Posted on 10/16/2007 1:49:26 PM PDT by jazusamo
October 16, 2007
Democrats are split on the value of bringing a controversial Armenian genocide resolution to a floor vote.
Five House Democrats plan to hold a news conference Wednesday to urge their leadership not to bring the resolution to the floor, although the measure passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week with strong Democratic support.
Reps. Alcee Hastings of Florida, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, Robert Wexler of Florida and Steve Cohen and John Tanner, both of Tennessee, will participate in the news conference. They plan to urge House leadership to reconsider its decision to bring the Armenian genocide resolution to the floor.
The non-binding resolution would require the president to call the killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians between the years 1915 and 1923 genocide.
Turkish officials have said the resolution will harm relations between Turkey and the United States. Turkey acknowledges hundreds of thousands of Armenians died as modern Turkey grew out of the crumbling Ottoman Empire, but Turkish officials contend the killings were part of a civil war and that atrocities were committed on both sides.
Top administration officials have warned Congress that Turkey could respond to the resolutions passage by blocking access to an airbase critical to the supply of troops in Iraq.
Despite the pushback, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has indicated she would bring the controversial resolution to the floor. California is home to a significant number of Armenian-Americans, including some who came to the United States after fleeing the World War I-era upheaval.
The House has passed similar resolutions in past decades.
President Ronald Reagan also once referred to what happened to Armenians as they were being pushed out of what became eastern Turkey as genocide. During his presidency, however, Bill Clinton also worked to block an Armenian genocide resolution from passing the House.
“how old are these people?”
So old, they’re young again. That’s what I’m hopin’ for!
In Section 2, Paragraph 30, of House Resolution 106 the Democrats say that
The resolution calls for a "just resolution."
I wonder what they mean by that phrase..."just resolution."
Do they have some sort of punishment in mind?
Very old, if living. It was even before “Turkey”, during the Ottoman reign. As noted in the article, Clinton even balked at it because of how sensitive it is. It is plainly being done to harm the war effort, IMHO. A pox on Pelosi, Soros and the left...
I don’t think there’s many in her district that were there when it happened and her district does not reflect our country, thank goodness!
Perhaps because the House seems to be demanding some sort of punishment.
Yes, read Thomas Sowell today and other article in NRO. It’s to embarrass our war effort... these democrats are unreal f..ing onreal. I don’t think I’ve been this mad in awhile...
Any one still thinking that you can reason with these traitors is crazy...
All the trouble is caused by Turkey’s hyper sensitivity about the issue, that most Americans didn’t even know about. It;s worth noting that the two Democrats who sponsored this have a high percentage of Armenians in their districts — Vote buying and screwing up US foreign policy in one.
Treason is it’s name.
It carries no “punishment” nor does it have the force of law. It’s just a resolution — One notch short of the “Limbaugh letter”.
But if the Democrats wanted to address real evil in the world, might I suggest they condemn the Rwanda genocide ... I wonder why they won’t do that?
I would agree with Sowell’s understanding of the timing of this resolution . . . but then I have to wonder what happened that Murtha, of all people is publicly trying to squash the thing. Something here that is going past me.
.
In 1997, Pres.Bill Clinton gave himself a waiver of statutory restrictions on Turkey.Let's take a look at Clinton's reasons for treating Turkey well, as stated in his memorandum to CongressPresidential Determination No. 97-24 of May 23, 1997
Waiver of Statutory Restrictions To Permit Assistance to Turkey
Memorandum for the Secretary of State...
Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, I hereby determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States that assistance be furnished to Turkey without regard to the restriction in subsection (a) of section 620I.[snip]
It is very much in our national security interests not to terminate U.S. assistance programs for Turkey. Such a termination would create significant difficulties in our bilateral relations, affecting a broad range of national security interests.It seems to me that Democrats are getting dumber with each passing year.Turkey is at the nexus of a number of issues that are critical for the U.S. on the Eurasian continent: securing peace in the Balkans, advancing a settlement in Cyprus and resolution of Aegean issues, containing Iraq and Iran, bringing stability to the Caucasus, implementing the CFE treaty, addressing the future of NATO and bringing Caspian Basin oil to the West.[snip]
Turkey is important for U.S. trade and investment, and has been designated as one of the ten big emerging markets for U.S. companies by the Department of Commerce.
There are over 3,000 uniformed military and civilian DoD personnel (excluding dependents) stationed in Turkey, a democratic, secular nation in a region with weak democratic traditions, and widespread political instability.
Maybe Turkey buys weapons from someone in his family.
And me...The only thing I can think of is that he's taking so much heat from the Haditha thing of late he feels this stance may help him, just a thought.
With the impeachable Alcee Hastings in the gaggle that may be close to the truth.
That’s certainly a plausible explanation.
But it is more than a resolution which merely insists that Bush call it genocide, or which merely insists that Turkey admit that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide.
It's a resolution which seems to call for punishment ("resolution"). Are the Dems asking for reparations?
Sometimes words can be "fightin' words," especially when spoken by the slippery-slope Democrats.
“The non-binding resolution would require the president to call the killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians between the years 1915 and 1923 genocide.”
That’s all this resolution does; yet it’s killed every year.
Of course it won’t pass again this year. Never let “doing the right thing” get in the way of politics.
To cut off supply routes to our troops, cause our defeat in Iraq, eliminate a possible ally in any military action against Iran and cause our defeat in the WOT. Nice, isn’t it.
I don’t understand why an Armenian genocide resolution, so many years later, has any place whatsoever before the American congress. Why has that been brought up? Why are some legislators pushing forward on it? What is to be gained for the American people by such a resolution? And how far back in history do we really want to go? Do we want to go back to Alexander’s siege of Tyre? To Hannibal’s rampage through Italy? To the right and wrong of the Crusades? Doesn’t the congress have anything else to do? If not, could I have a refund on any of my taxes that pay their salaries?
Some of the Dhimmicrats having a rare moment of lucidity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.