At Least He Has Some Manners

Paul of the PowerGuys picks up Ben Smith's coverage of the Obama Waltz on the Armenian genocide which has now been downgraded to an "atrocity" in order to avoid offending Turkey:

Obama is fine with attacking his own country before any audience, but unwilling to keep his promise to "call a spade a spade" when it comes to Turkey.

Ouch.

[end of thread]

Comments

[anduril]

In fairness, the Turkish and Armenian governments have been in talks in an effort to normalize relations soon. It's possible that the Obama admin wants to stay out of the way as far as possible. That's not a defense of Obama's policy toward America, nor is it a refutation of C. Hitchen's latest commentary: Ankara Shows Its Hand: Turkey's scheming at the Strasbourg summit proves it doesn't belong in the European Union. (That article also links to Hitchens' commentary on the Armenian genocide. Unfortunately I can't quickly put my hands on a recent excellent article on the state of Turkish - Armenian talks.)

[Charlie (Colorado)]

"call a spade a spade"

Racist.

[anduril]

Because Hitchens' commentary on the Armenian genocide--by which I mean the genocide of Armenians by Turks, of course--contains links to interesting materials on this event, I'll link it here: Telling the Truth About the Armenian Genocide: We must resist Turkish pressure to distort history.

In this commentary Hitchens addresses, preemptively, my suggestion that the Obama admin (in contravention of its campaign pledge) was soft pedaling this issue in order to avoid getting in the way of peace and normal relations breaking out between Turkey and Armenia. I've already noted Hitchens account of French reaction to the increasingly thuggish behavior of Turkey in my previous post. Hitchens states:

It is now being hinted that if either President Obama or the Congress goes ahead with the endorsement of the genocide resolution, Turkey will prove uncooperative on a range of issues, including the normalization of the frontier between Turkey and Armenia and the transit of oil and gas pipelines across the Caucasus.

When the question is phrased in this thuggish way, it can be slyly suggested that Armenia's own best interests are served by joining in the agreement to muddy and distort its own history. Yet how could any state, or any people, agree to abolish their pride and dignity in this way? And the question is not only for Armenians, who are economically hard-pressed by the Turkish closure of the common border. It is for the Turks, whose bravest cultural spokesmen and writers take genuine risks to break the taboo on discussion of the Armenian question. And it is also for Americans, who, having elected a supposedly brave new president, are being told that he—and our Congress too—must agree to collude in a gigantic historical lie. A lie, furthermore, that courageous U.S. diplomacy helped to expose in the first place. This falsification has already gone on long enough and has been justified for reasons of state. It is, among other things, precisely "for reasons of state," in other words for the clear and vital announcement that we can't be bought or intimidated, that April 24, 2009, should become remembered as the date when we affirmed the truth and accepted, as truth-telling does, all the consequences.

He also notes:

Genocide had not been coined in 1915, but the U.S. ambassador in Constantinople, Henry Morgenthau, employed a term that was in some ways more graphic. In his urgent reports to the State Department, conveying on-the-spot dispatches from his consuls, especially in the provinces of Van and Harput, he described the systematic slaughter of the Armenians as "race murder." A vast archive of evidence exists to support this claim. But every year, the deniers and euphemists set to work again, and there are usually enough military-industrial votes to tip the scale in favor of our Turkish client. (Of late, Turkey's opportunist military alliance with Israel has also been good for a few shame-faced Jewish votes as well.)

And devastatingly adds:

President Obama comes to this issue with an unusually clear and unambivalent record. In 2006, for example, the U.S. ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, was recalled for employing the word genocide. Then-Sen. Obama wrote a letter of complaint to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, deploring the State Department's cowardice and roundly stating that the occurrence of the Armenian genocide in 1915 "is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence." On the campaign trail last year, he amplified this position, saying that "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that president."

Well, another expiration date comes and goes.

Hitchens also links to an important NYT article that documents stunning new evidence and confirmation of Armenian claims: Nearly a Million Genocide Victims, Covered in a Cloak of Amnesia

And finally...

