Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Why is Congress condemning the Turks?
The other night Bill Maher mocked Democrats (Youtube video) for having condemned Turkey for the Armenian genocide of 1915, saying "that's exactly why the voters gave control to the Democrats, to send a stern message to the Ottoman Empire."
Thomas Sowell and no doubt many others know the real reason why Congressional Democrats have chosen just this moment out of many in the last 92 years to denounce Turkey:
If Congress has gone nearly a century without passing a resolution accusing the Turks of genocide, why now, in the midst of the Iraq war?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this resolution is just the latest in a series of Congressional efforts to sabotage the conduct of that war.
Read the whole thing, and dwell on the cynicism of the Congressional leadership, which is choosing to humiliate an ally now after having not done so for the fifty years following World War II when Turkey was essential to containment of and victory over the Soviet Union.
An overt vote to cut off the funding for American soldiers in Iraq is the only thing that would hurt Democrats more than the development of conditions in Iraq that might, through the eyes of even some voters, appear as victory.
32 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Oct 16, 08:24:00 AM:
"The other night Bill Mahar-"
It's "Maher". Jeez, misspelling the name of one of the great voices of our generation? A man who puts his reputation on the line every day as he speaks Truth to Power? A man with clear, unbiased principles speaking with the objective voice of reason? A man who-
Actually, I've never watched his show. I'm just going by what I read.
What's intriguing (if not downright disgusting) about the story is the lack of air play it's received in the right-wing blogosphere. Michelle hasn't mentioned it, Ed Morrissey hasn't mentioned it, nor PowerLine, RedState, Instapundit, etc, etc. You'd think Michelle would be on this like flies on dogshit.
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue Oct 16, 09:13:00 AM:
Phony Soldiers?
WaPo: "Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out."
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Oct 16, 09:18:00 AM:
By Frederick, at
Tue Oct 16, 09:34:00 AM:
You're over looking the dual purpose of this maneuver...apparently there is a large population of wealthy Armenians in Pelosi's district...and she's going to be facing a (if not multiple) primary challenge because of her unwillingness to carry out the will of the vast Majority of Americans that wish to see Bush jailed and our troops brought home.
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 09:35:00 AM:
The biggest lie is that Turkey is an ally to the US. Balogna! Name a single contribution that Turkey has provided to the US in the last 50 years. There are none. The US has been blackballed by this "ally" long enough, and US soldiers have died because of Turkey's actions.
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 10:12:00 AM:
Ally? Where was our "ally" at the start of the Iraq War when they refused to allow the U.S. onto its soil? Heck, we couldn't even buy our way into that um, friendship. Do you think the 140,000 Turkish soldiers amassed on the Iraqi border are coming to fight alongside their "ally?"
With friends like that....
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Oct 16, 11:08:00 AM:
Name a single contribution that Turkey has provided to the US in the last 50 years.
Incirlik
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 11:14:00 AM:
This issue has been brought before Congressional committees several times in the past, and most recently in 2005 (and yes, Mr. Sowell, when the Republicans were in control). Back then the vote on the resolution was 40-to-7 in favor but good 'ol boy Denny Hassert refused to bring it to a floor vote lest he embarrass the Bush administration. Not unlike many issues that never saw the light of day for the six years the Republicans spent on their knees.
By David M, at
Tue Oct 16, 11:25:00 AM:
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/16/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
By Unknown, at
Tue Oct 16, 02:27:00 PM:
There are a lot of Armenians in the San Diego area as well. They've cornered the used car market there (don't buy one unless you wanna walk).
Genocide, what genocide?
By demosophist, at
Tue Oct 16, 02:55:00 PM:
I don't know what the Democrats' motivations are, but there's been a growing movement pushing to condemn the Armenian massacre as genocide, primarily by Armenians but also by some notable Turks. Most historians know it was the first genocide of a pretty genocidal 20th Century, but the Turks have been consistently in denial about it, and what you can't acknowledge is often repeated. Anyway, it's far more important that Turkish history books are corrected to reflect what actually happened than whether the US Congress (with its intimidating moral authority) passes some non-binding resolution.
Finally, Turkey isn't an ally (to the extent that it is) because we're being nice to them. Rather, it's because the alliance is as useful to them as it is to us. If the Democrats seek to alter that equation they'll deserve every bit of condemnation we can heap on them.
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 04:25:00 PM:
I just can't imagine that Pelosi and Reid got together and decided, "Nothing else worked, so we have no choice but to provoke the Turks to invade Kurdistan!".
Sorry, this is paranoia pure and simple.
We've seen the Left insane attacks on Bush for everything under the sun. Do we now witness the Right going off the deep end also?
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 05:40:00 PM:
Candide -- you can make a good point that this is EXACTLY what it is. Pelosi, Lantos, and others who are backing this measure OPPOSED it in 1996 when Clinton was President, because it would endanger relations with Turkey.
Bad policy, worse politics. If Pelosi and Lantos opposed it then, 11 years ago, and support it now, when we need access through Northern Turkey to resupply our troops, what other motivation could there be? But to defeat our troops in the field by cutting off supplies by deliberate provocation of Turkey.
