Grandstanding Has Consequences

[MrConservative 0]

Last week, a congressional committee passed a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide. There is no doubt that up to a million Armenians died during World War I, although historians still debate whether their deaths constitute deliberate genocide or are collateral casualties of war.

House Democrats brought the resolution to a vote despite entreaties from the White House to postpone it. For Congress, though, the resolution was less about rectifying history than grandstanding. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos (D., Cal.) called a vote. It passed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) pooh-poohed the episode. This was not about Turkey, she explained, but rather "about the Ottoman Empire." Unclear, though, is why congressional Democrats felt the urgent need to condemn an entity that hasn't existed for 85 years.

Unfortunately, grandstanding has consequences. Turkey recalled its ambassador; and now the State Department finds itself now devoid of leverage to prevent a Turkish incursion into Iraq to fight Kurdish terrorists. Pelosi's posturing has put U.S. use of the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey to supply our forces both in Afghanistan and Iraq in jeopardy.

If only the Armenian Genocide resolution was an isolated event. It's amateur hour in Congress. The efforts of Sen. Joseph Biden (D., Del.) to divide Iraq on ethnic and religious grounds threaten to spark civil war just as U.S. servicemen make inroads in preventing it. Biden's motivation may be to garner media attention. He has succeeded. The problem, though, his statements get more airtime in Iran and Iraq, where revolutionary mullahs use his pronouncements to convince Iraqis that U.S. forces seek to destroy Iraq rather than rebuild it.

The list goes on. In May 2006, Rep. Jack Murtha (D., Pa.) said that U.S. Marines executed Iraqis "in cold blood." Overnight, his clip became an Al-Jazeera favorite. Islamist terrorists used Murtha's words to justify their murder of Americans. Now, a court martial has dismissed murder charges against the servicemen Murtha accused; Murtha has yet to apologize.

Other congressmen see intelligence briefings as an ala carte menu for chest-thumbing leaks than part of confidential oversight duties. Every leak splashed across a New York Times undercuts the war on terror.

Junkets also have a cost. Basking in the glow of Pelosi's headline-garnering visit to Damascus — again in contravention of a State Department request — Syrian leader Bashar al-Asad upgraded his support for Hezbollah and his nuclear dealings with North Korea.

The resolution, while important to the Armenian-American community — perhaps less so to Armenians living in Armenia who worry much more about economic development — also raises a host of questions about how Congress picks and chooses which atrocities to weigh in on. While Condoleezza Rice seeks to bring Beijing on board with Iran sanctions — a Herculean if not impossible task — will the House Foreign Affairs Committee condemn Beijing for the millions who perished during the Cultural Revolution? Their murders — politically motivated and, as far as the historical record is concerned, far more deliberate and coordinated — also occurred much more recently. Perhaps the House Foreign Affairs Committee will also act to bring Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Masud Barzani to justice for ordering the disappearance and summary executions of perhaps 3,000 Kurds during the 1994-1997 Kurdish civil war. This is not to suggest that such cases should not be pursued. But, the House Foreign Affairs Committee is not the place to pursue such historical investigations; universities are.

In an election season, Pelosi, Biden, and Murtha, may have no greater goal than to garner headlines, but U.S. servicemen fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do. Countering proliferation and fighting terrorism will dominate diplomacy regardless of who next occupies the White House. There's no time for amateur hour. As U.S. troops continue to sacrifice to defend U.S. national security, it is unfortunate that headline seeking congressmen seek to make their job that much harder.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTMzZ...MWM2MmQzNDZlMTU=

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why did they decide to pass this resolution now...at this time? I'm confused.

[Caladan 19]

Why did they decide to pass this resolution now...at this time? I'm confused.

Easy enough. Send a message to Turkey is thinking of intervening in Iraq. (Of course, they'd be largely enemies of the Kurds (cheer!) who are allying with Iran (boo!) so it's not clear whether they are the bad guys or not. I swear, if we entered this now, we'd be on both sides of the conflict.)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why did they decide to pass this resolution now...at this time? I'm confused.

Easy enough. Send a message to Turkey is thinking of intervening in Iraq. (Of course, they'd be largely enemies of the Kurds (cheer!) who are allying with Iran (boo!) so it's not clear whether they are the bad guys or not. I swear, if we entered this now, we'd be on both sides of the conflict.)

Hmmm...interesting. I thought it might have something to do with Iraq. Congress then seems to know what they are doing and the consequences it entails.

[HAL 9000 96]

Schrewd politics, no more.

With a presidential veto at every doorstep in any law requiring the will of the absolute majority of Americans be respected with relation to ending the God-awful Iraq war, Democrats have decided to play a little harder at pushing Bush into a tighter corner than he already pulled himself into.

Was it the right move? Maybe. Maybe not.

Now, if the carnage refers to genocide performed by the Ottomans then the modern nation known as Turkey should not take too much offense since the Ottomans were part of the Axis powers in WWI and last time I checked, Turkey is presently a US Ally, and hence, opposed to Ottoman principles and practices.

This is just a case of everyone trying to flex a little muscle.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

While we're fighting the grand war on terrorism taking the fight to them so they don't bring it here (as some would have us believe), we're trying to tell our ally Turkey that they'll just have to endure the terrorists that are rocking their country. How dare they think about adopting Bush's strategery of taking the fight to the terrorists. Especially when those terrorists hide among those that are sold to us as the only good news thus far in Iraq. Nice clusterfcuk, Mr. Bush. Nice clusterfcuk indeed.

[almaty 19]

i agree brother rein hard..the Kurds have a history of violating Turkish borders and causing problems...and turkey, has had it..they want the same right as America and Israel..and go kick some azz

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

so this must be the new direction the dems promised us. onward to pissing off more countries.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so this must be the new direction the dems promised us. onward to pissing off more countries.

