Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

October 12th, 2007

Tags

, , , ,

Comments

32 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Why is the Democrat Congress batshit crazy?

The Democrats took their new electoral mandate to the legislative branch of government in January of this year and promptly addressed one of the most dire issues facing America in the contemporary age: the alleged (and likely true) complicity of the Japanese imperial government in facilitating forced prostitution for soldiers on the front line during World War II, and demanding an apology from the current government.

Having showed the moral courage and resolve to pass the aforementioned meaningless, non-binding, pat-yourself-on-the-back feel good resolution, Congress has since forged onwards to address the second most important issue facing middle class America today: a congressional resolution calling the 1915 massacres of Armenians by post-Ottoman Turkey a genocide.

My thoughts on the first resolution could be applied almost verbatim to the later:

Exactly what business other countries have sticking their beaks in how other country’s treat history is beyond us here at CA, and it’s been addressed previously here. To go a step further, I personally think it’s batshit crazy for another country to criticize another country’s history for no other apparent reason than to 1.) appeal to domestic interest groups, and 2.) pat themselves on the back for being so self-righteous, especially when, such as in this case, the result will be nothing other than piss off Washington’s only remaining major geopolitical ally, and reward a country (ROK) whose people loathe America.

Turkey has said that if it passes there will be repurcutions, just as when Turkey cancelled military exercises with France after Paris pulled a similar stunt last year. And this just as Turkey confirms it may conduct operations in northern Iraq to strike Kurdish rebels; the bulk of supplies for U.S. troops in Iraq pass via Turkey’s Incirlik airbase; and then there’s the fact that Turkey provides thousands of truck drivers and other workers for U.S. operations in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, the White House is stepping in to urge that this resolution “is not the right response to these historic mass killings.” But what’s national interest worth when a statement can be made? The resolution goes to a vote later today and has no less than 226 co-sponsors, more than half the House.

For the record, Turkey opposes any assertion that the 20th century wars with its government and Armenia were genocide, and says that many Muslim Turks and Christian Armenians died in the ethnic conflict following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. That’s basically my view. But even if I thought it was a genocide, that wouldn’t change the fact that matters of history should never be used to sacrifice today’s relations at the expense of political relations. (Like the Comfort Women Resolution, introduced by a Japanese-American Congressmen with large numbers of Korean Americans in his district, the Armenian Genocide Resolution was introduced in the House by Adam Schiff, a California Democrat Congressman who has a large number of Armenian-Americans in his district. Once again, interest group politics are interfering with America’s national interest.)

I hold out a faint hope that Congress will see the foolishness of this resolution—because as even some Democrats realize (pdf), if it passes Turkey will reduce or terminate its support for US forces in Iraq, and that will ultimatley cost lives. But considering our Congress’ batshit crazy record on historical issues, I’m not holding my breath.

SIDENOTE: in reference to this topic, I invite you to read my (now 2 1/2 years old) living will.

SECOND SIDENOTE: As Chirol noted exactly one year ago:

As usual, Europe ignores smaller problems like North Korea, the Sudan, Iraq, Iran and others to focus on more important things, such as warping history, making free speech a crime and generally overlegislating. If you haven’t guessed already, it’s France [which just approved the Armenian Genocide bill].

Slap that sticker on America’s Democratic Party.

THIRD SIDENOTE: Nathan weighs in.

Comments to this entry

Toshihiko Atsuyama
October 12, 2007
2:53 am
Let’s imagine how a chit-chat between the incumbent South Korean president Roh Moo-Hyun and Kim Jong-il goes during their inter-summit breaks…


KJI: So Mr Roh, what do you think of Pyongyang?


RMH: Hm? Excellent weather, beautiful city… Unlike what I’d expected. My spokesman told me that he had googled Pyongyang and read that the city’s condition was appalling!


KJI: “Googled”? What is that?


RMH: Oh sorry. I forgot you have no internet here… My bad. “Googled” means that he searched information through Google, a search engine website.


KJI: Oh yeah, Goooooogle, is it? Yeah, I heard of it. Why, you said your spokesman found my city Pyongyang to be appalling in Goooooogle? That’s an outright lie!!! Who wrote such nonsense, huh? If I were you, I would’ve imprisoned that prevaricator straightaway!!


RMH: ( looking a bit troubled) Ah hahaha….. Yes, you’re right. But that’s not the way I run my country.


