Tweet
DEMOCRATS' RECKLESS RESOLUTION
WorldNetDaily, OR
Oct 16 2007
Why now, of all possible critical moments, are congressional Democrats
insisting on passing a resolution guaranteed to offend Turkey,
our vital ally in the Iraq war, by denouncing the Ottoman Empire's
century-old massacre of Armenians as a "genocide"?
Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts have been warned that Turkey will
be deeply offended by the move and may even take punitive action
against us by withdrawing their permission for us to use Incirlik
Air Base, through which well more than half of our air cargo passes
in route to supply our troops in Iraq. Human Events editor Jed Babbin
reports that some 95 percent of the new MRAP (mine-resistant, ambush
protected) vehicles, designed to save our troops' lives, pass through
Incirlik. Also as a result, Turkey might decide to attack Kurdish
terrorist forces against our strong urging not to do so.
What on earth are Democrats trying to pull here? They are the same
people that barely blanch when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
denies the Holocaust. It's not like we need to worry about offending
Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil and by last count a sworn
enemy of the United States, actively working to defeat us in Iraq.
Democrats constantly castigate President Bush for alienating the
international community by "going it alone." Their presidential
candidates are united in promising that if their party recaptures the
White House, they'll restore sound relations with foreign nations. In
a recent speech, the irrepressibly garrulous Bill Clinton stressed
that this would be a major theme in the next Clinton co-presidency.
But are Democratic Party leaders, who claim to be such staunch
supporters of our troops, concerned about jeopardizing their
indispensable supply lines? Are they the slightest bit nervous that
in response to a House committee vote on this resolution, Turkey has
already recalled its ambassador, Nabi Sensoy, for consultation?
Apparently not. When a seemingly incredulous Brit Hume questioned
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer about the resolution considering
the high stakes involved, Hoyer cavalierly responded, "Turkey's help
to us is vital, but more vital is the United States' help to Turkey."
In other words, Turkey needs us more than we need them - presumably
implying Turkey wouldn't dare cut off our supply lines.
But Turkey has denied our troops access before - as recently as 2003.
More than that, this idea that other countries need us more than we
need them could be said about almost any allies Democrats complain the
Bush administration has alienated. What if President Bush had responded
to Democratic complaints in the same high-handed manner Democrats are
exhibiting today, saying, "Our allies need us more than we need them"?
Given that there is nothing to be gained and so much to be lost by
the proposed congressional resolution, how can we not be suspect,
as Jed Babbin implies, that congressional Democrats might be trying
to effect a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq indirectly? Is this
suspicion really far-fetched?
They've tried similar ploys, like a "dwell-time" amendment attached
to the defense policy bill that would have mandated that troops have
as much time at home between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as
they had in those countries. This would have virtually guaranteed we
didn't have enough manpower to complete the mission - one of several
"slow bleed" tactics advanced by Democrats to undermine our prosecution
of the war.
In that case, they at least have the cover of arguing that they are
forcing longer stateside missions on behalf of the troops. Their
motive there was suspicious but at least ambiguous. But there is no
upside to their proposed resolution designed to offend Turkey. None.
I can think of only one other possible explanation for the Democrats'
gratuitous insult of our vital ally during time of war. Their worldview
often compels them to pursue actions driven by their so-called good
intentions - even when those actions are sure to result in adverse
consequences to their intended beneficiaries, such as with promoting
expansive welfare, affirmative action, nationalized health care,
minimum wage laws, gun control and radical environmental measures,
or opposing tax cuts and school choice.
But in the unlikely event that the Democrats' motive isn't to
undercut our mission in Iraq, it might as well be - and they ought
to be held accountable just as sternly as if it were. To the extent
the resolution imperils American troops, it is egregiously reckless
and indefensible at all levels.
This must not pass without loud and fierce opposition. President
Bush and Republican congressional representatives, along with every
conservative commentator in this nation, should mobilize to expose
the Democrats' proposed course of action as an outrageous assault
on our fighting forces - not to score political points but to deter
these misguided renegades from endangering our troops. This appalling
stunt must not be permitted to proceed.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.as p?ARTICLE_ID=58157
WorldNetDaily, OR
Oct 16 2007
Why now, of all possible critical moments, are congressional Democrats
insisting on passing a resolution guaranteed to offend Turkey,
our vital ally in the Iraq war, by denouncing the Ottoman Empire's
century-old massacre of Armenians as a "genocide"?
Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts have been warned that Turkey will
be deeply offended by the move and may even take punitive action
against us by withdrawing their permission for us to use Incirlik
Air Base, through which well more than half of our air cargo passes
in route to supply our troops in Iraq. Human Events editor Jed Babbin
reports that some 95 percent of the new MRAP (mine-resistant, ambush
protected) vehicles, designed to save our troops' lives, pass through
Incirlik. Also as a result, Turkey might decide to attack Kurdish
terrorist forces against our strong urging not to do so.
What on earth are Democrats trying to pull here? They are the same
people that barely blanch when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
denies the Holocaust. It's not like we need to worry about offending
Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil and by last count a sworn
enemy of the United States, actively working to defeat us in Iraq.
Democrats constantly castigate President Bush for alienating the
international community by "going it alone." Their presidential
candidates are united in promising that if their party recaptures the
White House, they'll restore sound relations with foreign nations. In
a recent speech, the irrepressibly garrulous Bill Clinton stressed
that this would be a major theme in the next Clinton co-presidency.
But are Democratic Party leaders, who claim to be such staunch
supporters of our troops, concerned about jeopardizing their
indispensable supply lines? Are they the slightest bit nervous that
in response to a House committee vote on this resolution, Turkey has
already recalled its ambassador, Nabi Sensoy, for consultation?
Apparently not. When a seemingly incredulous Brit Hume questioned
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer about the resolution considering
the high stakes involved, Hoyer cavalierly responded, "Turkey's help
to us is vital, but more vital is the United States' help to Turkey."
In other words, Turkey needs us more than we need them - presumably
implying Turkey wouldn't dare cut off our supply lines.
But Turkey has denied our troops access before - as recently as 2003.
More than that, this idea that other countries need us more than we
need them could be said about almost any allies Democrats complain the
Bush administration has alienated. What if President Bush had responded
to Democratic complaints in the same high-handed manner Democrats are
exhibiting today, saying, "Our allies need us more than we need them"?
Given that there is nothing to be gained and so much to be lost by
the proposed congressional resolution, how can we not be suspect,
as Jed Babbin implies, that congressional Democrats might be trying
to effect a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq indirectly? Is this
suspicion really far-fetched?
They've tried similar ploys, like a "dwell-time" amendment attached
to the defense policy bill that would have mandated that troops have
as much time at home between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as
they had in those countries. This would have virtually guaranteed we
didn't have enough manpower to complete the mission - one of several
"slow bleed" tactics advanced by Democrats to undermine our prosecution
of the war.
In that case, they at least have the cover of arguing that they are
forcing longer stateside missions on behalf of the troops. Their
motive there was suspicious but at least ambiguous. But there is no
upside to their proposed resolution designed to offend Turkey. None.
I can think of only one other possible explanation for the Democrats'
gratuitous insult of our vital ally during time of war. Their worldview
often compels them to pursue actions driven by their so-called good
intentions - even when those actions are sure to result in adverse
consequences to their intended beneficiaries, such as with promoting
expansive welfare, affirmative action, nationalized health care,
minimum wage laws, gun control and radical environmental measures,
or opposing tax cuts and school choice.
But in the unlikely event that the Democrats' motive isn't to
undercut our mission in Iraq, it might as well be - and they ought
to be held accountable just as sternly as if it were. To the extent
the resolution imperils American troops, it is egregiously reckless
and indefensible at all levels.
This must not pass without loud and fierce opposition. President
Bush and Republican congressional representatives, along with every
conservative commentator in this nation, should mobilize to expose
the Democrats' proposed course of action as an outrageous assault
on our fighting forces - not to score political points but to deter
these misguided renegades from endangering our troops. This appalling
stunt must not be permitted to proceed.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.as p?ARTICLE_ID=58157