Perspectives on the Armenian Genocide Resolution,
For those who may not have been following this issue, this is a house resolution that just passed committee and is scheduled to be brought to the full house within weeks. It will not go to the Senate, as being a resolution it has no force of law and will be "merely" a statement of the sentiment of a majority of the 435 members of this body. The house passes dozens of these resolutions to satisfy its constituents every month, from celebrating the founding of a country, to condemning various actions against civil liberties.
These resolutions are extra-Constitutional actions, not included in Article One as a delegated authority of Congress. Normally they are innocuous, a symbolic earmark to a district's group that the other members go along with so they will get their own approved. But this is different, as best articulated in this Editorial in the Washington Post.
I found it interesting that the editorial mentioned eight previous secretaries of state, including democrats such as Madeleine K. Albright, oppose this resolution. Before reading this editorial I had submitted a diary to Dailykos expressing some of the same sentiments, where the hostility and personal assaults actually surprised me. To the cabal at Dailykos, my being against this resolution meant that I had no sympathy for those Armenians who were slaughtered. Actually reading what I had to say was of no interest to them, since it would only have challenged their sense of righteousness.
I will indulge in a short diversion here with a quote from this OpEd from Doris Lessing about Political Correctness, that applies to the version of this practiced on Dailykos.
A successor to “commitment” is “raising consciousness.” This is double-edged. The people whose consciousness is being raised may be given information they most desperately lack and need, may be given moral support they need. But the process nearly always means that the pupil gets only the propaganda the instructor approves of. “Raising consciousness,” like “commitment,” like “political correctness,” is a continuation of that old bully, the party line.
snip-
For every woman or man who is quietly and sensibly using the idea (of political correctness) to examine our assumptions, there are 20 rabble-rousers whose real motive is desire for power over others, no less rabble-rousers because they see themselves as anti-racists or feminists or whatever.
So, Dailykos was not interested in exactly why I and Madeline Albright, and even Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, felt that this resolution smacked of cynicism and the worst of political pandering. So, I tried another angle, that just might connect with the Dailykos reader, pointing out that their party, the Democrats are about to fall into a carefully planned trap laid by the Republican Party. It was based on George Stephanopoulos' interview on This Week with Nancy Pelosi,
I will paraphrase, but the entire transcript should soon be available for those who want to validate this. He asked her why she is going to bring this resolution to the full house when she has been told by the President that this would harm our relations with Turkey.
Her response was stunning, saying that although the President talks to her frequently he never specifically requested that she not pursue this resolution. And then she said something even more intriguing. She had a message to contact Defense Secretary Gates on the same subject, but before she could return the call, another message was sent not to call him. Why would he choose not to make the case that he has made to the public, to the person who could actually control the outcome?
Could it be that Republicans want this resolution to pass, and welcome any response, any reaction from Turkey that will impede the war effort in Iraq. It will be the perfect example of the Democrats not caring about the troops and wanting us to lose in Iraq. This will be fodder for the right wing, that will have the advantage of being true. It will not be an ad from an independent Moveon.org, or a comment from a radio personality, it will be the votes of the elected members of congress.
Perhaps the principles of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater are still reverberating in the Bush White House. They figure that the administration will be able to deflect the Turkish response to this resolution, but the Democratic Party will not be able to get around what this did for the war effort. While the party refuses, or is unable, to perform it's constitutional mandate to decide whether to defund this war, the House does take an action that will harm the effectiveness of the war effort.
As someone who is deeply opposed to this Bush incarnation of Republicanism, I am sickened by the support of this resolution, and the refusal of the party's leaders to fully realize the self inflicted harm that it will cause. As far as the cabal of Dailykos participants who see expression of my opinion , which happens to be that of many Democrats, as an occasion for personal abuse, I can only shake my head.
Addendum:
This comment from the Dailykos diary describes three previous resolutions that reference the Armenian killings as Genocide. This makes the current resolution even less justifiable.
It's been done before, why do it again?
To argue that we're "finally" going to recognize genocide is disingenous. The House has passed two resolutions that do exactly the same thing, which is virtually nothing: ask the president to please talk about Armenian genocide every year on April 24:
House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved: `[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as `National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those of Armenian ancestry . . .'.
