And in Lebanon?

Lebanon's president, emboldened by a massive pro-Syria demonstration, reinstated Omar Karami as prime minister on Thursday, 10 days after the Damascus-backed leader stepped down under popular and international pressure.

Karami, who had continued to lead a caretaker government, immediately invited the opposition to join him in a national unity government. He said he will begin consultations early next week with lawmakers to form a Cabinet.

[...]

Karami's return to leadership ensures Damascus' continued dominance in Lebanon's politics.
  AP News article

Ooops. Washington's gloating was a little premature. The "popular and international pressure" turns out to be mostly that of the U.S.

"The difficulties we all know cannot be confronted without a government of national unity and salvation," he said. "We will extend our hand and wait for the other side."

But the opposition, who orchestrated the protests that led to Karami's Feb. 28 resignation, rejected the reappointment even before it became official.

The time-honored stance of U.S.-backed elitists everywhere.

And this next bit will surprise you...

The United States suggested Thursday that reinstated Lebanese Prime Minister Omar Karami might not be an effective force in restoring democracy [...]

[...]

[State Department spokesman Adam Ereli] said the government of Lebanon faced "historic challenges" in creating the conditions and putting in place the processes that met the people's aspirations "for freedom, for democracy, and for change."

He reiterated Washington's calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, and the need for upcoming elections to take place "free from intimidation, free from coercion, and that allow the Lebanese people to fully express their views and freely choose their leaders."
  Lebanon Daily Star article

Shocked, aren't you?

And while we're at it, let's have a look at "the people's aspirations", and free expression of their views.

More details have emerged on the Shi'a protest called by Hezbollah. As you can see from the page I linked to previously (the article at that link has changed), "conservative estimates" (like that published by the AP) are that 500,000 people came out in favor of the Syrian presence. Lebanese officials placed the number at 1.6 million; even though that is bound to be an overestimate, it's quite possible that 500,000 is an underestimate.

By contrast, the largest anti-Syrian protest by the "Lebanese opposition" had about 70,000 people.

To understand just how enormous the pro-Syria demonstration was, the entire population of Lebanon is about 3.8 million, a little over 40% of which is Shi'a.

George W. Bush, never a math whiz, interprets these numbers thusly (speaking at the National Defense University): "... the Lebanese people are demanding a free and independent [of Syria] nation."

His Imperial Majesty's gall, of course, does not stop there:
  More at Empire Notes post

Hizbullah's call for a huge pro-Syrian demonstration in Beirut was answered by hundreds of thousands of protesters on Tuesday. The largely Shiite crowds were huge compared to the smaller anti-Syrian demonstrations held for the past week.

The anti-Syrian protesters had mostly been Christians, with some Druze and Sunnis. But Lebanon is probably only now 20 percent Maronite Christian (the most anti-Syrian group), and may be as much as 40 percent Shiite.

The simplistic master narrative constructed by the partisans of President George W. Bush held that the January 30 elections were a huge success, and signalled a turn to democracy in the Middle East. Then the anti-Syrian demonstrations were interpreted as a yearning for democracy inspired by the Iraqi elections.

This interpretation is a gross misunderstanding of the situation in the Middle East. Bush is not pushing with any real force for democratization of Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy) or Pakistan (where the elected parliament demands in vain that General Pervez Musharraf take off his uniform if he wants to be president), or Tunisia (where Zayn Ben Ali has just won his 4th unopposed term as president), etc. Democratization is being pushed only for regimes that Bush dislikes, such as Syria or Iran.

In fact the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections were deeply flawed. 42 percent of the electorate did not show up. The elections could only be held by locking down the country for 3 days, forbidding all vehicular traffic to stop car bombings. The electorate had no idea for whom they were voting, since the candidates' names were secret until the last moment. The Sunni Arabs boycotted or were prevented from voting by the ongoing guerrilla war, which started right back up after the ban on traffic lapsed.

The Lebanese have been having often lively parliamentary election campaigns for decades. The idea that the urbane and sophisticated Beirutis had anything to learn from the Jan. 30 process in Iraq is absurd on the face of it. Elections were already scheduled in Lebanon for later this spring.

Moreover, the anti-Syrian protests were not a signal that the Lebanese wanted to be like American-occupied Iraq. They were a signal that the Druze, Maronites and a section of the Sunnis had agreed to try to push Syria out. It was the US who had invited Syria into Lebanon in 1976.
  Juan Cole post

As long as their "aspirations" coincide with our intentions, that's all that matters.

We don't negotiate with terrorists, part whatever....

The United States and France sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution last year calling for Syrian troops to leave Lebanon, and a special United Nations envoy, Terje Roed Larsen, is to press for the troop withdrawal. Officially, Mr. Larsen's mission is also to demand the disarmament of Hezbollah, but as a practical matter that objective has receded, various officials say.

"The main players are making Hezbollah a lower priority," said a diplomat who is closely tracking the negotiations. "There is a realization by France and the United States that if you tackle Hezbollah now, you array the Shiites against you. With elections coming in Lebanon, you don't want the entire Shiite community against you."

The new posture of the administration was described by its officials, who asked not to be identified because of longstanding American antipathy toward Hezbollah.

"Hezbollah has American blood on its hands," an administration official said, referring to such events as the truck bombing that killed more than 200 American marines in Beirut in 1983. "They are in the same category as Al Qaeda. The administration has an absolute aversion to admitting that Hezbollah has a role to play in Lebanon, but that is the path we're going down."

Only a few weeks ago, the United States was tangling with France over Hezbollah's status, as France blocked an effort by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to have Europe formally label Hezbollah a terrorist group, restricting its fund-raising.

Now the United States has basically accepted the French view, echoed by others in Europe, that with Hezbollah emerging as such a force in very fractured Lebanon, it is dangerous to antagonize it right now and wiser to encourage the party to run candidates in Lebanese elections.

[...]

Many European officials and Arab diplomats say there has been a backlash in the region against the recent American attacks on Syria and demands for a Syrian troop withdrawal, particularly the administration's claim that anti-Syrian protests in Lebanon vindicate Mr. Bush's call for democracy in the Middle East.

"Why don't they realize that once America makes a case for something, the Middle East will go in the opposite direction?" said an Arab diplomat, asking not to be identified as criticizing the administration. "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but now its hand is strengthened because of American opposition."

[...]

Under the 1990 accords that ended Lebanon's civil war, the country's many militias disarmed, but Hezbollah has remained, gaining nationwide respect because it was widely credited with forcing Israel's subsequent withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

On Tuesday, Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, played that card at the Beirut rally, declaring that to force Syrian troops out would be to do the bidding of the United States and Israel.

[...]

The emerging position of Washington on Hezbollah has put it in an unaccustomed position of being at odds with Israel and its supporters, especially those who say Hezbollah is the single biggest threat to the fragile peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
  New York Times article

The cauldron just boils hotter and hotter every day, doesn't it?