I am not sure how US politics work. Since Bush vetoed several important bills, why not this one?
2007-10-13 16:41:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Every single person who's answered this question has been wrong. The President doesn't have the power to veto a congressional resolution. Congressional Resolutions are merely statements by the congress, usually statements of a particular viewpoint, the President can lobby members to vote no, but it doesn't go to him like a bill after it passes, once it passes, it's officially a congressional resolution.
2007-10-13 22:52:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, the bill hasn't gotten enough to be vetoed yet. The President has spoke against it because it will only weaken the US's current relationship with Turkey. The genocide took place one hundred years ago.
It's a sad situation brought about for political reasons. Genocide is always horrific and wrong. The question is why is congress condemning this genocide one hundred years after the fact? I haven't heard a swelling of Armenian's crying out for restitution or resolution. This is not about that. This is about the democrats in congress pulling every trick possible to force a US pull out of Iraq.
The only thing that a resolution of condemnation by congress would do at this point is alienate Turkey. Turkey allows very important US supply lines to Iraq to pass through their country. Even if congress passes this and the President vetoes it, the political damage will already have been done. That's why the President is speaking out so strongly now and isn't just waiting to veto it.
With a Presidential veto the Democrats see it as a double win as the President will in effect have approved of genocide in the eyes of many who do not understand the motives behind the resolution.
2007-10-13 17:20:47 · answer #2 · answered by Diane D. 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why would you want it vetoed? Don't you think that a Genocide that has been denied for 92 years should be recognized as an actual event?
Besides..I don't think he can veto it. The resolution is non-binding, it is merely symbolic.
All it means is that: from this point on, the U.S. officially accepts what happened to the Armenians as a "genocide"..The "g" word causes problems with Turkey...
In fact, in Turkey, if you say the "g" word in terms of the Armenians, you are thrown in prison..(Penal code 301).
I truly believe this should be recognized. It would give dignity to the 1 million Armenian-Americans who vote, work and pay tax in the U.S., and would like to have their history acknowledged by the government they live in.
Secondly, if we recognize past crimes against humanity, we will be in better position to reprimand the on-going ones, like Darfur. What kind of messege would the U.S. be sending by vetoing it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqkOwsBHZWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC8I9ttFiX0
2007-10-14 19:30:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although I deplore the treatment that the Armenians received at the hand of the Ottomans in the first world war I don't think that branding modern day Turkey guilty of genocide is going to do anything positive.There is after all almost no one alive that were alive when these events happened
2007-10-13 19:44:35 · answer #4 · answered by Charlotte's Dad 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He will probably veto it as a way to appease the Turks and they will re-open their air space so the occupation of Iraq can continue. Even so, there will be no "victory" in Iraq just like there was none in Vietnam or Korea. How can you win another country's civil war?
2007-10-13 17:17:15 · answer #5 · answered by RoVale 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Look at Palestine and the dozens of tribes and countries that have conquered and reconquered the area. Does that require a list if resolutions and apologies? Like the tides of Palestine, the Armenians should let their misfortune be absorbed in history. And they should not wield it in such a manner as to influence serious events of the present.
2007-10-13 19:10:18 · answer #6 · answered by syrious 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What kind of a messege do we send the world when we say we want to ignore the first genocide of the 20th century. The death of over 1 million people. All over threats by a country having to do with a war our country does not want.
2007-10-13 17:09:22 · answer #7 · answered by alex_cheevey 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
More Americans believe that the Armenian Genocide was just that and if Bush does veto it, it will cost him the last bit of credibility he has, if he has any left. And if that costs a pipeline in his colonization of Iraq, so be it. Those boys will just have to go home, which should have happened three years ago.
2007-10-13 16:50:44 · answer #8 · answered by t_raudenbush 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
He will and by the time the dummycrats are done they could cost us a main supply pipeline. That happened in the past should be examined to prevent future transgressions not to stir up hard feelings between nations. I for one am tired of all the trash the democrats push to waste time in congress. The real reason for all this stuff about Turkey is to make it harder to achieve victory in Iraq by blocking supplies. The dummycrats are really scared Bush will have a success and take away their dreams for 08.
2007-10-13 16:47:33 · answer #9 · answered by hardnose 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
It may not matter to the Turks, the vote is still the vote.
2007-10-14 00:27:41 · answer #10 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