for the lefties bashing Pelosi for the Armenian Genocide resolution

[Enrique]

why single out Nancy?

Why not criticize Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Tammy Baldwin, Jesse Jackson Jr. and the other such progressives among the bill's 255 cosponsors?

I wonder, does your opposition to this bill really lie in the fact that Pelosi will likely succeed in getting it passed, over Bush's opposition?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00106:@@@P

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/31/2007 Rep Ackerman, Gary L. - 1/31/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. - 1/31/2007 Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 1/31/2007
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. - 7/18/2007 Rep Baca, Joe - 1/31/2007
Rep Bachmann, Michele - 3/1/2007 Rep Baird, Brian - 3/12/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 1/31/2007 Rep Barrow, John - 6/20/2007
Rep Bean, Melissa L. - 1/31/2007 Rep Becerra, Xavier - 1/31/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley - 1/31/2007 Rep Berman, Howard L. - 1/31/2007
Rep Berry, Marion - 1/31/2007 Rep Bilbray, Brian P. - 3/12/2007
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. - 1/31/2007 Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. - 1/31/2007
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. - 4/19/2007 Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 1/31/2007
Rep Bono, Mary - 1/31/2007 Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. - 6/21/2007
Rep Boyd, Allen - 6/28/2007 Rep Brady, Robert A. - 3/12/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. - 4/19/2007 Rep Butterfield, G. K. - 6/28/2007
Rep Calvert, Ken - 1/31/2007 Rep Camp, Dave - 6/7/2007
Rep Campbell, John - 1/31/2007 Rep Cantor, Eric - 1/31/2007
Rep Capps, Lois - 1/31/2007 Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 1/31/2007
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. - 1/31/2007 Rep Carson, Julia - 6/28/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 7/10/2007 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. - 4/16/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/31/2007 Rep Cleaver, Emanuel - 1/31/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/31/2007 Rep Costa, Jim - 1/31/2007
Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 1/31/2007 Rep Courtney, Joe - 5/14/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph - 1/31/2007 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 6/28/2007
Rep Davis, Artur - 6/26/2007 Rep Davis, Danny K. - 1/31/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 1/31/2007 Rep Davis, Susan A. - 1/31/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/31/2007 Rep DeGette, Diana - 2/5/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 1/31/2007 Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 1/31/2007
Rep Dent, Charles W. - 1/31/2007 Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln - 1/31/2007
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario - 1/31/2007 Rep Dingell, John D. - 1/31/2007
Rep Doggett, Lloyd - 1/31/2007 Rep Doolittle, John T. - 1/31/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 1/31/2007 Rep Dreier, David - 1/31/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith - 2/5/2007 Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 1/31/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 1/31/2007 Rep Farr, Sam - 1/31/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka - 1/31/2007 Rep Ferguson, Mike - 1/31/2007
Rep Filner, Bob - 1/31/2007 Rep Fortuno, Luis G. - 10/4/2007
Rep Frank, Barney - 1/31/2007 Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. - 1/31/2007
Rep Garrett, Scott - 1/31/2007 Rep Gerlach, Jim - 1/31/2007
Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - 7/18/2007 Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. - 1/31/2007
Rep Green, Al - 3/1/2007 Rep Green, Gene - 2/5/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 1/31/2007 Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. - 1/31/2007
Rep Hall, John J. - 8/2/2007 Rep Hare, Phil - 1/31/2007
Rep Harman, Jane - 2/8/2007 Rep Herger, Wally - 7/18/2007
Rep Herseth, Stephanie - 1/31/2007 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 1/31/2007
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben - 1/31/2007 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. - 6/20/2007
Rep Hodes, Paul W. - 5/9/2007 Rep Holden, Tim - 1/31/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. - 1/31/2007 Rep Honda, Michael M. - 1/31/2007
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 4/16/2007 Rep Israel, Steve - 1/31/2007
Rep Issa, Darrell E. - 1/31/2007 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 1/31/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/31/2007 Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. - 2/8/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 1/31/2007 Rep Kagen, Steve - 6/28/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 1/31/2007 Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 1/31/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 1/31/2007 Rep Kind, Ron - 1/31/2007
Rep Kingston, Jack - 6/26/2007 Rep Kirk, Mark Steven - 1/31/2007
Rep Knollenberg, Joe - 1/30/2007 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 1/31/2007
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. - 6/20/2007 Rep LaHood, Ray - 8/2/2007
Rep Lamborn, Doug - 2/8/2007 Rep Langevin, James R. - 1/31/2007
Rep Larsen, Rick - 6/28/2007 Rep Larson, John B. - 5/24/2007
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. - 3/1/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara - 1/31/2007
Rep Levin, Sander M. - 1/31/2007 Rep Lewis, John - 1/31/2007
Rep Lipinski, Daniel - 1/31/2007 Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. - 1/31/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe - 1/31/2007 Rep Lowey, Nita M. - 1/31/2007
