When a people support a government that does bad things, is it all right to hold the people responsible?

It's a question much bigger than Lebanon:

The Western-backed, anti-Syrian prime minister Fuad Saniora held back tears as he vowed on Lebanese television Saturday night to curb the guerrillas, desperate to stop Israel's onslaught.

But on Sunday, President Emile Lahoud — a pro-Syrian and an ally of Hezbollah — pronounced that Lebanon "will not surrender" to Israel's attempts to batter it into submission.

Few believe Saniora could move against Hezbollah without throwing the country into further turmoil. The army he would have to send into the south has many Shiite members, who might balk at fighting their brethren in the guerrilla force. The country's large Shiite population would be outraged.

People like to talk, especially, I've found, in Europe and the Middle East, about how they hate the US government but like the American people. They say you can't hold a people responsible for what its government does. That's always struck me as odd, since we live in a democracy where the people are the government, and in the case of Bush, 50% or more of the American people, up until recently, supported the man's folly.

When the people support the government, as in this case the Shia in Lebanon likely don't want the government clamping down on Hezbollah and its missile attacks on Israel, at what point are the people responsible for the actions of their own government, and at what point should they be held responsible for those actions?

Meaning, if Hezbollah missiles are killing Israelis, and Hezbollah's actions are supported by Lebanon's Shia population, doesn't Israel have the right to retaliate against the Shia in Lebanon? At the very least against their utilities and their roads? Putting aside the wisdom geo-politically of such action, morally isn't it any country's right to strike back?

Or, if you think that the Shia in Lebanon don't share responsibility, then do you also believe that Americans who supported Bush, and who voted for him twice, and who supported the war in Iraq don't share any of the blame for the mayhem Bush has unleashed over the past six years? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

It's getting near 100F here in DC tomorrow and Tuesday. Ugh. Read the rest of this post...

Hillary is right

In case anyone misunderstood Hillary's comments quoted earlier today, the quote was taken out of context - she was defending us and attacking the do-nothing Republican Congress. More from Atrios. Read the rest of this post...

Blair to be questioned by police

About actual corruption charges. It's no wonder the Brits think he's sleazy.

The Prime Minister will be interviewed in either August or September, before the Labour Party annual conference. He will be questioned about what he knew of the allegations that millionaires were nominated for peerages in return for making massive loans to the party in the approach to the general election last year.

News that Mr Blair will be interviewed in the next nine weeks will cast a shadow over the Labour conference which starts on 28 September in Manchester and is already being dominated by talk of whether he will use it to disclose when he is standing down.

I wonder if he'll proactively use his bs anti-terror laws against another feeble old man like he did last year when an 80-something year old Labour Party member had the audacity to say "rubbish" to Jack Straw when he pitched his pro-war position at the party conference last year. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Any news other than war? Read the rest of this post...

Novak this morning

I haven't seen this yet, still sitting in a meeting at the conference, but I hear it's worth watching (meaning, Novak likely makes a fool of himself).

Video from Politics TV.

More from John at Crooks and Liars:

Novak just told Tim Russert that he misspoke in his Newsday interview about how he found out Valerie Plame's name. He attributed it to being an interviewer and not usually on the other end, but on Hannity and Colmes he blamed Newsday:

NOVAK: Well, that was a misstatement. That was an interview I did on the telephone with "Newsday" shortly after it appeared. Some of the things that they said that quoted me that are not in quotes are paraphrases, and they're incorrect, such as the whole idea that they planted this story with me. I never told that to the "Newsday" reporters.

Russert then told him that he said on MTP previously that the administration had given him Valerie Plame's name. He said he was mistaken again. Hmmm...

Read the rest of this post...

ABC/Wash Post poll: What will be the single most important issue in your vote for Congress this year?

ABC/Wash Post

Read the rest of this post...

Bush making plans to evacuate Americans from Lebanon

This is Bush's plan for Middle East peace? Run like hell? Read the rest of this post...

Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa, 8 civilians killed

I say Israel is going to be bombing Syria and Iran shortly. Read the rest of this post...

Blair's Labour out-sleazes them all

Blair must be trying to set a record of sorts, showing the public that he can sleaze as well as anyone. The polls are in and the results show what's been obvious for some time: his government is sleazy:

The YouGov poll for the right-of-centre Daily Telegraph newspaper found that 69 percent of those questioned now view centre-left Labour as "very sleazy and disreputable" compared with 63 percent who thought the same of the Tory government in 1997.

Another proud moment for Blair. How can anyone in Labour actually think it's a good thing for him to stick around? Read the rest of this post...

Late night open thread

Still at my conference. Learning a hell of a lot actually. It's a bit of a tech geek thing - well, it's a rather big tech geek thing. Giving me lots of ideas for the blog, and more. Very cool. Read the rest of this post...