[ad_1]
The Information Office of the Presidency of the Republic issued the following statement: “The statement issued yesterday on the” Democratic Encounter “did not deserve an answer if it had not included a set of intentional fallacies aimed at offending a rescue step by the President of the Republic, as evidenced by the fact that the “meeting” apologized for not participating in the consultations, before they knew their purpose, they classified them as “contrary to the principles and transgression of the Taif”.
The correct opinion is that the President of the Republic would not have invited the heads of the parliamentary blocs to the consultations without their knowledge of the crisis that could result if the disagreement continued on a series of points related to the formation of the government, and then composition becomes impossible and the country falls into the forbidden. As for saying “violate the assets”, what assets does the statement of “reunion” speak of, that you should have known the assets before making the decision not to participate.
As for the talk about overcoming Taif, the representatives of the “meeting” tell us where is the text that prevents the president of the country from consulting with the parliamentary blocs when the country’s situation requires it.
The President of the Republic has always sought to protect the unity of the country and maintain political stability. And the formation of a government of salvation is one of the objectives that he pointed out through his meetings with the heads of the blocks. If the representatives of the “democratic meeting” were jealous of the supreme interest of the country, they would have participated and defined their position instead of always resorting to the use of phrases repeated by the members of the “meeting”, en masse or separately, in order to Offending the President of the Republic and his integral role that is becoming stronger day by day, and that may annoy others who did not see any positive in the presidential move, so they invented negatives that do not exist in the first place, to exclude themselves from the inevitable responsibility of the consultation, when the circumstances are as we live. In order to make the right decision.
In the end, it would have been better for the “democratic gathering” to apologize for their false accusations rather than apologize for not having come to the Baabda Palace!
Source: National Information Agency
[ad_2]