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. - 1/31/2007 Rep Lynch, Stephen F. - 1/31/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 1/31/2007 Rep Marchant, Kenny - 2/8/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. - 1/31/2007 Rep Marshall, Jim - 6/26/2007
Rep Matheson, Jim - 1/31/2007 Rep Matsui, Doris O. - 1/31/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn - 1/31/2007 Rep McCarthy, Kevin - 2/5/2007
Rep McCaul, Michael T. - 1/31/2007 Rep McCollum, Betty - 1/31/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 1/30/2007 Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/31/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. - 1/31/2007 Rep McHugh, John M. - 8/2/2007
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" - 1/31/2007 Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy - 1/31/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry - 2/5/2007 Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 1/31/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 1/31/2007 Rep Meek, Kendrick B. - 6/21/2007
Rep Melancon, Charlie - 1/31/2007 Rep Michaud, Michael H. - 2/8/2007
Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita - 1/31/2007 Rep Miller, Candice S. - 1/31/2007
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 3/29/2007 Rep Miller, George - 1/31/2007
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. - 6/21/2007 Rep Moran, James P. - 1/31/2007
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. - 5/21/2007 Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. - 1/31/2007
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 1/31/2007 Rep Napolitano, Grace F. - 1/31/2007
Rep Neal, Richard E. - 1/31/2007 Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/31/2007
Rep Nunes, Devin - 1/31/2007 Rep Olver, John W. - 1/31/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. - 1/30/2007 Rep Pastor, Ed - 1/31/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 1/31/2007 Rep Perlmutter, Ed - 3/29/2007
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 1/31/2007 Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/7/2007
Rep Porter, Jon C. - 1/31/2007 Rep Radanovich, George - 1/30/2007
Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 1/31/2007 Rep Reichert, David G. - 4/16/2007
Rep Renzi, Rick - 1/31/2007 Rep Richardson, Laura - 10/4/2007
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. - 6/26/2007 Rep Rogers, Mike J. - 1/31/2007
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 1/31/2007 Rep Roskam, Peter J. - 5/21/2007
Rep Ross, Mike - 1/31/2007 Rep Rothman, Steven R. - 1/31/2007
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille - 1/31/2007 Rep Royce, Edward R. - 1/31/2007
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 1/31/2007 Rep Ryan, Paul - 1/31/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim - 1/31/2007 Rep Salazar, John T. - 4/16/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 1/31/2007 Rep Sanchez, Loretta - 1/31/2007
Rep Sarbanes, John P. - 1/31/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 1/31/2007
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. - 1/31/2007 Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" - 6/28/2007
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 1/31/2007 Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 6/26/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher - 1/31/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad - 1/30/2007
Rep Sires, Albio - 1/31/2007 Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 1/31/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 1/31/2007 Rep Souder, Mark E. - 1/31/2007
Rep Space, Zachary T. - 3/12/2007 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/31/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty - 3/29/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. - 1/31/2007
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. - 6/20/2007 Rep Thompson, Mike - 1/31/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. - 1/31/2007 Rep Towns, Edolphus - 1/31/2007
Rep Udall, Mark - 1/31/2007 Rep Udall, Tom - 5/14/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris - 1/31/2007 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 2/5/2007
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. - 1/31/2007 Rep Walberg, Timothy - 6/7/2007
Rep Walsh, James T. - 2/8/2007 Rep Walz, Timothy J. - 1/31/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach - 1/31/2007 Rep Waters, Maxine - 1/31/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 1/31/2007 Rep Watt, Melvin L. - 6/28/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. - 1/31/2007 Rep Weiner, Anthony D. - 1/31/2007
Rep Weller, Jerry - 1/31/2007 Rep Wilson, Joe - 1/31/2007
Rep Wolf, Frank R. - 1/31/2007 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 1/31/2007
Rep Wu, David - 2/8/2007 Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 1/31/2007
Rep Yarmuth, John A. - 7/10/2007
Rep English, Phil - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 3/15/2007) Rep Jindal, Bobby - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 1/31/2007)
Rep Carnahan, Russ - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 10/2/2007) Rep Shimkus, John - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 10/4/2007)
Rep Boren, Dan - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 5/2/2007) Rep Moore, Dennis - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 3/13/2007)
Rep Scott, David - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 4/18/2007) Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 4/19/2007(withdrawn - 6/27/2007)
Rep Cuellar, Henry - 6/26/2007(withdrawn - 10/9/2007) Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 6/26/2007(withdrawn - 6/28/2007)

