Readers have wondered why they have not received their almost daily serving of Capital Cloak news nourishment this week. O-Be-Wise wishes the answer were a simple explanation of a temporary impediment to writing, but alas, the impediments are neither simple nor temporary.
As we reported recently, O-Be-Wise moved on to another work assignment, and that change, combined with new responsibilities in other areas of life have made frequent posting to Capital Cloak an impossibility.
O-Be-Wise may contribute to Capital Cloak periodically in the future, but not on any set schedule or with predetermined frequency. Postings appear likely to decline from a daily to perhaps a monthly basis.
To loyal readers who are email or feed subscribers to Capital Cloak, you will of course automatically be alerted to any new postings. To those of you who are faithful IE/Netscape bookmark visitors to the Capital Cloak home page, you may consider subscribing to our feed or subscribing by email so you will automatically receive any new posts that O-Be-Wise may generate in the future rather than manually checking the site each day.
To each of you, we extend our thanks for your feedback, participation, and loyal support. If Capital Cloak has influenced you in any way or presented issues in a light you had not previously considered, then it has served an important purpose. If you would like to write and share something you particularly enjoyed on Capital Cloak (a post, a site feature, etc), please click on the "view my profile" link on the home page and email O-Be-Wise your comments. Johnny Behind the Deuces, as Dorothy told the scarecrow, "I think I'll miss you most of all." Your singular wit never failed to bring a smile.
All good things must come to an end, and for Capital Cloak, frequent posting is the good thing that has come to an end.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Alienating a Key Ally over an Apology
Apparently the Democratic controlled congress has too much free time on its hands. Instead of balancing budgets, cutting wasteful spending, or working together to improve national security, congress is busy rewriting history and passing judgment on historical events that occurred 90 years ago. Such frivolous behavior is problematic enough by itself, but in their ill-advised foray into historical revisionism, congressional Democrats are needlessly and recklessly jeopardizing diplomatic and military relations with a crucial ally in the War on Terror: Turkey.
A resolution regarding Turkey's alleged genocide of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 sponsored and shepherded through committee by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff has angered Turkish President Abdullah Gul sufficiently that he wrote a letter to President Bush warning that passage of the resolution would cause “serious problems” between the U.S. and Turkey. As the future of Iraq hangs in the balance and Turkey is expected to have significant involvement in the political and territorial viability of Iraq, the timing of a resolution designed to do nothing more than prick an ally in a sensitive and presently irrelevant area could not be worse. The State Department is working overtime attempting to repair the damage House Democrats seem determined to continue inflicting on U.S.-Turkey relations and has condemned the Schiff resolution.
The Democratic resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday in a 27-21
vote seeks to placate Armenian-Americans, who, in collaboration with Armenians throughout the world, have long insisted that the forced deportation of 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 was actually a “systematic” and “deliberate” genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians. Ottoman Turks at the time and the current Turkish population disputed Armenian claims of an organized plan for genocide. Turkish and Armenian casualties from violence between the two peoples during that period are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands.
Congressman Schiff claimed that America has a “compelling historical and moral reason” to label the Armenian deaths officially as genocide. Conveniently, Schiff did not explain what will be accomplished in 2007 by re-labeling events that took place 90 years ago. Other than to give in to the demands of a special interest group and anger the current Turkish government and citizenry who had nothing to do with deportations or alleged genocide, there appears to be no purpose for the resolution.
Does the resolution demand that Turkey pay damage settlements to the victims’ families? No. Does it demand that the alleged perpetrators of genocide be turned over to an international court at The Hague for prosecution? No, of course, because everyone involved is long since deceased. Does it offer any recommendations for preventing future “genocide” between Turks and Armenians? No, because the demographics and political boundaries have altered so significantly since the World War I era that the factors that led to deportations or alleged genocide no longer exist. It is a vengeful document that cannot even provide its bitter supporters with their desired pound of Turkish flesh.
CNN coverage of the dispute included key paragraphs that put the issue in its present-day historical context:
The issue pressed by Armenians is similar to the debate over slave reparations in the United States. Some states have issued official apologies for the slave trade, but historically, what results from such official declarations, condemnations, or apologies? Are the descendants of slaves any less bitter or any more forgiving or placated by these official pronouncements? Other than a “Gotcha” moment and a fleeting feeling of satisfaction from getting one’s point across, nothing substantive or historically relevant occurs.