KJI: Yeah, I know. Now that I think of it, I’d personally recommend you to ban internet in your country, you know. I don’t know what other tripes people are writing their stuff there. Just take a look at my people; they’re basically pure without internet.


RMH: (now looking more troubled) Umm…. Yes, I’ll think about it. Now let’s continue our political discussion, shall we?



taken from my own original blog post in:

http://foreignprophecies.blogspot.com/2007/10/north-korea-dumbed-down-nation.html
Alfred Russel Wallace
October 12, 2007
3:06 am
Nothing to addd, except AMEN... what a stupid waste of time ...
jim
October 12, 2007
6:13 am
And Armenians are not even an important domestic group they are pandering to. At least with other groups (Jews, Cubans) there are a couple million citizens involved, and with ties to sizable, important countries (and in Cuba's case a potential uture state).

I wish Armenia well, but it's fate is insignificant in the larger picture of US national interest.

This is so brain-dead I have to believe it might be on purpose. Pelosi wants Iraq to slide towards chaos -- it's good for her and the Dems, electorally speaking. Screwing over our ally Turkey goes a long way towards interrupting any progress we are making there.

The Dems can't be unaware of the nasty consequences this can have, they aren't that stupid. At least with the Japan thing it was just stupid self-righteousness, and the fact that Japan never punches back, so we think we can take needless pot shots at them.

I think it's domestic politics, but it's not ethnic group patronizing (Armenians are a couple 100k tops) -- it's trying to frustrate Bush, gum up the works in Iraq, and make the Repubs look like apologists for genocide. The extra American deaths this could easily lead to are, apparently, a price Pelosi and the Dems are willing to pay for.
Hidden Unities
October 12, 2007
6:18 am
Turkey Returns The Favor But Goes Too Far...

In 2003, with the run-up to war in Iraq at warp speed, a wrench the size of Manhattan was thrown by a tiny thing called democracy. Rightly or wrongly, the Turkish parliament refused to march along with America when America needed them most. There are...
Eddie
October 12, 2007
6:24 am
I disagree with what Speaker Pelosi is doing here. I even more dislike the corrosive influence that ethnic and nationalist lobbies in this country have on our policy. Yet the Turks have taken this way too far to the point where my good sense is being over-ridden by my anger at some two-bit ally who dares to threaten us over and over and try to blackmail our democracy into subverting itself for their benefit.

The Turkish democracy acted in 2003 and denied US troops access to their country for the Iraq war effort. How many troops have we lost because of that? How many Kurds died needlessly because Turkey still hasn't the foggiest idea of how the hell to treat minorities? How much a bad example would this be if the US Congress capitulates to a foreign power (probably not for the first time, but certainly not so publically)?

Its the Turks or Pelosi. Dumb as the Democrats who started this may have been, when it comes down to it, Joe Schmo is not going to like some foreign country telling Congress what to do.
captbbq
October 12, 2007
8:07 am
I beleive that the Democratic congress fully realizes the consequences of this resolution on the war effort, and that they fully intend these consequences. They have taken a beating from their base for passing appropriation bills funding the war (though in reality they could not politically afford not to) and for failing to get a timetable for withdrawal passed. By indirectly scuttling the US's relationship with a key ally, they see a chance to improve their ratings among their base and bring an end of the war closer.

As for the resolution on Japan, that was plain and simple pandering to minorities, something that Democrates are traditionally masters at (Hillary in Korea Town: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200710/200710100015.html). The Democrats have been solidifying themselves among Korean Americans, and by the looks of it, owing in large part to the Republicans racist destruction of the inroads into the hispaic voterbase that Bush worked feverishly to build via their knee-jerk reaction to immigration policy, the Democrats will take that ever-expanding demographic as their own as well... all they had to do was shut up and let the Republicans self destruct).
Curzon
October 12, 2007
8:51 am
And Armenians are not even an important domestic group they are pandering to. At least with other groups (Jews, Cubans) there are a couple million citizens involved, and with ties to sizable, important countries (and in Cuba’s case a potential uture state).


Actually, I think it was Samuel Huntington or Henry Kissinger who ranked the Armenian Lobby as the third most influential ethnic lobby in America after the Israelis and the Cubans. (All relatively insignificant countries, but with either money, voters, or both.)

