Possible bad news RE: Turkey and Iraq

[ChumpDumper]

Absolutely wrong. He is not God and has no control over the traitorous voices in congress that embolden the enemy to keep killing our souldiers! The media is gulity of supporting the enemy in such ways too.

The only he could be responsible for everything would be if he was the sole dictorial presence of this nation.

Eh, he's close enough to that now in case you hadn't noticed.

He gave the order to invade. He is commander in chief. He is responsible.

Why are the people who claim they are proponents of personal responsibility so afraid of assigning it to their leaders?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Eh, he's close enough to that now in case you hadn't noticed.

He gave the order to invade. He is commander in chief. He is responsible.

Why are the people who claim they are proponents of personal responsibility so afraid of assigning it to their leaders?

actually, it's jimmy carter's fault.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Chump....

Did you read the transcript?

I know thats a hard question for you. A simple YES or NO will suffice.

[ChumpDumper]

You are such a drama queef starting another thread.

I read it long ago.

Hasn't changed my opinion one bit.

[Nbadan]

BY NEGLECT AND INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEVEL, THAT IS THE PATH OUR POLITICAL LEADERS CHOSE AND NOW AMERICA, MORE PRECISELY THE AMERICAN MILITARY, FINDS ITSELF IN AN INTRACTABLE SITUATION. CLEARLY, MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN ITS APPLICATION OF POWER BUT EVEN ITS GREATEST FAILURES IN THIS WAR CAN BE LINKED TO AMERICA'S LACK OF COMMITMENT, PRIORITY AND MORAL COURAGE IN THIS WAR EFFORT. WITHOUT THE SACRIFICES OF OUR MAGNIFICENT YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM, IRAQ WOULD BE CHAOTIC WELL BEYOND ANYTHING EXPERIENCED TO DATE.

Is Sanchez blaming the American public?

[Nbadan]

AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ. A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WILL UNQUESTIONABLY LEAD TO CHAOS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. IF THIS OCCURS IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. COALITION AND AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LEVEL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.

As opposed to the 'organized chaos' going on in Iraq now...or maybe Sanchez has already conveniently forgotten that the U.S. is looking the other way while Kurd rebels are provoking a regional war with Iran and Turkey...

[Wild Cobra]

Is Sanchez blaming the American public?

No.

I see it as him blaming the whole set of people he was addressing. The media, congress, and the executive branch. I see it as the congress for members who embolden the enemy, the media for airing false reports and only the negative 'sensational' aspects, and the executive for not being forceful and bold enough to get the job done.

[ChumpDumper]

I see it as him blaming the whole set of people he was addressing. The media, congress, and the executive branch.

Does that include President Bush?

[clambake]

No.

I see it as him blaming the whole set of people he was addressing. The media, congress, and the executive branch. I see it as the congress for members who embolden the enemy, the media for airing false reports and only the negative 'sensational' aspects, and the executive for not being forceful and bold enough to get the job done.

who's to blame for the deteriorating foreign relations that have pushed Putin to support Iran?

[xrayzebra]

who's to blame for the deteriorating foreign relations that have pushed Putin to support Iran?

Has it slipped your mind that Russia was knee deep in
building a nuclear plant for Iran? And we pushed
Putin.....give me a break.

Also, Putin just wants the old days of the cold war back.
He missed those good old times. And now he has oil
money he is going to buy them back....

[Wild Cobra]

Does that include President Bush?

Duh... Absolutely. I never meant otherwise. He doesn't specify any level of gilt however.

I already reminded you that president Bush is the head of the executive branch, didn't I?

[Wild Cobra]

who's to blame for the deteriorating foreign relations that have pushed Putin to support Iran?

I don't know. Haven't tried to keep up with it.

[ChumpDumper]

Duh... Absolutely. I never meant otherwise. He doesn't specify any level of gilt however.

You can't go for two sentences without trying to mitigate.

[Yonivore]

You have to give Congressional Democrats credit, in the most perverse sense of that word.

In their effort to undercut the War in Iraq, they've left no option unexplored.

Tried to cut off military funding. That didn't work.

Proposed "balancing" home and deployment time for troops -- severely limiting the ability of military commanders to put enough troops in the field. Couldn't pass that one, either.

Created arbitrary deadlines for a military withdrawal. Soundly -- and wisely -- rejected.

Smear the U.S. commander in Iraq through an activist group-sponsored ad in The New York Times? Blew up in their faces.

So, it was back to the drawing board, and now they've hit on a strategy that, at first blush, appears to have almost gotten some traction. Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues in the house passed a resolution, condemning Turkey for the "genocide" of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I.

At first, the measure seemed a little odd. The event occurred almost 95 years ago. Relations between Ankara and Yerevan are still rocky, but both sides have expressed a willingness to continue their dialogue, and establish relations without any preconditions. And, from our perspective, Turkey has become an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) over the past 60 years. Our bases in Turkey provide important logistical support for the War in Iraq.

