Tweet
SUPPORT FOR GENOCIDE RESOLUTION WEAKENING IN THE U.S.
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 18 2007
Only a few days ago, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committe voted on
a resolution that condemned the supposed 'Armenian genocide,' backed
by Democratic Representatives mainly, especially Nancy Pelosi. A few
days ago Nancy Pelosi seemed determined on bringing the resolution to
the floor of the House. As of yesterday, Nancy Pelosi's determination
looked weak as she adressed reporters at the Capitol Hill. "Whether
it will come up or noti what the action will be, remains to be seen,"
she said.
This trend of weakening determination has been seen from both parties's
House members as they have started to withdraw from they support of
the resolution.
Another major person who spoke out against the resolution was John
Murtha, Democratic Representative who heads the Appropriations
subcommittee on military matters.
Mr Murtha declared that "What happened nearly 100 years ago was
terrible. I don't know whether it was a massacre or a genocide,
but that is beside the point. The point is, we have to deal with
today's world. And dealing with today's world means dealing with
Turkey." Mr Murtha thinks that until the war in Iraq comes to an
end, it is necessary to keep Turkey on their side in order to access
military installations, notably the use of the Incirlik base.
Isn't what Mr.Murtha is saying the point Turkey has tried to make?
Mr. Murth realizes that as a Representative he should be dealing with
current issues, and not historical debates. Turkey has proposed to
leave it up to historians to decide whether it is a genocide or not.
John Murtha perhaps just came to realize that.
"Turkey is a strong ally of the United States, and I believe that
this resolution could harm our relations with Turkey and therefore
our strategic interests in the region," he said at last.
This shift of perceptions has been the result of pressure from
President Bush and Turkish lobbies, who made the Democrats clearly
understand that provocating Turkey by attempting to pass this bill,
will hurt U.S. relations with Turkey and thus harm its interests in
the region.
"Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic
ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital
support for our military every day," president Bush said.
Another person who dropped his sponsorship of the resolution, is
Democratic Representative Allen Boyd. "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," he said. So what
there is to understand from what Boyd says is that the 'right time'
will eventually come. When the war in Iraq is over, they are going
to bring it up again basically.
A very interesting, even funny statement, if I may say, came from
Democratic Representative Brad Sherman. "This is what happens when
you are up against a very sophisticated multimillion-dollar campaign.
Since when has it become fashionable for friends to threaten
friends?" he said. There is so much to say in response to this smart
remark of Sherman. First of all why are they voting for this resolution
in the first place? Isn't it because of a 'sophisticated multi-million
dollar' Armenian lobbying group is pressuring the Democrats to pass
such a resolution in exchange for their votes and cash for election
campaigns? If it weren't because of that, if it was because the
House Representatives are so concerned about world peace, or such,
why don't they condemn France for an Algerian genocide?
Because Algerians aren't a 'sophisticated multi-million dollar' lobby
group in the United States, and thereofre they are worthless for the
U.S. Second since when has it been the concern of Representatives to
deal with historical issues that do not concern them? Since when has it
been fashionable for a friend to backstab a friend for another friend?
Democrats should think twice before they hypocritically talk about
something they don't especially have knowledge on. Even Murtha said
that some of the sponsors have given their support without even
knowing what it was about. This is the reality of American politics
chasing money support and vote counts, insted of really dealing with
rational foreign policy issues.
Bottom line, House Representatives are finally realizing that their
interest in the Middle East will be harmed, if they do pass this
resolution. However it looks like this issue will only be placed on
a shelf and dealt with once the war in Iraq is over from what there
is to understand from their statements.
Professor Stanford Shaw of Bilkent University, who passed away
last year, said that there is enough evidence in American military
archives to reveal the truth that such allegations are wrong, and
that no genocide has occured. Indeed if American Representatives are
so concerned about the issue why don't they open up their archives
and let historians decide on the truth. What is more believable,
the opinion of a majority of current U.S. Representatives voting on
an issue that has happened almost 100 years ago, or the opinion of
a group of expert historians (a procedure the Armenians do not want)
who will analyze historical evidences?
