The House speaker, one of four Congressional leaders to appear on the Sunday talk shows, repeated her vow to move the genocide question to the full House for debate now that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has passed it.
But when George Stephanopoulos asked the key question – how would she react if Mr. Bush or Defense Secretary Robert Gates called her to say that they were “just certain that this is going to put our military at risk” – she replied: “The president hasn’t called me on it, so that’s hypothetical. He hasn’t called me on it.”
Since the committee vote Wednesday, Turkey, a crucial transit point for U.S. military shipments to Iraq, has issued nearly daily warnings that its cooperation may be at risk – a point underscored Sunday by that country’s top general.
The issue is nettlesome for both the administration and Democratic lawmakers, exposing the former to charges of seeming apathetic about Ottoman-era atrocities, and the latter to charges of being indifferent to American troops in Iraq.
Republicans said Sunday that while the Armenians’ deaths were a deeply deplorable part of history, the safety of American troops had to be paramount. “I don’t think the Congress passing this resolution is a good idea at any point,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, on ABC’s “This Week,” “but particularly not a good idea when Turkey is cooperating with us in many ways, which assures greater security for our soldiers.”
It is unclear whether the administration, which has already pulled out the big guns on the topic – with letters and public pleas from both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and a presidential comment shortly before the vote – might still change Mrs. Pelosi’s mind. But she made the point twice Sunday that she had yet to hear personally from Mr. Bush.
“We’ve never had a conversation about it,” she said. “I’ve heard from the secretary of state and others in the administration, but I’ve never heard from the president.”
Mrs. Pelosi also cautioned the administration about any thought of armed action inside Iran over U.S. complaints that anti-American militants in Iraq are getting help from Iran. Any U.S. action, she said, should take place inside Iraq, and if Mr. Bush does wants to take action in Iran, he will need a congressional authorization. “That’s what I believe,” she said.
Mrs. Pelosi did not dispute that votes may be lacking to override President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. Democrats say the bill is vital to protecting low-income children’s health, but Mr. Bush and other Republicans say it reaches too far into the middle class, with too high a bill.
A vote is set for this week, but Mr. Stephanopoulos told the speaker that “your counterparts on the Republican side up here in the House guarantee – guarantee – that you’re not going to override his veto.”
She replied: “And isn’t that sad for America’s children?”
“We’ll try very hard to override it,” she said. “But one thing’s for sure: We won’t rest until those 10 million children have health care.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos probed to see whether there was any room for compromise, the speaker said that the bill already reflected compromise; she would yield no further on coverage of the 10 million – which she said, again, would cost no more than 40 days’ worth of military operations in Iraq.
But Mr. McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said that a compromise was a must. “There will have to be a deal,” he said on ABC. “We’re not going to leave children — uninsured children uncovered.” Separately, Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader, agreed.
But just as with the genocide resolution, Mrs. Pelosi indicated that a phone call from the president might help move things: “We’ll talk to the president at the right time, when he makes an overture to do so, but not an overture that says, ‘This is the only thing I’m going to sign.’ ” she said.
Mr. McConnell suggested that Democrats were playing politics with a drawn-out, high-stakes override attempt that in the end would amount to “a pebble in the ocean.” Mr. Boehner concurred. “This bill was designed not to pass,” he said on Fox News Sunday.
Mrs. Pelosi rejected the charge.
Meantime, after some stunningly candid comments by the former U.S. top commander in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez — who last week called the war “a living nightmare with no end in sight” — one pro-war lawmaker did not hold his fire.
Senator John McCain, no wallflower in his support for the war, said that he had in the past heard the general advocate the very strategy he now criticizes.
But what, Bob Schieffer asked, is a general to do? “We don’t want generals making policy. That’s for the civilian leadership. But should they resign? Should they be willing to speak out?” (Much the same question has absorbed officers at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, “the intellectual center of the United States Army,” as Elisabeth Bumiller reported today.
Mr. McCain, son of an admiral, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, and a Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam, said the answer was simple: First, they should always give honest responses when asked their opinion.
And second, “If you think the country is going in the wrong direction and it’s going to cost the needless loss of young Americans’ lives then, of course, you should stand up and you should leave your position. And I know that’s a very tough decision for people to make.”
Democrats press on with genocide bill despite Turkish fury
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Top US Democrats
Sunday brushed off Turkish fury and
vowed to press ahead with an Armenian
"genocide" bill, insisting that
bloodshed today demanded a righting of
past wrongs. But Republicans accused the party
in control of Congress of waging an
"irresponsible" campaign of dubious
historical validity that would hurt US
troops in Iraq. House of Representatives Speaker
Nancy Pelosi said possible reprisals
affecting Turkey's cooperation with
the US military were "hypothetical"
and would not derail the resolution. "I said if it passed the committee
that we would bring it to the floor,"
she said on ABC television after the
House foreign affairs committee last
week branded the Ottoman Empire's
World War I massacre of Armenians a
genocide. "Genocide still exists, and we saw
it in Rwanda; we see it now in
Darfur," Pelosi said. "Some of the things that are
harmful to our troops relate to values
-- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture.
