Give Obama--and Chicago Politics...

…a little credit for the Lebanese election outcome. I realize many of you whose reading is, shall we say, circumscribed, may be unaware of just how important Hezbollah’s failure (at least so far) to take over Lebanon is in making a nuclear war less likely in the Middle East, but take my word for it. Sure they’re still a power, but–as of Sunday’s election results–they don’t rule the way they expected to: it’s a game changing psychological blow. It means, for one thing, Israel can be marginally a little less trigger happy over Iran (Hezbolllah’s sponsor) , it won’t have to feel surrounded on three sides, and though not much, that could make the difference between a nuclear war and none.

And why did Hezbollah, a murdering terrorist bunch who blew up the American Marine barracks in Lebanon in the ’80s and haven’t stopped murdering and assassinating people of all faiths since and heavily favored just a week ago to win power in Lebanon, fail?

Let’s ask that Obama-worshipping paper the Wall Street Journal why::

“A number of factors could have impacted the vote, including higher than expected turnout. Mr. Obama’s speech in Cairo last week may have made a difference. Hezbollah official were quick to dismiss the speech, but many Muslims said it struck a chord for moderation.” And the election was close so it had to be a factor.

Can’t you see: it’s Chicago politics! When to schedule the Cairo speech? Hey how about a week before Lebanon votes. Game changer in the Middle East.

I have some problems with the speech, but this is what I figured Obama would be able to do, so why not let him do it. He’s just chalked up one win for the good guys at the expense of some anodyne words you can nitpick to death, but which got results. The guy’s a player, don’t underestimate him. Or the genius of Chicago — even on the world stage.