Dems bet it all on defeat in Iraq and victory would be a disaster. Therefore Dems will work to defeat our troops and nation for political advantage. They simply cannot be trusted.
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 05:51:00 PM:
I might go as far as to agree that Dems are doing absolutely nothing to help our troops to bring the peace to Iraq, but no further.
By Mystery Meat, at
Tue Oct 16, 06:42:00 PM:
The identity of the Democrat Party is inseparable with leaving Iraq. This is Bush Derangement Syndrome on steroids. Thomas Sowell is correct. The Democrats are a modern-day Copperhead party.
From Wikipedia:
"During the American Civil War (1861-1865), the Copperheads nominally favored the Union but strongly opposed the war, for which they blamed abolitionists, and they demanded immediate peace and resisted draft laws. They wanted Lincoln and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary actions... A typical editor was Edward G. Roddy, owner of the Uniontown, Pennsylvania Genius of Liberty. He was an intensely partisan Democrat who saw black people as an inferior race and Abraham Lincoln as a despot and dunce. Although he supported the war effort in 1861, he blamed abolitionists for prolonging the war and denounced the government as increasingly despotic. By 1864 he was calling for peace at any price..."A large majority [of Copperheads]," declared an Ohio editor, "can see no reason why they should be shot for the benefit of niggers and Abolitionists...Through the 1864 election, Wisconsin newspaper editor Marcus M. Pomeroy called Lincoln "fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism" and a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero... The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.""
Sound familiar?
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Oct 16, 07:31:00 PM:
Actually, it really, really does...
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Oct 16, 07:34:00 PM:
The democrats have graduated from obstructionism to outright sabotage.
By demosophist, at
Tue Oct 16, 08:36:00 PM:
The identity of the Democrat Party is inseparable with leaving Iraq. This is Bush Derangement Syndrome on steroids. Thomas Sowell is correct. The Democrats are a modern-day Copperhead party.
It's true that they're the modern equivalent of the Copperheads, but in this case the condemnation of the Armenian genocide was just the right thing done for the wrong reasons. Besides, I don't think it'll have any significant impact on US/Turkish/Israeli policy and relations because those are based on pragmatic long term considerations. Moreover, if the Turks are so thin-skinned that they take personally the condemnation of acts committed by a Turkish administration a century ago that, at the time, was being wooed and courted by the Germans, they're not a very reliable ally...
Again, Turkey needs us at least as much as we need them. And as per usual, if an Islamist Turkish administration becomes too antagonistic toward Turkey's pragmatic long term interests (including an alliance with Israel) the military will just reshuffle the deck.
It's ironic that there are Democrats making the analogous argument that the President's awarding the Freedom Medal to the Dalai Lama is antagonistic to China. The Chinese have this wierd notion in their heads that the Tibetans are an aggressive people who, if given the opportunity, would dominate China. It's total Maoist propoganda, but I had a Chinese roommate, who was a PhD candidate, who believed it. It might be traumatic for them to have their heads set on straight, but it's got to happen eventually.
Same with the Turks.
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 08:45:00 PM:
Copperhead Democrats are trying to lose this war so they can relive their glory days of helping the Viet Cong. The national media has never done a good job of reporting the 90% Republican voting record of the Vietnamese immigrants because that would lead to too many difficult questions.
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 09:25:00 PM:
From Wizbang:
So congress is going to have a full vote on the resolution passed by House Foreign Affairs Committee. As NPR said:
Before the vote, chair Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) warned fellow committee members they had a sobering choice to make.
"We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people and to condemn this historic nightmare through the use of the word 'genocide,'" Lantos said, "against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price than they are currently paying."
So the Democrats are aware they are putting Americans at risk with this vote. Copperheads.
By , at
Tue Oct 16, 09:33:00 PM:
Even if 'Copperheads' analogy rings true in many respects, let's keep in mind that the Copperheads operated openly in the public arena (mostly through newspapers it seems). What some are accusing Dems now is a real conspiracy plot.
And the only proof offered for such very serious accusation is a supposition that there is a small chance Turkey may invade Kurdistan.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Oct 16, 10:31:00 PM:
"What some are accusing Dems now is a real conspiracy plot."
Nothing beyond normal congressional politics and dealing, I think. They've tried to sabotage the effort in Iraq with legislation several times already; (arbitrary limitations on deployment time, for instance, or sabotaging military funding at large) it's not a stretch to think that they finally got one through.
By , at
Wed Oct 17, 12:10:00 AM:
There is a difference between trying to stop one war and start a second war.
If Turkish troops would indeed pour into Kurdistan, all the possible outcomes are horrendous (Btw, those troops were massing there for a long time). I don't think anybody would try to provoke that.
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Wed Oct 17, 12:21:00 AM:
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-why-is-congress-condemning-turks.html
By , at
Wed Oct 17, 12:48:00 AM:
And the armenains were christians and the turks were muslims maybe turkey owes repartations to those armenians
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Oct 17, 08:00:00 AM:
Does anyone really think that Turkey would mobilize and invade because Congress passed a resolution they didn't like? That's silly. Any decision to enter Iraq or not will be made according to regional power politics, not whether their feelings were hurt by a bunch of long-winded Americans in suits that they otherwise don't care about.