All of those issues (are) about who we
are as a country," she added. According to Armenians, at least
1.5 million Armenians were killed from
1915 to 1917 under an Ottoman Empire
campaign of deportation and murder.
Turkey bitterly disputes the number of
dead and the characterization of
"genocide." The bill is likely to come up in
the full House in November. Although
the resolution is only symbolic,
Turkey recalled its ambassador to
Washington last week and has called
off visits to the United States by at
least two of its officials. The angry reaction has fueled fears
within the US administration that it
could lose access to a military base
in NATO ally Turkey that provides a
crucial staging ground for US supplies
headed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Two top US officials, one each from
the state and defense departments, are
now in Turkey to try to cool the
diplomatic row. "We are certainly working to try to
minimize any concrete steps the
government might take (such as)
restricting the movement of our
troops," US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said Saturday in
Moscow. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert
Gates lobbied hard against the
genocide resolution, and the
administration says it will keep up
its effort to forestall a vote in the
full House of Representatives. US-Turkish military ties "will
never be the same again" if the House
confirms the committee vote, Turkey's
military chief General Yasar Buyukanit
told the daily Milliyet on Sunday. House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer
said that he had repeatedly raised the
Armenia killings with Turkish
political and military leaders during
his 26 years in Congress. "Never once in that quarter of a
century has anybody on the Turkish
government said this is the right
time. In other words, there would
never be a right time," he said on Fox
News Sunday. "If we forget what has happened...
then we are at risk of letting it
happen again." House Republican leader John
Boehner said there was no doubt that
the Armenian people's suffering in the
dying days of the Ottoman Empire was
"extreme." "But what happened 90 years ago
ought to be a subject for historians
to sort out, not politicians here in
Washington," he said. "And I think bringing this bill to
the floor may be the most
irresponsible thing I've seen this new
Congress do this year," Boehner said,
calling Turkey "a very important ally
in our war against the terrorists." Senate Republican leader Mitch
McConnell said there was "no question"
that Armenians had been slaughtered en
masse. "But I don't think the Congress
passing this resolution is a good idea
at any point. But particularly not a
good idea when Turkey is cooperating
with us in many ways, which ensures
greater safety for our soldiers," he
said. Bush said congressional Democrats
are wasting time with proposed legislation calling the
actions of Ottoman Turks against Armenians during World
War I "genocide." "With all these pressing responsibilities, one
thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the
historical record of the Ottoman Empire," Bush said.
"The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians
beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. ... "Congress has more important work to do than
antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world,
especially one that's providing vital support for our
military every day," Bush said. U.S.-Turkey relations were strained further
Wednesday as the Turkish parliament overwhelmingly
approved military action against Kurdish separatists
based in Iraq. Turkey has massed 60,000 troops along its
border with Iraq. Bush said the U.S. is asking the Turkish
government for restraint. "We are making it very clear to Turkey that we
don't think it is in their interests to send troops into
Iraq," he said while acknowledging that some Turkish
troops have crossed the border
Once
again Ms. Pelosi and fellow
Democrats are trying to
undermine our troops in Iraq
by supporting a resolution
condemning Turkey for
something that happened nearly
100 years ago and was
perpetrated by the Ottoman
Turks. Pelosi said that they
have been trying to pass this
resolution for the 20 years
she has been in congress.
Great timing, Nancy.
Does it matter that 70
percent of our air cargo going
to Iraq goes through Turkey?
Does it matter that the U.S.
bases that are vital to the
war effort for supplying our
troops are in Turkey? Does it
matter that Turkey is an
Islamic country which has a
secular government which can
be pushed into the Islamic
camp? Our relationship with this
vital ally is definitely in
jeopardy by this deceitful
move. This effort to undermine
our troops borders on the
treasonous. I urge everyone to
write their congressmen in
protest. Turkey is
one of the few
secular and
moderate Islamic
nations.
Strategically
located, it
borders Iraq and
Iran. But the
interest group
Ms. Pelosi seeks
to please are
politically
active Armenians
found in
substantial
numbers in her
home state of
California.
Turkey is
not a nation to
be embarassing
based on events
that occurred
more than 90
years ago. In
the U.S., we
forget that
pride and shame
are powerful
emotions in
other parts of
the world. Ms.
Pelosi and those
who support the
resolution may
think it is
politics as
usual, but such
an act is a slap
in the face to
many Turkish
citizens. And
it's another
reason for
radical
Islamists to
convince their
undecided
brethern that
secular
government gives
no advantage to
Turkey. Last week
Ms. Pelosi's
staff was
explaining why
she supported
the Architect of
the U.S. Capitol
after he decided
to delete
references to
God in
certificates
that accompany
flags flown over
the Capitol.
Such flags are
presented on
special
occasions such
as retirements.
Ms.
Pelosi's support
for the
resolution and
the decision of
the Capitol
Architect are
symptoms of the
same condition.