Some would call it...strategerie.

[Jasman0717 9]

Politics gives me a headache

[MrConservative 0]

Why did they decide to pass this resolution now...at this time? I'm confused.

Here is one opinion as to why she is doing it now.

Pelosi's Most Dangerous Ployby Jed Babbin

Posted: 10/15/2007Congressional Democrats anxious to force a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq are frustrated by their inability to muster a veto-proof majority for legislation that would establish a firm date for retreat. But what they cannot do directly they are now working hard to do indirectly. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey is the transshipment point for about 70% of all air cargo (including 33% of the fuel) going to supply US forces in Iraq. Included are about 95% of the new "MRAP" -- mine-resistant, ambush-protected -- vehicles designed to save the lives of American troops. Turkey wasn't always this helpful. In 2003, the Turks refused permission for the 4th Infantry Division to enter Iraq through Turkey.

Turkey's Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of Representatives takes action on a non-binding resolution being pushed by Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a waypoint for Iraq supplies.

At issue is the non-binding resolution passed on October 10 by the House Foreign Affairs Committee that labels the 1915-1923 massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire a genocide. Such resolutions can be passed by either or both houses of Congress and are not subject to presidential veto.

On October 11, Pelosi said, "While that may have been a long time ago, genocide is taking place now in Darfur, it did within recent memory in Rwanda, so as long as there is genocide there is need to speak out against it."

But the resolution is gratuitous and Democrats' timing suspicious. It's gratuitous because, in 1981, President Reagan referred to the Armenian massacre as genocide in a proclamation commemorating the Nazi Holocaust.

Why, if Pelosi is so committed to ending genocide, aren't she and Senate Democrat leaders doing something about the ongoing genocide in Darfur or the massacres of protesters in Burma?

Speaker Pelosi said, "This isn't about the Erdogan government. This is about the Ottoman Empire." Baloney.

The Democrat leadership could write and pass legislation insisting the UN intervene to save the living instead of using the memory of the dead to score political points. In neither case should we intervene militarily. But the lack of concern for ongoing mass murder proves the Democrats' only purpose is to enrage the Turkish government and end their cooperation on Iraq.

The timing couldn't be worse. Not only are we dependent on Turkey for our principal supply line into Iraq, we are in on the verge of a crisis with Turkey, trying to convince the Erdogan government to continue to refrain from attacking the PKK -- Kurdish terrorist forces -- that have been raiding into southeastern Turkey for years.

While the president and Secretary of State Rice appeal for restraint, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has called upon the Turkish parliament to declare a mobilization against the PKK terrorists.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) told me, "We are a nation at war, and our first concern must always be the brave men and women of our armed forces, who I believe are done a great disservice by this symbolic House vote. This is just one more example of Democrats in the House being either oblivious or indifferent to the welfare of American forces serving in harm's way."

After the House committee vote, Turkish Ambassador to the United States Nabi Sensoy was recalled to Ankara for consultations. In diplomatic terms, the recall of an ambassador is a very serious matter, indicating a near-break in relations between the nations involved.

Amb. Sensoy spoke to me and HUMAN EVENTS chief political correspondent John Gizzi as he prepared to leave for Ankara.

Sensoy said he spoke to Speaker Pelosi and that she had made it very clear that she would bring the resolution up for a vote on the House floor next month.

The ambassador referred to the widespread agenda of interests that Turkey and the US share, from the Balkans throughout the Middle East and the Caucasus. He said it was a wonderful working relationship, proving effective against terrorism.

Sensoy said the memories of the events surrounding the massacre of Armenians are very fresh in the minds of his countrymen, many of whom lost relatives in the carnage. He said, "…we are very sorry for what happened. And we mourn the loss of life. But nobody is talking about the hundreds of thousands of people who perished at the hands of the Armenians in that period."

He added, "The sentiments of the Turkish people are totally disregarded in this whole affair. And it is being presented that all of a sudden the Turkish nation, after one thousand years of togetherness with the Armenians went simply berserk and started killing the Armenians. The real truth is that the population living in the east of the Ottoman Empire at the time sided with the invading Russian army and they attacked the Turkish population."

Turkey is our most under-appreciated ally. Its eighth president, Turgut Ozal, was a great friend of America, once referring to his nation as, "little America." When Ozal died suddenly in 1993, neither President Clinton nor Vice President Gore went to the funeral, an insult the Turks remember. Europe has been even less appreciative. Turkey has practically begged to become a member of the European Union, but its applications to what some Turks call the "Christian club" have been stalled again and again because of European criticism of its human rights record.

There is a deep-seated cultural sensitivity among the Turkish people and their government on the issue of the Armenian massacre nine decades ago. Amb. Sensoy may have been thinking about the far-reaching effects – including on Turkey's application for EU membership -- of the House genocide resolution when he told us, "No nation would like to be labeled with that greatest of human rights violations."

House Republican leaders are very concerned about the effects the Democrats' resolution could have. House Minority Leader John Boehner told me, "If the Turks cut off our ability to use Incirlik, there's no question that this could jeopardize our troops on the ground in Iraq. And frankly, if this is just the latest in the Democrats' string of back-door attempts to force a retreat from the war against al Qaeda, it's certainly the most dangerous."

Speaker Pelosi is apparently so intent on forcing an end to American involvement in Iraq that she is willing to interfere in our tenuous friendship with Turkey. When she does, it will be an historic event: the House of Representatives will be responsible for alienating a key ally in time of war and possibly interdicting supplies to US troops.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22840

[JODO 2]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

[MrConservative 0]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Then why should the Turks take issue?

[MrConservative 0]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Then why should the Turks take issue?

Same people, different government.