Not So Clear, Eh?

5390_mb_file_7f1bb "Over the past several months, Brammertz quietly jettisoned many of Mehlis’s conclusions and began entertaining other investigative leads, examining a variety of possible motives and a number of potential perpetrators in recognition of the animosities Hariri had engendered among business competitors, religious extremists – and political enemies.

Hariri Brammertz said “the probe was … developing a working hypothesis regarding those who had commissioned the crime,” according to a U.N. statement, which was released after Brammertz briefed the Security Council on June 14. “Given the many different positions occupied by Mr. Hariri, and his wide range of public and private-sector activities, the [U.N.] commission was investigating a number of different motives, including political motivations, personal vendettas, financial circumstances and extremist ideologies, or any combination of those motivations,”"  Parry


My immediate reaction on the 14th of February, 2005 was that the Syrian government must have had something to do with this crime.  I was on the air with Wolf Blitzer and Judith Yaphe when this story "broke."  Both she and I had the same reaction.  My reason was simple.  I didn’t thing this could be "pulled off" in Beirut under virtual Syrian occupation without their foreknowledge.

Now I have doubts.  As Brammertz has discovered Rafik Hariri had so many enemies of all kinds and capabilities that there are a nearly infinite set of possibilities as to who "got" him."

Pat Lang

This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Not So Clear, Eh?

  1. Charlie Green says:

    Col Lang said:
    My immediate reaction on the 14th of February, 2005 was that the Syrian government must have had something to do with this crime.
    My immediate reaction was that Mossad had pulled off a good one. What did Hariri have to gain from this? Nothing. But who did have something to gain? Isreal and the WH. Follow the money (or influence).

  2. W. Patrick Lang says:

    He was in the bag for the WH and the Jacobins.
    They were re-cycling him to be the “right” PM after the election that was coming. His new found status as a “reform” guy was part of the re-cycling. pl

  3. ckrantz says:

    There was alot of talk how the car bomb may have been partly intended to cover up a corruption and bank fraud scandal a while back if I remeber correctly. Hundreds of millions of dollars was supposed to have been siphoned of to top Syrian and Lebanese officials from the Bank al-Madina all of which Hariri intended to blow the lid of in an attack on the syrian-lebanse establisment. Rustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military intelligence in Beirut was one of the main people involved I belive. Corruption and greed always seem more likely as a motive for the car bomb.

  4. b says:

    Hariri made a lot of money in Lebanon. He and his folks did buy half of Beirut when it was cheap and made the state pay His own company to rebuild their properties.
    Lebanon debt is at some 170% of GDP. Hariri made billions. For sure there are many people who didn´t like this to repeat.
    “The Company for the Development and Reconstruction of Beirut’s Central District (commonly known by its French acronym Solidère), in which Hariri is the primary shareholder, expropriated most property in the central business district of Beirut, compensating each owner with shares in the company (which, in some cases, were worth as little as 15% of the property’s value). That Hariri and his business associates profited immensely from this project was an open secret.”
    A robber baron who made too many enimies.

  5. j says:

    Col. Lang wrote: “My reason was simple. I didn’t thing this could be ‘pulled off’ in Beirut under virtual Syrian occupation without their foreknowledge.”
    My immediate – and ongoing – reaction was also simple. I didn’t think Hariri could have been assassinated without the foreknowledge of the two best intelligence agencies in the world. How else would they know “instantly” who to blame?

  6. W. Patrick Lang says:

    You give them far too much credit. pl

Comments are closed.