She is
championing
issues that seek
to change the
status quo when
changing it only
matters to a
narrow group,
e.g. Armenians
or those who
find the mention
of God
objectionable.
The Speaker is
building a track
record that
others will use
as a club. Her
actions give the
impression that
she and her
supporters
believe they can
rely on the
President's
unpopularity to
drag down her
opposition.
That's a big
gamble when
you're doing
unwise things of
your own.
—Steven O'Hern,
Reader Advisory
Panel
The loss
of
support
is a
major
setback
to House
Speaker
Nancy
Pelosi
and
other
Democratic
leaders
on
Capitol
Hill,
who have
fiercely
defended
the
resolution
to
Republicans
and the
Bush
administration
as a
moral
imperative
in
condemning
the
World
War
I-era
killings
of up to
1.5
million
Armenians
by
Ottoman
Turks.
President
Bush
called
Pelosi
on
Tuesday
to ask
her not
to call
for a
House
vote on
the
resolution.
"The
president
and the
speaker
exchanged
candid
views on
the
subject
and the
speaker
explained
the
strong
bipartisan
support
in the
House
for the
resolution,"
Pelosi
spokesman
Nadeam
Elshami
said,
noting
that
Bush
initiated
the
phone
call.
House
Majority
Leader
Steny
Hoyer,
D-Md.,
told
reporters
Tuesday
that the
plan
remained
to vote
on the
measure
before
Congress
adjourns
by the
end of
the
year.
But, he
added,
"there
are a
number
of
people
who are
revisiting
their
own
positions
and
we'll
have to
determine
where
everyone
is," he
said.
The most
notable
Democratic
challenge
mounted
this
week
came
from
Rep.
John
Murtha,
an
anti-war
ally of
Pelosi,
D-Calif.,
and
chairman
of the
House
Defense
Appropriations
Subcommittee.
Murtha
fought
against
a
similar
measure
20 years
ago.
"From my
discussions
with our
military
commanders
and
foreign
policy
experts,
I
believe
that
this
resolution
could
harm our
relations
with
Turkey
and
therefore
our
strategic
interests
in the
region,"
Murtha,
D-Pa.,
said in
an
e-mailed
statement
on
Tuesday.
Also
this
week, at
least
six
Democrats
withdrew
their
sponsorship
of the
bill and
two
other
Democrats,
Reps.
Alcee
Hastings
of
Florida
and John
Tanner
of
Tennessee,
asked
Pelosi
to forgo
the
vote.
Hastings,
who has
voted
against
combat
funding
for
Iraq,
and
Tanner,
a member
of a
conservative
Democratic
coalition
known as
the Blue
Dogs,
said
they
feared
backlash
from
Turkey
would
cut off
U.S.
access
to a
critical
air
base.
"More
than
half of
the
cargo
flown
into
Iraq and
Afghanistan
comes
through
Incirlik
Air Base
and this
base
would be
a key
component
of any
plans
for
redeployment
of our
troops
in the
future,"
the
lawmakers
wrote.
Rep. Ike
Skelton,
D-Mo.,
chairman
of the
House
Armed
Services
Committee,
and Rep.
Solomon
Ortiz,
D-Tex.,
sent
Pelosi a
similar
letter
last
week. In
response
to last
week's
approval
of the
resolution
by the
House
Foreign
Affairs
Committee,
Turkey
recalled
its
ambassador
in
Washington
back to
Ankara
for
consultations
and
asked
the Bush
administration
to stop
the
resolution
from
passing
in a
final
floor
vote.
Turkey
denies
the
deaths
constituted
genocide,
saying
that the
toll has
been
inflated
and that
those
killed
were
victims
of civil
war and
unrest. At
the
Pentagon,
Lt. Gen.
Carter
Ham,
operations
chief
for the
Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff,
was
asked
whether
the U.S.
military
was
considering
providing
assistance
to
Turkey
in the
event
that it
went
after
the
rebel
Kurdistan
Workers'
Party,
or PKK,
in
northern
Iraq.
"It
would be
inappropriate
for me
from
this
standpoint
to say
we are
ruling
out or
ruling
in
specific
military
options,"
Ham
said,
adding
that
Gen.
David
Petraeus,
the top
U.S.
commander
in Iraq,
and
other
commanders
are
watching
the
situation
closely. "I
don't
know
specifically
what
they are
planning
to do if
this
matter
continues
to
evolve,"
Ham
said. He
also
said
that
because
there is
only one
principal
overland
route
from
Turkey
into
northern
Iraq for
transporting
military
supplies,
a
Turkish
land
offensive
southward
would
have "a
significant
effect"
on the
U.S.
military's
ability
to
resupply
its
forces
in
northern
Iraq.