SPECIAL!!

SIBEL EDMONDS ALERT!!

On pretty much of a whim, but also because I knew that all the genocide deniers out there would challenge me on this, I googled "sibel edmonds armenia" and determined that one of the central allegations that Edmonds has made, that Dennis Hastert was bribed by the Turks, revolved around her insistence that part of the Turk/Hastert quid pro quo had to do with Hastert withdrawing the House genocide resolution, at the request of President Clinton. However, Edmonds has claimed that

"in the wiretaps that were translated by Sibel Edmonds, reference was made to this very controversial question of the House vote. One of the Turkish targets of these wiretaps claimed that the price for getting Dennis Hastert to withdraw the resolution would be $500,000."

Read about it here: Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?

Another transcript I'd like to see.

[Jane]

It's possible that the Obama admin wants to stay out of the way as far as possible.

Ya know, that assumes O has a clue. We've seen no evidence of that elsewhere.

[anduril]

I don't regard him so much as clueless--although his lack of experience does show--as doctrinairely leftist. I see his casual abandonment of solemn and seemingly principled pledges not so much as cynicism as it is Marxist theory in practice: truth is what gives the Marxist an advantage at any given moment. Everything from truth to common decency is subordinate to gaining victory for the cause.

[MayBee]

It's very interesting. Around here the Armenian Genocide is taught and discussed in schools as if there is no controversy whatsoever. Kids wear t-shirts about it.

[anduril]

Perhaps your local school could have Sibel come and give a talk on the politics of it all--in the US.

[MayBee]

There are people much more knowledgeable about it all here.

[MayBee]

But perhaps Sibel can approach Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, or President Obama if she feels she needs a new audience.

[anduril]

I mean about Hastert's role and maybe some inside dirt on the ATC. Although it might be preaching to the choir--I see via Google that the Armenian sites all seem to have linked to her.

[MayBee]

Yeah, I think the school would be fascinated to hear Sibel's half-allegations that she is not legally allowed to make yet she keeps making. Clinton, Holder, and Obama seem to be in a position to help her now if she is interested.

[anduril]

I don't know where Sibel stands on all three, but a little googling shows that she's been very harsh re Clinton. Why did you think that Hillary would help her?

[anduril]

Anyway, the fact that the government doesn't want her to speak doesn't mean what she's saying is false. They may even believe they have good reasons for gagging her, but that's neither here nor there as far as evaluating her statements go.

[MayBee]

I said Hillary is in a position to help her. If not her, perhaps Obama or Holder will. Frankly, I think Sibel has gotten all the help she's going to get.

[anduril]

After Obama made nice-nice to the Turks in Ankara, you think he'd want to help her? I doubt it. The Turks, and especially this Islamic government, are relentless in trying to silence their critics--read the Hitchens articles that are linked. I didn't see any remote chance that Obama would remove the gag.

[Jane]

I don't regard him so much as clueless--although his lack of experience does show--as doctrinairely leftist.

I'm not even sure he is smart enough to know what that is. People tell him that by doing X someone will siphon some money in his direction so he does X. People tell him to do Y and he will get more votes so he does why. People tell him to do Z because he owes someone so he does Z. The rest is all partying.

[verner]

I absolutely support the Armenian Genocide Amendment, and I'm sick and tired of the Turks always getting their way. Barbarians.

Turkey is horrible to its ethnic minorities. There are hardly any Armenians left in Turkey (I think Istanbul only has about 60,000) and they must walk a very fine line. The only fear I have is that if the international community gets aggressive in insisting on the historic truth, there might be repercussions for those still there.

If Turkey was at all serious about entering the EU, the LEAST they should do is admit to past sins instead of saying the butchering of an entire ethnic group was "justified" because they "might" have supported the other side in a war. Those who stick to that are no better than holocaust deniers.

A good book on the topic is Black Dogs of Fate, out for a while, but still well worth the read.

Oh, and Obama is a big fat hypocrite. Guess he just doesn't need the Armenian vote any more.