[ShortnFiery]

1. *Priorities and timing* are everything in politics as it is in life.

But yes, like the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals in Germany of the 1930s, us "lefties" of the 21st Century are quite UNCLEAN. Don't get too close, some of our socialistic and/or liberal slime may just rub off on you. :eyes:

[Enrique]

7. George Bush and the right wing is making that argument

it's a valid argument, imo, the timing of the bill. George Bush and the right wing are making the same argument. Laura Ingraham has been making the argument this morning.

I don't have a position myself, I don't know anything about it.

I wonder, have you made your opposition known to Dennis Kucinich, who is a cosponsor of the bill?

[ShortnFiery]

10. No excuses. The Democrats hold the majority in congress yet NEED a spine IMPLANT.

No one argues that this amendment is not noble. But dammit! WTF is up with Pelosi's priorities and why have we not started impeachment proceedings of Gonzo and/or Cheney? :thumbsdown:

[Enrique]

13. i trust Dennis Kucinich's sense of priorities

he's one of the cosponsors of the bill.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Nice tangent.

:eyes:

[Enrique]

26. it's not a tangent, it's the whole point of this thread

you question Nancy, are you also questioning Dennis, who you sport as your avatar?

[ShortnFiery]

27. No, unlike Kucinich, NANCY sets the *schedule* ... remember? she's da self-proclaimed LEADER?

:eyes: It's asinine for this topic to be brought up right now when we have CRIMINALS running our Executive Branch. Nancy Pelosi has let the glitter of her thousand dollar designer pants suits ZAP her brain.

Nancy Pelosi a LEADER? :thumbsdown:

[Enrique]

30. do you find it asinine for Dennis to cosponsor the bill?

after all, why cosponsor a bill that is asinine for the Speaker to bring to the floor for a vote?

That might even go beyond asinine to inane.

That is, if you think it's asinine for Nancy to bring it to the floor.

imo there's another possibility, and correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you are bummed that Pelosi is going to bring to the floor a bill which is strongly supported by progressives, heavily opposed by Bush and the right wing, and win.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Again, you conveniently forget TIMING and the fact that Pelosi is the LEADERSHIP.

That's a nasty little habit. BTW how many times must I repeat that "it's a noble bill" before you stop accusing me of being in league with the right wing? :eyes:

[Enrique]

35. Kucinich signed on in January 2007

would it have been just as asinine for Pelosi to bring it to the floor at that time?

If so, then why would the non-asinine Kucinich cosponsor it then? Did he qualify his cosponsorship regarding when the bill should be brought up?

If not, then what changed in the last 9 months so that it's asinine now for her to bring it up now?

[ShortnFiery]

38. Oh, I don't know ... many of us think that IMPEACHMENTS are way way over-due.

Again, this bill is appropriate, but how 'bout we stop the PRESENT genocide that we are encouraging in Iraq through sectarian bloodshed *first* before we focus on symbolic bills?

Gee, you have a knack of repeating errors and omissions into oblivion. I'm on pins and needles in anticipation of what benign aspect that we've already discussed YOU will POP back in for derision of my position. :eyes:

[Enrique]

44. none of the 900+ votes Pelosi has presided over have been on impeachment

do you think all 900+ of these have been asinine?