Associated
Press
writers
Robert
Burns
and
Desmond
Butler
contributed
to this
report. WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US military is looking for a second route to supply troops in Iraq in case Turkey shuts its borders in reprisal for possible adoption of a resolution on genocide in Armenia, a Pentagon official said Tuesday. "There is planning going on," a Pentagon official said privately. "It's just looking at what other options are available because there are serious operational impacts" if the Turks deny passage of US military supplies bound for Iraq. The White House Monday urged Turkey to show "restraint" as Ankara moved closer to a possible incursion against Kurdish rebels sheltering in northern Iraq that could further complicate the Iraq war. Under strong public pressure for the Iraq War, the White House is concerned a Turkish incursion might upset one of the few areas in Iraq enjoying relative stability and spread to nearby countries home to ethnic Kurds. Ankara's saber rattling also comes at a time of tense US-Turkish relations over a pending vote in the House of Representatives for a resolution calling World War I mass killings of Armenians by Turkey's Ottoman Empire a genocide. Flatly refusing the term and strongly opposed to the US resolution, Turkey has threatened to withdraw its logistical support for the Iraq War if US lawmakers approve the measure. Fearing the loss of Turkey's Incirclik airbase, which provides a crucial staging ground for US supplies headed to Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has urged House speaker Nancy Pelosi not to bring the resolution to a vote. The Pentagon says loss of Turkish cooperation could cause slight increases in delivery time for supplies and "may add an increased risk of insurgent attacks on deliveries." If Turkey were to end access to its territory, "of course it will have an impact," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, "Is it insurmountable? I would tell you I have seen the United States military plans for just about every possible contingency that one can imagine," he said. "But this is an important relationship," the spokesman stressed. "This is an important logistics hub for our operations in Iraq, and it is our strong desire to maintain that relationship to be able to get the kind of support we are currently receiving from Turkey."
TURKEY
RESPONDS
10-16-07 The Deputy Chief of General Staff General Ergin Saygun said the “process” was underway and the military would not comment on outbursts by some pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) deputies or by “some other people, including some writers” against a possible Turkish cross-border operation into the northern Iraq hideouts of the separatist terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) gang. The “process” the general was referring to was the government's motion to Parliament seeking authorization to send Turkish troops on an anti-terror mission to northern Iraq. Despite earlier expectations that the government would complete writing the motion during the three-day holiday period, while we were talking with General Saygun it had became clear that the motion would be discussed at the Cabinet later yesterday evening and would perhaps be submitted to Parliament the earliest this morning. But, would the Parliament's authorization of the government indeed mean the Turkish Armed Forces would roll up their sleeves and indulge into an operation into northern Iraq immediately? According to the general it would be nothing but speculation to talk on the subject at a time when the way the authorization motion was worded, and the scope of the operation order by the government to the Armed Forces were not yet known. But, what about the timing? Could the Turkish military engage in such an operation now, as the winter has started to set in? The general said everything depended on the scope of the operation order the military would receive. He doubted, however, claims that winter would pose a serious threat to a Turkish operation on the northern Iraq bases of the separatist gang. “After we receive the order [of the government], we will make our assessments and undertake the duty given,” he said. Military will act when it is ordered to act Would Turkey strike the terrorist hideouts by fighter jets? The top general was tight-lipped. He insisted that while the military obviously was in efforts to complete contingency planning, what kind of operation would be staged, when it would be staged, how deep it would be staged and such questions would only be clear after the government issued its order to the military. The message was clear: Responsibility is with the government. It will order and the military will do what ever is required to comply with that order. Nothing less, or more. The generals were quite tight lipped on this, as well as on the Armenian genocide resolution tension in Turkish-American relations. Though in a letter to his U.S. counterpart, Chief of General Staff General Yaşar Büyükanıt had warned that military-to-military relations between Turkey and the U.S. would never be like in the good old days if the House of Representatives voted the contentious resolution, what measures could the Turkish military take? “I cannot comment on remarks of my commander,” the top general said. He, once again, underlined that it was up to the government to decide on “punitive measures” to be taken by Turkey against the Armenian genocide resolution that the Foreign Affairs Committee accepted while it could not say a word so far regarding the sufferings of the 1.5 million displaced Azerbaijanis and continued occupation of some 20 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan by Armenia. The general did not say it, but from his gestures it was apparent that the Turkish military was not only annoyed with the developments at the Congress, but considered those developments as a “hostile attitude” that did not befit an allied country's legislature. I was talking with Murat Yetkin, an old friend and colleague, and Parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Mesut Mercan from the ruling justice and Development Party (AKP). Should Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan visit the U.S. for talks with President George W. Bush as scheduled early next month? In view of the decision of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to submit the Armenian genocide bill to House vote on Nov. 16, it appeared to me that the premier going to U.S. before or immediately