Passive Aggressive Politics

I've heard some speculation that the Democratic Congress has tried to push through its "non-binding resolution" recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915, at this particular point in time, specifically to increase tension with Turkey, which is already mightily pissed off about the U.S.'s perceived lack of interest in helping to stamp out the terrorist actions of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) in Northern Iraq.

The reason that they'd want to increase tensions with Turkey is that a soured relationship with them would seriously damage the U.S. ability to continue the occupation of Iraq. Specifically, Turkey might close off American access to Turkey's Incirlik airbase, which is required to transport 70% of all air cargo for American forces in Iraq. Additionally, a Turkish incursion into Iraq would cause serious problems for continued planning of the U.S. military. If any of this happens, it might speed up troop withdrawal and indirectly help achieve a major goal of the Democratic Party.

I have two beefs with this tactic: (1) Should the Congress really be passing symbolic resolutions about historical events like this at all? Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent in taxes to support this kind of thing; and (2) Should Congress be in the business of strategically increasing wrath against the U.S. by foreign countries in order to achieve domestic political goals (i.e. withdrawal)?

That seems to be a really passive aggressive way of doing business. Why not just cut funding to the troops, like Dennis Kucinich has advocated? Because -- cutting funding to the troops would appear unpatriotic, and probably doesn't test well with focus groups.

This back-door way of getting things done would really set a bad precedent for American politics. Does anyone have any opinions (or inside information) on whether or not this is true?