awb, Despite the furor over the Armenian genocide bill, it seems like a bit of a sideshow, with the main issue for the Turks being the inability of the US (and the Iraqi “government”) to quell terrorist activity aimed at Turkey originating in peace-loving Kurdistan. I agree that a Turkish incursion in Iraq would be unfortunate for our war aims, but who can begrudge Turkey their war on terror?
Normally when leaders of foreign countries, no matter who they might be, make open threats to the United States I would be the first in line to tell them where to stick it. However, the recent debate over the House resolution to recognize the 1915 genocide of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by Ottoman Turks has caused me to rethink my first impulse. Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, began a two-day visit to Great Britain today by reiterating his position on the resolution to the British newspaper The Times. He stated to the newspaper that if the resolution were to pass through Congress the United States “might lose a very important friend.” With the increased violence by the Kuridstan Worker’s Party (PKK), who shelter in northern Iraq and Turkey’s recent troop movements to Iraq’s northern border, there is little reason to doubt that Mr. Erdogan is willing to invade Iraq with or without the blessing of the United States coalition.
Not only would passage of the resolution give Turkey reason for unilateral military action that serves to rile up a hornets nest that has been relatively quite for the past few months but it would also work to lose Turkey as an ally. The loss of Turkey as an ally would be a horrible blow to U.S. military staging (i.e. potential restrictions on use of airspace, ground routes, etc.) and humanitarian efforts in Iraq. In addition, it is crucial to maintain amicable ties with the only democratic Muslim state in the region if we are to succeed in stabilizing the region. Positive relations between the U.S. and Turkey show the world that the U.S. is capable of working with a predominately Muslim country toward a common goal of fighting terrorism.
With such serious threats to the Iraq war effort at stake the need for such a resolution at this point in time is questionable at best. Since May of this year U.S. casualties in Iraq have been on the decline and a level of stability has descended on the country the likes of which have not been seen since the start of the war. It would seem that, dear God, maybe things in Iraq are not as bad as the media and Democrats would have us believe. Faced with this reality, and seeking to win in 2008 on the Iraq issue, Speaker Pelosi and her party are using this resolution, either knowingly or ignorantly, to disrupt recent U.S. successes by stirring up a long time conflict between Turkey and the PKK. In the process, stepping on already sore Turkish nationalistic heartstrings, fostering more anti-American feelings, and putting American lives at risk.
The Armenian genocide is a tragedy that is not to be taken lightly. But seeking to pass a resolution that will do nothing but placate certain left-wing interest groups while significantly harming U.S. military interests is foolish and dangerous. Essentially by doing this Speaker Pelosi is putting success in the 2008 elections above national security, an unacceptable premise for one of our nation’s leaders to be operating under. Whether this resolution was conjured up out of ignorance or out of purposeful intent to disrupt our armed forces, it is clear from the posturing of Mr. Erdogan that we must put current U.S. military interests ahead of ninety-two year old tragedy and scrap the resolution.
No, says Cardinal Tauran, according to this Catholic News Agency piece today. The biggest hurdle seems to be Muslims’ refusal to accept discussion on the Koran, which carries with it an “absolutist interpretation.” Well, that and the fact that the “religion of peace” is actually grounded in violence and animosity towards others, especially Christians. I find ”the recent letter sent by 138 Muslim leaders to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders about inter-religious dialogue” very suspect. According to the sharia, it is the duty of every Muslim to fight until man-made law is replaced with “God’s law,” the will of Allah. I am unable to pinpoint the precise spot where Islamic law calls for a robust dialogue with Christians. Anyone care to help?
Some advice for His Eminence the next time he receives a letter post-marked from the Middle East: Return To Sender.
Recently a group of Social Conservatives convened in Salt Lake City and among the topics of discussion was whether they would support a third party candidate in the event that both the Republicans and Democrats nominated a pro-choice candidate. Attendee of the conference, Dr. James Dobson:
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
Let us be clear. The Democrats do not have a pro-life candidate in the stable. They will be nominating a pro-abortion candidate whoever wins their nomination. The Republicans, on the hand, are generally pro-life with the exception of Rudy Giuliani. So the question really is what will Social Conservatives do if he is the Republican nominee. And they are being very clear about what the consequence of nominating Giuliani will be. They will vote third party. Continue Reading »
Steven Greenhut has this wonderful post on Lew Rockwell’s site today. I agree with a majority of what Steven says, especially concerning the bifurcation of GOP conservatives and libertarians after the implosion of communist Russia: “During the Cold War, an inspiring leader such as Reagan was able to keep internal peace, as both factions battled their mutual enemies: the Soviet empire and tax-and-spend Democrats. The former is gone, and the latter is still with us, but many libertarians have come to realize that they are as far apart from their conservative “allies” on the big issues of the day as they are from their liberal adversaries.”