I think what distinguishes this bill is that Pelosi will likely overcome strong opposition from Bush and get it passed.

Therefore it must be spun.

[ShortnFiery]

47. Oh here we go with daily proceedings BUNK to cloud the issue.

You are truly precious! :hug: Yeah, you win this bout ... :crazy:

[cali]

23. You're actually comparing being a "leftie" posting on DU

with being a Jew, Roma or gay person in Germany in the 1930's? Why yes you are.

Even coming from you, this is breathtakingly tone deaf and insensitive.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Yes, it's an apt comparison. Again you break your sworn promise "I'm done with you."

What does that say about your behavior there ole' cali?

What? While you are seemingly goose steping on liberals, I fear that you have failed to notice that with both The Republicans as well as with The DLC Democrats, "The Left" denotes all that is *evil* with Amerikkka. :(

[cali]

50. the only place I ever

made you a "sworn promise" is in your "beautiful mind".

And you, missy, are no liberal. No liberal would ever make such a morally repugnant statement. I can guarantee that.

[ShortnFiery]

59. Oh, how very sweet and patronizing. We both know that you did promise "I'm done with you."

I won't tell stories out of school but gee, I have it on good authority, i.e., and in writing. What morally repugnant statement Scarlet? "Well I never!" I bet you HAVE. :evilgrin:

[cali]

61. I said "I'm done with you"

and that I was going to put you on ignore- which I did for a couple of days. I never promised you a thing about how long I would ignore you. YOU on the other hand did make such a committment, and promptly broke it by responding to a post I directed toward someone else.

As I said; only in your mind.

[ShortnFiery]

66. Oh yes, but you see that's the difference, I admit to my foibles but you will not permit

your online persona to ADMIT any fallibility. And that is a shame because underneath all that blustery veneer, probably is a very nice person to her friends and family. :shrug:

Again, I really don't mind *flippity floppity* because we all make mistakes from time to time.

Yes cali, I'm willing to accept your apology. :spray: :hi:

[TwilightZone]

2. Because that doesn't fit the agenda.

We have to be selective in our outrage, you know?

[Sparkly]

3. I'm pissed off that NONE of them

went back through a time machine to do this much earlier. :sarcasm:

[mike_c]

4. I'm not certain I understand the basis for opposing the bill....

What does this issue have to do with left wing causes? Personally, I'd like to see the House spend its time on issues more pressing in America at the moment, but there is nothing intrinsically bad about the bill itself, IMO. Am I missing something?

[Sparkly]

5. Thank you!!!

I was just going to edit my post to add that. This has nothing to do with "lefties."

[Enrique]

8. I agree

but lefties at DU are in fact the ones criticizing her for pushing it.

[Elspeth]

11. What lefties?

Seriously.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[endarkenment]

54. Their opposition appears to be based on a matter of timing and priorities.

Not on the substance of the now long past Armenian Genocide. Why now?

[Sparkly]

40. I'm really skeptical about the ways many use the term "lefties" around here.

I don't think it's about being "lefty" at all.

[Enrique]

62. I'll tell you what I mean by that term

It's not derogatory in any way. I think it would be fair to call myself a lefty.

What I meant is that there are a number of DUers who are even more intensely ideological than most of us here. They are self-consciously left-wing and proud of it. One of them has Karl Marx as their avatar. There's nothing wrong with any of that.

I agree with the Armenian genocide it's not really a left-right thing at all. It has bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition.

But those people that I called lefties did choose to weigh in strongly on this non-ideological issue.

And I'm also noticing that they criticize Pelosi strongly and do not criticize the many progressive cosponsors of the bill.

My opinion, which I'm not keeping a secret, is that their opposition is motivated more by their opposition to Nancy Pelosi than to the action itself.

[endarkenment]

25. Let me explain the massive misframing here.

It is not that there is anything wrong with this bill per se. In and of itself, it is fine. A little late perhaps, as the slaughter is now over 90 years in the past, but better late than never.

