Print media ignored Bush's reported 2000 statement on "genocidal campaign" against Armenians
SUMMARY: Reporting on a House resolution stating that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against the Armenian people, numerous print outlets noted President Bush's opposition to the measure. However, none of those outlets mentioned that as a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush sent a letter to the Armenian National Committee of America, according to a press release on the organization's website, in which he wrote that "[t]he Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension" and that if elected president, he "would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people."
Reporting that the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved a resolution stating that the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923 was genocide, numerous print outlets including the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post noted that President Bush said the resolution "is not the right response to these historic mass killings." The Associated Press article on the resolution quoted Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns saying that the resolution's approval "was not an action supported by President Bush." The New York Times article also noted that Bush "carefully avoided the use of the word genocide." However, neither the Times nor the other outlets noted that as a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush sent a letter to the Armenian National Committee of America in which, according to a press release on the organization's website, Bush wrote that "[t]he Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension" and that if elected president, he "would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people." Despite his pledge as a candidate to "ensure" this recognition, Bush does not appear to have used the term "genocide" -- or a variant thereof -- to describe the killings as president, according to a search of the White House website.
In an October 10 statement, Bush urged members of the House "to oppose the Armenian genocide resolution":
On another issue before Congress, I urge members to oppose the Armenian genocide resolution now being considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror.
A number of print outlets quoted Bush's October 10 statement or noted that he opposed the resolution. For example, from the October 11 Los Angeles Times article:
Hours before the vote, Bush warned that the resolution's passage would have serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. "Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror," Bush said on the south lawn of the White House.
"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people," he said, but added: "This resolution is not the right response to these mass killings."
From the October 11 New York Times article:
"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Mr. Bush said in remarks that, reflecting official American policy, carefully avoided the use of the word genocide. "This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."
[...]
"Neither of these resolutions is necessary," a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said Wednesday evening. He said that Mr. Bush was "very disappointed" with the vote.
From the October 11 USA Today article:
"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Bush said, but the resolution is "not the right response."
Bush made his comments after conferring with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Rice and Gates told reporters later that the resolution would damage relations with Turkey, which is a key transit station for American military equipment in Iraq.
From the October 11 Post article:
"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden yesterday.
[...]
The vote drew swift condemnation from the Bush administration. "We are deeply disappointed," said R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state of political affairs. "Turkey is one of our most important allies globally."
From an October 11 AP article:
Burns said the Turks "have not been threatening anything specific" in response to the vote, and that he hopes the "disappointment can be limited to statements."
"The Turkish government leaders know there is a separation of powers in the United States, that today's action was an action by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that this was not an action supported by President Bush and the executive branch of our government," he said.
However, none of these articles noted that Bush had labeled the Turkish killing of Armenians a "genocidal campaign" and vowed that the United States would "properly recognize[]" the event, according to the Armenian National Committee of America's press release. The blog Think Progress documented Bush's letter on October 10. From the "partial text" of Bush's letter on the Armenian National Committee of America website:
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.
White House press secretary Dana Perino was asked about Bush's letter during an October 10 press briefing. Perino stated that Bush "believes that the proper way to address this issue and express our feelings about it is through the presidential message and not through legislation":
Q In February of 2000, candidate George Bush, according to the Armenia National Committee, said the following: "Armenians were," -- candidate Bush said, "Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension." They say he has broken his promise to label the atrocities as genocide when he became President. What has changed since 2000?
MS. PERINO: The President believes that the proper way to address this issue and express our feelings about it is through the presidential message and not through legislation, and that was what he was describing today.
Q But he does consider it genocide, and called it that in 2000.
MS. PERINO: I was -- I didn't read all of the President's messages over the past seven years, but I would refer you to those.
Q Is it just the word "genocide" that he does not want applied to it now?
MS. PERINO: What he wants is -- no, what he wants is for the presidential message to be the thing that stands for the American response to this, not legislation passed by the House of Representatives.
On April 24 of every year of his presidency, Bush has issued a statement honoring the memory of the Armenian lives lost in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, yet in none of them has he used the term "genocide" to describe the killings.
Wow, I didn't know that. I read two articles about the ambassador being recalled (or not recalled, depending on who you ask) and nope, no mention of Bush's earlier support for this kind of recognition.
Gee, could it be because our main resupply route for the Iraq occupation takes us right through Turkey? Could it be because Turkey is inching toward an invasion of what is probably the only calm part of Iraq?
I thought Bush says what he means and means what he says!
"Gee, could it be because our main resupply route for the Iraq occupation takes us right through Turkey? Could it be because Turkey is inching toward an invasion of what is probably the only calm part of Iraq?"-Bittermarv
I wasn't sure from your post, do you think this is a reasonable reason to oppose it? I think it is a valid reason.