Eddie: Yes perhaps the Turks are overreacting, but the Armenian went from a non-issue to one of the biggest historical revisions around over the past decade and their reaction, as an old-fashioned nation-state, is not unexpected. One can only imagine how "Joe Schmo" America would act if suddenly Russia, India, China, Burma, France, and other countries started to pile on and pass laws, rewrite textbooks, and condemn America for wiping out the Amerindian natives and slavery. Whatever happened, it would only contribute political support to reactionary and isolationist politicians here at home and nothing positive would come from it. So I'm not really open to the idea that Ankara is 'subverting US democracy.'
The Marmot’s Hole » Congress Pontificates on Other Country’s History… Again
October 12, 2007
10:10 am
[...] for Curzon at CA, he could just do a lot of cut & paste from his earlier post on the comfort women [...]
Registan.net
October 12, 2007
10:52 am
Congressional forays into foreign policy…...

…are almost uniformly idiotic. Case in point is the non-binding House resolution recognizing the Ottoman-era massacres of Armenians as genocide. As Deniz Ozemir notes at Passport, Turkey has history that it needs to confront, but for the House of...
DenverGregg
October 12, 2007
11:37 am
Yes the Democrats are batshit-crazy when it comes to foreign policy. That's nearly inveitable because they've gone so much farther into craziness on other issues that they're well-nigh incapable of being reasonable about anything.
Josh
October 12, 2007
12:27 pm
This wasn't really that partisan an issue. If you look at the vote tally, the ayes were 18 Democrats and 9 Republicans, the nays were 8 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Compared to most other things this Congress votes on, that's pretty divided.
Curzon
October 12, 2007
1:03 pm
Josh: True, but let's see how the actual resolution vote goes, not the subcommittee.
Josh
October 12, 2007
3:58 pm
Then perhaps you also ought to wait and see before you refer, in the title of your post, to the "Democrat" Congress being batshit crazy.
Walter
October 12, 2007
10:07 pm
I agree with Curzon. We Americans are going to be really upset when the parliament of Turkey passes resolutions condemning us for the genocide of the American Indians (Native Americans if you wish). Will we rename the Thanksgiving bird like we did freedom fries?
Lexington Green
October 13, 2007
1:45 am
The Donks are not crazy. The commenters who said that the real motive here is to make us lose in Iraq are clearly correct. The Donks ran on an eye-rolling, disdainful mantra that of course "Bush" had "lost" the war in Iraq. Then we have the surge, and Petraeus comes over here and humiliates them at the hearings. They are desperate to pull out a defeat. They need to "overcome" recent successes in Iraq, or perceived success, to get us back on a path toward unambiguous defeat. By provoking Turkey into becoming hostile to our activities in Iraq, maybe even attacking Kurdistan, they open up new possibilities that might help make that defeat happen.

The Democrats in Congress are not stupid, on this war, they are on the other side. They want the United States military to suffer an unambiguous defeat because that is what their base is demanding, and it is what they think will best aid them in maintaining and increasing their power domestically.

It is just like Vietnam after 1972. The USA had to suffer a humiliating defeat, as a matter of domestic political necessity for the Democrat party.
Adrian
October 13, 2007
2:33 am
Lexington:
what trash.

First off, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor. Perhaps he has motivations specific to this bill irrespective of some sinister motivation of party above country.

Second, as Josh noted above, the vote was not along party lines. Look at the list of cosponsors for this bill. 225 in the House, 32 in the Senate. Do Republicans like Frank Wolf, Chris Smith, Chris Shays, John Ensign, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, John Sununu and Sam Brownback (and others) share this sinister plan of trying to defeat the US military from within? Or are they merely duped by the oh-so-clever Democrats? Curzon, your reply on this question would be interesting as well - are these Republicans batshit crazy like the Democrats, or are they merely stupid?

Third, are Democrats (for instance Ike Skelton and Solomon Ortiz) that oppose this resolution NOT rooting for the US military's "unambiguous defeat"? Or are they still suspect by association?

Fourth, accusing an entire party of treason is a serious accusation. Does it extend to all members of the Democratic party (such as myself)? Or merely to the members of Congress?
Lexington Green
October 13, 2007
4:36 am
My explanation makes more sense than the crap that has been offered up to justify this otherwise pointless gesture at this particular moment.

Maybe the Donks just suddenly got a moralistic urge to jam a stick in the eye of the country whose hostility could turn the war against us despite some recent gains. Maybe it is all coincidence. Maybe 90 years of not formally condemning the Armenian holocaust by Congressional resolution with lots of fanfare was a mere oversight, and long overdue. Maybe Lantos being a holocaust survivor gives him moral cover to any stupid and destructive thing that can get American troops killed and no one can criticize him due to his being a holocaust survivor. Bully for Skelton and Ortiz, whatever their motives. Boo on the GOPers who went along with this thing, whatever their motives.