[anduril]

I don't see him as some sort of genius, even in terms of native intelligence, but on the other hand I don't think he's as controlled by his keepers (Axelrod and Emanuel) as I thought he might be. Obviously he follows a lot of Axelrods advice--you can see it in the parallels between Obama and whatisface in Mass, the other Axelrod client whose speeches were reworked for Obama. Nevertheless, certain things do come from his own core convictions. Recall the Israeli telling Emanuel to "remember you're Jewish." I don't think that would have been necessary if Obama had been following Emanuel's advice to the T. And then there was Obama saying he was open to prosecuting the Bushco lawyers--the very day after Emanuel said NO Bush officials should be prosecuted over the torture memos. It's true Emanuel claimed he was echoing Obama, but all the more reason Obama was asserting his independence when he chopped Emanuel off at the knees. I think we're dealing with a narcissistic personality in Obama, just a different sort that Clinton. But both are very grandiose and not amenable to control by handlers when they feel personally involved. Obama, I think, is more ideologically involved than Clinton.

[anduril]

To elaborate slightly. I see Axelrod and Emanuel fulfilling precisely the roles that they formally have. I don't think Obama gets much in the way of policy advice from Emanuel--it's Axelrod who's Obama's guide. Axelrod is keeping a super low profile, and that's the way they want it, I'm quite sure. We've got very little information on him so far. OTOH, there's a bit of a puzzle in some of the things going on, in that Axelrod and Emanuel are long-time close friends--very close. That makes some of the undoubted miscues more difficult to fully understand.

[Jane]

but all the more reason Obama was asserting his independence when he chopped Emanuel off at the knees.

See I think that was an error. Without the teleprompter he forgot the right answer. and then we were off and running.

There is a whole host of things he knows absolutely nothing about. He's never done anything. I have more experience than he has. At the same time, I really don't understand economic policy, and frankly Obama sounds like I might in the same position.

He also knows nothing about foreign policy, but hey, charisma works so let's try that.

He knows nothing about history, except maybe as it pertains to blacks. And to me he is utterly consistent with a person who simply doesn't know what he doesn't know.

I agree that he's a narcissist which of course makes it all worse.

As for Deval Patrick - he's calm, charismatice and utterly incompetant. So yeah they seem to have that in common.

If it makes you feel better, after 2 years Patricks approval ratings are in the tank.

[anduril]

See I think that was an error. Without the teleprompter he forgot the right answer. and then we were off and running.

Granted. He's not all that smart and without the prompter there's no question that he misspeaks. My initial reaction was that theis was a rethink based on the decision that he needed to pander to the left and the calculation that the whole thing would probably go nowhere. The CW would have it that this will lead to chaos, which will work against getting things through Congress. I hope so, because the stuff that's in the pipeline scares the hell out of me, let alone the stuff that was in the stimulus bill that still hasn't come to light. But Axelrod and Obama may believe that chaos will give them the cover they need. Scary and unpredictable. These guys are playing for keeps, playing for the whole [supply your metaphor].

There is a whole host of things he knows absolutely nothing about. He's never done anything. I have more experience than he has. At the same time, I really don't understand economic policy, and frankly Obama sounds like I might in the same position.

Also granted. Obama rehearses his economic talking points rather well, but too glibly--there's no feeling that he really grasps it. Much too pat. I don't think anyone in a position to influence him knows economics--some because they're background is totally academic, some because they have ideological blinders on. Summers is supposed to be smart, but has wreaked havoc (and abetted fraud) almost everywhere he's gone. (Ever wonder why the Russians hate us so much these days? Larry Summers is no small part of that. The Atlantic did an interview with another Harvard econo who criticized Summers' plans. Quoth The Atlantic: are you saying Larry Summers is an idiot? The econo laughed and said: I've known Larry for 25 years and I have my opinions on that. Yow!) As I've said along with many others, fundamentally everything they're doing comes down to trying to reinflate the bubble--always a fool's errand but especially now, given that Obama is simultaneously inflating government at a staggering rate. They've jumped into the hole that Bush dug and are digging furiously.

He also knows nothing about foreign policy, but hey, charisma works so let's try that.

Possibly worse than knowing nothing, I believe that he thinks he knows a lot--but it's all based on his firmly and doctrinairely held leftist views on both history and human nature--as well as a strongly held belief in his ability to persuade. Worse and worse.

He knows nothing about history, except maybe as it pertains to blacks. And to me he is utterly consistent with a person who simply doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Again, my belief is that he thinks he knows a lot. I mean, if you asked him, I suspect he would sincerely tell you that he knows a lot about history. It's all based on lefty ideology, of course, which makes it worse than being merely ignorant since it interferes with learning from experience.

I agree that he's a narcissist which of course makes it all worse.

Yes.

As for Deval Patrick - he's calm, charismatice and utterly incompetant. So yeah they seem to have that in common.

If it makes you feel better, after 2 years Patricks approval ratings are in the tank.

That doesn't necessarily make me feel better, since it's one state, albeit a very liberal one. However, this DOES make me feel somewhat better: his approval rating after 100 days is lower than Bushie's was. What seems particularly significant in that, to me, is that Bushie came in as an extraordinarily controversial president: lost the popular vote, won only after a bitterly contentious Supreme Court decision, etc. Obama won handily and came in on a virtual tidal wave of adulation and nevertheless trails Bush. Not a good sign.

I remain convinced that Obama's style will begin to grate--especially the continual blame game thing. In addition, as the economy slides ever deeper into the crapper and as they come to realize just how big a hit their standard of living is about to take, I believe people will have less and less patience with the political theater in WDC.

Just because I thought this was rather clever, I'm relinking one of Steve Sailer's recent posts: The True Believer

[anduril]

"this" "their"

[anduril]

I guess one of the things I was trying to say about Obama is that anyone who thinks he's basically just along for the ride, winging it and delegating madly, is probably misunderestimating him. Ignorant and inexperienced as he may be, I think he 1) believes that he understands the basic dynamics of this world we live in and can solve its problems--be they economic, environmental, inter-national or -ethnic strife--you name it, and 2) he really does want to be involved.

I personally rate him, in terms of native intelligence, higher than most of our recent presidents and presidential candidates: Bush, Gore, Kerry, McCain. Obviously that's not saying much. I rank him significantly below some others--either of the Clintons, for example. The problem is, and it's a two edged sword, native intelligence only gets you so far--character is what allows you to use what you've got. I've read an article that contrasts various sorts of narcissistic personalities, some of which are self destructive but others of which can allow a person to harness their abilities amazingly, although still often destructively. Good character can elevate an person with average intelligence and bad character can drag a person with superior ability down. But character and personality flaws (and just look at what a flawed background Obama comes from--rivals or exceeds Bill Clinton!) can also lead a fairly talented person to harness their energies for an incredibly grandiose goal--like a New New Deal that would fundamentally transform the largest and most advance economy on earth.

I still believe the Obama presidency is a crash and burn scenario, but I caution against misunderestimating 1) his ability (better than average, but well below the top level) or 2) his determination (well above average and fed by a grandiose vision of himself).

[anduril]

I still don't see another appropriate thread for this story, so I'll put it here as another example of Obama cutting a foreign country significant slack and executing his patented flip-flop maneuver in mid-sentence--but this time under real pressure: China Shows Who the Real Boss Is at USA Inc. With its huge ownership stake in the American economy, China is beginning to extract concessions from a humbled U.S.

The nice thing about owning your own business is that you get to call the shots. Want to take the day off? Take the day off. Want to reupholster the office in pink, candy-striped vinyl? Go right ahead and have at it. Along the same lines, I give you China — an ever-increasing stakeholder and now permanent board member at USA Inc.

Over the past few years the Chinese have plowed over $2 trillion into USA Inc. And since joining the management team they have been a bold and aggressive partner in shaping the company’s policy both domestically and abroad.