Holding modern day Turks responsible for alleged genocide 90 years in the past is just as unfair and pointless as demanding that Americans who never owned slaves and whose ancestors fought to free them in the Civil War pay slave reparations 150 years after slavery was abolished. The fact that it existed is horrible and was a stain upon our nation. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln and many others recognized that and much blood was spilled to cleanse the stain. Likewise, even if it were proven conclusively that the Ottoman Empire deliberately killed a large number of Armenians, it would be a stain on an empirical government that could not be cleansed because it disappeared into the annals of history.
Bitterness and ethnic vengeance are not healthy and create nothing productive. Rather than working as enablers of discord, animosity, and blame, congress should work to ensure that present day Armenia and Turkey have good relations and are not on a course destined for conflict, verbal or otherwise. The current Turkish government has offered to conduct a joint investigation of the genocide claims and establish basic diplomatic ties to Armenia. The offer is a gesture of goodwill and would develop diplomatic relations that presently do not exist between the two nations.
Congress should not engage itself in debates over historical events or pass resolutions accepting one people’s version of history simply because they immigrated to America in large numbers and have a louder voice than those they accuse. We reiterate that in the context of today’s Middle East, the question of whether an alleged genocide occurred during World War I is largely irrelevant because there is no conceivable action that can be taken to redress the grievances of those who claim to have been wronged.
We do not suggest that any nation be granted immunity from scrutiny simply because it is currently an ally in the War on Terror. If the modern Turkish government were accused of genocide, such a claim should be given our full attention and an international investigation should ensue. However, such is not the case. Turkey as it exists today is not accused of any such crimes, and is sensitive to any international effort to portray Turks as a genocidal nation. Alienating an ally because its government may have been involved in a serious crime 90 years ago is a high price to pay for providing Armenians with a few moments of international sympathy. Only those with some degree of familiarity with the logistics of the Iraq War and the War on Terror comprehend fully how important Turkey is to our efforts. Ultimately our relationship with Turkey far outweighs any need for historical condemnations, apologies, or labels.
Congress has far more pressing matters to attend to than rewriting the history of a disputed event that appears likely to be resolved through diplomatic and investigative efforts.
Technorati Tags:
Turkey, Armenia, Genocide, Ottoman Empire, Young Turks, Adam Schiff, House Resolution
A resolution regarding Turkey's alleged genocide of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 sponsored and shepherded through committee by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff has angered Turkish President Abdullah Gul sufficiently that he wrote a letter to President Bush warning that passage of the resolution would cause “serious problems” between the U.S. and Turkey. As the future of Iraq hangs in the balance and Turkey is expected to have significant involvement in the political and territorial viability of Iraq, the timing of a resolution designed to do nothing more than prick an ally in a sensitive and presently irrelevant area could not be worse. The State Department is working overtime attempting to repair the damage House Democrats seem determined to continue inflicting on U.S.-Turkey relations and has condemned the Schiff resolution.
The Democratic resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday in a 27-21
vote seeks to placate Armenian-Americans, who, in collaboration with Armenians throughout the world, have long insisted that the forced deportation of 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 was actually a “systematic” and “deliberate” genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians. Ottoman Turks at the time and the current Turkish population disputed Armenian claims of an organized plan for genocide. Turkish and Armenian casualties from violence between the two peoples during that period are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands.Congressman Schiff claimed that America has a “compelling historical and moral reason” to label the Armenian deaths officially as genocide. Conveniently, Schiff did not explain what will be accomplished in 2007 by re-labeling events that took place 90 years ago. Other than to give in to the demands of a special interest group and anger the current Turkish government and citizenry who had nothing to do with deportations or alleged genocide, there appears to be no purpose for the resolution.
Does the resolution demand that Turkey pay damage settlements to the victims’ families? No. Does it demand that the alleged perpetrators of genocide be turned over to an international court at The Hague for prosecution? No, of course, because everyone involved is long since deceased. Does it offer any recommendations for preventing future “genocide” between Turks and Armenians? No, because the demographics and political boundaries have altered so significantly since the World War I era that the factors that led to deportations or alleged genocide no longer exist. It is a vengeful document that cannot even provide its bitter supporters with their desired pound of Turkish flesh.