Libertarians aren’t being duped into war by their neocrony counterparts. Russia was a legitimate threat because of its military might coupled with a horrid collectivist philosophy. The neocronies, if they hope to defeat Shillary, will have to do better than Iran. It’s not surprising that Putin is now creeping his way back onto the GOP’s “naughty” list. And the ex-KGB lifer loves the attention. He’s “reestablishing” ties with Iran to “secure the region” and kept Condi Rice waiting forty minutes in a Moscow foyer. Ironically, Rice criticized his “power-grab” in the Kremlin, stating that too much concentrated power, without countervailing institutions, is “problematic” for democratic development. It seems that the neocronies aren’t just expanding executive power to monolithic proportions, but also trying to resurrect an old enemy to make sure that their own power-grab remains intact. Luckily the libertarians aren’t buying into this old, new enemy and will not be budged from the far right.
The New York Times is reporting that Camp Hillary has learned to “play nice” with Matt Drudge, the very man who helped break the story of her husband’s infidelity and spur the “vast right wing conspiracy” that “railroaded” him during his second term as President.
For those of us who have suppressed from memory the Clinton administration altogether, Matt Drudge - editor of the high-traffic internet site Drudge Report - scooped the MSM by running the headline “Newsweek Kills Story on White House Intern: 23-Year-Old, Sex Relationship with President” days before major news outlets would run with it. Michael Isikoff, remember, had his career-making story killed by Newsweek hours before it was set to go to publication (probably the result of threats that have become synonymous with Clintonism).
Now, it seems that Shillary is looking to manipulate Drudge the same way she did Rupert Murdoch. Now a nemesis-turned-friend, Drudge gets advanced copy of the latest from Camp Hillary and, in turn, headlines it. As the Times article notes, “Because of the sheer number of people who look at it and because of the attention it gets from the media, what appears on Drudge can, for a few minutes or an entire day, drive what appears elsewhere.” In this way it appears that Drudge Report, oftentimes a gauge for the MSM, has become yet another tool that Shillary uses to leak what she wants, when she wants.
Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee after a stellar showing at last night’s debate. This makes it risky to endorse any other candidate since it’s now possible that Chuck may show up at your place, take your Mountain Dew and beat you up.
I would suggest one possibility to those of you in the Ron-Paul-flavored-Kool-Aid-Brigade. Liberals possess cell phones too. IF I had ever bothered to watch a Democratic debate and IF I had ever bothered to send my one man, one vote text message, I would have voted for Mike Gravel regardless of his actual performance in the debate. Why? Because he is the kook I’d most like to see our nominee attempt to defeat. Perhaps there’s a little bit of the same going on here? Paul wins every single one of these sorts of polls and yet, when it comes to game time, he can’t muster much better than 5th or 6th. I wonder why that is…Perhaps the Dems are busy voting in their own elections then and can’t prop Dr. Paul up.
Dr. Paul was the only candidate to actually get booed during the debate. Not once. Not twice. But three times! Hannity might have been reacting to that a little when he “came unglued.”
I’m glad Superfluous Man was watching the post-debate coverage. For those who didn’t, I will summarize what I found significant. They conducted a focus group of about 20 or so voters who watched the debate. Afterwards, the moderator of the focus group asked the group whether anyone had changed their minds about who they were supporting. Only one name was offered: Mike Huckabee. Two different members of the focus group said they had previously been supporters of Fred Thompson, but after this debate they were now in Huckabee’s camp.
I hate to admit this, but I actually agreed with Bill Kristol in his comments prior to the debate. He said that he thought this race would soon be a five-horse race with Huckabee breaking away from the second pack and joining the leaders. Evidence like that found in the focus group tends to support that statement. If Huckabee could peel off 2 supporters for Thompson out of every group of 20, he will most assuredly be joining that front running pack. However, I think it will still remain a 4 horse race as Thompson will fade from view.
Huckabee was the clear winner last night.
RSS