My problem, and I think I am not alone here, is a question of priorities. We have a current and on going war crime being committed by the regime currently occupying the white house, a crime against humanity that has cost around 1,000,000 million lives and displaced millions more. That crime, and the criminals responsible, are not on our congressional leadership's agenda. In fact the high crimes and misdemeanors associated with this matter are 'off the table'.

Is that clear? Do you understand what the issue is?

[TahitiNut]

33. It'd be nice if they focused on the crimes against humanity of the current US regime instead of ...

... a regime long out of power on the other side of the world. :shrug:

At this rate, we can expect some other country's legislature to condemn the Cheny/Bush regime's crimes against peace and crimes against humanity 70-90 years from now? Sorry. Too late.

[dogman]

34. So don't pass the possible?

Stop the agenda until there are enough GOPers to impeach? I too would like to see a more aggressive approach to hearings and inquiries, but letting the GOP claim the do-nothing meme would not move us toward a majority in the '08 election cycle, IMO.

[endarkenment]

49. Uh no. You simply repeat the misframing.

I actually do not care much about the bill. Pass or don't pass it, it is not very important to me. There simply is no pressing urgency to act on the 90 year old Armenian Genocide. No Armenians are going to be saved, no Ottoman war criminals are going to be held to account. There is a pressing urgency to end our criminal occupation of Iraq and bring the treasonous bastards responsible for that crime to account.

It is a question of priorities, and the priorities of this congress, of our representatives in congress, are at best dubious.

[dogman]

65. Maybe I have a different take based on talking to victims.

I attended a rally held at Hastert's office while he was still Speaker. I was approached by a couple of older gentlemen who were sole survivors. Their personal stories and desire for action after all these years may have made me more sympathetic to their cause. It is pressing for their peace of mind and they don't have the luxury of time. This has been a political football for too long. The promises made to them over the years should be kept. As I wrote, this is possible. Ending the Iraq fiasco will take more time.

[Sparkly]

39. Congress wastes lots of time on lots of things...

I think it's too easy, when they do something acceptable, to say "Yeah but they should have used that time to do this other thing instead."

[endarkenment]

57. Not 'could have'. They have refused to do other things.

Sure they waste time on all sorts of ineffectual nonsense, meaningless resolutions, token gestures. In fact that is about all this congress is good for. The glaring contradiction between passing a resolution condemning a 90 year old war crime while refusing to deal with the current one is simply unacceptible to me and to many other people.

[Mike Daniels]

45. The resolution has been proposed before and Dem and Rep presidents have asked for it to be dropped

The question is, if it is strictly a statement of codemnation for condemnation's sake then why the major push now at the expense of alienating a friendly gov't?

If it's actually designed to purposely piss off Turkey as a back-door way of forcing the end of the war (since nothing else has worked) then at least have the guts to say so.

[LSdemocrat]

29. I don't really see the point of the bill either

But then again I don't give much weight to purely symbolic actions

[The Stranger]

6. How about Nancy throw us a bone on the current genocide going on?

You know, the one she is complicit in?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. i just dont understand why now? i mean is our reputation for bullying in the middle east not bad

enough?

not to sanction genocide but we cant ignore genocide when we see fit and condemn in 60 years later when we see fit. its just weird.

[dogman]

14. Maybe because Hastert can't keep it tabled now.

Look in to the recent history of this bill.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. thanks for clearing that up. so has it been on the table for a while?

the reason i ask, is the only stuff i have read/seen implies that the bill is being passed now because of rich armenian lobbyist.

[dogman]

19. More info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert
Snip>During his time in United States Congress, critics have alleged he is too friendly with Turkey because he has not supported initiatives related to the Armenian genocide of 1915–1923. He has frequently traveled to Turkey.