after the voting would be equally humiliating as already 226 representatives are sponsoring the bill and it is almost certain that it will be adopted. If he goes before the vote and meets with Bush, everyone will say despite his plea the resolution was adopted. If he travels after the vote, that would mean “business as usual despite humiliation” which the premier will have great difficulty explaining to the Turkish public. The president must postpone this trip until after some sort of normalcy might be restored in Turkish-U.S. ties. If that cannot be achieved during his tenure as premier, there is continuity in state affairs; one of his successors may make the trip. Prison Planet | July 12, 2007 Sheehan spoke to The Alex Jones Show as she prepares to embark on a two week trek towards Washington to confront Pelosi. Asked what she thought of numerous recent comments on behalf of politicians, military analysts and GOP kingpins that the Bush administration needs more terror to save a doomed foreign policy, along with recent legislation that establishes the framework for martial law in the event of an emergency, Sheehan was open to the plausibility that another false flag attack could be visited upon the American people. "I definitely think that is a distinct possibility, that there will be some kind of attack whether it's manufactured or real....I think it's really possible that these people will do that - why would he [Bush] put in that presidential directive if he didn't need to use it - I think it's really really frightening," Sheehan told The Alex Jones Show. "Does anybody think that [Bush's] recent presidential decision directive wasn't for declaring martial law and suspending elections - that's why they have to be stopped," added Sheehan. Recently liberated from the straightjacket of partisan control, Sheehan attacked the Democrats for failing to achieve what they were voted in to do last November. "The culture of corruption doesn't stop at the Republican party and people need to realize that Democrats are not our saviors," said Sheehan. Sheehan told Pelosi that if she didn't have impeachment on the table by July that she would run against her in San Francisco and the Peace Mom has now taken that course of action. "I will run against you and I will give you a run for your money," challenged Sheehan. Sheehan slammed Pelosi as a warmongering elitist who lives in a mansion on a hill and is completely out of touch with her electorate, as well as a major supporter of AIPAC, a group which has expressed its explicit support for an attack on Iran. "You can't have allegiance to two countries when you're a lawmaker in one of those countries," said Sheehan, adding that many politicians put America's best interests second behind Israel. Asked why the candidacy of Ron Paul has become so popular, Sheehan commented "People are hungry for change, people are hungry for people to tell the truth, no matter what, people are hungry for those who act out of their integrity."
DREAMS
OF THE
GREAT
EARTHCHANGES
- MAIN
INDEX
Don't Miss
Turkey
resolution borders on treason
From
Ginny Varn,
10-16-07
I understand your
position 23 Cal. My
position is just
because a few
Republicans signed on,
doesn't necessarily
make it bi-partisan.
More than a few
Democrats signed onto
the Iraq war. Was that
bi-partisan? I think
so, but you may
disagree. Anyway the
question remains, "Why
now?" What's the
point? You'd think
they would just give
up after 25 years of
this.
Posted by:
TheSentinel on Tue
Oct 16, 2007 5:36 pm
Sentinel, I do find it
detrimental to our
relation with Turkey,
but the snippets I
have noted below lead
me to believe it isn't
as partisan as you
indicate.
"In 2000, it was
pressure by the
Democratic
administration of
president Bill
Clinton, concerned
about damage to
relations with a key
political ally, which
thwarted the measure…
The same committee
passed a similar
resolution in 2005,
but the Republican
leadership stopped it
from being brought to
the full House floor
in order to spare Bush
embarrassment…
All ten members of the
Foreign Affairs
Committee from
California, Democrats
and Republicans, voted
for the resolution.
Sponsors include Rep.
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
and Rep. George
Radanovich (R-Calif.),
and the more than 220
co-sponsors include
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) and
Majority Leader Steny
Hoyer (D-Md.).
A related bill in the
Senate was sponsored
by Sen. Dick Durbin
(D-Ill.) and has 32
co-sponsors, including
Democratic
presidential
frontrunner Sen.
Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)
and Republican
presidential candidate
Sen. Sam Brownback
(R-Kan.).
Divisions over the
resolution also were
evident in a recent
decision by Rep. Jane
Harman, a California
Democrat and foreign
policy hawk, to
withdraw her support
for the bill."
It has been kicked
around for 25 years
with some support from
both parties. It came
out because committee
members of Both
parties did not
override the vote of
the Californians with
heavy Armenian
constituencies.
I don't intend to
defend Pelosi, whom I
cannot stand, but
don't think all the
blame can be laid at
her
doorstep.........or at
the doorstep of
Democrats.
Posted by: 23 Cal
on Tue Oct 16, 2007
5:09 pm
Thanks ajax. Guess I'm
pretty sensitive when
hearing about
Republicans voting
with Democrats, so
that makes a bad thing
legitimate. I'll try
to get along better in
the future.
23 Cal,
I'm aware of the
history of this
resolution. I could be
wrong, but I don't
remember any
Republican ever
bringing it up. If
this was so important,
they could have dealt
with it in 1992 or
1993 when they owned
D.C. Unfortunately, I
do find it partisan
and dangerous to our
foreign relations.
Posted by:
TheSentinel on Tue
Oct 16, 2007 3:33 pm
"Why would the Dem
leadership bring this
up now?"
"A version of it has
been introduced in
every session of
Congress for the last
25 to 30 years. Any
time it threatens to
get close to passage,
the State Department
steps up and says it
will kill our
relationship with
Turkey. "
House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
says:
For 25 years I have
been told — because I
have sponsored [this]
single resolution for
a quarter of a century
— I have been told
that this was not the
right time to pass
this.
http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/an-unwise-moment-for-the-armenian-genocide-resolution/
There is some pretty
interesting background
and links on the
subject at the above
site, and I did not
find it to be
radically partisan.
