It was so much easier being a senator running for President, when NBC News and other liberal mass media outlets would feature the ongoing series "Everybody Hates George W. Bush". Many historians classify an estimated 1.5 million Armenian casualties in 1915 as genocide; Turkey rejects the allegations (including the casualty counts), claiming that the Ottoman Empire government itself was not at fault but that there were ongoing sectarian attacks and atrocities between Armenian separatists and local Muslims, with heavy casualties on both sides. In 2007, the US Congress, including Sen. Barack Obama, worked towards the Armenian genocide resolution, but the Bush Administration strongly objected to it. Obama criticized the Bush Administration for blocking a floor vote on the resolution, which Bush felt unnecessarily risked our diplomatic relations with a key regional ally.
Obama said, "As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide." The Obama Administration, unlike the Clinton and Bush Administrations, waited until the last minute to lobby against the resolution in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which carried 23-22, Democratic votes (including the committee chairman) making the difference.
Alas, our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President! Why did he dither on the Armenian resolution? It's not like he's dithered on his other decisions... (Cough! Afghanistan surge! KSM show trial!) He's now managed to alienate both sides of the dispute, having flip-flopped in pushing against the vote late in the process and in alienating a key American ally in the region sensitive about this issue with an unsuccessful last-minute push. I'm not exactly sure why it's necessary, after 95 years, to take sides in a historic dispute, especially a sensitive matter to a key ally; to quote a signature adjective George H.W Bush famously referenced multiple times during his 1992 State of the Union Address, it wouldn't be "prudent".
What's next, Congress? Are you going to open the books on the Spanish Inquisition? After all, didn't it also engage in
What hubris! If it was necessary to address the situation at all, why not simply mourn those tragically massacred, regardless of the perpetrators, instead of unproductive finger-pointing and scapegoating?
Is it any wonder why Congress under Democratic leadership has a public approval rating below 20%, with a decisive majority believing that the country is headed in the wrong direction? Maybe instead of needlessly entangling itself in the internal politics of foreign nations, the Congress could find more productive uses of its time--like balancing the bloated federal budget, ratifying long-pending trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea (and what about new ones, Obama?), and setting more business-friendly tax and regulation policies.
The Oscars in Review
Barbra Streisand, who has been known more lately for expressing her progressive political opinions than her fading bread-and-butter singing and acting career, could hardly contain herself; she couldn't decide which would excite her more--presiding over the selection of the first female or the first African-American director? When she read the name of the winner, Kathryn Bigelow, ex-wife of fellow nominated director James Cameron, Barbra could barely contain herself, visibly basking in the glow of this "historic moment"... (No mention of James Cameron's breaking the color barrier by creating a commercial blockbuster flick ('Avatar') on blue-skinned aliens with tails...)
Isn't it time we stopped hyping this politically correct nonsense? (Rumor has it that Ms. Bigelow wants to be known simply as a director, not as a female director...) I have no doubt about the symbolic merit of high-profile role models, but Ms. Bigelow and other women were already given opportunities to direct based on merit.
I did not publish my predictions for the Oscars in large part because I hadn't viewed the films and performances (in fact, I haven't been to a movie theater in years). The upset victory of 'Hurt Locker' over the earlier Golden Globes' winner, 'Avatar', is significant, if only because it seems to be a nonpolitical war movie (focused on the experiences of members of an IED-disabling team in Iraq). After a long string of the Hollywood progressive elites pushing through propaganda films critical of US policy from the likes of Michael Moore and Al Gore, it's a step forward for a topical movie focusing on the lives and efforts of brave men and women serving our nation and the people of Iraq, without a political hidden agenda.
Sunday Talk Soup
Bob Schieffer of CBS Face the Nation yesterday had retiring Senator Evan Bayh (IN-D) and Senator Lindsey Graham (SC-R) as guests; there was a general discussion of the hyper-partisan state of affairs in Washington, a key reason Bayh gave in retiring from the Senate. I am a skeptic in terms of Bayh's bipartisan credentials: He has a very liberal voting record (according to the ACU), and he was not a member of the Gang of 14 which defused an earlier dispute of Senate minority rights (in blocking judicial floor votes) in 2005.
Among other things, Bayh commented on the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, saying that he wouldn't have written the 2000-plus page bill, but that in the end "we have to do something". Senator, that's what I call begging the question; health care reform does not mean buying into a heavy federal government footprint. Bayh could have participated in a new version of the Gang of 14, demanding, for instance, a self-financing lockbox approach to any new entitlement, equal protection of tax-advantaged benefits, trans-state insurance marketing and pooling, shoring up state/regional high risk plans, catastrophic insurance or reinsurance, etc. No, instead we are discussing things like abortion coverage. Now I'm pro-life, and my position on abortion is clear, but even if you simply look at abortion in terms of cost issues, this is not a proper use of insurance in concept. Insurance is for handling big, unexpected costs, e.g., a car accident, a tornado damages a home, or a family member is diagnosed with a deadly form of cancer. We also need to find a way of getting the insured vesting in medical costs. There are conservative plans, with a far lower price tag, that Bayh could find and support instead of some progressive megalomanic fantasy on top of an existing $12.5T federal debt.
Lindsey Graham was hyping his bipartisan credentials, including a proposed quid pro quo deal with the Obama Administration on military tribunals in exchange for closing Guantanamo Bay detection facility. Unlike the media conservatives, I have been a champion of ideological diversity within a big tent Republican Party; I realize that GOP legislators from blue or purple states like New England may have moderated views on social conservative (e.g., pro-abortion choice) and social safety net issues.
Lindsey Graham, however, painted himself as a profile in courage, snapping back at conservatives whom support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in dealing with high-value suspects and buying into the progressive critique that the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility is a key recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists.
First of all, Senator Graham, I do not think a limited-time use of enhanced interrogation techniques with 3 high-value Al Qaeda suspects was unreasonable; by any objective standpoint, the progressive reaction has been overblown. I am well-aware of the time value of information and the likelihood that the enemy have adjusted plans in the aftermath of high-profile captures. We already know how Al Qaeda recognizes the Geneva and other conventions: do you remember KSM claims to have personally beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl?
Second, I have no doubt that Islamic propagandists have no regard for the truth and will lie to potential recruiters about American actions, but I think closing a state-of-the-art facility off the American homeland simply because of unconfirmed allegations or anti-American opinions is frankly absurd. All Obama had to do is effectively say, "Look, a new sheriff is in town. We are working at reforming policies to address meritorious complaints." Does he really think that frivolous detainee complaints are going to go away simply because they are moving to new facilities? So all Al Qaeda has to do is word-process their propaganda, e.g., change the prison location from Cuba to northwestern Illinois. I have no doubt that Obama, who has no problem running up the national debt, will close down a state of art facility the American taxpayer has bought and paid for, just so he can buy a facility in Illinos, i.e., "Gitmo North".
And I can't figure out why Graham is offering a quid pro quo on the issue. Obama has already sustained heavy political damage on both fronts: his failure to close Gitmo within a year, and the decisions to put terrorists on trial as ordinary criminal defendants. (There's a rumor that Obama may soon overturn Holder's decision for a NYC show trial for KSM.) To me and other conservatives, the response is simple: we should put the high-value suspects on trial in Surpeme Court-authorized military tribunals at Gitmo. No quid pro quo needed or desired.
The Latest Episode of "Chavez Loves Hillary"
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez decided to insult Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the one sure way to irritate any Democrat: by calling her a Bushie: "To me, she's like Condoleezza Rice ... a blond Condoleezza." Well, you know, a lot of people used to call Bill Clinton the "first black President"...
Political Cartoon
Isn't it time we BALANCED THE FEDERAL BUDGET and retired our public debt before China calls in our loans? Maybe we should keep Obama away the Mall in Washington DC before he comes up with a dozen new ways to spend the limit on the national credit card....
Musical Interlude: More Days of the Week Songs
The Monkees, "Pleasant Valley Sunday"
Chicago, "Saturday in the Park"
Bangles, "Manic Monday"
Rolling Stones, "Ruby Tuesday"