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 18 2007
Only a few days ago, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committe voted on
a resolution that condemned the supposed 'Armenian genocide,' backed
by Democratic Representatives mainly, especially Nancy Pelosi. A few
days ago Nancy Pelosi seemed determined on bringing the resolution to
the floor of the House. As of yesterday, Nancy Pelosi's determination
looked weak as she adressed reporters at the Capitol Hill. "Whether
it will come up or noti what the action will be, remains to be seen,"
she said.
This trend of weakening determination has been seen from both parties's
House members as they have started to withdraw from they support of
the resolution.
Another major person who spoke out against the resolution was John
Murtha, Democratic Representative who heads the Appropriations
subcommittee on military matters.
Mr Murtha declared that "What happened nearly 100 years ago was
terrible. I don't know whether it was a massacre or a genocide,
but that is beside the point. The point is, we have to deal with
today's world. And dealing with today's world means dealing with
Turkey." Mr Murtha thinks that until the war in Iraq comes to an
end, it is necessary to keep Turkey on their side in order to access
military installations, notably the use of the Incirlik base.
Isn't what Mr.Murtha is saying the point Turkey has tried to make?
Mr. Murth realizes that as a Representative he should be dealing with
current issues, and not historical debates. Turkey has proposed to
leave it up to historians to decide whether it is a genocide or not.
John Murtha perhaps just came to realize that.
"Turkey is a strong ally of the United States, and I believe that
this resolution could harm our relations with Turkey and therefore
our strategic interests in the region," he said at last.
This shift of perceptions has been the result of pressure from
President Bush and Turkish lobbies, who made the Democrats clearly
understand that provocating Turkey by attempting to pass this bill,
will hurt U.S. relations with Turkey and thus harm its interests in
the region.
"Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic
ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital
support for our military every day," president Bush said.
Another person who dropped his sponsorship of the resolution, is
Democratic Representative Allen Boyd. "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," he said. So what
there is to understand from what Boyd says is that the 'right time'
will eventually come. When the war in Iraq is over, they are going
to bring it up again basically.
A very interesting, even funny statement, if I may say, came from
Democratic Representative Brad Sherman. "This is what happens when
you are up against a very sophisticated multimillion-dollar campaign.
Since when has it become fashionable for friends to threaten
friends?" he said. There is so much to say in response to this smart
remark of Sherman. First of all why are they voting for this resolution
in the first place? Isn't it because of a 'sophisticated multi-million
dollar' Armenian lobbying group is pressuring the Democrats to pass
such a resolution in exchange for their votes and cash for election
campaigns? If it weren't because of that, if it was because the
House Representatives are so concerned about world peace, or such,
why don't they condemn France for an Algerian genocide?
Because Algerians aren't a 'sophisticated multi-million dollar' lobby
group in the United States, and thereofre they are worthless for the
U.S. Second since when has it been the concern of Representatives to
deal with historical issues that do not concern them? Since when has it
been fashionable for a friend to backstab a friend for another friend?
Democrats should think twice before they hypocritically talk about
something they don't especially have knowledge on. Even Murtha said
that some of the sponsors have given their support without even
knowing what it was about. This is the reality of American politics
chasing money support and vote counts, insted of really dealing with
rational foreign policy issues.
Bottom line, House Representatives are finally realizing that their
interest in the Middle East will be harmed, if they do pass this
resolution. However it looks like this issue will only be placed on
a shelf and dealt with once the war in Iraq is over from what there
is to understand from their statements.
Professor Stanford Shaw of Bilkent University, who passed away
last year, said that there is enough evidence in American military
archives to reveal the truth that such allegations are wrong, and
that no genocide has occured. Indeed if American Representatives are
so concerned about the issue why don't they open up their archives
and let historians decide on the truth. What is more believable,
the opinion of a majority of current U.S. Representatives voting on
an issue that has happened almost 100 years ago, or the opinion of
a group of expert historians (a procedure the Armenians do not want)
who will analyze historical evidences?