In the midst of the First World War, the Young Turks who had taken over the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against their Armenian subjects. At least a million Armenians were murdered - with nauseating cruelty - or died of abuse, heat, hunger and thirst.
The only reason any survived was that the Turks lacked the administrative skills and technologies to kill everyone. Not every captive fit into the burning churches. On the death marches across Anatolia into the Syrian desert, guards ran out of bullets. And even sadists grew weary of bayoneting children and clubbing old men to death. [more@ExileStreet]
We can't let Pelosi & Co. get away with this one. We need to call the Dems on it We need to charge them with sedition, deliberate and with malice of forethought.
Anyone that can't see these treasonous rats for what they are and their blatant actions for what they are, is either equally as evil, 'blatantly' ignorant or an 
What makes this even more of a diaphanous act is to do it on top of the idiotic, PHONY claim against Rush.
These people are evil - and evil upon evil, using the tragedy of another for their own devious ends that, multiplies the evil even more - is designed to hurt our troops, could well cost their lives, for their own twisted need for power and sick, hate corroded determination to "pay back" the Republicans for what they perceive the republicans did to their God - Bubba (who brought it on himself) - and Pres. Bush for winning.
I repeat, anyone who can't see this for what it is, is either equally as evil, 'blatantly' ignorant or an
they stiffed us the single time we needed help - when we asked to move an Army division through Turkey on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom That of course is the author's opinion. I gotta respect it given his background; but..
Even during W.W.II allies were allowed to express national interest. I am sure Washington listened to our allies then.
Turkey had several national interest issues -- some dating to unfulfilled Gulf War promises -- which Washington failed to see, ignored, simply discounted, or to this day the issues may be insolvable. Adding to the problem of finding solutions is the distrust of the Kurds and their reciprocal distrust of Ankara; also, the end of the Cold War and Turkey's self interest in regional issues.
I've linked to a great article and it is best to read it. I've quoted it extensively.
I have relied on my memory of news coverage and this wonderful article that comports exactly with what I remember. STRATEGIC LOCATION, POLITICAL DISLOCATION: TURKEY, THE UNITED STATES, AND NORTHERN IRAQ
During December 2002 trip to Ankara Wolfowitz declared that 'Turkish support is assured." It was not. Turkey had national interests that had yet to be acknowledged. Not the least of which was the PKK.
"In return for allowing U.S. troops to base in Turkey, Ankara wanted Washington's green light to a substantial Turkish move into northern Iraq.(9) It was reported that the United States did agree to a geographically limited entry of Turkish troops into northern Iraq, with the proviso that they steer clear of Kurdish towns and cities. Not surprisingly, such a possibility was deeply upsetting to Iraq's Kurds, who threatened to resist the entry of Turkish troops into the KRG [Kurdish Regional Government] area.(10)"
The parliament did just barely permit U.S. personnel to start work on preparing for the massing of U.S. forces on Turkish bases. They made it clear that this was not a promise that the U.S. could use those facilities, that would have to be decided later.
"[O]ne does wonder whether Washington might have been able to recognize the warning light at the time. The AKP government's repeated protestations that it could not guarantee to win over its own deputies unless Washington met Turkish demands was not simply a crude negotiating ploy--which is how many in the United States saw it." (My emphasis) Turkey is a democratic republic and Her politicians depend upon voters.
"[O]pinion polls suggested that over 90% of the population were against a war with Iraq, and that many AKP deputies shared this view, parliamentary approval for the entry of U.S. troops was far from a foregone conclusion.(12) Regardless, Washington continued to base its military planning and build-up on the availability of Turkish bases."
The United States needed the support of both but "Kurdish and Turkish interests were almost diametrically opposed." The Kurds knew however that it was important to reassure Ankara that they were committed to a unified Iraq not an independent country of Kurdistan. (One of the issues that concerns Ankara even to this day.)
Turkey continued with plans to enter Iraq having learned that the U.S. would likely ask them to contribute by helping with refugees and handling Iraqi prisoners.
Yet another issue bearing on this was the Turkoman people "numbering anywhere between 500,000 and 3 million." Turkey believed that they were discriminated against by the KDP. The Turkoman should enjoy the benefits of self-government especially because of their 60 percent preponderance in the oil-rich Kirkuk region of northern Iraq.
Then came some rumblings from Ankara that perhaps Turkey had a valid claim to oil-rich northern Iraq if Iraq was no more. A claim that always depended upon proving it to the world first but I read that Foreign Minister in the AKP government, Yasar Yakis, could find no legal justification for the claim.
Meanwhile the U.S. recognized the Turkoman as part of its plans. The Kurdish KDP did not like it. But with the Turkoman Ankara was assured that the emphasis after the war would be on a unified Iraq not an independent, oil-rich Kurdistan encouraging rebellion in eastern Turkey.
Then came the well-publicized negotiations over how much Turkey would be compensated -- negotiations that were widely reported as "haggling" and "prostitution." Neither improved Turkish public support for the operation.
"[T]he Turkish government finally agreed that on February 18 [2003] it would seek parliamentary approval for the entry of U.S. troops into Turkey. The vote would be linked to approval for the dispatch of Turkish troops to Iraq."
The financial issue, the number of U.S. troops, and the terms of Turkish entry into Iraq, "had not yet been settled to Ankara's complete satisfaction."
"[F]our or five U.S. ships carrying tanks and other heavy equipment for the 4th infantry division [were] sitting helpless off the Turkish coastline, and another 30 or so ships on their way" Turkey had an advantage that IMO perhaps they abused vis-a-vis our long friendship; to be fair there was a lot of political and public discontent in Turkey. The AKP had just won the parliament and one newspaper article I remember said that France had warned Turkey that She would never, never get into the EU if they helped the U.S.
Meanwhile as rumors of an agreement with Ankara surfaced, "Iraqi Kurdish objections became ever more strident." Ya can't win.
When the measure which would have allowed it all was voted on in parliament it lost by a margin of just three votes.
To get base and overflight rights to support alternate plans the U.S. received the help of the Turkish Chief of General Staff.
"On March 20, on the very day that the war commenced, overflight rights were granted by a comfortable margin in the Turkish parliament."
We've seen how important Turkey has become and if things get worse over there Turkey IMO will be even more critical.
Good news for the Turkey haters, the author ends with some observations (he wrote this in 2003); among them: if a "pro-western regime emerge[s] in Baghdad, Iraq could offer Washington an oil-rich, grateful and still more strategically located regional alternative to Turkey . . . The United States is now more indebted to the Iraqi Kurds, and Ankara is less well placed to have a say in post-Saddam arrangements in Iraq, as a consequence of Turkey's failure to cooperate."
Also, the author's assessment clearly says that he is no fan of Turkey -- but he at least has substantive arguments.
My question is, is that too much for a body to ask? Not just ranting, facts! and reason.