Skip to comments.
Snubbing Turkey--State Department missteps played a part in Saturday’s embarrassing vote.
National Review ^
| 3-3-03
| Joel Mowbray
Posted on 03/03/2003 8:04:12 AM PST by SJackson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-180 next last
1
posted on
03/03/2003 8:04:12 AM PST
by
SJackson
To: SJackson
Either way, it is a sore spot for many in the Bush administration some of whom think the State Department angering Turkey was no accident. Notes a Defense Department official familiar with the Iraqi opposition groups: "Many top officials at State don't want to go to war in Iraq. State knew the politics of the situation, yet they excluded the group backed by Turkey right as the Turkish parliament was voting on the resolution. It makes you wonder: Is State trying to undermine the president?" Interesting.
2
posted on
03/03/2003 8:08:58 AM PST
by
xJones
To: SJackson
Interesting article. Frankly, I don't trust State a whole lot more than I trust the UN. That's a pretty low bar to reach.
It seemed to me that Turkey had a pretty good relationship with DOD. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz seemed pretty confident in the relationship. Can't say I recall seeing that sort of confidence out of State.
3
posted on
03/03/2003 8:10:10 AM PST
by
Wphile
(I'M SO SICK OF THE IRAQ DEBATE!)
To: xJones
Does make ya go "hmmm..."
I wonder how many Clinton holdovers still work there?
To: Wphile
Personally I think the best Secretary of State we had in my memory was George Schultz. No one got the best of him. He might not have been the best "diplomat" but he sure stood for the United States and what was best for us and anyone else better get out of the way!
When he was in Charge at State, I always had the opinion he was on the same page as Defense. A strong Military made his job a lot easier.
5
posted on
03/03/2003 8:13:36 AM PST
by
PhiKapMom
(Bush/Cheney 2004)
To: SJackson
WRONG; The only factor that brought this vote count against the USA was the members putting Muslim politics ahead of Turkey's well being, (Church before State).
To: PhiKapMom
I agree. George Schultz was great. I'm not sure if the problem at State starts at the top and reaches down or the other way around. My guess is that after 8 years of clinton, the State department is plum full of clintonistas and therein lies the problem. I can't imagine Powell trying to undermine the President.
7
posted on
03/03/2003 8:16:21 AM PST
by
Wphile
(I'M SO SICK OF THE IRAQ DEBATE!)
To: MizSterious
"I wonder how many Clinton holdovers still work there?"
Too many.
8
posted on
03/03/2003 8:17:56 AM PST
by
hgro
To: Uncle George
Muslim politics We have to stop thinking our enemies will ever be our allies
9
posted on
03/03/2003 8:18:30 AM PST
by
paul51
To: SJackson
I have always been very suspicious of State. These career diplomats have traditionally been more than willing to cozy up to the worst dregs of the Muslim world -- and most especially the anti-Western Saudis-- and have been more than willing to sell out our only true ally in the region --Israel.
State has been most vociferous at Israel for retaliating against Hamas and Hezbollah, but they have always bent over backwards for Saudi support of worldwide madrasas which preach virulent hatred of the US, the West, and all non-Muslim peoples.
Now that very same State Department has caused us all this grief by insisting on the "UN option" and thoroughly bungling it, and now we see that their stupidity may have helped push key votes against us in Turkey.
Time to mount an independent, comprehensive investigation of the entire State Dept apparatus and time to clean house once and for all. I nominate Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to co-chair the the Commission.
Heh heh.
To: Wphile
"the State department is plum full of clintonistas and therein lies the problem"Some heads need to roll over this. I am personally wondering if Powell has the cahones to deal with these internal "problems". They had better do some serious house cleaning SOON, or somebody is gonna screw this whole thing up. You can't afford to have "insurgents" in your midst.
CLEAN HOUSE of these scum
To: dennisw; Cachelot; Yehuda; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; ...
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
12
posted on
03/03/2003 8:21:16 AM PST
by
SJackson
To: SJackson
In paragraph 6 of the article there is mention of "ametuer hour".
A USAF retired general mentioned the same thing on ABC news. I don't recall the actual number but there is a large percentage of new/young reps in the Turkish Parliment.
To: SJackson
If the State Department if 'handling' the Korean affair the whole peninsula will soon be 'kimchee'.
To: Uncle George
Turkist ambassador don't remember his name said there were two reasons the vote went the way it did.
1. Promises made at the first Gulf War were not kept --
(Clinton administration - my words, not his)
2. Population were ticked at how CNN was making it sound that Turkey was blackmailing US for more money, when it fact that actual amount of aide was $4 billion and the rest was loan guarantees.
So in light of this being a political vote from the population who see us as not being trustworthy (wonder why), and then American press picturing them as blackmailers let their politicians know we want no part of this.
Maybe the truth is somewhere between the State Department and what the population believes.
To: SJackson
"It is unclear exactly how many votes were swayed by the previous day's snub in northern Iraq, but considering the resolution only failed by four votes out of 534 members present, State's actions there could have been the difference. Either way, it is a sore spot for many in the Bush administration some of whom think the State Department angering Turkey was no accident. Notes a Defense Department official familiar with the Iraqi opposition groups: "Many top officials at State don't want to go to war in Iraq. State knew the politics of the situation, yet they excluded the group backed by Turkey right as the Turkish parliament was voting on the resolution. It makes you wonder: Is State trying to undermine the president?"This is the best piece that I've seen regarding Turkey.
IMO, State should not be in charge of anything until the Clintonistas are cleaned out.
16
posted on
03/03/2003 8:29:22 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(I heart "New" Europe!)
To: SJackson
Thank you for posting this. Even though Powell was very cordial, our FM's delegation complained that their treatment by State was humiliating.
Asinine, this whole thing. Someone is trying to screw both of us...
17
posted on
03/03/2003 8:32:00 AM PST
by
a_Turk
To: MizSterious
I wonder how many Clinton holdovers still work there? Too many. And there were too many of these salad-day pin-striped pinheads BEFORE the Sinkmeister polluted it further.
Bush needs to do to State - what he just did to INS - remake it - but also fire a boatload of these slithering Chamberlains.
To: SJackson
It doesn't make sense that the State Department would undermine the vote out of opposition to the war, because it won't stop it.
They may have blown it, and I think that's pretty obvious, but it wasn't for the reason suggested.
19
posted on
03/03/2003 8:38:06 AM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: SJackson; Alamo-Girl
bump
20
posted on
03/03/2003 8:38:15 AM PST
by
a_Turk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-180 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson