Category: America

  • West Hails Turkish-Armenian Statement

    West Hails Turkish-Armenian Statement

    2B732071 87D2 4987 8776 3E7A47C07037 w393 s

    Turkey – US President Barack Obama (R) meets with the foreign ministers of Armenia, Turkey and Switzerland in Istanbul, 06Apr2009

    01.09.2009

    The United States and the European Union have welcomed the latest agreement announced by Armenia and Turkey and urged the two estranged neighbors to promptly complete the normalization of their relations.

    “The United States warmly welcomes the joint statement made today by Turkey and Armenia, with Swiss participation, outlining further steps in the normalization of their bilateral relations,” U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said late Monday.

     

    “It has long been and remains the position of the United States that normalization should take place without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe,” he said. “We urge Armenia and Turkey to proceed expeditiously, according to the agreed framework as described in today’s statement.”

     

    The Turkish-Armenian statement, which set concrete time frames for the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two states and reopening of their border, also drew strong praise from the EU on Tuesday. Javier Solana, the bloc’s foreign and security policy chief, called it a “crucial step towards normalization of bilateral relations.”

     

    “I commend the  courage and vision of both sides to move forward with this historic process,” Solana said in a statement. “I hope the two protocols can be signed, ratified, and implemented in the near term.”

     

    The European Commission attaches high importance to a rapid and steady implementation of the protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations and on the development of bilateral relations,” read a separate statement by Benita Ferrero-Waldner and Olli Rehn, the EU commissioners for external relations and enlargement respectively. “This agreement should contribute to peace and stability in the South Caucasus.”

     

    Both the EU and the U.S. have been highly supportive of the unprecedented Turkish-Armenian rapprochement that gained momentum with Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s historic September 2008 visit to Yerevan. Washington is understood to have also been involved in fence-mending negotiations held by Turkish and Armenian diplomats over the past year. U.S. President Barack Obama personally encouraged Ankara and Yerevan to bring the process to a successful conclusion when he visited Turkey in April.

     

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1812260.html

  • Obama and the Holy Land

    Obama and the Holy Land

    at

    by Edward Bernard Glick

    When Lyndon Baines Johnson was a young congressman, he saved 42 Jews from the Nazis. Indirect evidence shows that he rescued another 400 Jews, including the famed orchestra conductor Erich Leinsdorf. While Johnson didn’t risk his life to save Jews, as European non-Jews did, there are those who believe that he should be honored in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem’s Holocaust Memorial Museum, for being what the Israelis call a Righteous Gentile.

    After the 1967 Arab-Israel Six Day War, when he was President, he met with Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in Glassboro, New Jersey. Mr. Kosygin asked him why America supported Israel against the Arab world with all its population and with all its oil resources. LBJ replied: “Because we think it’s right.” The Russian leader shook his head in disbelief.

    In June 2009, in a speech in Cairo, President Barack Obama announced a historic American tilt toward the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is too early to tell if he, unlike his predecessors, believes in what has been known as the special relationship between America and Israel, However, most of his fellow Americans still believe in it. Not only did they rejoice when President Harry Truman made the United States the first country in the world to recognize Israeli independence in  May 1948, but they  allowed  both Republican and Democratic administrations to put their tax dollars where their feelings are.

    Since 1949, the United States has sent Israel over $100 billion in aid. This amount does not include funds from the Defense Department budget for joint military projects like the Arrow missile, for which Israel has received more than $1 billion since 1986. As far back as 1974, General George Keegan, a former chief of US Air Force intelligence, said that Israel’s contribution to the United States was “worth $1,000 for every dollar’s worth of aid we have granted her.” Perhaps he was thinking of the fully functioning Soviet SAM (surface to air) missile system that the Israelis captured in Egypt and shipped to the United States enabling America to counter a weapon that was shooting down U.S. airplanes during the Vietnam war. In 1979 more than 170 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to President Jimmy Carter urging him to recognize Israel as a valuable and dependable military ally.

    No matter what the state of the US economy, there has never been a demand by the American people to halt or diminish US aid to Israel. There is no such demand now.

    What are the historical, religious, cultural, political, and strategic reasons for all this? First of all, America’s Christians are the only ones who not only employ the term “Judeo-Christian heritage,” but who glory in its usage. Secondly, while the first British settlers in North America never called their settlements New Jerusalem, New Israel, or New Zion, as some of them had wished, as their descendants moved to the north, south, and west, they placed hundreds of Biblically derived names on the map of the future United States. Thus there is a Jericho in Alabama, an Eden in Arizona, a Samaria in Idaho, a Hebron in North Dakota, a Lake Sinai in South Dakota, a Jordan in Illinois, a Zoar in Massachusetts, an Elisha in Rhode Island, a Sodom in Ohio, a Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, a New Canaan in Connecticut, a Goshen County in Wyoming, and an Adam in Florida. Four places in four states are called Jerusalem. And no fewer than twenty-seven towns, cities, and counties are called Salem, which comes from the Hebrew word shalom, which means peace. No other country has so linked its geographic nomenclature with that of the Land of Israel.

