The Republican Party Stretched Too Thin!

compiled by Dee Finney

9-29-07 - DREAM - My husband and I were going to a concert in a city with very large massive buildings downtown - not tall - but massive in size.

I was evening. The concert was supposed to start at 7 p.m. and it was November.

We got there early so we could get a good parking place and there were several open parking spaces - large ones - right in front of the building, but my husband said he didn't like being crowded in. He wanted to be able to just pull out quickly without jockying around with cars in front and in back of him.

So he backed up way down the street and went around a parked car on the sidewalk side and parked behind that car. He stayed back from that car far enough so another car couldn't squeeze between us and then he went to the trunk and got out an old Kirby vacuum cleaner and stood it in the space between us and the car ahead of us. That way nobody could park there.

I hated to have to walk so far to the entrance of the building, but what I saw on the way was intriguing.

I saw the name Nancy on signs misspelled three different ways and an elephant standing in a parking spot stretched out so thin between two things so that his nose was almost breaking off.

NOTE: The last day of the legislative season is November 16th, 2007


Nov. 19th, 2007 is a "drop dead date" politically and economically. The Mayan Calendar points to November 2007, as the beginning of the year of Armageddon.
He characterized Vigilant Shield, a military exercise set to take place Oct. 14 – 20, 2007 as a "false flag operation," and believes that an American city will possibly be attacked during this time, giving the Bush administration an excuse to bomb Iran.


From another dreamer

Dee and all, I dreamed about people in black tie evening clothes too. I had an apartment in Washington DC where you have to share apartments with several roommates because of the overcrowding. They have the same crowding in Israel, though, because of a new wave of Russian immigrants there, according to my "Culture Shock Israel" book. I looked out the window and saw people getting out of taxis in black tie like the theater district. A guy said it was third street. I wonder what's on third street in Washington DC and where the theater district is in real life.

Inauguration Day

From another dreamer:

Hey Guys, you are missing the point of the dream! 

THEATRE!  There is a play going on in Washington. They have a script for their own selfish purposes.  Nancy...(Pelosi---brainless idiot)  Elephant stretched thin....Republican party took the beating and became "thin" after the 8 year Bush debacle...but please understand...whatever is going on there in DC it is pre-plotted, scripted.  They knew by the actions of the Republican administration that it would become "thin" and therefore, the dark horse comes in to give us "change".  They and the bankers and the Federal Reserve laugh at the dumb American population who took the story and ran with it hook, line and sinker.  Biden of the old school political system is in, and he is next in command...think of that!





Selected November Concerts

Laserspectacular Featuring the Music of Pink Floyd: Thursday, November 2, 2006 at the Warner Theatre, 513 13th Street, NW

Lionel Richie: Friday, November 3, 2006 at DAR Constitution Hall, 18th Street, NW - between C and D Streets -

Washington National Opera - Madama Butterfly: November 4 - 19, 2006 at The Kennedy Center, 2700 F Street, NW -

James Taylor: November 6 - 7, 2006 at the Warner Theatre, 513 13th Street, NW -

Death Cab for Cutie: November 6 - 7, 2006 at DAR Constitution Hall, 18th Street, NW - between C and D Streets

Primus: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at DAR Constitution Hall, 18th Street, NW - between C and D Streets -

