Bush Says 'Tragedy' not 'Genocide' for 1915 Events

Published: Tuesday, April 25, 2006

[x5452]

Bush Says 'Tragedy' not 'Genocide' for 1915 Events

By Cihan News Agency, Washington

Published: Tuesday, April 25, 2006

zaman.com

US President George W. Bush has describe the incidents that took place in 1915 as “a tragedy”, in the message he prepared for the 91st anniversary of the so-called Armenian genocide allegations.

The White House announcement reads that the events were a tragedy for mankind and should never be forgotten. Bush, overlooking the demands of the Armenian Diaspora, did not term the incidents as “genocide.”

The event is a source of pain for all Armenians, the. President acknowledged, and Americans feel deeply for this page in history.

Bush invited all parties to take part in dialogue and determine common understanding, and he praised the parties in both Turkey and Armenia who examine the happenings of 1915 impartially, accurately and sensitively.

The Armenian Diaspora alleges a genocide occurred, Armenians were forced to leave their home in 1915; Turkey, on the contrary, refutes these allegations and advocates the deaths were caused by difficult road and weather conditions during the migration.

[cccp_hater]

"The deniers of Holocaust have a purpose: to prolong Nazism and to return to Nazi legislation. Nobody wants the 'Young Turks' back, and nobody want to have back the Ottoman Law. What do the Armenians want?"

What a completely incorrect blanket statement. When the Iranian president denies the holocaust happened is it because he wants a Nazi party established in Iran. NO! As if lunatics need to have rational reasons to deny historical facts. Apparently every genocide has to perfectly model the Holocaust in order for it to be REAL, "genocide".

"But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute."

How are the Armenians trying to diminish the "worth of the Jewish Holocaust" (as if it has a pre-determined value)?
Just because there was armed Armenian resistance it doesn't count as a genocide? Are the same standards held to resistors in the Warsaw ghetto?

[steve-b]

Why do you and the author imply that the two terms (genocide and tragedy) are somehow mutually exclusive? Genocide is a tragedy, isn't it?

The difference, obviously, is that "tragedy" evades the issue of responsibility -- a random "act of God" like an earthquake is a "tragedy" for which nobody is to blame.

[SJackson]

GEORGE W. BUSH RECOGNIZES ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

GEORGE W. BUSH RECOGNIZES ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Republican Candidate Calls on Americans to Remember and Acknowledge "Facts and Lessons" of the "Genocidal Campaign" against the Armenians

Washington, DC -- In a powerfully worded letter to two of his leading Armenian American supporters, Republican presidential hopeful Texas Governor George Bush acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, called on Americans to join with him in remembering the crime committed against the Armenian people, and pledged as President to ensure that the United States properly recognizes this terrible atrocity, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

Governor Bush's letter, addressed to Michigan community activist Edgar Hagopian and New York businessman Vasken Setrakian, who attended Harvard with the Governor, also called for continued U.S. aid to Armenia, encouraged a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, and praised the "tremendous contribution of the Armenian community to the United States."

"We welcome Governor Bush's principled stand on the Armenian Genocide and join with him in calling upon all Americans to acknowledge both the facts and lessons of this crime against humanity," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "We would like, as well, to voice our community's gratitude to Vasken Setrakian and Edgar Hagopian, both of whom have done so much to share with Governor Bush the issues of pressing concern to our community. We appreciate their leadership and value their contribution to expanding the voice of Armenian Americans in the political process."

Governor Bush's rival for the Republican nomination, Arizona Senator John McCain, has yet to speak out on Armenian issues. He has remained silent, in particular, on the Armenian Genocide, despite having received an unprecedented number of postcards from Armenian Americans as part of the ANCA's million postcard campaign to leading presidential candidates - including Governor Bush, Vice President Al Gore and former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley.

The two hundred thousand postcards addressed to Sen. McCain ask him to explain his vote in 1990 against former Senator Bob Dole's Armenian Genocide resolution and, more recently, his 1999 vote to lift the Section 907 restrictions on U.S. aid to Azerbaijan, despite Azerbaijan's failure to lift its blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. (For more information on the ANCA postcard campaign, visit http://www.anca.org.)

In a September 1998 speech in the U.S. Senate, McCain attacked a Congressionally approved ten million dollar aid package to the American University of Armenia as an "objectionable program," and a "serious diversion of scarce resources otherwise needed for truly worthy programs." (For more information on this speech, visit http://mccain.senate.gov/frop99ap.htm.)

Provided below is the full text of Governor Bush's letter.


#####

George W. Bush for President
February 19, 2000

Mr. Edgar Hagopian
Mr. Vasken Setrakian


Dear Edgar and Vasken,

Thank you for your inquiry to my campaign regarding issues of concern to Armenian Americans.

The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.

The Armenian diaspora and the emergence of an independent Republic of Armenia stand as a testament to the resiliency of the Armenian people. In this new century, the United States must actively support the independence of all the nations of the Caucasus by promising the peaceful settlement of regional disputes and the economic development of the region. American assistance to Armenia to encourage the development of democracy, the rule of law and a tolerant open society is vital. It has my full support.

I am encouraged by recent discussions between the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The United States should work actively to promote peace in the region and should be willing to serve as a mediator. But ultimately peace must be negotiated and sustained by the parties involved. Lasting peace can come only from agreements they judge to be in their best interests.