My father in law is a Korean War veteran, hardcore Leftist and antiwar activist. He says that America needs to suffer a bloody defeat in a foreign war to teach it to keep its troops at home. He considers himself patriotic. I suppose the Democrats who pushed this thing through engage in a similar set of mental convolutions to justify their behavior.
Lexington Green
October 13, 2007
5:12 am
Furthermore, the leadership on the D side is composed of liberal baby boomers who grew up during the Vietnam war era and for whom the anti-war movement is still perceived as a heroic and exemplary moment for their generation. They map everything through the era of Kennedy, Johnson, Civil Rights, Vietnam, Nixon. The Iraq war is over-determined to be forced into that vision. Stopping the war by any means and opposing the evil Republican president Nixon/Bush who presides over it is per se morally right. Peace signs are always on the t-shirts of the righteous, all wars are the same, i.e. Vietnam, and marching with signs against them is what the decent people do. Using a moralistic gesture to make it harder to prosecute the war is almost too perfect, it is exactly the kind of narcissistic, morally preeening, hippie-generation D leadership would come up with. Again, to them, this is not treason, it is a re-run of what to them is a glorious moment in our history. The helicopters pulling off the roof in Saigon led to cheers, self-congratulation, tears of joy that the "war is finally over" -- and the same scene rerun in Baghdad is the dream they hope to make real.
Lexington Green
October 13, 2007
5:14 am
Finally, do not forget that the defeat of South Vietnam in 1975, purposely caused by the Democrat majority in Congress, led to a Democrat presidential victory in 1976. The country turned in disgust from a "Republican" defeat. The desire to repeat that pattern is also a motive.
Rommel
October 13, 2007
9:26 am
I think Lex is on the mark here.

Also, the irony is that this bill could very well contribute to the deaths of innocent Kurds (not that this would necessarily be the aim of a Turkish offensive)
should the Turks use heavy handed tactics, in Iraq or in Anatolia. Any "collateral damage" the American military has caused in Iraq might seem mild in comparison. That said, the Turkish military is as professional as Near Eastern armies come.

On a side note, should we expect a resolution from the batshit crazies against the nation of Iraq for the very real and documented genocide against the Kurds? I wouldn't put it past the anti-war libs. Then they could undermine the government of Iraq and sour our relations there!
Armen
October 13, 2007
11:12 am
If you are wondering what has really harmed US-Turkish relations in binding way, you should remember the Bush administration's:

a. Destabilizing Turkey's southern border by invading Iraq and thereby setting free the myriad chaotic forces that Sadaam was controlling with an igneous fist.

b. Giving the Kurds policing authority over their region wherein live Turkomans,

c. Allowing the Kurds to give safe haven to Kurdish guerillas, and finally,

d. Not letting the Turkish army go into the Kurdish territories and kill them.

This is not to mention the fact that the Bush administration's war mongering in West Asia has strengthened the hand of the Islamic far right inside Turkey, causing rifts and further destabilizing it internally.

This is also not to mention the fact that the continuing war in Iraq is costing Turkey enormous sums in lost trade, trade that under Sadaam was stable.

Of course, the Genocide Bill has not helped matters any. But you should know full-well that if Turkey decides to withdraw its support, then the reason for its decision can hardly be said to be the Genocide Bill and not all the points I've made above.

So if the dems are "bat-shit crazy" for endangering US-Turkish relations, what does that make Bush who has done more to damage US-Turkish relations than any other president since Turkey joined NATO?
Lexington Green
October 13, 2007
8:45 pm
Agreed Bush did a lot to harm US-Turkish relations.

One of many reasons NOT to do things to make them worse right now.
Anymouse
October 13, 2007
11:41 pm
If we fought against saddam, why not fight against the Turks?
Anymouse
October 13, 2007
11:51 pm
Okay, that was a bit stupid, but I think Turkey is overreacting. I believe that as long as we are involved in Iraq the territorial integrity of Kurdistan should be our primary agenda, considering that it is the most stable country south of Turkey and west of Persia, and Turkey might have to make some sacrifices to insure that.
Adrian
October 14, 2007
2:59 pm
So, the Democrats who vote for this bill are purposefully trying to make it harder for the military to prosecute the war, trying to do "any stupid and destructive thing that can get American troops killed," and are "on the other side". The Republicans who vote for the bill get a "boo."