CNN coverage of the dispute included key paragraphs that put the issue in its present-day historical context:
Meanwhile Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensoy, said the resolution would be a "very injurious move to the psyche of the Turkish people," predicting that its passage would create a backlash in his country.
The vote was also strongly criticized by Turkish newspapers, The Associated Press reported. "Bill of hatred," said Hurriyet's front page, while Vatan's headline read "27 foolish Americans.
The U.S. embassy in Ankara warned Americans there to brace for possible anti-American demonstrations.
Turkish protests come with relations between Washington and Ankara already tense amid Turkish military and political preparations for a possible strike into northern Iraq in response to recent attacks by Kurdish militants.
…Last year France voted to make it a crime to deny that the killings constituted genocide, causing the Turkish government to cut its military ties with the country.
The issue pressed by Armenians is similar to the debate over slave reparations in the United States. Some states have issued official apologies for the slave trade, but historically, what results from such official declarations, condemnations, or apologies? Are the descendants of slaves any less bitter or any more forgiving or placated by these official pronouncements? Other than a “Gotcha” moment and a fleeting feeling of satisfaction from getting one’s point across, nothing substantive or historically relevant occurs.
Holding modern day Turks responsible for alleged genocide 90 years in the past is just as unfair and pointless as demanding that Americans who never owned slaves and whose ancestors fought to free them in the Civil War pay slave reparations 150 years after slavery was abolished. The fact that it existed is horrible and was a stain upon our nation. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln and many others recognized that and much blood was spilled to cleanse the stain. Likewise, even if it were proven conclusively that the Ottoman Empire deliberately killed a large number of Armenians, it would be a stain on an empirical government that could not be cleansed because it disappeared into the annals of history.
Bitterness and ethnic vengeance are not healthy and create nothing productive. Rather than working as enablers of discord, animosity, and blame, congress should work to ensure that present day Armenia and Turkey have good relations and are not on a course destined for conflict, verbal or otherwise. The current Turkish government has offered to conduct a joint investigation of the genocide claims and establish basic diplomatic ties to Armenia. The offer is a gesture of goodwill and would develop diplomatic relations that presently do not exist between the two nations.
Congress should not engage itself in debates over historical events or pass resolutions accepting one people’s version of history simply because they immigrated to America in large numbers and have a louder voice than those they accuse. We reiterate that in the context of today’s Middle East, the question of whether an alleged genocide occurred during World War I is largely irrelevant because there is no conceivable action that can be taken to redress the grievances of those who claim to have been wronged.
We do not suggest that any nation be granted immunity from scrutiny simply because it is currently an ally in the War on Terror. If the modern Turkish government were accused of genocide, such a claim should be given our full attention and an international investigation should ensue. However, such is not the case. Turkey as it exists today is not accused of any such crimes, and is sensitive to any international effort to portray Turks as a genocidal nation. Alienating an ally because its government may have been involved in a serious crime 90 years ago is a high price to pay for providing Armenians with a few moments of international sympathy. Only those with some degree of familiarity with the logistics of the Iraq War and the War on Terror comprehend fully how important Turkey is to our efforts. Ultimately our relationship with Turkey far outweighs any need for historical condemnations, apologies, or labels.
Congress has far more pressing matters to attend to than rewriting the history of a disputed event that appears likely to be resolved through diplomatic and investigative efforts.
Technorati Tags:
Turkey, Armenia, Genocide, Ottoman Empire, Young Turks, Adam Schiff, House Resolution
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Rudy/Mitt Ticket Marginalizes Bystander Thompson
Rather than issue debate report cards for each candidate as we have done 
after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.
Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.
Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.
It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on
stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.
We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.
They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.
Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.
The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”
Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.
We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role
of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.
Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.
Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”
Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.
Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.
Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Running Mates Candidates Debate Michigan Campaign Strategy GOP Nomination Presidential Candidates 2008 Election
after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.
Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.
It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on
stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.
They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.
Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.
The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”
Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.
We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role
of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.
Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”
Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.
Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.
Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Running Mates Candidates Debate Michigan Campaign Strategy GOP Nomination Presidential Candidates 2008 Election
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)