Posted by: 23 Cal
on Tue Oct 16, 2007
3:25 pm
I apologize Sentinel
if I have offended
you. My intention was
a gentle ribbing,
that's what the
smiling icon
indicated. However on
the other hand you
were the one that
pointed out that it
was the Democrats that
offered up this issue.
Also in the past you
have not missed an
opportunity to
castigate the
Democratic party. I
personally believe
both parties are
equally capable of
incredibly bad
decision making and
never miss an
opportunity to muck
things up.
Viet Nam was a
Democratic debacle and
Iraq is a purely
Republican one. In the
future I will be more
circumspect in my
attempts at humor.
Posted by: ajax
on Tue Oct 16, 2007
2:33 pm
Ms. Speaker, What
Are You Doing?
Bill
to
Condemn
Genocide
in
Jeopardy
US works on alternative to Turkey supply route to Iraq
Responsibility is with the government
How to react the ‘genocide’ hostility of the US, or when to strike the PKK are issues the government must decide on, that’s what the military is saying
Yusuf KANLI
Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law
Peace Mom warns of false flag terror as she prepares to take on sell-out Pelosi
Paul Joseph Watson 
Cindy Sheehan, the famous Peace Mom who recently expressed her intention to run against Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco, says there's a "distinct possibility" that America will be hit with another staged terror attack that will allow Bush to enact the martial law provisions he recently signed into law. 
"Over 600 soldiers have died since the Democrats took over power and many thousands of Iraqis, the blood is on their hands, they have the power to stop it and support our troops, support the people of Iraq, save America from more threats from the Bush administration and get them out of power," added the anti-war activist.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
As if there wasn't enough to debate, Adam Liptak from the New York Times reports that "for the first time in a generation, the question of whether the death penalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law and economics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment" (November 18, 2007). More than a dozen studies were conducted in a number of jurisdictions, comparing the homicide rates over a period of time. On the surface it appears that when execution rates rise, homicide rates lower. This seems to make complete sense; people have the idea of execution as a punishment fresh in their minds and therefore are in greater fear of consequences. Lawyers and economists, however, seem to disagree on the issue, not necessarily that people respond to incentives, but on the analyzation of the research.
The economists' view is based on the logic of incentives. Liptak explains the economists' point of view as such: "To many economists, then, it follows inexorably that there will be fewer murders as the likelihood of execution rises." Because the numbers in the research do reveal that homicide rates dropped when execution rates rose, the economists' stand by their point. But the lawyers' point of view is that there are too many other factors that have not been equated into analyzing the research done in jurisdictions where capital punishment applies. These factors give the lawyers reason to not believe that capital punishment deters people from homicide.
Regardless of where a lawyer or economist stands on the issue of research, what is most surprising is the lack of reliance on personal values and morals in deciding whether or not the death penalty should be used. Instead of worrying about what they believe to be the best moral actions, the economists and lawyers researching and debating this issue are basing their stances on what the research is revealing. Joanna M. Shepherd, a professor at Emory with a doctorate in economics states, “I am definitely against the death penalty on lots of different grounds, but I do believe that people respond to incentives.”
The debate between all kinds of people--lawyers, economists, students, parents, everyone--should not be "what does the research show," but rather "what does my faith/soul/values tell me is right". While this does lead to a difference in opinion, the majority opinion will rule and people can choose to accept it or leave it. American laws cannot decide the right actions to take simply because of research; cutting off a man's hand because he stole would obviously make other afraid to steal, but America does not practice this kind of punishment because it was decided to be immoral. Of course, capital punishment deters people from murdering others, but that does not mean it is right.
Protests have erupted in Pakistan, consisting of thousands of angry men and women, New York Times columnists Jane Perlez and David Rhode report (November 5, 2007). But these protesters are not from any particular party faction, nor are they the average Joe and Jane citizen. They are not trying to put someone into office or create chaos for chaos's purpose. No, these protesters are the highly-educated, well trained lawyers of Pakistan who have taken to the streets in outrage to Pakistan's President, General Pervez Musharraf, and his actions imposing emergency rule.
While some presidents would consider turning a listening ear to a massive protest by the educated of the country, General Musharraf instead reacted with a police round-up and arrest of the protesting lawyers. Those of the lawyers who were of high-acclaim were generally not jailed but put on house arrest.
There is an obvious difference of opinion between the lawyers and the President of Pakistan, but who in this situation can claim the majority interest at heart? Is General Musharraf's actions of emergency rule due to selfish motives or wise judgement? Do the lawyers have good enough reasons to protest? In order to genuinely asses the situation, "emergency rule" must first be defined.
As the articles explains, emergency rule is not martial law:
"The main points of General Musharraf’s emergency order were the suspension of the Constitution, the dissolution of the Supreme Court and the four provincial High Courts, and the silencing of privately owned television news channels."