By , at
Wed Oct 17, 09:33:00 AM:
Agreed, Dawnfire
Let's not forget folks that the Turks thumbed their noses at us (and billions of our quid pro quo dollars) when they refused to let us step on their soil at the start of the Iraq war. "Ally", my dick.
By , at
Wed Oct 17, 09:53:00 AM:
From the NY Times:
"...Turkish government, which has said House passage would prompt Turkey to reconsider its ties to the United States, including logistical support for the Iraq war."
When she started promoting this measure, Pelosi was either ignorant of Turkey's logistical support, ignorant of Turkey's reaction or she was aware that this would happen. Which is it, liberal/progressives? Ignorance or a desire to aid Al Queda in Iraq?
By , at
Wed Oct 17, 10:24:00 AM:
Several people got it exactly right. The Democrats can't force a withdrawl, so they're stooping to trying to destroy our relations with Turkey, because that's our main base of operations for the Iraq campaign. Turkey has already said, if they do this, it will irreparably harm relations. The dems opposed this in the past, but are bound and determined to do it now, in the hopes that the fallout will land at Bush's feet and the Turks will demand we leave their country.
There's only one word for what Pelosi and her supporters are doing... "TREASON"!
By demosophist, at
Wed Oct 17, 07:55:00 PM:
Just don't buy the argument. I totally support the presence of our troops in Iraq, and think that the Democrats have more or less played the role they played during the Civil War... right down to the recent rant by Sanchez corresponding to similar rants delivered by George B. McClellan against Lincoln in the 1860s.
But having said that, I just don't think our recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans is likely to precipitate an invasion of Kurdistan. If it happens it'll be for other reasons, but it's hard for me to believe it'll happen.
1. First, it's pretty unlikely that Turkey would be crazy enough provoke a war with the US, which is exactly where they'd be if they invaded Kurdistan. We've got a pretty heavy intellectual, moral, and financial investment in Kurdistan. They even asked one of the Fellows at the Madison Program at Princeton to start a University there.
Moreover, they'd also be provoking a conflict with Israel... and at the moment they're fairly dependent on Israel for training personnel and materiel. It's not an alliance they'd toss over lightly.
2. Iraqi Kurdistan is poised to become a regional economic power, though not on the level of Turkey. Its in Turkey's policy interest to cultivate good relations with Kurdistan for that reason alone.
3. If Kurdish nationalism really is a threat to Turkish territory, they'd be far better off to wait until the Kurds give them a credible excuse for a war... and they're nowhere close to that at the moment.
4. Most people know the Armenian massacre was a genocide, so the fact that the US Congress finally acknowledges that is, at most, anticlimactic. You don't go to war with the greatest power in the world, and the greatest power in the region (US and Israel) for the sake of an anticlimax.
The recent mechinations along the border, and the actions of the Turkish parliament are more directed at local/internal politics, and... wait for it... may even be a deliberate deception in full coordination with the US and Israel. There are lots of reasons why it's to our and their advantage to mislead Iran.
That said, if many Dems are worried about being perceived as acting against US interests by passing this measure they may very well change their minds and votes. To my mind that'd just be more evidence of the failure of Democrats to live up to their own moral rhetoric. It'd come as no surprise at all.
I generally agree with Sowell, but no one's right all the time. And in this case, he isn't.
By , at
Mon Dec 17, 03:08:00 PM:
hey guys a turk talking about the situation some of u didnt get what we are doing Turkey known as an ally of USA its true and they are allies in some situations for example its like the real life u always get along really well with your budy or sometimes u get hurt each other Turkey have to attack the North of Iraq because there is a terrorist group called PKK like Al Queda what did bin laden do to you recognise that and PKK killed thousands of innonncents babies and the citizens such as planting bombs kidnapped bus travelers etc. we are not making this things you all can look to the archives so i think its enough that why we have to go in iraq field on the other hand we dont like bush its the main problem that we didnt give permit the USA in Iraq war there is a dilemma because iraq is an islamic country and turkey is a republic but we are muslims too why should we give permit to the usa and then watch that our brothers died in there usa killed hundreds of people only for one thing not the lie like for democracy in iraq for petrol i have a car too in Turkey we are using the most expensive petrol in our cars but if my country is going to kill innoncent people only because of my wealth i can live in poor conditionds rather than seeing death in children eyes
By , at
Mon Dec 17, 03:14:00 PM:
lastly armenian genocide is the biggest lie told if there is a genocide where is the evidences why always human beings with the rich ok armenians are rich but thats not make them to tell lies to everyone ok we force them to leave our country but because of they are burning down the houses when there is no military and help the stealers when there is no protection because of war we opened our archives ? why they arent talikng about that because we have a very big archive coming from the ottomans u guys can look to the archive of our military in our side everything is visible but in the other side they are changing tures to the false with their money