I appreciate the tremendous contribution of the Armenian community to the United States. The Armenian community has been and will continue to be a model of dedication to values of faith and family.

Sincerely,

[signed]
George W. Bush

[SJackson]

It seems to me that many of those who want to use this commemoration as an occasion to shove it in the face of Turkey's leaders (none of whom had anything to do with it), also want to stick a finger in the eye of Muslims. Is that about right?... Correct. This was a Jihadist genocide by the Turks. 400,000 Greeks and 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered by Muslims

The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.
Candidate George W. Bush

GWB would appear to be with dennisw on this on. At least during campaign season, when pandering for ethnic votes. Kind of a Jerusalem Embassy thing.

[OldCorps]

This article is worthy of an Orthodox ping. Sad the president gives into political pressure in denying truth.

[Lion in Winter]

GREAT POST, SJACKSON!!.....ping to self for later read.... doctor's appointment... BYE, ya'll.

[Lion in Winter]

Oh, by the way... HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT MUSLIMS TURKS ARE NOT OR WERE NOT ANIMALS???

Humans are ALL animals, as opposed to PLANTS, for example.

LOL!!

[SJackson]

see 78 also.

[Lion in Winter]

"The real reason for the Armenian genocide wasn't religion, but nationalism on the part of the Young Turks. Remember, most Albanians were Muslim.".

HUH??? What have Albanians got to do with this issue?? NOTHING!!!

The ARMENIANS WERE AND STILL ARE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS.

[Lion in Winter]

Oh, please. YOU know excatly why the folks are upset. AND they are NOT blaming Bush for the genocide at all... just his PC attitude...all that trop garbage!!

[Lion in Winter]

Bosnia was a WAR!! A CIVIL WAR... CHRISTIANS AGAINST THE ISLAMIC HOARDS from bosnia and the islamic world!!

All muslims are islamics just waiting to bloom into raving RADICALS who murderer JEWS,CHRISTIANS and HINDUS... as well as any non-muslim on the planet.

[dervish]

You misunderstand me.

Bosnia being a war was exactly my point. I was distinguishing a war or resistance (Serbia/Bosnia) from the massacre of civilians living peacably within a country without territorial aspirations.

[dangus]

Since then, I've seen numbers of 50,000 to 200,000 from more reasonable sources.

[unionblue83]

I see it more as another case of the Religion of Peace and their policies regarding Christians.

[dervish]

"I’m not sure your article is relevant. Lewis is addressing an apparent comparison between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. Not having access to the Ha’aertz article, I don’t know what points he was refuting, but none of that addresses the question of genocide."

Lewis in the piece I posted is definitely saying that the massacre of Armenians was not a genocide when he says that genocide has a specific definition. Further he was convicted of 'denying crimes against humanity' in France for saying that Armenia was not a genocide in an interview with Le Monde in 1993. He was fined a franc.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12055&r=sbhvq

I have read and posted here from Morgenthau. Lewis does not dispute that their were massacres but he defines genocide as precluding the type of land and territorial dispute that occurred. Was there an armed Armenian separatist movement? That is more the type of question Lewis asks.

One might also ask why the terminology matters. I think it matters. But given the way it is thrown around and the way much lesser events are called a Gulag or Nazi like, I guess it doesn't matter to many. OTOH what appears to be a current present day unequivocal genocide in Sudan interests very few.

[dangus]

Sorry, Scoop, but Genocide has to at least include killing, because that's what the "-cide" means. Some have referred to "cultural genocide," but that term is contemptible. It's like calling a fantasy about consentual sex, "mental rape": It demeans the horror of the actual term.

By your definition of genocide, almost any societal change can be termed genocide.

[dangus]

>> What a completely incorrect blanket statement. When the Iranian president denies the holocaust happened is it because he wants a Nazi party established in Iran. <<

Uh, yeah, it is, actually. Iran is a nationalist, socialist, totalitarian state bent on global domination and the elimination of Jews. Well, OK, he doesn't want a Nazi party established in Iran; he wants the current one to be more successful in its goals.

[FreedomPoster]

>>The genocide of the Armenians killed far more people than the Albigensian crusade.

Rummel puts the numbers at 15,000 to 60,000 in 1209, and another 3,000 in 1236. He's always seemed extremely even-handed and thorough.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM

[dangus]

Actually, the prevalent, nihilist definition of man as an "animal" is very repugnant. One could say, reasonably, if one concurrs with the current scientific evidence (as I do) that Man is EVOLVED from animals, but to call man an animal is to subvert the very meaning of an animal, and obscenely denigrate humanity.

The ancient Greeks and early Christians referred to that force which gives motility to animals and humans as the soul, recognizing that there were principles common to that motility. However, the souls of animals and men are not identical, but are divided into two types, animal and rational. Please note that "animal" is an adjective; just like a "church" is properly called a "church building" (unless you actually do mean an assemby of people), an "animal" was understood to mean an "animal soul."

Animal souls are defined as inherently amoral, being motivated purely by instinct, whereas rational souls are capable of using reason to select an action in opposition to an instinctive response. Since Freud and Nietszche, mainstream society has rejected even the existence of rational thought, holding that it is, instead, instinct overly complicated to the point of complete dysfunction.

Nonetheless, the labelling of someone as an "animal" was never meant to assert that he shares morphological and genetic similarities with members of the a given phylogenic kingdom. Rather, it was said to deny the possibility of salvation or reasonable thought, because THAT is what animal literally denotes.