In an article online at the Jewish World Review, Charles Krauthammer comments on the recent kerfuffle over the Armenian Genocide resolution currently being considered by our noble Democrats in Congress.
There are three relevant questions concerning the Armenian genocide.
(a) Did it happen?
(b) Should the U.S. House of Representatives be expressing itself on this now?
(c) Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's determination to bring this to a vote, knowing that it risked provoking Turkey into withdrawing crucial assistance to American soldiers in Iraq, a conscious (columnist Thomas Sowell) or unconscious (blogger Mickey Kaus) attempt to sabotage the U.S. war effort?
The answers are:
(a) Yes, unequivocally.
(b) No, unequivocally.
(c) Heaven only knows.
I posted recently here on blog648 about my own reaction to the motivation behind Ms. Pelosi’s determination to bring this bill to the floor. In it I offered my opinion that the resolution is more about obstructing the war effort than about genocide and the Donks know exactly what their doing, and I insisted that it’s a brilliant strategy to bring the war effort to an end without having to defund the troops because passing this bill will provoke the Turks into cutting off our supply lines and bring failure in Iraq by virtue of the fact that we won’t be able to support our troops logistically.
But Krauthammer disagrees.
So why has Pelosi been so committed to bringing this resolution to the floor? (At least until a revolt within her party and the prospect of defeat caused her to waver.) Because she is deeply unserious about foreign policy. This little stunt gets added to the ledger: first, her visit to Syria, which did nothing but give legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad, who continues to engage in the systematic murder of pro-Western Lebanese members of parliament; then, her letter to Costa Rica's ambassador, just nine days before a national referendum, aiding and abetting opponents of a very important free-trade agreement with the United States.
Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer's razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.
Well, okay. I guess I stand corrected, then. She and they aren’t so smart after all.
I don't know. I'm just not 100% convinced.