    There are historical reasons for this. The Pilgrims read the Old Testament. Some did so in Hebrew. Their interest in the Hebrew and the Old Testament was shared by other Americans in later centuries. A student who couldn’t translate the Bible from Hebrew into Latin could not in the early days get into Harvard. A teacher who knew no Hebrew couldn’t become a faculty member at King’s College, the original name of Columbia University. Hebrew was once a compulsory subject at Yale, which has the Hebrew motto Urim V’turim (Light and Truth) on its crest. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, studied Hebrew. In 1902 Secretary of State John Hay wrote a handwritten letter to an Indiana Jew in Hebrew. In the twentieth century Edmund Wilson, the great American social and literary critic, was a student of Hebrew.

    Now, the United States has not supported restored Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East merely because many of its more educated Christian citizens knew Hebrew several centuries ago, or because a tiny fraction of them know it now. However, the Hebrew/Old Testament connection in America’s intellectual history certainly has nourished the soil in which America’s support for modern Israel sprouted.

    During the American Revolution, clergymen compared the colonists’ fight with King George III to the plight of the ancient Israelites in the Egypt of the Pharaohs. After the Revolution, Christians in all walks of life suggested forms of governance that were similar to their perceptions of those of ancient Israel, and there were those who called for Jewish political restoration in Palestine.

    In 1818 Thomas Kennedy, a Catholic legislator, asked during a presentation in favor of equality for Maryland’s Jews: “May we not hope that the banners of the children of Israel shall again be unfurled on the walls of Jerusalem on the Holy Hill of Zion?” In 1819 John Adams wrote to a Jewish citizen: “I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.” In 1845 Brigham Young proclaimed: “The Jews among all nations are hereby commanded, in the name of the Messiah, to repair to return to Jerusalem in Palestine . . . and also to organize and establish their own political government.”

    In 1891, five years before Dr. Theodor Herzl published his Der Judenstaat and six years before he convened the first World Zionist Congress, an American Gentile, William E. Blackstone, publicly transformed what had been mainly religious and emotional yearnings of Jews for Palestine into a political manifestation of Jewish nationalism and Jewish self-determination. Blackstone sent President Benjamin Harrison a petition entitled “Palestine for the Jews.” It was signed by 400 hundred of the most prominent Americans. If the Great Powers, it asked, could, in the Berlin Treaty of 1878, give Bulgaria to the Bulgarians and Serbia to the Serbs, “does not Palestine as rightfully belong to the Jews?”

    Today we associate Christian Zionism with the Christian Evangelicals. They are now in fact the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel segment of American Christendom. But the first American Christian to call himself a Zionist was the Reverend Dr. Francis J. Clay Moran, in a letter to the New York Times, published over a hundred years ago. After Moran came Adolph A. Berle, a former professor of applied Christianity at Tufts University, who, in 1918, published a book called The World Significance of a Jewish State. Harry Emerson Fosdick, of Union Theological Seminary, in 1927, wrote a book on Zionism called A Pilgrimage to Palestine. In 1929, John Haynes Holmes, minister of New York’s Community Church, published Palestine Today and Tomorrow: A Gentile’s Survey of Zionism. Dr. Walter Clay Loudermilk, the most renowned soil scientist, ecologist, and environmentalist of his day, also became a Christian Zionist.

    In the 1930s he traveled the world to study how people used their land and in what condition they passed it on to the next generation. When he came to British Palestine, he was so impressed by how the Jews treated their land that he wrote that if Moses had foreseen what was to become of the Earth, he “doubtless would have been inspired to deliver an Eleventh Commandment: ‘Thou shalt inherit the Holy Earth as a faithful steward, conserving its resources and productivity from generation to generation. . . . If any shall fail in this stewardship of the land, thy fruitful fields shall become sterile stony ground and wasting gullies, and thy descendants shall decrease and live in poverty or perish from off the face of the Earth.” Since the Jews of Palestine were obeying Loudermilk  Eleventh Commandment, he became an ardent Christian Zionist, publishing, in 1944, his bestseller, Palestine: Land of Promise.

    So it is America’s Christians, not America’s Jews, who made it politically correct for every American President since Woodrow Wilson and every American Congress since the early 1920s to support both the dream and the reality of a renascent Jewish state in the Middle East.

    President Obama has been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to tilt toward Iran. In a speech before the Turkish Parliament in April 2009, he said: “I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” This is the same Iran whose president denies the Holocaust and who wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Though the Israelis consider Iran’s nuclear weapons an existential threat, Mr. Obama is pressuring them not to attack preemptively. However, also in April 2009, Shimon Peres, the President of Israel, and the father of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, said that if Mr. Obama  will not soften the Iranian President’s approach “we’ll strike him.” While refusing to go into detail about the military option to foil Iran’s nuclear program, Mr. Peres did say that Israel could not carry out any strike against the Islamic republic without America. “We certainly cannot go it alone and we definitely can’t go against the U.S.”

    Mr. Obama is also tilting toward the Palestinians, even though the Norwegian Fafo Institute, the sponsor of the 1993 Oslo Middle East accords, recently found that a majority of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution. Thirty-three percent opt for Israel’s annihilation and 20 percent favor a Palestinian state that would entirely engulf Israel.

    For more than sixty years, American. presidents and the American people have been pro-Israel.  As recently as March 3, 2009, the Gallup Poll ranked Israel as the fourth preferred ally of the United States, behind Britain, Canada, and Japan. And as recently as August 10, 2009, seventy percent of Americans say that Israel is a U.S. ally, nearly twice the finding for Egypt, the most highly regarded Islamic country. Only 8 percent of Americans say Israel is an enemy, and 16 percent put it somewhere in between.

    So these questions arise: Has President Obama abandoned the special America-Israel relationship? Has he become so pro-Arab that he is anti-Israel, as almost two-thirds of the Israelis now believe, according to the University of Tel Aviv’s War and Peace Index of August 9, 2009? Is he, as the British writer Melanie Phillips has suggested, America’s first “pro-Islamist President?” Are America and Israel heading for a great confrontation, or at least for the greatest disagreement in the history of their relationship, as U.S. Middle East expert Robert Satloff recently told Newsweek magazine?

    On July 4, 2009 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “We have a brave relationship with the United States, a bond that President Obama himself defined as unbreakable. Indeed, our bond with the U.S. is unbreakable.” But that is not the belief of other prominent Israelis. They are not so sure that Israel has a friend in the White House. And they wonder if the connection with the United States is still a good one. For instance, Caroline Glick, the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, argues that “both in terms of pure economics and of the restrictions the Obama administration is now placing on Israeli use of U.S. technologies and munitions, maintaining U.S. military assistance makes less and less sense with each passing day. Israel may indeed be best served by simply ending its military assistance package. By making clear that it is not dependent on Obama’s kindness, it would be expanding its maneuvering room on other issues as well.” She is probably alluding to Iran.

    On the American side, Israel’s failure to defeat Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza may be be interpreted as meaning that it is no longer a strong military power and is now a strategic liability rather than a strategic asset to the United States.

    Whatever the case, one thing is clear: Mr. Obama does not view Israel as Democratic Presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson did. Nor does he view it as Republican Presidents Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush did. Until the end of his life, the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was the chief of staff of the Israel Army during the 1967 Six Day war, believed that Mr. Nixon saved the Jewish state. By warning the Soviets to stay out of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and by replacing the vast amounts of equipment that Israel lost during the first week of that war, Mr. Nixon made it possible for the Israelis to counterattack and beat their Egyptian foes.

    Anne Bayevsky, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, is convinced that Mr. Obama is “the most hostile sitting American president in the history of the state of Israel.” Similarly, John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former American ambassador to the United Nations, has written that “Relations between the U.S. and Israel are more strained than at any time since the 1956 Suez Canal crisis.” And Richard Baehr, the chief political correspondent of The American Thinker, feels that Mr. Obama treats “Israel more contemptuously than any President since the founding of the [Jewish] state.” On the other hand, on August 20, 2009 the Israeli news source Debka reported that President Obama has secretly assured Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that confrontation between America and Israel is undesirable, and that relations between the White House and Mr. Netanyahu’s office will revert to their normal friendly level.

    We shall have to wait and see whether and the extent to which Ms. Bayevsky, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Baehr, and Debka are right or wrong. We shall also have to wait and see what happens if Israel , the modern reincarnation of the Jewish Holy Land, strikes Iran against the wishes of President Obama.

    Source: www.americanthinker.com/, 23 August 2009
  • SUKRU AYA’S LETTER TO OBAMA RESPONDING TO ANCA CLAIMS

    SUKRU AYA’S LETTER TO OBAMA RESPONDING TO ANCA CLAIMS

    https://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2009/08/2940-aya-s-letter-to-obama-versus-ancas.html

    August 28, 2009 ergun_s

    Much Esteemed and beloved Mr. President,

    Salute, regards, and sentiments from Türkiye, the country where your friendly visit, is treasured!

    As soon as I read the rude, accusatory, and outright disrespectful letter (see below) written to you by Kenneth V. Hachikian, Chairman of ANCA—a shady group currently under investigation by federal agencies for alleged campaign finance and lobbying violations—I felt compelled to write to you and put some light on penned slanders!

    The letter, [quite short of accustomed courtesy and respect when addressing the White House] was urging you to reject the recent ruling of a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Movsesian v. Versicherung A.G. (No. 07-56722, August 20, 2009), which struck down a California special-interest law providing remedies and tax exemptions to ethnic Armenians for alleged wrongs during an alleged genocide.

    I should like to emphasize that because of my affection to too many American or Turkish Armenians with whom I have shared many joys and sorrows of my life and continue to have warm, friendly relations, I have compiled a book using anti-Turkish, (mostly Armenian, American) and neutral sources, which took me some four years. A copy will be mailed to you by my friends in USA as annex to this letter, for your further guidance with more than 2000 verbatim excerpts from books, documents, articles etc. that cannot be refuted by any party. The book has been on the “Open Free E-Book Library” of “Armenians-1915.blogspot.com” “a small group of truth dedicated Turkish Armenians, striving for the normalization of relations and discovery of truth and protection of the present Turkish-Armenians friendly relations”, from the continuous interceptions of diaspora organizations, which for nearly a century have established a “trade or industry of marketing hatred and revenge”, and for which they collect a huge amount of money, some disposed as needed or embezzled during the process!

    Apparently, no one taught these Armenians about the separation of powers in U.S.A. and that it is un-American for the executive branch to contravene the judicial branch (or legislative branch). Such discriminated practices may be all right in Armenia, {a land-locked, poverty-stricken, corrupt, aggressive, and violent Armenia living on the donations and instructions by diaspora groups} but it is frowned upon in America.

    The disrespectful Armenian letter writer also seemed ignorant of the federal supremacy law, which says state laws cannot replace, void, or overrule federal laws. The wily and tricky Armenian lobby thought they found the short cut, by applying local political pressure to get a tailor-made state law to bypass all federal laws. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saw to it, that those Armenian falsifiers got a good lesson on American government.

    The insolent Armenian letter writer, in asking the White House to interfere with the decision of U.S. Court of Appeals or evaluate a California State Law interpretation as superior to Federal Laws and U.S. Constitution, in effect, was forcing the U.S. Government to violate written bilateral agreements with the sovereign Republic of Turkey. Thus, the deceptive and tiny Armenian lobby was indirectly attempting to manipulate American foreign policy. Excuse, but in simple words, this is like “the tail or tail tip wagging the dog”!

    The expression, such as “Genocide era wrongs”, is not based on any judicial decision, but is set on “hearsay and forgeries” promoted deceptively by biased persons or organizations. My book has hundreds of examples. Armenians also fail to understand that hasty campaign pledges and responsibility of an office may differ after election, and sometimes diametrically opposing things. Overall, American interests always trump preferential or actually discriminatory demands of specific ethnic groups or lobbies! That said, a responsible, truth-defending President, is expected to investigate deeper any pledges made during election campaigns and refrain from unrealistic, untrue, unethical, unequal or biased pledges.

    The “Armenian Genocide” allegations are not supported by the verdict of any “competent tribunal” as set forth by the 1948 U.N. Convention. Such terminology, therefore, is not more than a political statement based on hearsay, forgeries, falsifications, fabrications, distortions, and outright lies. Not every killing or suffering is genocide. Not every war crime or hate crime is genocide. Not every photo, tall tale, documentary, film, book is genocide. Genocide verdict can only be given at a competent tribunal after due process where all sides are given a fair chance to tell its side of the story and cross-examine the evidence and witnesses. This was never done in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict. Armenians are trying to bypass legislation by applying political pressure. But it will not work! They will never come out on a bilateral commission of investigation or scholarly evaluation. On the contrary, the U.S. records in archives bear plenty evidence that the exact opposite is true, or that brutalities were mutual and mostly inflicted by the ancestors of the claimants as evidenced by their own books and historians!

    Armenian propaganda organizations such as ANCA, should be aware of the fact that the new Turkish Republic had agreed with U.S.A. on Dec. 24, 1923 to study all claims and compensate for the actual losses suffered by the U.S. Citizens, until that date. Their absence of knowledge is proof of their blind antagonism!

    ANCA should also be aware that a joint Committee had been empowered with another agreement dated October 25, 1934 and all U.S. citizens or claimants were given a deadline to submit their claims and evidences. The claims that had been submitted were meticulously verified. A further agreement of “Adjustment of Payment” No.168 dated Sept.8, 1937 was concluded with Turkey. U.S.A. confirmed with letter No.93, dated Sept..23, 1937 to the Republic of Turkey, that “…when the agreed amount is paid, Turkey will be fully discharged of the obligations previously agreed…”:

    Turkey had fulfilled the agreement; claimants had been accordingly paid and USA has no longer any lawful rights to request , 72 years later, additional indemnities for cases studied and settled in 1937!

    Accusing U.S. Governments for “complicity on genocide denial” is an arrogant insult to USA and Turkey, as long as the humiliation of “genocide” stands as a word in the air, never decided by a competent tribunal!

    ANCA organization does not have the immunity to call other parties “criminal”, unless the “crime is proven and the judicial verdict is at hand”. Declarations by some Parliaments or other legally irrelevant and/or unauthorized groups are political and have no judicial merit. They may stroke Armenian egos, but are, otherwise, worthless gestures of bias and bigotry, which are used as asset or assessment for collecting “donations for the cause”!..

    Vague expressions and accusations such as “race extermination or over 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives” stands much short of truths and the U.S. state archives refute them openly because:

    a- “American Military Mission to Armenia” (General Harbord) Report 1920 and Annex Report Nat. Archives 184.021/175 do not mention any “race extermination” but instead refer to “refinements of cruelty by Armenians to Muslims”.

    b- Joint US-Congress Resolution no. 192, April 22, 1922 relative to the activities of Near East Relief ending 31.12.1921, has unanimously resolved that 1,414,000 Armenians were alive. Moreover, (George Montgomery) a member of the US delegation at the Paris Conference had presented a detailed tabulation in 1919, with 1,104,000 Armenians alive, apart from those who had already immigrated to other countries.

    c- Reliable sources show that THE TOTAL ARMENIAN POPULATION in the (1914) Ottoman Empire was less than 1.3 MILLION (or up to a maximum of 1.5 millions) and hence it would be ANCA’s liability to “defy and annul these official U.S. State Records,” and give documentary evidence of which number is to be trusted!

    ANCA is charging the Obama administration of “blocking legal redress of U.S. citizens” without minimal proof. ANCA should be aware of the fact that the Obama administration is responsible for protecting the rights and interests of all true American citizens who took an oath when they were naturalized. In other words, the Obama Administration cannot be held responsible for losses such as of life, property, or inheritance by her citizens in “former countries” (before they were naturalized) from where they immigrated to the US! Prevailing cases of U.S. citizens were promptly settled by former USA Administrations at that time. This does not limit the “U.S. citizens from pursuing their personal claims individually in other countries” under their own liabilities. USA cannot disregard or deviate from her written obligations in international agreements under any ethnic pressure or others, such as by ANCA.

    If ANCA lobby organization is disappointed because Obama treats American citizens of Armenian ethnicity equally with all other American citizens and cannot extend special privileges to ANCA, then I am afraid, ANCA is giving priority to ANCA leaders’ private interests over the interests of American citizens over all.

    There is no place for any prejudice or antagonism in USA’s relations with other countries. It is hard to understand or justify why Armenian community is so fearful of “any type of investigation” (by historical commission or others) unless, of course, there are facts that Armenians do not wish to be brought into the light.

    Obama Administration has taken an oath to serve all American citizens, equally, and to protect their overall interests. A U.S. president cannot support unproven allegations or hearsay that may tarnish American values like justice, fairness, openness, honesty, equality, and compassion for all. The Obama Administration, I hope, will never be part of “any prejudice or antagonism” against any ethnicity, nation, race, or faith on earth!

    I welcome ANCA’s offer to discuss “these matters personally in greater detail” when Armenian falsifiers would support White House’s desire to hear what “other American citizens” may have to say equally in a fair, friendly and civilized conference!

    Most Cordially and Sincerely,

    Sukru Server Aya

    [Author: “The Genocide of Truth” ISBN 978-975-6516-24-9 Istanbul Commerce University Publication 2008]

    Annex:
    a- ANCA’s letter to the White House
    b- Book separately mailed from USA, marked on envelope (Annex of the letter by Sukru S. Aya )

    NOTE: The Armenian Community in Turkey and many Armenians in the world, who can see the personal ego and financial interest of the diaspora, are disturbed by the latter’s arrogance and fomenting frictions on which they thrive! My friends and I are dedicated to decency, truth, reason and compassion and despise “hate merchants”

    c.c.:
    a- U.S.A. Embassy – Çankaya – Ankara (Book formerly presented)
    b- U.S.A. General Consulate – Istanbul – – – – – – -do-
    c- T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlıgı (Foreign Office) Ankara – – -do-

    ***

    And here is the letter written by ANCA, the same organization previously headed by a convicted Armenian terrorist, Topalian, who shamelessly stored explosives next to a school, daycare, and a gas station in Ohio until caught in the act by the FBI:

    ***

    ANCA’s letter to Obama
    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    I am writing to urge you to take immediate steps to publicly reject the flawed ruling of a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Movsesian v. Versicherung A.G. (No. 07-56722, August 20, 2009), that struck down a California law providing remedies for Armenian Genocide-era wrongs, and argued that state level recognition of this crime contradicts “express federal policy” and is therefore unconstitutional.

    You bear direct responsibility, Mr. President, by virtue of your failure to keep your repeated, crystal clear pledges to recognize the Armenian Genocide, for the Court’s judgment that it is the official policy of the Executive Branch of the United States government to actively oppose proper recognition of this crime and, upon this basis, to thus prohibit states from passing laws to help Armenian Genocide-era victims seek to reclaim lost or stolen property. The Court’s interpretation of your broken promise marks an unmistakable and historic low in our government’s long complicity in Turkey’s campaign of genocide denial.

    As you know, over 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives and, of course, many more were deprived of their property as a result of the Ottoman Turkish government’s systematic and deliberate campaign of race extermination. It is particularly tragic, given the thorough understanding that you have articulated regarding the moral, historical, and political meaning of this crime, that, it is under your leadership that the United States government is today not only engaged in complicity in genocide denial, but also, according to a judicial ruling, actively working to ensure that the remaining survivors and their families are denied avenues to seek to reclaim property lost during these massacres.

    Your Administration’s policies, as understood and affirmed by the Court, in addition to blocking legal redress for U.S. citizens, have now opened the door—in unprecedented and profoundly dangerous ways—for interests aligned with the Turkish government to seek to roll back several generations of American civil society efforts to mark this tragedy, including through formal recognition by 42 U.S. states. As such, we once again urge you to publicly reject the Court’s interpretation of your Administration’s position and call upon you to honor your covenant with American voters to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide.

    In closing, I would like to stress to you, once again, how broadly and profoundly disappointing your failure to honor your many commitments on issues of special concern to Armenian American citizens has been for the ANCA, a grassroots organization that, based upon your track record and series of publicly stated commitments, enthusiastically endorsed your candidacy and successfully mobilized an unprecedented community drive to help secure your election. In the wake of your many broken campaign commitments, your silence in the face of this profoundly misguided judicial action would compound the Armenian American community’s sense of betrayal regarding your Administration’s behind the scenes efforts to block adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, your White House’s use of Turkey’s cynically-inspired “roadmap” to defer U.S. recognition, and your State Department’s shameless pressure on Armenia to accept the artificial “historical commission” that Ankara has long advanced to prevent the proper recognition of this crime.

    We remain ready, as we have shared with you on a number of past occasions, to meet with you to discuss these matters personally and in greater detail.

    [signed]
    Kenneth V. Hachikian
    Chairman

    ***

    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    This is to refute the baseless claims and arrogant demands made by the Armenians in a letter to you recently. Kenneth V. Hachikian, chairman of ANCA –the same organization previously headed by a convicted Armenian terrorist, Topalian, who shamelessly stored explosives next to a school, daycare, and a gas station in Ohio until caught in the act by the FBI—

    The discourteous Armenian letter was urging you to reject the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Movsesian v. Versicherung A.G. (No. 07-56722, August 20, 2009), which found a California partsian law providing remedies to ethnic Armenians in life insurance matters during an alleged genocide. This bizarre demand, a clear evidence of lack of understanding of American government, totally contradicts the separation of powers in U.S.A. The impolite Armenian letter also seemed clueless about the federal supremacy law, which stipulates that state laws cannot void or overrule federal laws.

    Demanding that the U.S. Government violate bilateral agreements with the sovereign Republic of Turkey by asking the White House to interfere with the decision of U.S. Court of Appeals is simply un-American.

    Furthermore, the term genocide is not based on a verdict by a competent tribunal and reflects a biased interpretation of WWI events, ignoring the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict [i.e. tumult (revolts), terrorism, treason, territorial demands, Turkish suffering, and TERESET, temporary resettlement order of May 27, 1915.] Not all killing, suffering, and war crimes are genocide. For a genocide verdict, intent of the perpetrator must be proven at a competent court after due process. That was never done in the Turkish-Armenian conflict. The “Armenian Genocide” allegations are political charges based on hearsay, forgeries, falsifications, fabrications, distortions, and outright lies. Turks suffered, too, at the hands of Armenians and the U.S. archives of the era can attest to that.

    Most importantly, ANCA should learn that the Turkish Republic had agreed with U.S.A. on Dec. 24, 1923 to investigate and redress all claims of losses suffered by the U.S. Citizens, until that date. A joint Committee, empowered with another agreement dated October 25, 1934, did collect and verify all submittals, upon which a third agreement of “Adjustment of Payment” No.168 dated Sept.8, 1937 was concluded with Turkey. U.S.A. confirmed with letter No.93, dated Sept..23, 1937 to the Republic of Turkey, that “…when the agreed amount is paid, Turkey will be fully discharged of the obligations previously agreed…” Turkey had fulfilled the agreement by paying the claimants and the matter was permanently and irrevocably settled.

    If you ever decide to meet that nagging, demanding, deceptive ANCA, please do yourself a favor and invite us, Turkish-Americans, as represented by ATAA, FTAA, and others, to the same meeting and let us dismantle their bogus Armenian claims effortlessly… and with pleasure.

    Sincerely,

    Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
    ATAA, President-Elect
    FTAA, Western Regional Director
    ATASC, Past President

  • Ted Kennedy dies

    Ted Kennedy dies

    kennedy1Ted Kennedy, the US senator and brother of President John F Kennedy, has died after a year-long battle with cancer. He was 77.

    By Bonnie Malkin and agencies in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts
    Published: 7:02AM BST

    26 Aug 2009

    As Senator Edward Kennedy, he was one of the most influential and longest-serving senators in US history – a liberal standard-bearer who was also known as a consummate congressional dealmaker.

    Sen Kennedy had been battling brain cancer, which was diagnosed in May 2008. He died at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts.

    Known as the “liberal lion” of the senate, he was the brother of President Kennedy, assassinated in 1963, Senator Robert Kennedy, fatally shot while campaigning for the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination, and Joe Kennedy, a pilot killed in World War Two.

    “We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever,” the Kennedy family said in a statement.

    “We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice, fairness and opportunity for all.

    “He loved this country and devoted his life to serving it.”

    Even in the months leading up to his death, Sen Kennedy championed health care reform, working wages and equal rights. In August, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation’s highest civilian honor — by President Obama.

    He underwent successful brain surgery after being diagnosed but his health continued to deteriorate. He suffered a seizure while attending the luncheon following President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

    Kennedy was first elected to the Senate in 1962, at the age of 30, and his tenure there would span four decades.

    Telegraph

  • Senator Edward M. Kennedy is dead

    Senator Edward M. Kennedy is dead

    kennedyAugust 26, 2009 01:31 AM
    Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who carried aloft the torch of a Massachusetts dynasty and championed a liberal ideology during almost a half century in the Senate, but whose personal and political failings may have prevented him from realizing the ultimate prize of the presidency, died Tuesday night at his home in Hyannis Port. He was 77 and had been battling brain cancer.

    Overcoming a history of family tragedy, which included the assassinations of a brother who was president and another who sought to occupy the White House, Kennedy seized on the role of being a “Senate man.” He became a Democratic titan of Washington who fought for the less fortunate, who crafted unlikely deals with conservative Republicans, and who ceaselessly sought support for universal health coverage.

    “Teddy,” as he was known to intimates, constituents, and even his fiercest enemies, was a unwavering symbol to the left and the right — the former for his unapologetic embrace of liberalism, and latter for his value as a political target. But with his fiery rhetoric, his distinctive Massachusetts accent, and his role as representative of one of the nation’s best-known political families, he was widely recognized as an American original. In the end, some of those who might have been his harshest political enemies, including former President George W. Bush, found ways to collaborate with the man who was called the “last lion” of the Senate.

    Kennedy’s White House aspirations may have doomed by his actions on the night that he drove off a bridge at Chappaquiddick Island and failed to promptly report the accident in which a woman died. When Kennedy nonetheless later sought to wrest the presidential nomination from an incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter, he failed in his quest. But that failure prompted him to reevaluate his place in history, and he dedicated himself to fulfilling his political agenda by other means, famously saying, “the dream shall never die.”