One can only sympathize with the outranked managing director (President Obama) as he tries to keep USA Inc. employees (that would be us) satisfied, while at the same time keeping the Chinese members of the board of directors happy as well.

Case in point: Manager Obama flip-flopped recently and declined to cite China as a country that manipulates its currency to gain unfair trade advantages — which plainly it does.

Just two months ago, Manager Obama said the same thing himself through USA Inc.’s chief financial officer, Tim Geithner.

It's a short piece, and continues with some qualifications.

[anduril]

To my mind, Bush I was one of our more able recent presidents who was also a fundamentally decent man without significant character flaws. However, he does appear to have had certain personal, not exactly flaws--that would be too strong and even unfair, but limitations that strongly influenced his approach to governing. His noblesse oblige approach to politics, for one.

[anduril]

I see that at RCP there are several articles linked--by Broder, Kass, Cook--all on the theme that Obama needs to stop blaming the past, that that won't cut it with the public indefinitely. This I believe, I think...

[Captain Hate]

I personally rate him, in terms of native intelligence, higher than most of our recent presidents and presidential candidates: Bush, Gore, Kerry, McCain. Obviously that's not saying much. I rank him significantly below some others--either of the Clintons, for example.

What are you basing this on? With the others we had some concrete data on which to arrive at conclusions: Gore is academically stupid and a quitter, both Clintons are smart but completely lacking in character, Kerry is slightly less academically accomplished than Bush, McCain wasn't a good student and is a horrible parent.

We know nothing about Bammers and, since the media is smitten with him, I'm positive the academic records aren't flattering.

[anduril]

As I said, I set the bar pretty low. All those previous candidates were pretty much C students at best. Partly I base my opinion (and it's precisely that) on heredity--if you look into Obama's family background you'll find that they include some really very intelligent people, like his grandmother in particular. His mother may have had serious personal problems, but she, too, was no dummy. So the odds of Obama himself being above average are fairly good. I assume that his law school admission was an affirmative action one, but the fact that he was able to function at some acceptable level at the UC Law School is further evidence that he's not a dummy like some of these others were. On the other hand, his public performance in speaking without a prompter illustrates clearly what his limitations are. So there you are--my opinion.

[lurking]

I agree he's bright and politically adept. But his history is to hide his motives. He's not being honest. Taqiyah, maybe not, but full bore socialism, probably so. Even the particularly nasty sort called fascism, which has a fascination for his personality type.

[anduril]

lurking, I think your analogy of Taqiyah is pretty much on the money--Alinskyite tactics are not dissimilar, and this is not the only similarity between leftist ideologies and Islamist ideologies. Obama let the mask slip almost totally while talking to Joe the Plumber, which tells you a lot about his conviction that he can charm most of the people just about all of the time. He's been more careful since then, speaking in carefully scripted code, but if you focus on leftist ideology his intentions are clear enough.

Yesterday evening I briefly referred to what I claimed was Obama's misguided view on human nature. To expand and qualify, what I was referring to was the common leftist belief that "the people" can be if they are guaranteed: income (but not necessarily a job) during their younger years that is continued into retirement, a LCD version of education, and health care of some sort or other. For this, the belief runs, they will accept significant restrictions on their quality of life and particular on their opportunities in life.

My qualification: Obama and his ilk are probably right that many people will be satisfied with that, but I believe he's wrong in believing that the middle class and elites--people who find human fulfillment in productive activity--will be satisfied with that. The Soviet empire was an object lesson in that regard, and now we're increasingly seeing a brain drain from even European countries after years of these policies. The problem facing America is to recognize the danger before we reach that state of entrenched socialist structures.

[sbw]

I think that Obama is small. He wants to go down in history any way he can; good or bad does not matter. Validation is being remembered. Sad.

[anduril]

I disagree, sbw. I think he's very grandiose and wants to go down in history for remaking the entire U.S. He's shooting for the moon behind the (for some) soothing rhetoric.

[lurking]

Heh, Houston, we have a problem.

[anduril]

to the moon, bambi!