Congress may as well put forth a resolution suggesting the Attorney General describe a random 3000 year old killing as murder, then say Bush or the AG are "balking" at not classifying it as murder.
We have a definition of murder. In fact, we have legal definitions of different types of murder, the intent of the murderer, the accidental aspects of murder, etc. Why would we need to discuss a 3,000 year old killing?
Or a resolution suggesting Nancy Pelosi acknowledges her hairstyle is unnatractive, then when she doesn't she's "balking" when she doesn't admit her hairstyle sucks.
Hairstyles are a matter of national policy now? I knew that the Pubbie pundits cream themselves talking about Edwards' hair but I didn't realize it went this deep.
The question is whether or not this should even be an issue, and it shouldn't.
I hope you're not basing this conclusion off of your previous examples.
If there's an honest question about our policy of "Genocide" determination, it should be addressed with a real legislative act, not in bringing up a highly contentious 90-year old anecdote.
I'd rather the government set benchmarks which allow them the flexibility to decide on a case by case basis although with an obvious foundation of precedent.
Is this resolution really going to affect foreign policy? Odds are against another genocide exactly like that of the Armenian one, so I fail to see what good one resolution describing one specific event will do.
Odds are against any historical event exactly
repeating itself, be it from last year or last century.
Becuase it IS an issue we have to wonder, as you have, why it was brought up at this time.
Well, technically it was brought up in January. And had been brought up
by other Congresses
And the tin-foil hat suspician of democratic supporters having a motive of causing Bush grief is valid. It's news to me of the GOP support, I'll just write them off as dumbasses in the same way Lieberman is to the democrats.
Which is kind of funny because a House resolution on the exact same thing passed through the Republican controlled committee in 2000 against Clinton's objections. I suppose that was also a purely partisan attempt to attack the sitting president. Just like the 2005 attempt. And the 1989 attempt. And every other attempt. Edited, Oct 11th 2007 3:05pm by Jophiel