    With Kennedy’s death, as it was with the passing of his brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, another chapter has closed in an extraordinary family epic, one that has captivated people worldwide for decades, and has been recounted in countless books, television shows, and movies. But, as Kennedy himself often suggested, it seems certain that his causes not only will endure, but also will remain at the forefront of the American political stage, most recently with the ongoing fight over healthcare legislation.

    He was the youngest child of a famous family, but his legacy derived from quiet subcommittee meetings, conference reports, and markup sessions. The result of his efforts meant hospital care for a grandmother, a federal loan for a working college student, or a better wage for a dishwasher,

    With a family saga that blended Greek tragedy and soap opera, the Kennedys fascinated America and the world for half a century. “I have every expectation of living a long and worthwhile life,” Senator Kennedy said in 1994. This expectation contrasted with the fate of his brothers, all of whom died prematurely. Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was killed in 1944 on a World War II bombing mission. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated while campaigning for president in Los Angeles in 1968.

    Senator Kennedy’s congressional career was remarkable not only for its accomplishments, but for its length of 47 years. Only Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and the late Strom Thurmond of South Carolina served longer than Senator Kennedy.

    Ted Kennedy brought to the Senate a trait his brothers lacked patience and what his mother called a “ninth-child talent,” a blend of toughness and tact.

    Birth of a political legend

    The ninth child of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy was born on the 200th anniversary of George Washington’s birth, Feb. 22, 1932. His brother
    Jack, then at the Choate School in Connecticut, wrote to his parents, asking to be godfather and urging the new arrival to be baptized George Washington Kennedy.

    The parents agreed to the first request, but named the child Edward Moore Kennedy, after one of his father’s assistants. Part of Senator Kennedy’s boyhood was spent in London, where his father was US ambassador to Great Britain. After nine schools on two continents, he entered Milton Academy in 1946 and maintained mostly midlevel grades, including in Spanish, a subject that would trouble him again at Harvard College, where, in 1951, he asked a friend to take a Spanish exam for him. A proctor recognized the substitute and both students were expelled, but were told they could return to Harvard if they showed evidence of “constructive and responsible citizenship.”

    For the 19-year-old freshman, the incident became the first of several episodes creating public doubts about his character.

    He entered the military draft, and Private Kennedy met a more diverse group of people at Fort Dix, N.J., than he would have in Cambridge. His father helped arrange an assignment, during fighting in Korea, to NATO headquarters in Paris.

    In 1954, after two years in the Army, Senator Kennedy returned to complete his studies at Harvard, then graduated from the University of Virginia Law School.

    At a family event, he met Joan Bennett, the daughter of an advertising executive. They married in 1958, the same year Ted Kennedy managed the Senate re-election campaign of his brother John against Vincent J. Celeste of East Boston. His assignment was to steer the incumbent to a victory big enough to impress national Democratic Party bosses. The victory margin was 857,000, the highest in the Commonwealth’s history.

    In 1959, Ted Kennedy headed west to help his brother’s presidential campaign. At the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in 1960, when Wyoming cinched JFK’s nomination, Edward Kennedy stood among the state’s delegates, cheering them on.
    On to the Senate

    JFK was elected in 1960 and declared in his inaugural address that “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” This iconography would play out over generations of Kennedys as well, who would take up the torch from a family member. JFK persuaded Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo to fill his vacant Senate seat by appointing a Harvard classmate of the president’s, Benjamin A. Smith II, the mayor of Gloucester.

    On March 14, 1962, after he attained the constitutional age of 30 to be eligible for election to the Senate, Edward Kennedy announced his candidacy for the unexpired term of his brother. Ted Kennedy’s only public experience was a year as assistant district attorney of Suffolk County, and he had to take on two Massachusetts dynasties.

    In the special election, he first faced Attorney General Edward J. McCormack Jr., the nephew of US House Speaker John W. McCormack. At a debate in South Boston, McCormack ridiculed his opponent, saying the senatorial job “should be merited, not inherited.” Pointing his finger at Mr. Kennedy, he said: “If his name were Edward Moore, with his qualifications with your qualifications, Teddy if it was Edward Moore, your candidacy would be a joke.”

    Ted Kennedy looked pained and shocked. His silence created a wave of sympathy.

    “Some say Eddie came on too strong, others still say he was right on the mark; I agree with both of them,” Senator Kennedy said at McCormack’s funeral 35 years later.

    Ted Kennedy went on to win 69 percent of the primary vote and then to defeat George Cabot Lodge, the former Republican senator’s son, in the general election.

    Even with a brother in the White House and another, Robert, as attorney general, a freshman senator was supposed to work diligently for local concerns and to perform committee work in patient obscurity. Senator Kennedy did so, taking on his brother’s legislative concerns on refugees and immigrants. He served on the Labor and Judiciary committees and sought “more for Massachusetts” by pursuing fishery development and a Cambridge electronics research center for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    Disaster strikes

    On Nov. 22, 1963, Mr. Kennedy was presiding over the Senate, a chore assigned to freshman members, when a messenger arrived at the rostrum with the news from Dallas. After confirming with the White House the president’s death, Mr. Kennedy and his sister, Eunice, flew to Hyannis Port to deliver the news to their father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who had suffered a stroke in 1961 and could not speak or walk.