Again, this bill is not a partisan bill. It is stupid, yes, but it is being led by both Democrats and Republicans, and is being opposed by both Democrats and Republicans.

I don't see how any issues you have with your dad are reflective of the opinions and views of tens of millions of Democrats. Is that the extent of your research? I'd think that accusations of treason (even if the accused still consider themselves patriotic) might be serious enough to merit more research than that.

I think Vietnam is definitely informing the actions of Democratic leaders but in the opposite way of how you see it. They continue to fund the war and few of them actually support total withdrawal, because they know that people on the Right (such as yourself) blame them exclusively for America's failure in Vietnam, and therefore they don't want association with ending the war. Jimmy Carter's election in 1976 had much more to do with Republicans on domestic policy (breaking the law, etc.) than it had to do with foreign policy.

Armen makes a good point - this genocide bill may well just be used as cover for Turkey to get us back for all the stuff we've done that's actually harmed them, the implication being that without the bill, they'd still have made life difficult for us anyway.

Finally, I'm surprised that in the motivations for this bill nobody's mentioned the ongoing genocide, Darfur. My guess is that a large part of the motivation for the bill is to put Darfur in the context of the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, in order to gain public support for doing something.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
October 14, 2007
4:05 pm
I don't see a conspiracy here, other than run-of-the-mill pandering.

I noted a comment that by not allowing the US to use it's airspace, Turkey may have contributed to US deaths. That seems a bit unfair. The US could have opted simply not to go to war. You could just as easily blame Australia, Georgia and the UK for US deaths by not having sent everly last breathing military-age male to Iraq to take the brunt of deaths away from the US troops. Why could they not have agreed to send off all their men?
Ken
October 14, 2007
5:53 pm
The GOP lost in '06 because they went "batshit crazy" -along w/GWB- on spending...(like drunken french sailors on sat.nite shore leave...)
Maryland Pok Guy » Blog Archive » Concerning life on the Hill…
October 15, 2007
2:24 am
[...] Executive branch, still matter?  With the congress hellbent on passing a resolution chastising an act of the Ottoman Empire, I’m wondering if anyone other than the president matters anymore.  Maybe I need to stop [...]
Armen
October 15, 2007
4:55 pm
I'd like to clarify a couple of points. Just because I said that if Turkey decides to invade Kurdistan, the invasion can not be blamed on the bill except as an excuse, that doesn't mean that I think Turkey's co-operation in the "War on Terror" or just about any other US/western venture in the area is crucial. I don't.

As far as US interests are concerned, Turkey's help would be nice, but it is in no way crucial. It was crucial when Turkey was playing Cuba to the Soviet Union: Having nuclear warheads a fraction of a cm. on the average map away from the USSR gave the US a good edge.

But all of that is over now. Even that 70% of supplies going to Iraq through Turkey meme that has been recently floated is very likely bogus: With military bases up and down West Asia, how is it possible that an entire 70% of all supplies go through one airbase? Do they mean they'd rather fly 70% of supplies to Turkey, then---drive---them to Iraq, rather than fly them directly into Iraq? I have a very hard time believing that.

To boot, as far as Israel, our other "crucial" ally in West Asia is concerned, the Kurds are as good partners as are the Turks. They wouldn't be sending special ops trainers to Kurdistan if they didn't think that. And newspapers have been reporting Israeli presence in Turkey for about two years now.

Turkey is just another corrupt, unstable government. If it has any importance, its importance is to the 1/2 a dozen people in the US that are making big money out of Turkey's opium and arms running operations, people who's names are actually know but have not been released because of "national security" reasons, of course. Just ask Sibel Edmonds.

But as far as Turkey's being a crucial ally to the US...that's all in the past.

Bomb them and take back Constantinople. Why not?
Armen
October 15, 2007
5:32 pm
Armenian arrests in Turkey:

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=23702

That's a surprise. Like big time.
Adrian
October 15, 2007
6:43 pm
Armen - by mentioning Sibel Edmonds, you remind me of another possible reason why this motion was put forward now - Dennis Hastert (R-Turkish lobby) isn't around to stymie the effort anymore.
Tall Armenian Tales « Entitled to an Opinion
October 18, 2007
3:53 am
[...] sure they will catch plenty of flack from the thought-police, some sane commentary comes to us from Coming Anarchy and, surprisingly, Firedoglake. [...]