In October 2000, Hastert withdrew at the last minute a promised House vote on a resolution to recognize the Armenian killings. Hastert claimed that this was prompted by a telephone conversation with then-President Bill Clinton in which "Clinton said he was 'deeply concerned' about the language in the document... Hastert said Clinton had warned of 'possible far-reaching negative consequences for the United States' if the House voted on the legislation."<16>

Hastert defended pulling the vote, saying: I believe the Armenian people suffered a historic tragedy, and that this resolution was a fitting condemnation of those events. But the president of the United States, the commander and chief of our Armed Forces, has asked us not to bring this resolution to the House floor. This is not an idle request. We all know that the situation in the Middle East is unusually tense.<16>He blocked similar legislation in 2004.<17>

In August 2005, an article published in Vanity Fair reported that Federal Bureau of Investigation translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has sworn under oath that she listened to wiretaps in which Turkish nationals boasted that Hastert had accepted bribes.<18> A Hastert spokesperson has denied any knowledge of these events even though a National Security Agency investigation is underway<19>.<snip

[bdamomma]

12. it is all because of this thing of Turkey being our ally crap,

and using them for continuing this sick invasion in Iraq, now it will be also interesting to see if Turkey will just keep on moving and planning on killing Kurds, we will turn our heads and let them get away with this, Turkey has many blemishes on its reputation they will never get into the EU, on one front not acknowledging the genocide, and America backing Turkey up, what a big mistake that is, having both Armenians and the Kurds against you. Or is there some sort of back deal being made, like if Turkey invades northern iraq, Turkey and America can profit off the oil revenue there. And where does that leave one million and half Armenians that were killed during the years of 1915-1923, hmmm very interesting.

I thought this exchange between Rep Schipp and Condolsenza Rice should be viewed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=61450

[babylonsister]

17. Maybe she has ulterior motives?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2047516#2047934

[Enrique]

18. suppose that were her real motives

would you approve?

[babylonsister]

21. Good question. I don't really think

Pelosi is that deep, but what do I know? I'm at my wit's end; whatever will stop the massacre of Iraqis and the US involvement in a place we should never have wandered into in the first place is fine by me. We need to get out of that place; if the hypothesis above proves to be true, I'll take it.

[rodeodance]

22. I heard they lost a few Repugs over the weekend.

[Tarc]

24. I think Turkey has been coddled long enough on this

They have a hissy fit aneurysm whenever this topic is brought up and threaten every sanction under the sun. It reminds me of the way the asinine Chinese government throws a tantrum whenever we give a visa to a traveling Taiwanese official. And we buckle, every god damned time.

Enough is enough. Recognize the genocide (the killing of the Armenians is what led to the coinage of the freakin word in the first place!) and tell Turkey to go piss up a rope.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Yeah, we still have The Democratic Republics of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with USA, so "no worries"

Besides, if there ain't oil (or a potential pipeline) underneath their sand, we, as a self-serving wannabe empire - can FEIGN to truly give a SHIT about genocide. :wow: If there's OIL in the soverign nation, all bets are off and prepare to be invaded. :evilgrin:

[Enrique]

46. I'm confused

does Turkey have oil?

[ShortnFiery]

51. Since they import over 90% of their domestic oil use, I'd surmise "not much"

And do you honestly believe that the rest of The World Community is thinking, "Oh how grand that Speaker Pelosi is censuring Turkey for genocide nearly 100 years ago" ?

Isn't it GRAND that they stop every damn thing to SYMBOLICALLY CENSOR TURKEY now, especially when our relationship with countries within The Middle Eastern Arena couldn't be more "peachy?" :crazy: :(

[Tarc]

70. Pile o' Bunk

*The only reason it has taken a 100 years is that Armenian-Americans don't have as entrenched a lobbying arm as AIPAC.

*It doesn't take time away from other legislation. That is a dumb FReeper cop-out of an argument.

*Political inconvenience should never be an excuse to not do the right thing.

[dbonds]

36. Ever think this may be throwing a monkey wrench into Iran invasion plans?

[Enrique]

37. yeah, Laura Ingraham was talking at length about that

she says Pelosi is sticking a knife in the troops' back.

babylonsister suggested the same thing (without the knife in the troops' back part) above.

I don't know what to think about that theory. Maybe, maybe not.

What do you think?