Apparently, Musharraf thought emergency rule would be easy for the democratic-seeking citizens (lawyers greatly included) to swallow. Or perhaps he just could care less. Although Musharraf has not fully declared martial law (he has not shut down Parliament), he has taken away the freedom of speech and the right to a trustworthy judicial system from the people. It is not only not surprising but only seems correct that the lawyers of Pakistan took to the streets. Their rights have been completely stripped from them as well as their judges dismissed. Their Supreme Court has been abolished. Their livelihood is at stake if they don't follow Musharraf's dictatorial laws. And Musharraf doesn't care about their well-being nor does it seem that he cares about the well-being of the majority of Pakistan.
There is something to be said about a mob's mindset in that it is often a temporary, dramatized grouping of passion that is often in the wrong, but in this situation the mob is correct and the individual is wrong. The mob is fighting for the very rights that they are naturally endowed with and should be given under a democratic government (which no longer seems democratic). As the now-fired Supreme Court Justice said in response to Musharraf's emergency rule done under his apparent idea of democracy:
“The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe,” Mr. Bhagwandas said. “Pakistan is no exception.”
Thursday, October 18, 2007
History: It's all Politics
What caused such a great change in Pelosi? Has Pelosi simply become bored of this pledge that she so thoroughly sought after up till now? Or are there more intricate matters where the consequences of her crusade would be too great in comparison to correcting history? With further investigation, Hulse reveals that Pelosi's decision was based off of the latter. Her actions had "angered Turkey and raised fears that the Turkish government could reduce its strategic cooperation with the United States", and even President Bush (who criticized in 2000 the genocidal campaign against the Armenians) responded to Pelosi's actions negatively:
"“With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire [...] Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that is providing vital support for our military every day.”
What appears striking, however, is that Washington welcomed the Dalai Lama this past week, risking upsetting China with its "expression of support of human rights and democracy (Hulse). So the pressure put on Pelosi to reconsider her pledge could not have stemmed from a diminishing support of human rights since the America government has shown its continuing support through inviting and welcoming the Dalai Lama. So where does this passion against Congress "sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire" come from?
The answer is politics. As Bush explained, Congress has "important work to do,[...with] a democratic ally in the Muslim world." In short, don't upset the apple cart for just a little bit of history. Turkey is an important ally in the war in Iraq, America can't afford to lose their support, so forget the past and let's all move on. But this attitude does not put the correct amount of emphasis on needing an accurate account of history, something the American government has not necessarily supported before. When the President of Iran claimed there was no Holocaust, Bush quickly condemned his comments. When Japan denied using women from occupied territories as sex slaves in WWII, Congress refused to drop the matter even after angering Japanese officials. Both situations remain oviously similar to the issue with Turkey today, excepting one fact: neither Iran nor Japan was a political ally of America concerning a controversial war where America could not afford losing any of its allys.
It is easy to shrug off a situation such as this saying simply, "It's politics," but unfortunately when history is not acknowledged nor corrected it repeats itself, genocide being the worst kind of repetition. And Washington refuse to fight for the recognition of the Armenian genocide because "it's politics." Granted, considering Pelosi is the House Speaker and is deep into politics, there is a great possibility that her motives were not simply to persuade Turkey into understanding te necessity of recognizing the past. Her timing is too perfect for her actions to be so innocently motiveless. But that doesn't mean that Turkey shouldn't take action in acknowledging accurate history. Hopefully, Turkey will not have to be forced into recognizing history if given enough time to reconsider their county's past actions. Hopefully, America will not need Turkey as an ally for so long that it loses its chance to assist Turkey in acknowleding the past. Hopefully, history is understood before it repeats itself again. Hopefully...but then again, its politics.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Schwarzenegger Speaks Up on Immigration...Sort of
His elected officials and political analysis boldly state the short-term happiness:
“I think the governor signed this bill for the right reason,” said Assemblyman Charles Calderon, the Los Angeles-area Democrat who sponsored the landlord bill, “but clearly it was a tactical move on his part. This allows him to say, ‘I am not anti-immigration because I signed the Calderon bill.’ It’s great cover for him.”
While it is wonderful for Schwarzenegger and his officials, is the only reason why he signs certain bills is because he wants to have a "great cover"? While politics is largely about making the choices that please the people, it is also about making the choices that are better for the people regardless of what the passionate mob might be chanting. Schwarzenegger is trying to appease the crowd, as Archibold says, "giving a little to both sides," but the question still remains, what about the long-term affects of Schwarzenegger's approach?
At some time there will come a point where Schwarzenegger will give too much to one side and will slip up. One side or the other will claim he has not given enough and Schwarzenegger, aiming to please, will give over too much in order to make up for his mistakes. And in his effort to take on the bills in a case-by-case scenario, how can he and his officials keep track of the decisions they have made either for or against immigration? Even if they were able to keep track, how can the monitors those bills that support immigration that might contradict those which are against immigration?