It's my suspicion that that's the reason Bush is opposing it now instead of supporting it as he apparently did in 2000.
The current situation on the ground doesn't change the answer to "Was this a genocide?" does it?
Of course that is why Bush is opposing this vote. I don't think that is being denied. I think they have come out and said as much. I just wondered if you thought it was a valid reason to be against this vote. I think it is...if Turkey retaliates by closing off the supply lines or if they are less likely to heed our requests for restraint with the Kurds this could create more problems and more risk. I don't support this war, never did, but I also don't want to see our troops put in greater peril because of a vote like this one. Or to see even more chaos created in the middle east and further diplomatic problems. I am not really sure why they felt this was the right time to hold this vote...it is not exactly time sensitive at this point.
I don't support this war, never did, but I also don't want to see our troops put in greater peril because of a vote like this one.
Bush did that. Not this vote.
I totally see your point. I'm just not sure how much truth I'm willing to sacrifice for this idiotic, ill-planned, and poorly executed war. This is merely the latest of truths that will be set aside.
I wonder if this vote came up now for exactly the reasons stated. The harder it gets to prosecute this Iraq mess, the easier it will become to withdraw.
But as for the Kurds and Turks, what happens there is gonna happen regardless. The invasion brought that about, not a single vote in our Congress. Bush and others knew that Turkey would not allow a Kurdistan state. Invading is what made that a strong possibility.
The vote came up now (it's proposed every year and is usually tabled) because Nancy Pelosi has a large Armenian constituency.
I find this odd. They have time to piddle on about something that happened 80 years ago, but they can't be bothered to investigate the war crimes and lies of the present administration? What am I missing, here?
Yeah, seems kind of odd that a nation that's spent the last two decades killing two million Iraqis, displacing 5 million others, and is assisting in the ethnic cleansing and ghettoization of 3 million Palestinians would bother to whine about a genocide that happened so long ago. But then DC's biggest import has always been hypocrisy.
So those things are MORE wrong?
Well, they are happening NOW. And being perp'd by the exact same people in DC voting to condemn an 80-year old crime. So the words "stunning example of utter hypocrisy" comes into play.
MMFA - 2003 called, they want their story back. too little too late.
Actually, the occurred in the last few days, and the story is current. God wants your brain back.
Maybe it's still under warranty.
If not, he could probably get a replacement under his state's lemon law.
The world changed on 9/11 - apparently that now includes the meaning of the word genocide.
But what didn't change was Bush's inability to keep his word. Except to his fat-cat friends and supporters.
Obviously Bush was full of it and didn't keep his promise. However, I don't think this is the right thing to do at this time. Agree with the war or not supplies are currently being run through Turkey for the troops and the situation with the Kurds is precarious. I don't think now is the time for this bill. I think avoiding using the word is wrong on the part of Bush but I don't think now is the time to pass a formal bill...seems to be just asking for an increase in the problems we are facing in Iraq.
Considerring my expeiences with 2003, I'm not surprised that selfishness has emerged as a defining trait. Its relevence has me at a loss.
Shrub flip flopped. No one heard him. No one cared. No one listened to vegtables then. And Charles was a potatoe. An Irish Spud we used to call him behind his back.*
*partial FST quote.
eweston, I think you're making light of the history. Turkey beat the stuffing out of the Armenians. It may seem like small potatoes now,and any resolution dressing down these crimes may just be gravy, or hamming by the HFAC ,but I am considering any plans to nuke iran very saucy notions.Aside from the hit we'll take at the pump, can piracy of our treasury be ruled out?
Leapin Lampreys! (they would if they could!) What kind of scale on that rule? Something from a goldfish or are we groopering arround with small fry? Think of the cartilage, I shrimp to think of it.
By the way HB, TGIF. A day of bad puns, and untorquing of internal pressures.
Topic, what topic, we don't got to show you no stinking topic!
Regardless of the flip-flop, it's a dumb move right now. No wonder they've decided to allow themselves to invade Northern Iraq.
I think you may be off on the timing. It is my understanding that the attacks occurred before the vote so I don't think you can blame their attack on the vote. Apparently they didn't give two hoots about what their actions would cause but they like so many others expect us to deal with their snit over the genocide. Turkey's position on this is ridiculous...there was a genecide...it happened a long time ago and they should admit it, deal with it, and make sure it doesn't happen again. Threatening the US because they are simply speaking the truth about what occurred is truly infantile.
So, you don't think Turkey has a right to defend itself again Kurdish attacks on their soil?