House Joint Resolution 247, adopted on September 10, 1984, resolved: `[t]hat April 24, 1985, is hereby designated as `National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry . . .'.
On June 5, 1996, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Bill 3540 (the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997) to reduce aid to Turkey by $3,000,000 (an estimate of its payment of lobbying fees in the United States) until the Turkish Government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide and took steps to honor the memory of its victims.
by cadejo4 on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 11:08:29 AM PDT
- arodb's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
to be fair
the resolution will probably not pass and even if it will it's impact will probably be limited due to the White House's strident assurances to Turkey that it is meaningless. Bringing up that resolution now is very poor timing considering the serious potential geopolitical implications and the very current situation on the Iraq/Turkey/Iran borders.
That said, of course Turkey committed genocide against Armenians and has engaged in the worst kind of historical revisionism that would never have passed muster with a Western country. Because they are one of our few Muslim allies and are relatively friendly and in an important place, all those things considered it's best not to stir the nest right this moment.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Leaving aside
the usual deep consi=piracy theory (those evil, clever Republicans are setting a trap here, and secretly want it passed), Here's what Brzezinski said in response to Wolf Blitzer's question about this:
Let's throw in Carter, since the left spent all last week hanging on his every word:
The Democrat party is rapidly becoming the party of the symbolic gesture.
I was surprised to hear
the blowhard himself declaring that he would not vote for this resolution. If anything, this resolution was created precisely by and for people like him.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
which blowhard?
As Carter pointed out, he was against such a resolution when he was president.
here, from the Armenian website, is a statement issued by Carter on meeting with them in 1978. I just can't imagine the hoowling that would ensue if Bush were to make this statement! My God, he refers to Christianity and all. But he never uses the word 'genocide.'
Carter LOVES them, because they supported him early, they are Christians (Catholics even, but Carter slides past that), and they have suffered. This shows that, in order, Carter is a politician, a Christian who thinks that a person's religion is important in politics, and a liberal.
I wonder which is most important to him.
Bottom line, despite your swipe at Carter, he is consistent on this issue.
never questioned his consistency on this issue
But I simply find his stand on the issue (consistent or not) to be surprising as he is all about bloviating about Peace and Love and the suffering of others and if there is a gesture to be made about it he'll rush to be the first to make it. Unless... unless it might not be politically correct.
And while there are Catholic Armenians and Armenian Catholic Church, many if not most belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church or Armenian Orthodox Church arguably in existence since the days of the Apostles who supposedly introduced Christianity into Armenia in the 1st century. Which would make them one of the oldest churches and probably the first Christian nation as Carter said.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
yeah, my bad
when talking about protestants, I tend to glibly lump "Orthodox" churches in with the Catholics.
What i am interested in is what people thought then, if they are old enough, or think now about Carter, as a spokesman and leader of our nation, lauding them for being a Christian nation.
that is interesting
and I wonder what liberals of today said if they heard the same phrases lauding Armenia for being a Christian nation without knowing who said it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not suggesting conspiricy...
as the prime motivator.
but if the Dems were about to hand the Republicans a political bonanza on a silver platter, yes, they my just be willing to accept it.
The Gates-Bush non specific request to Pelosi is a bit interesting though.
It would be less interesting
if you upped the gauge on that tin foil! ;-)
I'm not clear why you care so
much what the DKos community thinks of your diary. They are criticizing you for being an independant thinker.
name the enemy, win the war
I do care, because Dailykos is like a cafe...
that is open 24 hours. There is a crowd of thugs who hang around, but also some bright thinking people, whom I often get into conversations with.
It is worth making an effort to shake them up a bit.
Re Armenian genocide and Turkey
here is interesting background by Spengler:
"Turkey fears Kurds, not Armenians"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ16Ak02.html
name the enemy, win the war
I basically agree with your obervations ...
and didn't have much to add. I see the whole issue as the Democrats playing politics by trying to piss off Turkey to further hamper our war efforts in Iraq.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The goal of hampering the war effort...
may be that of many on Dailykos, but it is not that of the Democrats in Congress. Those who are voting for this bill are simply being blind to the consequences, and responding to their base in their districts.
This points out the differences between the house and the senate. Each does their own stupid things based on either having a safe seat, so they don't give a damn what others think. Or in the case of the Senate, fearing to go against the other side since they need a consensus in an at large state election.