Today we read that President Bush does not believe that back in 1915 the Turks should be accused of genocide for the killings of 1.5 million Armenians during WWI. On the other hand, he put great effort into a campaign to accuse Saddam Hussein of genocide in the gassing of several thousand Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war. In fact, Mr. Bush chose this genocide as one of the reasons that Saddam needed to be deposed.
Odd, isn't it, that the same man can be both for and against an accusation of genocide on innocent civilians by ruthless people. I wonder if there is anything we could uncover that would help us figure out why Mr. Bush takes two different stands on genocide?
Dustin Lawson on my book "Unapologetic"
1 day ago