Arnold Schwarzenegger has done a grand job in making sure he has established himself as for and strict against immigration. But that leaves the people, who elected him because of where he stands on issues, wondering where he stands on immigration. They cannot predict how he will "judge" a bill unless they too are monitoring how he just signed the last immigration bill that approached his desk. Schwarzenegger needs to not "play fair". His collection of "pro-immigration" bills are going to collide with his "anti-immigration" bills like medicines that don't mix, leaving California in a frenzy to clean up his citizen-pleasing mess. Schwarzenegger can pick to be for immigration or against immigration, he just needs to decided on a side.
Schwarzenegger also needs to realize that allowing illegal immigrants to rent a home is quite different from letting naturalized citizens vote or not vote right before the elections. One is naturalized and one is "illegal", and the two are very different. There was no balance in how he treated immigrants when he vetoed one bill and passed another, and in fact his allowing of illegal immigrants to move into homes without needing to show identification is more like a slap in the face to the immigrants who went through the trouble to become naturalized.
Schwarzenegger's efforts to create a balance by being a governor for both sides of the immigration battle is incredibly unbalanced. He treats illegal immigration with lazy control, and yet restrict the immigrants who are now naturalized. Sooner or later this kind of case-by-case judgement and unharmonious collaboration of decisions will come to haunt Schwarzenegger as Californian residents begin to realize the consequences of not having a governor who stands with a foot on each side of the issue. And as most often with politics, this will happen sooner rather than later.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Who is to Blame?
The released videos shed an interesting light unto this shocking situation. Gotbaum was trying to catch a connecting flight to Tucson where she would be attending an alcoholic rehabilitation center when her disorderly conduct (supposedly from alcohol she drank on her flight into Phoenix) caused security to ask the police to calm her down. Gotbaum being an average woman of average height and weight, it seemed ridiculous that three male officers were needed to restrain her. Once viewing the video, however, the three officers almost seemed too little of a number. Eligone describes the difficulty of the arrest with such phrases as "a struggle to get her arm out from beneath her torso to cuff her behind her back...with her legs very stiff, forcing the officers to pull her along...leaning back with her legs seemingly locked." The police officers were doing their job while Gotbaum resisted passionately, making the police handle her somewhat roughly. But even so, though it was not necessarily the police's fault in how they handled her to the holding cell, what about Gotbaum's death? Was it their neglect that caused her to slip into a frenzy that resulted in her suffocation? That could be one scenario, but her husband brings about another possibility.
After being notified that his wife was being arrested at Sky Harbor, Mr. Gotbaum told the operator that "She is suicidal". The operator was unable to reach the security, and it is still unclear as to whether or not security received the message before they found Gotbaum dead in the holding cell. What is clear is that when they found her, her handcuffs were up around her neck.
So what is to be made of this untimely and startling death? Did Carol Gotbaum commit suicide, driven to the edge by unreseolved issues, an embarrassing arrest, and the thought of her family discovering she had been drinking on her way to a rehabilitation clinic? And if so, are the police somewhat at fault for her drastic reaction? Could they have handled her arrest in a fashion that would not have caused her to panic and resist? And if Gotbaum did not commit suicide, then whose neglect or abuse killed the mother of three children and wife of a now widower? Her cause of death remains unclear (which could lead to the instalation of cameras in airport holding cells) and Gotbaum's death remains tragic, but with so many unanswered questions it is too soon to blame any single party. Whether suicide or murder, more investigation needs to continue. Otherwise, the death of Carol Gotbaum will create more than just one victim.
Thank you for this article, Mr. Babbin. It cannot be stated enough just has potentially explosive this situation now is. What may not be well-known is that Turkey has 140 thousand troops staged near the Iraqi border. And, if they invade, they mean business.
What makes it worse? If our soldiers are denied a supply line, they may end up as sitting ducks. And, you have to be very wary of IRAN at this point. Now, where do they fit into all of this other than having just been enabled to deal a blow to US interests because of poor politicking in Washington DC?
Source (Forbes): http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/10/04/iran-total-turkey-markets-equity-cx_ll_1004markets16.html
LONDON (Oct 4) - The stakes are high for investing in Iran, and Turkey has found out the hard way: it has failed to get financing from overseas for a $3.5 billion gas deal with the Islamic Republic, a development which points to further problems for the likes of Shell and Total.
The Turkish Energy Ministry was quoted as saying Wednesday that state-owned energy company TPAO is going it alone, once an agreement is finalized later this month, to develop several phases of the South Pars gas field in Iran for $3.5 billion.....
Of course, this makes Russia happy because if they have a controlling interest through Turkey via their energy proxy Iran, then at that point Europe will be all but beholden to them.
I have the deepest of fears that this bodes ill for our efforts here overseas. And, in light of what could potentially happen due to foolish and stupid tactics in regards to "pulling the troops out", I fear a lot of people are going to die in Iraq. And, even if people don't care about that "over there", they WILL care if this pushes the price of oil into the stratosphere.
If you believe in a Maker, I'd suggest a prayer...and, a serious reprimand to fools like Pelosi who may have just set back US efforts in this region by dozens of years.