« Leaving My Corner Without Losing My Religion | Main | Failing Upwards »

October 27, 2007

Victory at last!

(Posted by John.)

The Bush Administration's careful work is finally paying off -- a close American ally is getting ready to add 100,000 troops in the fight against terrorism in Iraq!  The surge is working!  Why won't the em-ess-em tell us about the good news?

Actually, I suspect we're getting closer and closer to what I've been calling the "Schwarz moment."

Times like this I feel the obvious should in fact be stated:  yes, this is a good reason to have not invaded Iraq in the first place...

October 27, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Of course Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with it with her resolution condemning the country of Turkey for genocide that a previous government commited almost one hundred years ago.

What was her motivation for bringing that up? Where things going too good in Iraq?

Where is that resolution? She promised to bring it to the floor for a vote?

Posted by: abg | Oct 27, 2007 10:32:58 PM

Right, Turkey is invading Iraq because the US congress didn't pass a resolution Turkey didn't want them to pass. That makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by: JBL | Oct 27, 2007 10:51:38 PM

"Right, Turkey is invading Iraq because the US congress didn't pass a resolution Turkey didn't want them to pass. That makes perfect sense to me."

Why would a responsible government leader bring up a resolution berating and insulting an ally while we are at war?

Maybe most Dems that have to answer to more moderate or conservative constituantes realized how the resolution would harm our troops and told her they wouldn't support it.

Most constituants are not like those in San Francisco. Most constituats would like to see the US win in Iraq.

Posted by: abg | Oct 27, 2007 11:06:50 PM

abg- It's time to let the talking point go; the proposed resolution is dead and it's preposterous to think that Turkey would go after Iraq simply to spite the US House. Please tell me you don't really think that. Can anyone really be dumb enough to think that Turkey's military action inside Iraq has more to do with a meaningless resolution that never actually passed the House than with the serious casualties they've been taking from terrorist groups based in northern Iraq? I doubt that this is a good idea for Turkey, but they certainly have a far more compelling for entering Iraq than we ever did.

Posted by: Ben | Oct 27, 2007 11:44:19 PM

Make that "compelling reason"

Posted by: Ben | Oct 27, 2007 11:45:26 PM

Who said her resolution caused Turkey to go after those Kurish rebels, terrorists or whatever they are?

But when we are trying to hold back Turkey from invading Iraq and possibly destablizing the area, her actions hurt that cause. I thought she is for diplomacy.

Again, why on Earth would she introduce that resolution at this time?

Posted by: abg | Oct 28, 2007 12:16:55 AM

Do you have anything to say about the failure of US diplomacy/counter-terrorism in keeping the border situation bottled, abg, or are you here just to bring up jackalopes?

Posted by: Doug H. | Oct 28, 2007 1:07:21 AM

The writer asserts the surge is the reason that Turkey may invade Iraq. I am saying Nancy Pelosi's action have had more of an impact on Turkey's decision to escalate the situation than did the surge. As a matter of fact, the surge is making things better in Iraq, which brings me back to this questions:

Why would a responsible government leader bring up a resolution berating and insulting an ally while we are at war?

What is her motive?

Posted by: abg | Oct 28, 2007 1:17:40 AM

The writer asserts the surge is the reason that Turkey may invade Iraq. I am saying Nancy Pelosi's action have had more of an impact on Turkey's decision to escalate the situation than did the surge. As a matter of fact, the surge is making things better in Iraq, which brings me back to this questions:好秘书 呼吸网 肿瘤网 演讲稿 竞聘演讲 就职演讲 比赛演讲 征文演讲 节日演讲 演讲技巧

Posted by: fasdf | Oct 28, 2007 3:12:09 AM

... why is this thread full of "why did Congress say something that was true but diplomatically ill-timed" posts? It's over and done with-- and it's not the causal issue here, even if it was unfortunate from a diplomatic point of view.

Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Oct 28, 2007 6:01:40 AM

As a fellow Nato member, could Turkey not request that the US join them in their fight against the PKK? Nato came to our aid after 9/11 after all.

Posted by: bob h | Oct 28, 2007 8:21:01 AM

I'm hoping that you're referring to Jon Schwartz, and not the conspiracy nut, Barbara.

Posted by: Mark Adams | Oct 28, 2007 10:39:37 AM

The post blames the decision to invade Iraq in the first place for Turkey's current activity. It does not say that the surge caused Turkey to invade Iraq; the lines about the surge working and the MSM are tongue in cheek.

I don't know why Pelosi favored the genocide resolution. It could be because she really thinks there was a genocide, and we ought to speak out about such things. It doesn't much matter what her motives were, though, because the resolution didn't pass. Get over it.

Posted by: Ben | Oct 28, 2007 11:39:13 AM

dood, I've been waiting for Turkey to send troops into Iraq since 2002. That was one of the reasons I opposed the Iraq War. This was one of the single most obvious consequences.

Posted by: seebach | Oct 28, 2007 1:09:27 PM

I don't know why Pelosi favored the genocide resolution. It could be because she really thinks there was a genocide, and we ought to speak out about such things.

Or it could be because the former Republican congressman representing Burbank and Glendale lost his seat (in part) because of this single issue, and Pelosi wanted to boost his Democratic successor. It was dumb provincial politics, but on the list of things motivating the Turkish government, it's insignificant.

What is significant is that the AKP has to prove to the Turkish military that its outreach to the Kurds in eastern Turkey doesn't mean a) it's soft on the PKK; b) it will tolerate the deaths of Turkish soldiers. After all, the Turkish army traditionally carries a veto on any government it considers a threat to the integrity of the state.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 28, 2007 1:59:54 PM

By the same standard in which we were justified in invading Afganistan and Israel was justified in their recent war with Lebanon, isn't Turkey justified in invading Iraq. Thanks to us, Iraq has become a haven for terrorists.

My question: why did Congress provide cover for the talking points in this country to shift away from what's really going on -- our invasion in Iraq created a haven for terrorists (which was the "flypaper" plan: "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") and now we're reaping the consequences.

But now the blame can be shifted onto Congress (and the Armenian lobby and hence onto ethnic lobbies in general, so that when the time comes, everyone can blame the Jews as always happens) for provoking Turkey? WTF?

Actually, I think Pelosi et al may have meant for this to happen: that this would be the final straw for Turkey, they'd get involved and then we'd have to withdrawl. But she and Reid et al forgot: they can't dodge the withdrawl -- it'll be attributed to them (unless it goes well and the media decides to credit Bush), so they might as well take credit rather than taking blame for "dragging Turkey into things".

Posted by: DAS | Oct 28, 2007 2:29:33 PM

... why is this thread full of "why did Congress say something that was true but diplomatically ill-timed" posts? It's over and done with-- and it's not the causal issue here, even if it was unfortunate from a diplomatic point of view.

Aren't you familiar by now with the wingnut rhetorical strategy of shouting "Hey, look over there! What about that!" as an effort to distract and derail meaningful, reality-based discussion and analysis. Their positions pretty much always look bad when squarely considered, so this strategy is a good move for them. Colbert, of course, is the master of the genre.

Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 3:36:43 PM

Rightwingers either don't know that Turkey's protests about the Armenian Resolution are simply a diplomatic cover for deeper disagreements, or don't care what the facts are.

I suppose it could be both.

Posted by: serial catowner | Oct 28, 2007 5:45:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.