Obama Bad - Warming
Obama makes warming worse Roberts 2007 [David, writer, “Barack Obama is not serious about global warming,” Gristmill, 5-11,
With regard to global warming, the very best we could do with CTL is stay on the same disastrous trajectory we are on now. Does that sound like something that deserves taxpayer subsidies? Yes, if your job depends on remaining in the good graces of the coal industry: A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including one presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), is pushing to provide federal loan guarantees, tax breaks and other subsidies to spur the production of fuel from coal. If that's not enough to sour your Obamamania, get a load of this: Obama, who is sponsoring separate legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, said his support for coal fuel depended on finding a way to remove the greenhouse gases emitted in production. "If it is used simply to compound the problem of greenhouse gases, then it's not going to be a credible strategy," he said. The bill does not require that the fuel be produced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, though it does offer tax incentives to encourage the use of technology that captures carbon dioxide. [my emphasis] Let's review what we know: To slow or stop global warming, we need to drastically reduce the emissions from the transportation sector. CTL would increase emissions from the transportation sector, unless every CTL plant was accompanied by a (massively expensive, technically unproven) CO2 sequestration facility, in which case it would keep emissions on their present course. The bills being proposed to funnel taxpayer subsidies to the coal industry for CTL do not require that they be accompanied by CO2 sequestration facilities. The coal industry has done more than any other to degrade our atmosphere and threaten our future. Now coal barons want to further degrade the atmosphere by creating liquid fuel. And Barack Obama wants taxpayers to pay them to do it. This CTL issue is a clear dividing line for legislators. Are you serious about global warming -- about our collective future, and our kids' future -- or are you more concerned with the parochial corporate interests of your home state? Montana's Jon Tester has chosen to be serious about global warming. Obama has made a different choice.
Iran Internal Turn
Obama recognizes Armenian Genocide Turkish Daily News 1-23-2008 [Umit Enginsoy, “Obama pledges to recognize Armenian genocide if elected president,”
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=94365] Senator Barack Obama, one of the Democratic Party's top presidential hopefuls, has pledged killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as "genocide" if elected president.
to recognize the World War I-era "As president, I will recognize the Armenian genocide," Obama said in a statement posted on his Web site last weekend after a
meeting with leaders of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), a group representing mainly radical U.S. Armenian organizations."As a U.S. senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide," he said, citing examples of his efforts to that end over the past three years.He also called on Congress to endorse two pending genocide legislations, one in the House of Representatives and the other in the Senate. "As a senator, I strongly support the passage of the Armenian genocide resolution," he said.The House bill passed the Foreign Affairs Committee in October but did not come to a floor vote after President George W. Bush's administration warned the Democratic congressional leadership that its approval would greatly hurt U.S. strategic interests in Iraq and the Middle East. Turkey has warned that it will curb its military support for the United States in the region if the resolution passes in Congress.
Iran Internal Turn
Turkey invades Iraq causes war with Iran New York Times 10/17/07 [Carl Hulse, “Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17cnd-cong.html?hp=&pagewanted=print] Worried about antagonizing Turkish leaders, House members from both parties have begun to withdraw their support from a resolution supported by the Democratic leadership that would condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians
nearly a century ago. Almost a dozen lawmakers had shifted against the measure over the last 24 hours, accelerating a sudden exodus that has cast deep doubt over the measure’s prospects. Some representatives made clear that they were heeding warnings from the White House, which has called the measure dangerously provocative, and from the Turkish government, which has said House passage would prompt Turkey to reconsider its ties to the United States, including logistical support for the Iraq war. Until today, the resolution appeared to be on a path to House passage, with strong support from the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California. It was approved last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But this evening, a group of group of senior House Democrats had made it known they were planning to ask the leadership to drop plans for a vote on the measure. “Turkey obviously feels they are getting poked in the eye over something that happened a century ago, and maybe this isn’t a good time to be doing that,” said Representative Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat who dropped his sponsorship of the resolution Monday night. Others who took the same action said that while they deplored the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, beginning in 1915, the modern-day consequences in the Middle East could not be overlooked. “We simply cannot allow the grievances of the past — as real as they may be — to in any way derail our efforts to prevent further atrocities for future history books,” said Representative Wally Herger, Republican of California. “I think it is a good resolution and horrible timing,” said Representative Mike Ross, Democrat of Arkansas. The Turkish government has lobbied heavily against the resolution, which is nonbinding and largely symbolic. But lawmakers attributed the erosion in support mainly to fears about a potential Turkish decision to deny American access to critical military facilities in that nation and its threat to move forces into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish rebels. “This vote came face to face with the reality on the ground in that region of the world,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an opponent of the resolution. The Bush administration and top American generals have been vocal in warning that passage of the resolution could cause great harm to the American war effort in Iraq and have put significant pressure on Republicans to abandon their support for the
measure. President Bush called Ms. Pelosi today and asked her to prevent a floor vote on the resolution. “The president and the speaker
exchanged candid views on the subject and the speaker explained the strong bipartisan support in the House for the resolution,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi. The Democratic leadership has been examining the exact level of that support to gauge its next step, but lawmakers and officials said it was now unclear whether the resolution could be approved, given Republican resistance and Democratic defections. “We will have to determine where everyone is,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader. Ms. Pelosi, who has promised a vote on the resolution if it cleared the Foreign Affairs Committee, said she was leaving it to its chief backers to round up votes. “I have never known a count,” she said. Backers of the resolution, which has the fervent backing of the Armenian-American community, described the loss of support as slight and attributed it to the intense lobbying by the Turkish government, the Bush administration and their allies. They said they would try to change the minds of some of those who were wavering. “This is what happens when you are up against a very sophisticated multimillion-dollar campaign,” said Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California, who chided the Turkish government. “Since when it has become fashionable for friends to threaten friends.” But he acknowledged there was little margin of error for backers of the resolution, which had once boasted 225 co-sponsors. “If the vote were held today, I would not want to be my house on the outcome,” he said. Mr. Sherman and others noted that Turkey, at the start of the Iraq war, had refused to let American forces operate from its territory, and that Turkey’s intentions toward the northern border of Iraq had clearly captured the attention of Congress. American military officials in Iraq and in Washington said today that they were concerned about possible Turkish military incursions into northern Iraq against the Kurdish rebels, which the Turkish government blames for a wave of attacks in eastern Turkey. At the moment, these officials said, they did not see many indications that Turkish military was preparing for large-scale incursion into the mountainous strongholds of the Kurdish rebels. They d expressed hope that diplomatic efforts under way between Iraqi and Turkish officials would ease the crisis. “We see no signs that there’s anything imminent by Turkey,” one senior military officer said. “So there’s time for the diplomacy to work for a few more days, if not weeks.” But, he added, the situation could get “ugly” if Turkey sent troops across the border and they clashed with Kurdish militias or Iraqi forces. The biggest fear, several former officials said, is
that Turkish forces could push past the border and head for Kirkuk, forcing Iraq to respond and presenting the United States with mediating between two allies and a decision about whether to commit American troops. Such a crisis could also draw in Iran, which has also had growing problems with Kurdish groups crossing into its territory from
Iraq. In addition to the potential movement of Turkish forces, opponents of the Armenian genocide resolution continued to point to Turkey’s role as a prime staging area for moving American military supplies into Iraq. “This happened a long time ago and I don’t know whether it was a massacre or a genocide; that is beside the point,” said Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is urging Ms. Pelosi to keep the resolution from the floor. “The point is, we have to deal with today’s world.” While the resolution enjoyed more than enough support to pass earlier this year, about two dozen lawmakers have removed their names from the official list of sponsors of the resolution in recent weeks as a vote on it grew more likely and the reservations grew more pronounced. “I think there was genocide in Turkey, in 1915, but I am gravely concerned about the timing,” said Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat who said she would l remain a co-sponsor of the resolution but at the moment would oppose it were it to reach the floor. “I see no compelling reason to do this right this minute.” Representative Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican who dropped his backing of the measure today, said, “Nothing changes the fact that mass killings and unspeakable acts of brutality occurred. However, passing this nonbinding resolution at this critical time would be a destabilizing action when the United States needs the help of its allies, including Turkey, in fighting the global war on terror.”