Which, of course, is why the Democrats passed the resolution in the first place. In the guise of "human rights," the Dems sponsored a resolution guaranteed to upset Ankara, and (potentially) jeopardize the flow of personnel, equipment and fuel into Iraq. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained:

70 percent of the U.S. air cargo to Iraq flies through Turkey. He said 70 percent of the fuel requirements of the U.S. military in Iraq also moves through neighboring Turkey.

Officials said Turkey also serves as the route for new U.S. armored vehicles to Iraq. They cited the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles, designed to withstand improvised explosive devices.

"For those who are concerned that we get as many of these Mine Resistant Ambush Protected heavy vehicles into Iraq as possible, 95 percent of those vehicles today are being flown into Iraq through Turkey," Gates said on Oct. 12.

And naturally, that means nothing to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and the rest of the House Democratic leadership. The only issue that counts is gaining the upper hand on Iraq, and forcing some sort of withdrawal. If that means jeopardizing relations with Turkey, so be it.

It's a "strategy" that is absolutely feckless and completely beneath contempt. But the Democrats are willing to try anything in their efforts to undermine the war, even if endangers American troops in Iraq, or inflames NATO's critical southern flank. In their calculus, domestic politics trumps everything, including the war effort and critical diplomatic ties.

The U.S. does not brook genocide. But passing a resolution 95 years after the fact -- and with obvious ulterior motives -- does nothing to honor the victims. In fact, it actually cheapens a supposed show of support, making the genocide measure little more than a political stunt, aimed at ending a war that Democrats once supported -- but now oppose.

Such is the state of today's Democratic Party.

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq, a move that would destablizie the most secure (and prosperous) region of the country? Trying to stop the war in Iraq, they could easily trigger a new conflict, while re-igniting religious and ethnic hatreds that date back thousands of years. Alert the Norwegian Nobel Committee. At this pace, House Democrats will be serious contenders for next year's Peace Prize.

Move over Yassar Arafat and Al Gore, you have company coming.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You have to give Congressional Democrats credit, in the most perverse sense of that word.

In their effort to undercut the War in Iraq, they've left no option unexplored.

Tried to cut off military funding. That didn't work.

Proposed "balancing" home and deployment time for troops -- severely limiting the ability of military commanders to put enough troops in the field. Couldn't pass that one, either.

Created arbitrary deadlines for a military withdrawal. Soundly -- and wisely -- rejected.

Smear the U.S. commander in Iraq through an activist group-sponsored ad in The New York Times? Blew up in their faces.

So, it was back to the drawing board, and now they've hit on a strategy that, at first blush, appears to have almost gotten some traction. Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues in the house passed a resolution, condemning Turkey for the "genocide" of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I.

At first, the measure seemed a little odd. The event occurred almost 95 years ago. Relations between Ankara and Yerevan are still rocky, but both sides have expressed a willingness to continue their dialogue, and establish relations without any preconditions. And, from our perspective, Turkey has become an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) over the past 60 years. Our bases in Turkey provide important logistical support for the War in Iraq.

Which, of course, is why the Democrats passed the resolution in the first place. In the guise of "human rights," the Dems sponsored a resolution guaranteed to upset Ankara, and (potentially) jeopardize the flow of personnel, equipment and fuel into Iraq. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained:


And naturally, that means nothing to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and the rest of the House Democratic leadership. The only issue that counts is gaining the upper hand on Iraq, and forcing some sort of withdrawal. If that means jeopardizing relations with Turkey, so be it.

It's a "strategy" that is absolutely feckless and completely beneath contempt. But the Democrats are willing to try anything in their efforts to undermine the war, even if endangers American troops in Iraq, or inflames NATO's critical southern flank. In their calculus, domestic politics trumps everything, including the war effort and critical diplomatic ties.

The U.S. does not brook genocide. But passing a resolution 95 years after the fact -- and with obvious ulterior motives -- does nothing to honor the victims. In fact, it actually cheapens a supposed show of support, making the genocide measure little more than a political stunt, aimed at ending a war that Democrats once supported -- but now oppose.

Such is the state of today's Democratic Party.

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq, a move that would destablizie the most secure (and prosperous) region of the country? Trying to stop the war in Iraq, they could easily trigger a new conflict, while re-igniting religious and ethnic hatreds that date back thousands of years. Alert the Norwegian Nobel Committee. At this pace, House Democrats will be serious contenders for next year's Peace Prize.

Move over Yassar Arafat and Al Gore, you have company coming.

got it dems are bad.

[Yonivore]

got it dems are bad.

I see you're unable to explain it in any other terms...so, yeah, in this case -- Dems are bad. Saboteurs, if you will. Saboteurs willing to sacrifice American lives in Iraq to achieve a political end.

What other reason to choose now to try and pass this particular resolution?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You have to give Congressional Democrats credit, in the most perverse sense of that word.

In their effort to undercut the War in Iraq, they've left no option unexplored.

Tried to cut off military funding. That didn't work.

Proposed "balancing" home and deployment time for troops -- severely limiting the ability of military commanders to put enough troops in the field. Couldn't pass that one, either.

Created arbitrary deadlines for a military withdrawal. Soundly -- and wisely -- rejected.