Van Halen
November 01, 2007
Thursday, 7:30 PM
Verizon Center-DC
Washington, DC
Keller Williams
November 04, 2007
Sunday, 7:30 PM
9:30 Club
Washington, DC
The Police
November 05, 2007
Monday, 7:00 PM
Verizon Center-DC
Washington, DC
Zappa Plays Zappa
November 07, 2007
Wednesday, 7:30 PM
Warner Theatre-DC
Washington, DC
Eartha Kitt
November 10, 2007
Saturday, 8:00 PM
Warner Theatre-DC
Washington, DC
Bruce Springsteen
November 11, 2007
Sunday, 7:00 PM
Verizon Center-DC
Washington, DC
Bright Eyes
November 11, 2007
Sunday, 8:00 PM
DAR Constitution Hall
Washington, DC
Bruce Springsteen
November 12, 2007
Monday, 7:00 PM
Verizon Center-DC
Washington, DC
Morrissey October 31, 2007 - November 02, 2007
Three Dog Night November 02, 2007
Paula Deen November 03, 2007 - November 04, 2007
Keller Williams November 04, 2007
Lyrics Born November 04, 2007
The Police November 05, 2007
Zappa Plays Zappa November 07, 2007
Enslaved November 09, 2007
Eartha Kitt November 10, 2007
Ani DiFranco November 10, 2007
Fall Out Boy November 11, 2007
Bright Eyes November 11, 2007
Bruce Springsteen November 11, 2007 - November 12, 2007
Neil Young November 15, 2007
Marc Cohn November 16, 2007
Event Location Date Asc
Disney On Ice: High School Musical 1st Mariner Arena
Baltimore, MD
November 1, 2007
Thursday 7:30 pm
Van Halen Verizon Center
Washington D.C.
November 1, 2007
Thursday 7:30 pm
Disney On Ice: High School Musical 1st Mariner Arena
Baltimore, MD
November 2, 2007
Friday 7:30 pm
Morrissey DAR Constitution Hall
Washington D.C.
November 2, 2007
Friday 8:00 pm
Disney On Ice: High School Musical 1st Mariner Arena
Baltimore, MD
November 3, 2007
Saturday 11:00 am
Disney On Ice: High School Musical 1st Mariner Arena
Baltimore, MD
November 3, 2007
Saturday 2:30 pm
Disney On Ice: High School Musical 1st Mariner Arena
Baltimore, MD
November 3, 2007
Saturday 6:30 pm
National Symphony Orchestra Kennedy Center - Concert Hall
Washington D.C.
November 3, 2007
Saturday 8:00 pm
Disney On Ice: High School Musical 1st Mariner Arena
Baltimore, MD
November 4, 2007
Sunday 12:00 pm
Keller Williams 9:30 Club
Washington D.C.
November 4, 2007
Sunday 7:30 pm
Lyrics Born Sonar
Baltimore, MD
November 4, 2007
Sunday 8:00 pm
The Police Verizon Center
Washington D.C.
November 5, 2007
Monday 7:30 pm
Motion City Soundtrack 9:30 Club
Washington D.C.
November 7, 2007
Wednesday 5:30 pm
Zappa plays Zappa Warner Theatre
Washington D.C.
November 7, 2007
Wednesday 7:30 pm
Wiggles Verizon Center
Washington D.C.
November 8, 2007
Thursday 3:00 pm
Wiggles Verizon Center
Washington D.C.
November 8, 2007
Thursday 6:30 pm
Enslaved Jaxx Nightclub
Springfield, VA
November 9, 2007
Friday 7:00 pm
The Decemberists 9:30 Club
Washington D.C.
November 9, 2007
Friday 8:00 pm
Eartha Kitt Warner Theatre
Washington D.C.
November 10, 2007
Saturday 8:00 pm
National Symphony Orchestra Kennedy Center - Concert Hall
Washington D.C.
November 10, 2007
Saturday 8:00 pm
Ani Difranco Meyerhoff Symphony Hall
Baltimore, MD
November 10, 2007
Saturday 8:00 pm
Chaka Khan Warner Theatre
Washington D.C.
November 11, 2007
Sunday 7:00 pm
Bruce Springsteen Verizon Center
Washington D.C.
November 11, 2007
Sunday 7:30 pm
Bright Eyes DAR Constitution Hall
Washington D.C.
November 11, 2007
Sunday 8:00 pm
Bruce Springsteen Verizon Center
Washington D.C.
November 12, 2007
Monday 7:30 pm
Neil Young DAR Constitution Hall
Washington D.C.
November 15, 2007
Thursday 7:00 pm
Marc Cohn Rams Head On Stage
Annapolis, MD
November 16, 2007
Friday 9:30 pm
National Symphony Orchestra Kennedy Center - Concert Hall
Washington D.C.
November 17, 2007
Saturday 8:00 pm


US House Speaker: Armenian Genocide Measure Will Go Forward

11 October 2007
Robinson report - Download (mp3) 634k audio clip
Listen to Robinson report audio clip

The speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, says a resolution approved by a House committee this week characterizing the World War I-era killings of tens of thousands of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide will go to a vote in the House. VOA's Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill, President Bush wants the resolution stopped, saying it will harm relations with Turkey and U.S. interests in the region.

Speaking a day after the 27 to 21 vote in the foreign affairs committee approving the resolution, Pelosi reaffirmed her determination to see the measure come to a vote in the House.

Some 224 House lawmakers have signed on in support of the resolution, which Pelosi and House majority leader Steny Hoyer say will be brought up at some point before the House is due to end its current session, likely next month.

Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference that congressional resolutions on Armenian genocide have been put off, with various justifications, over the past 20 years.

There is never a good time to acknowledge that genocide has taken place, Pelosi adds, whether in the distant past or the present.

"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," said Nancy Pelosi.

In the wake of the committee vote, Turkey temporarily recalled its ambassador in Washington for consultations, a traditional method of diplomatic protest.

Speaking in Washington, Egemen Bagis, a member of Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party and advisor to Turkey's Prime Minister, called the House committee vote a mistake and warned of consequences.

However, Congresswoman Pelosi hopes U.S.-Turkish relations will remain strong:

"The U.S. and Turkey have a very strong relationship," she said. "It is based on mutual interest and I with all the respect in the world for the government of Turkey believe that our continued mutual interest will have us grow that relationship. This isn't about the Erdogan government [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan], this is about the [former] Ottoman Empire."

Pelosi dismissed suggestions of any connection between the House resolution moving forward and Turkish government plans for a possible military incursion into northern Iraq against Kurdish rebels.

Wednesday's House committee vote highlighted the divisions across party lines on the resolution, with eight Democrats voting against and eight Republicans voting for the measure.

At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated President Bush's hope that the resolution will go no farther in the House.

"The president has expressed on behalf of the American people our horror at the tragedy of 1915, but at the same time we have national security concerns, and many of our troops and supplies go through Turkey," said Dana Perino. "They are a very important ally in the war on terror, and we are going to continue to try work with them and we hope that the House does not put forward a full vote."

In its reaction, the State Department expressed regret over the House committee vote, saying it may do grave harm to U.S. - Turkish relations and U.S. interest in Europe and the Middle East.  

Pelosi’s Most Dangerous Ploy

by Jed Babbin
  Posted: 10/15/2007

A U.S. plane flies over a mosque in Turkey


Congressional 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. 


Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.


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.

The_Sentry, Somewhere in Iraq
Oct 15, 2007 @ 03:12 AM
With this calculated affront to our Turkish ally Nancy Pelosi and the senior leadership of the House Democrats have shown a fundamental disloyalty to our Nation.

To deliberately jeopardize the lives our US soldiers in Iraq as Pelosi's stunt will certainly do, is unconscionable.

Scum, traitors, short sighted fools, all these aptly describe the House Democratic leadership.

Where is the usually reasonable Stenny Hoyer we used to be able to count on to look out for the thousands of military families in his suburban Washington D.C. district?
RSA07, Arlington, VA
Oct 15, 2007 @ 03:32 AM
To the writer of this article get your facts straight this is not a partisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans have co-sponsored the Armenian Genocide resolution.

Also Bush's foreign policy disaster in Iraq has put him in this situation no one else.

With friends like Turkey we don't need any enemies. If they were true allies they wouldn't use this issue as a bargaining chip to invade Northern Iraq to kill people, and further destabilize the region. This is something they have wanted to do for decades. If Turkey would not oppress and kill it's minorities i.e. Armenians and Kurds maybe it would be model Muslim democracy.

Congresswoman Pelosi: Genocide Bill is not about Turkey, this is about the Ottoman Empire

[ 12 Oct 2007 12:38  ]

A resolution approved by a House committee this week concerning so-called “Armenian Genocide” will go to a vote in the House within a month, said the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

She added hope that the resolution will not erode strategic U.S.-Turkish relations.
“This isn’t about the Present Turkey, this is about the [former] Ottoman Empire," she noted.
226 House lawmakers supported the resolution on fabricated "Armenian Genocide"./APA/


Armenian Genocide Debate Creates Partisan Split


All Things Considered, October 14, 2007 · On Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended her support of the Armenia genocide resolution. But House Minority Leader John Boehner cautioned against bringing the measure to a vote on the floor of the House.





House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she intends to move ahead with a vote on a resolution that labels the deaths of more than a million Armenians during World War I as genocide. 

The resolution has strained U.S. relations with Turkey and drawn criticism from the Bush administration.

"This resolution is one that is consistent with what our government has always said about ... what happened at that time," Pelosi said on ABC's "This Week."

When asked about criticism that it could harm relations with Turkey -- a key ally in the war in Iraq and a fellow member of NATO -- Pelosi said, "There's never been a good time," adding that it is important to pass the resolution now "because many of the survivors are very old."

"When I came to Congress 20 years ago, it wasn't the right time because of the Soviet Union. Then that fell, and then it wasn't the right time because of the Gulf War One. And then it wasn't the right time because of overflights of Iraq. And now it's not the right time because of Gulf War Two.