Turkey has been crapping on it's Kurdish minority for the last 90 years. It was illegal to give your children Kurdish names or even speak the Kurdish language until the 1990's, and then they only changed that due to EU pressure. One woman MP dared to speak Kurdish in their parliament and the whole place flipped out, watched the footage on a docu called "Good Kurds, Bad Kurds".
As usual, MMFA missed the big story - wow... the House of Reps is actually trying to do something.
Nancy Pelosi may not have accomplished anything so far as Speaker. But on this vital issue of the day she is finally going to take on the evil Ottoman Empire!!!
Hopefully she'll wrap up the Armenian vote AND raise the opinion polls of the House into the double digits!!
As usual, MMFA missed the big story - wow... the House of Reps is actually trying to do something.
The House of Representatives has done a lot of things but legislation is stalled in the Senate. We need to get rid of those d*mn republican obstructionists. Two election cycles should do it.
Actually, the Democrat Party runs the Senate too.
What a bunch of worthless good-for-nothings!
41 senators banding together can stop any legislation in the Senate. We need to get rid of those republican obstructionists.
Do we need to play you that Saturday morning cartoon on how a Bill becomes a Law?
I think for BillyBob's benefit, you might have to. Contrary to what he, and Limbaugh keeps telling him, the House has passed a ton o' legislation, and lots of it has had bi-partisan support. And as others have said, it is now stalled in the Senate, because the Republicans won't allow for "up or down" votes on the floor of the Senate on legislation that has been passed through the House. That is the right of the minority in the Senate, but I would like to remind BillyBob about what was said about the Democratic senators (and Billy, it IS the Democratic party, anytime we keep repeating that old nugget of the Democrat party you sound even more ignorant than you might actually be) when they wanted to fillibuster a few judicial nominees, or a bill here and there. Obstructionists, un-Patriotic, and other things and charges were leveled at the Democrats in the Senate at the time from the well oiled Republican smear machinery.
So Billy old boy, stick your head back in the sand, and come up for breath when you want to learn about how things actually function in the Senate and the House, or maybe actually read something about it instead of listening to, and repeating what your talk radio heroes tell you.
Well this is not hypocrisy on GW's part as far as I'm concerned. What he said was that he would ensure that the US properly recognizes the suffering. He did not say that he would approve any particular House resolution that labeled the genocide as genocide.
What he said was that he would ensure that the US properly recognizes the suffering.
Read up on the Armenian genocide. To "properly recognize" it is to recognize that it was genocide.
C'mon people... what Bush said in 2000 has to be viewed from the pre-9/11 viewpoint. Yes, the atrocities of 80 years ago were bad, but why the heck do we need to be piddling around creating legislation about it?
Here's the REALITY we face: We are in a messy war and Turkey plays an incredibly vital logistical role in our ability to perform. If Pelosi and company cant take funds away from the war, if they can't end it themselves, they can make it harder to fight by pissing off a KEY ally in the region. This is reprehensible, it is offensive, it is political posturing for nothing more than getting at the President. It could be considered treasonous.
Hey congress... DO YOUR DAMNED JOB and listen to the people. For starters, why not focus on something a little more current than the Model T... healthcare, border security, social security, tax reform... just some suggestions.
Yeah! Maybe there's a bridge to no where that needs funding!
if they can't end it themselves, they can make it harder to fight by pissing off a KEY ally in the region.
Bush and his fellow Republicans have made it impossible for Democrats to "end [the occupation of Iraq] themselves." So maybe making the logistics of that occupation harder is the way to bring it to and end. Not saying that's the case. If that is the case, though, why isn't that an acceptable way to "end it themselves" if ending it is an acceptable thing in your mind?
Pinning the mess of Iraq on the Democrats ain't gonna happen. This is Bush's war. He wanted it, he got it, and he gets all the blame.
This story about the Armenian Genocide that occured between 1915-19 has really gone unreported in the American media. Now we all know why Bush today has decided to go against this measure , but back in 2000 he flipfloped, this however is yet another example of he says and does one thing and says an other. What happened to these people was genocide, why wont the rest of the world and the Turks face up to it?
The Democrats in congress should use this bill as leverage against the administration. What is president Bush willing to give them in order to avoid the vote? If it means that much to the war effort, then he needs to come to the table.
On the other hand, Turkey has to accept and aknowledge its history. They do not have as much leverage as the MSM is claiming. Yes, they have leverage on the Bush administration because of our tactical reliance on them for our supply routes to Iraq. But the Europeans, in turn, have leverage on them because of their desire to enter into the EU.
What is president Bush willing to give them in order to avoid the vote?
You mean... compromise? Compromise is for pussies! It's Bush's way or the highway, baby.