th of March? Can he refresh his memory and tells me, that he has not asked the intelligence manager the Ambassador George Khoury at that time to send intelligences to have notes about the deputy Talal Arslan and his desires?
What is left from the story of Suleiman about the 7th of May and his opinion in the fight of Hezbollah in Syria is only a commitment to another party by launching successive attacks that culminated the prestige of Hezbollah, its attitude, and its position. As I said before, I do not want to have a debate with him, but when he said like he has not owe Hezbollah in attaining the presidency, which supposed that it was not his goal, so does he have a convincing story of not owing Hezbollah of the presidency in which he spent in Babda Palace six years? How he can amend the constitution without the approval of two -thirds of the parliament, its president, and the support of Hezbollah?, and how did he become a president? through the election of Ammar Khoury, or through the troops of Omar Suleiman and Hosni Mubarak ? The President Emile Lahoud can say that he became a president and that he extended his reign without any favor of any party in Lebanon, and without asking or discussing anyone, although the Syrian leadership has asked him twice, and has taken this matter at its expense, but it was like that. Can the President Michel Suleiman say the same?, does he dare to say that his presidency was not an outcome of his endeavor and his assumptions for the Lebanese parties? Otherwise he has to have a television interview, in which he presents his story about his access to Babda Palace according to the conviction of the Lebanese People of his philosophical vision and his writings, or a third story that we do not know and we eager to hear it.
Suleiman can do one thing; to say to Syria and the resistance that I am not only the one who deceived you, since Recep Erdoghan, Prince of Qatar, and his Prime Minister have done the same, we have stood with you in the deception period when our duty was to be close to you and your audience, but when the calumniation hour in the back has come, and when the orders were issued we have done that, without any mercy, we have neither considered the amicability, nor the redemption, not the friendship. Now we are continuing the attack from our position in our party, and which requires from me not to retire as a former president and to claim that I am continuing my national message. I know why Saudi Arabia was driven to pay three billion dollars as a donation for the Lebanese army to my charge, rather than like the traditional way of donations, it is because of my attitude in this party and the tasks which I have to accomplish, as well as the demand from Vatican to arrange a reception ceremony to give me a mark of traditional distinction, which the ambassadors of Vatican are usually giving with a memorial photo, because the required is making a Christian aura which I did not succeed in achieving it during my presidency, because what I have adopted of as allies and what I had as attitudes, were a reason of the arrival of ISIL and Al –Nosrah in the name of (( The announcement of Babda )) which practically aims to make Lebanon a basis for the support of what it called as the rebels of the Syrian people. I have explained the significant relations according to myself, while (( The announcement of Babda )) is what the American Vice President John Biden described during one of the contributions of my allies Saudi Arabia, and Turkey on the war against Syria, that it was the reason for the growth of terrorism, which carries a knife of immigration against the Christians.
Suleiman can say anything but he cannot put his eyes into other’s eyes, moreover, he can have the election of those who stand behind him for the vacancy of the President of the Council of the wise men in the world, but he cannot get the conviction of his people that he was wise in managing the country’s affairs.
The history will witness that the responsibility is the politician’s opportunity to obtain the respect of whom he could not get their confidence, to obtain the confidence of whom he could not get their conviction, and to obtain the conviction of whom he could not get their satisfaction. The unsuccessful politician is the one who has left the responsibility, and has lost the conviction, confidence, and the respect of all, thus he left with a current satisfaction which its source is the young and old beneficiaries.
2014-11-13 | عدد القراءات 1522