"And, again, the survivors of the Armenian genocide are not going to be with us."

But White House Spokesman Tony Fratto said bringing the resolution to a vote "may do grave harm to U.S.-Turkish relations and to U.S. interests in Europe and the Middle East."

Turkey's top general warned Sunday that ties with the United States will be irreversibly damaged if Congress passes the resolution, The Associated Press reported.

Turkey has recalled its ambassador from Washington for consultations and warned of cuts in logistical support to the United States over the issue. The recall is only for a limited period of time, said a U.S. State Department official who talked to the ambassador.

"If this resolution [that] passed in the committee passes the House as well, our military ties with the U.S. will never be the same again," Gen. Yasar Buyukanit told the daily Milliyet newspaper, according to AP

The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21 Wednesday to approve the nonbinding measure, which declares the deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 was "systematic" and "deliberate," amounting to "genocide." The deportations led to the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people.

But Sunday, Pelosi stood by her previous assertion that the measure would be taken to a full vote if it passed the committee.

Newly installed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, tried to calm tensions by phoning his Turkish counterpart shortly after Wednesday's vote.

Mullen told Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, Turkey's chief of staff, that the Pentagon is working hard to inform Congress of what the military implications might be if the Turks were to respond by cutting off U.S. access to the air base at Incirlik in Turkey.

Seventy percent of U.S. air cargo bound for Iraq passes over or through Turkey.

The Armenian government and Armenians around the world, including many Armenian-Americans, have been pressing for international support for their contention that Armenians were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.

The Ottoman Empire disintegrated in 1923, replaced by the modern republic of Turkey, where the Armenian issue remains sensitive. Turks reject the genocide label, insisting there was no organized campaign against the Armenians and that many Turks also died in the chaos and violence of the period.

Though predominantly Muslim, Turkey, which borders both Europe and Iraq, is secular and pro-Western. In addition to its membership in NATO, Ankara is also seeking to become a member of the European Union.

Speaking later on ABC's "This Week," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell denounced the House committee's vote -- despite agreeing with the assertion that the killings amounted to genocide.

"I think it's a really bad idea for the Congress to be condemning what happened 100 years ago," the Kentucky Republican said Sunday. "We all know it happened. There's a genocide museum, actually, in Armenia to commemorate what happened.

"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."

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham echoed those comments on CNN's Late Edition.

"I'm not worried about World War I. ... I'm worried about what I think is World War III, a war against extremists, and Iraq is the central battle front and Turkey has been a very good ally," Graham said Sunday.

"We've had problems with Turkey, but the problem that Turkey has with the northern part of Iraq, if you think it is bad now, let the country fail."

Turkey has engaged in ongoing cross-border skirmishes with rebels from the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which launches raids from northern Iraq. The recent killings of Turkish soldiers brought the conflict to a boiling point, and Turkey's parliament may consider a motion to approve cross-border incursions into northern Iraq as early as this week. Watch how the rebels are straining U.S.-Turkish relations »

The United States and the EU have designated the PKK a terrorist organization. The U.S. State Department has urged Iraq to crack down on the PKK, though some Turkish officials have said Washington has failed to take decisive action.


Turkey Vultures

Oct. 16, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --

Politics: We earlier ascribed Congress' move to declare the Ottoman Turks' slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians a genocide to simple Democratic incompetence. It may, however, be something much darker.

Based on the actions of Democrats in Congress recently, it's hard not to think that they actually want the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq -- and will do almost anything to see it happens.

Unfortunately, they've run up against these headlines from Iraq in just the last couple of days: "Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled" (Washington Post), "Shiite Leader Makes Reconciliatory Gesture, Visits Sunni Anbar Province" (Associated Press), and "Iraq Sees Dramatically Low Death Toll" (Associated Press).

The U.S. sure seems to be winning. Everywhere you go these days you see -- dare we say it? -- good news coming from Iraq.

But as Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn said two months ago about positive developments in Iraq, any good news is a "real big problem for us" -- the Democrats that is, not America.

This might explain why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to let HR 106, a nonbinding resolution that declares the Turkish Ottomans' murder of Armenians as genocide, to go forward.

The Turks are angered at the intentional insult leveled at them by Congress for a crime that's now 92 years old. They've threatened to stop cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq.

That has sent oil prices soaring (yes, you're paying a "tax" for this bad policy, whether you think so or not), and created uncertainty and danger for Iraq's most peaceful area, the Kurdish north.