[ShortnFiery]

41. IMO Pelosi is not that deep. She's truly earning that 11% Congressional Approval Rating.

She's only doing this, IMO, because EVERYONE AGREES (well, save for Turkey) and it's not the least bit controversial - the genocide is basically undisputed. ERGO, it's an easy win for Pelosi. :(

Poor Nancy, she thinks that symbolic bills regarding genocide about a CENTURY ago will placate us "little people" that she truly GIVES A DAMN ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION! Hell yes, I'm pissed at her ... for the totality of her Congressional Cluster fucks. :grr:

[dbonds]

42. Planned or not...

Turkey already is attacking kurds in Iraq. It only took this small push to make them break the agreement not to attack. This causes a dilemma to bushco: do we support our long time ally or our new colony? It means we probably don't have enough stability in the region to go ahead with iran invasion plans (lets hope anyway).

[ShortnFiery]

43. True dbonds, but guess WHICH PARTY will be blamed when "The Turks" fully invade Northern Iraq?

Yes, The Democratic Party will be smeared from NOW until the November elections at how "The Democratic Party" CAUSED Turkey to invade Northern Iraq catalyzing the potential onset of WWIII.

If it's a strategy, it's one that will work out for the welfare of the republican party. Hell, even a scorecard can not reveal "the dealings" and influence of "K street" on our disgustingly CORRUPT Politicians, of both stripes. :(

[dbonds]

48. I don't know.

If it was a strategy then it would be a last resort one, where they worry more about the future of the US than the democratic party. The consequences of war with Iran, and possible martial law might be worse. Just guessing at the only thing that seems to make any sense. Just bowing down to the Armenian lobby right now doesn't make sense.

[ShortnFiery]

52. "If it was a strategy then it would be a last resort one"

Nope, IMO, there's nothing the least bit harried or "last resort" about Pelosi's recent behavior ... considering her flashy ultra-expensive designer pants suits as well as sporting an untouched (uneaten) chicken breast on her banquet plates. <partly tongue-in-cheek> :shrug: ;)

[dbonds]

56. I assume you mean she is bought and paid for.

I think that is very likely. But is it by the same people that own the right wing.

[ShortnFiery]

60. Sadly dbonds, I fear we are in the grips of a plutocracy and it's only through

steadfast loyalty to "free and fair" elections, that we can hold onto HOPE of slowly purging ourselves of those CORRUPT REPRESENTATIVES who choose to enrich the corporations at the expense of their constituents.

I don't know what's exactly going on with our democratic leadership in Congress, but I know IT'S NOT GOOD NOR IS IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE "AVERAGE AMERICAN" NON-INVESTOR CLASSES. :(

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. For the "lefties"..... Did I just enter the twilight zone, or is this still DU??? eom

[ShortnFiery]

55. Believe it or not this issue is complex. It's more than voting "yea or nay" on an laudable bill,

but also *the timing* of this exercise. No ONE is doubting that a symbolic gesture is warranted and appropriate - HOWEVER - it's the timing that is highly suspect. :shrug:

Or maybe it's just that "us lefties" are spawns of the devil? :evilgrin:

[OzarkDem]

58. I'm out of the loop on this

Why is something that happened during WWI so important right now, when there are other issues Congress needs to take care of?

[WilliamPitt]

63. Because Turkey is a vital strategic ally

in the region, because it's an issue for them, and because they're about to invade northern Iraq. Insurlik (sp?) is the most important military airbase on earth in the Pentagon's opinion (US ability to telegraph non-carrier-based air power on short notice requires that base, and a stable country around it). If they care about it, we have to as well.

[OzarkDem]

64. I know about the bases in Turkey

my BIL flew in and out of them.

I'm not so sure what some ancient grudge match from WWI has to do with it, but, well it is a 3rd world country...

Thanks for the update.

[WilliamPitt]

67. Sorry if that was pedantic.

If Turkey was up in arms about the color of the bark on date trees, we'd have to care about that, too...was what I was trying to say. :)

[Breeze54]

69. They're making an issue of it but it isn't an issue for them.

There would never have been a good time and they need the war machines money.

It's about time the Armenians got a little respect and sympathy!

Genocide is going on RIGHT NOW in the world! This is a good time to speak out against it!

[Breeze54]

68. Aren't you a "lefty"?

Are you saying you're not on the left?

Isn't this The Democratic Underground and that would be THE LEFT, wouldn't it?

L -----|ME------------------ C ---------------------- R

Where are you? :shrug:

[Enrique]

71. I'm a lefty