Smear the U.S. commander in Iraq through an activist group-sponsored ad in The New York Times? Blew up in their faces.

So, it was back to the drawing board, and now they've hit on a strategy that, at first blush, appears to have almost gotten some traction. Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues in the house passed a resolution, condemning Turkey for the "genocide" of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I.

At first, the measure seemed a little odd. The event occurred almost 95 years ago. Relations between Ankara and Yerevan are still rocky, but both sides have expressed a willingness to continue their dialogue, and establish relations without any preconditions. And, from our perspective, Turkey has become an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) over the past 60 years. Our bases in Turkey provide important logistical support for the War in Iraq.

Which, of course, is why the Democrats passed the resolution in the first place. In the guise of "human rights," the Dems sponsored a resolution guaranteed to upset Ankara, and (potentially) jeopardize the flow of personnel, equipment and fuel into Iraq. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained:


And naturally, that means nothing to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and the rest of the House Democratic leadership. The only issue that counts is gaining the upper hand on Iraq, and forcing some sort of withdrawal. If that means jeopardizing relations with Turkey, so be it.

It's a "strategy" that is absolutely feckless and completely beneath contempt. But the Democrats are willing to try anything in their efforts to undermine the war, even if endangers American troops in Iraq, or inflames NATO's critical southern flank. In their calculus, domestic politics trumps everything, including the war effort and critical diplomatic ties.

The U.S. does not brook genocide. But passing a resolution 95 years after the fact -- and with obvious ulterior motives -- does nothing to honor the victims. In fact, it actually cheapens a supposed show of support, making the genocide measure little more than a political stunt, aimed at ending a war that Democrats once supported -- but now oppose.

Such is the state of today's Democratic Party.

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq, a move that would destablizie the most secure (and prosperous) region of the country? Trying to stop the war in Iraq, they could easily trigger a new conflict, while re-igniting religious and ethnic hatreds that date back thousands of years. Alert the Norwegian Nobel Committee. At this pace, House Democrats will be serious contenders for next year's Peace Prize.


Move over Yassar Arafat and Al Gore, you have company coming.

you think blackwater was there doing as well?

[Yonivore]

you think blackwater was there doing as well?

No, I think the Democrats' allies in Iraq were responsible for setting up Blackwater.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see you're unable to explain it in any other terms...so, yeah, in this case -- Dems are bad. IN YOUR OPINION Saboteurs, if you will. IN YOUR OPINION Saboteurs willing to sacrifice American lives in Iraq to achieve a political end.

What other reason to choose now to try and pass this particular resolution?

I fixed your post for you.

So in your opinion:

the dems who passed legislation that gave the military a bigger raise the bush wanted don't support them?

the dems who have tried to get the president to bring the troops hoime actually want them to die

the dems who have tried to force Bush to limit tours actually want them to die

the dems who have passeds this turkey resolution (for which i think is stupid) actually are trying to get the Turks to invade northern Iraq. This action will then cut off supply routes which will lead to dead GIs? And in your opinion they are hoping that lots of GIs do die?


dude your nuts.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, I think the Democrats' allies in Iraq were responsible for setting up Blackwater.

or maybe they opended fire and killed alot of innocent people? Isn't the Iraqi govt looking into blackwater? Oh wait that's the dems fault also...

[Yonivore]

or maybe they opended fire and killed alot of innocent people? Isn't the Iraqi govt looking into blackwater? Oh wait that's the dems fault also...

Maybe they did. But, Blackwater hasn't been known for overreacting. Could be that it was an inexperienced crew that panicked. Who knows...

I don't oppose an investigation into the incident.

But, back to the topic at hand. What exactly was Pelosi doing when she introduced the "Armenian Genocide" resolution?

What prompted her to act at this particular point in history?

[ChumpDumper]

No, I think the Democrats' allies in Iraq were responsible for setting up Blackwater.

That is hilarious. The left wing conspiracy is indeed vast.

Blackwater's incompetence got marines killed needlessly in Fallujah to fulfill some cowboy fantasy Bush had about "getting tough." It is a simple matter to believe their incompetence could led to the deaths of innocent Iraqis as well.

[George Gervin's Afro]

President Bush on Wednesday opposed Turkey's possible military offensive against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.

"We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interest to send troops into Iraq," Bush said at a White House news conference.


The president also urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to infuriate Turkey, a key ally in the war on Iraq, by approving a resolution labeling as genocide the World War I-era killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire.

didn't dummy rumsfeld 'inuriate' our oldest european allies prior to the war? i believe also chastised our allies who wouldn't support the liberation experiment? so i guess bush was ok before the war calling out allies but now he doesn't want to infuriate them?

[Yonivore]

didn't dummy rumsfeld 'inuriate' our oldest european allies prior to the war? i believe also chastised our allies who wouldn't support the liberation experiment? so i guess bush was ok before the war calling out allies but now he doesn't want to infuriate them?

Nice dodge.

What do you believe is Pelosi's motivation for bringing this resolution now?

[clambake]

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq,

I can only guess that you've been away due to some kind of mental issue.