Pelosi and her party like to talk about bipartisanship. Well, in the 1990s, President Clinton faced similar pressure from Congress on the Armenian genocide. He asked then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, in the interest of national security, to kill it. Hastert did so, quietly.

Compare that to Pelosi when asked Sunday about the horrible timing of the resolution: "There's never been a good time."

Ah, yes. "Never a good time." Pelosi and her pals have trivialized and impeded America's defense for almost a year now. Their latest stunt will hurt our Iraq war effort and cause needless U.S. troop deaths -- while alienating a strong ally in the war on terror.

As former Defense Department official Jed Babbin asked, if the Democrats are so keen on genocide, why don't they do something about Darfur or Burma? Why indeed.

As we've noted, 70% of our Iraq supplies are shipped through our base in Incirlik, Turkey. So is more than a third of our fuel. To say we badly need Turkish cooperation is an understatement.

Now, not only might they close Incirlik, they might be emboldened to invade the Iraq's independent Kurdish region, where separatist Turkish-Kurdish guerrillas are active.

Democrats have tried desperately to derail the Iraq war -- by voting for "immediate" troop withdrawals, and playing games with the Pentagon's budget during a time of war. They called Gen. David Petraeus a liar. They've attacked private sector contractors in Iraq, like Blackwater and Halliburton. (NYSE:HAL) It didn't work.

Now, we're winning the war, and they're desperate.

Whatever charms their domestic policies might have for you, the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. What they've done recently verges on disloyalty at a time of war. We hope voters are watching, and remember.

Newstex ID: IBD-0001-20252057

Originally published in the October 16, 2007 version of Investor's Business Daily.

Copyright (c) 2007, Investor's Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved


As the Bush administration deals with a House committee resolution equating the killings early last century of more than a million Armenians in Turkey to genocide, Nancy Pelosi appeared to hint that a call from President Bush might influence whether she brings the sensitive matter to the full House.

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


Turkey resolution borders on treason
From Ginny Varn,

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.

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.

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?

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi is supporting a Congressional resolution that would condemn Turkey for the Armenian genocide of 1915. According to an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, the resolution is opposed by eight past Secretaries of State, including Madeleine Albright.

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

Submitted by StevenOHern on October 16, 2007 - 1:28pm.

Bill to Condemn Genocide in Jeopardy

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.

US works on alternative to Turkey supply route to Iraq

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."



TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI

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


  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.




Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law
Peace Mom warns of false flag terror as she prepares to take on sell-out Pelosi

Prison Planet | July 12, 2007
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.

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.

"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.

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."



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

Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, has backed down from her campaign to persuade Washington and Turkey to recognize the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 as genocide, reports New York Times' Calr Hulse (October 18, 2007). Pelosi did not give a direct reason as to why she is reconsidering her pledge, but rather gives a vague statement saying, "Whether it will come up or not and what the action will be remains to be seen."

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

Randal Archibold reports in today's New York Times article "State Strikes Balance on Immigration" that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has created balance with his case-by-case judgements on immigration bills (October 14, 2007). Archibold reports that "Mr. Schwarzenegger, pleasing immigration advocates and Latino groups, signed a measure that prohibits cities from requiring landlords to check whether tenants are in the country legally" while he also "vetoed a bill to allow new citizens to register to vote on Election Day if their naturalization ceremonies were held less than seven days before an election." Right-winged and left-winged advocates seem to be harolding Scwarzenegger's praises for creating harmony with his approach on immigration, but is his split loyalty's (also seen as a "fair approach") long term affects going to harm California rather than help it?

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?

As announced by The New York Times, the Phoenix police have released the video recordings of the arrest of Carol Gotbaum, the woman who was found unresponsive and not breathing in one of Sky Harbor's holding cells (John Eligone, October 5, 2007). Upon first hearing a story of this nature, it would appear that Gotbaum had been the victim of negligence, bad conduct, and even amybe abuse by the Sky Harbor Internation Airport police. An employee of the airport who chooses to remain anonymous describes "Ms. Gotbaum as being unconscious before she was taken to the police holding area." When finally entering the holding cell, the police found Gotbaum "dead in the holding room with the shackle across her neck." While they tried to resusitate her, it was too late. But are the police really to blame in Carol Gotbaum's death? Or is too soon to be pointing fingers, blaming others simply to have someone to direct anger towards? And is there any chance that Carol Gotbaum is responsible for her own death?

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.