The Analysts a bit confused

Comparing what two analysts were saying before the elections and after you can read some beautiful contradictions:

Up first is the notorious Michael Young:

on April 9th:

Syria will win Lebanon's elections

"Whether it is the March 14 coalition and its allies that wins, or the March 8 coalition with the Aounists, the forthcoming Parliament will be much friendlier to Syria than the current one is, representing a marked return of Damascus' hegemony over Lebanon," Young argued.

Now June 9th:

Lebanon's elections: an early inquest

"Most significantly, the election results were a setback for Syria." Young claimed.

Over to Nicholas Noe:

On May 6th Noe wrote an article entitled: The end of Lebanon's Cedar Revolution: The west must recognise that a Hezbollah victory in elections could force it into responsibility and disarmament.

In the article Noe stated "Top US officials are apparently content with focusing on the bigger picture of engaging Iran and Syria and leaving Lebanon to the rhetorical purview of staunch March 14 supporters like Jeffrey Feltman, the former ambassador to Lebanon, now assistant secretary of near east policy, who presided over March 14's spectacular rise and fall."

Now June 9th Noe declares:

The US must help Hariri: There are three fronts on which the US can help make the Cedar revolution into a genuine Lebanese revolution.

I must admit however, I was fully convinced that March 8 would win and March 14 was also dead. Unfortunately I do not have quite the platform to make a fool out of myself like Young and Noe!