    In Congress, Mr. Kennedy did not deliver his “maiden speech” until April 1964. The subject was civil rights, the unfinished business of his slain brother. In Washington, his own family had grown with the birth of Patrick Joseph Kennedy in 1963. Kara Anne had been born in 1960, and Edward Jr. in 1961.

    In 1964, eager to win a full six-year term in the Senate, Mr. Kennedy planned to visit Springfield to accept the endorsement of the state convention. On the night of June 19, after casting votes on final passage of a civil rights bill, Mr. Kennedy and the convention’s keynote speaker, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, boarded a twin-engine private plane in Washington en route to Barnes Municipal Airport in Westfield.

    In heavy fog, the aircraft crashed in an apple orchard, killing the pilot and a Kennedy aide. Mr. Kennedy sustained three broken vertebrae, fractured ribs, a punctured lung, and internal hemorrhaging.

    After a four-month recuperation, Mr. Kennedy was released, but back injuries would cause him pain for the rest of his life. The Republican opponent was Howard Whitmore, the former mayor of Newton, who said, “My opponent is flat on his back, and, from a gentleman’s standpoint, I can’t campaign against that.” Mr. Kennedy was reelected with 74.3 percent of the vote.

    In that same election, the voters of New York elected Robert Kennedy as their senator. In 1965, on the first day of the 89th Congress, the Kennedys were sworn in together.

    The brothers teased each other frequently, but seldom diverged in their liberal voting patterns. Edward took the lead on issues such as repealing the poll tax.

    By 1967, rallies against the Vietnam War were proliferating and on Nov. 30,
    Senator Eugene J. McCarthy of Minnesota agreed, after Robert Kennedy declined, to challenge Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries. After McCarthy won 42 percent of the New Hampshire vote and before LBJ would bow out, RFK reconsidered and entered the contest. In June, after winning the California primary, Robert Kennedy was assassinated. At St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, the voice of the surviving Kennedy brother cracked as he eulogized Robert as “a good man, who saw war and tried to stop it.” Mr. Kennedy became the surrogate father to his brothers’s children and a patriarchal figure in the growing clan.

    Vietnam dominated the 1968 convention, as did speculation about Mr. Kennedy’s intentions. “Like my brothers before me, I pick up a fallen standard,” he said at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. “Sustained by the memory of our priceless years together, I shall try to carry forward that special commitment to justice, to excellence, and to the courage that distinguished their lives.”

    But the Capitol, not the White House, seemed the focus of his intentions. After Nixon defeated Hubert H. Humphrey in a close contest, Mr. Kennedy surprised many in Washington by running for majority whip. By a 31-26 vote, he defeated the incumbent, another son of a famous political dynasty, Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana. On a cold January night, before celebrating at his home in McLean, Va., the 36-year-old senator drove to Arlington National Cemetery, where the gravesite of Robert was under construction next to John’s.

    Majority leader Mike Mansfield of Montana welcomed his new assistant, saying, “Of all the Kennedys, the senator is the only one who was and is a real Senate man.” On July 18, 1969, Mansfield predicted that his colleague would not run for president in 1972, saying “He’s in no hurry. He’s young. He likes the Senate.”

    On that same day, Mr. Kennedy arrived on an island that his actions would make notorious. On Chappaquiddick, across a narrow strait from Edgartown on Martha’s Vineyard, six women who had worked on RFK’s campaign gathered for a reunion at a rented cottage.

    Mary Jo Kopechne, 29, had worked for RFK’s Senate office. A passenger in a car driven by Mr. Kennedy, she drowned after the car skidded off a bridge. Mr. Kennedy failed to report the accident for several hours. The accident gave the senator a minor concussion and a major personal and political crisis.

    On the same day American astronauts walked on the moon, fulfilling a JFK pledge, the accident was front page news across the globe. The senator was unable to explain the accident for days. After consulting in Hyannis Port with his brothers’ advisers, he gave a televised speech a week later. He praised Kopechne, wondered aloud “whether some awful curse did actually hang over the Kennedys,” then asked Massachusetts voters whether he should resign. They replied overwhelmingly in the negative.

    His critics snarled that Mr. Kennedy “got away with it” at Chappaquiddick, but the price he paid in personal grief was as high as the cost in presidential politics. During the Cold War, voters expected quick and cool judgment from presidents. Mr. Kennedy, in effect, disqualified himself when he confessed on television that he should have alerted police immediately: “I was overcome, I’m frank to say, by a jumble of emotions: grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion, and shock.”

    Vietnam dominated the 1968 convention, as did speculation about Mr. Kennedy’s intentions. “Like my brothers before me, I pick up a fallen standard,” he said at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. “Sustained by the memory of our priceless years together, I shall try to carry forward that special commitment to justice, to excellence, and to the courage that distinguished their lives.”

    But the Capitol, not the White House, seemed the focus of his intentions. After Nixon defeated Hubert H. Humphrey in a close contest, Mr. Kennedy surprised many in Washington by running for majority whip. By a 31-26 vote, he defeated the incumbent, another son of a famous political dynasty, Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana. On a cold January night, before celebrating at his home in McLean, Va., the 36-year-old senator drove to Arlington National Cemetery, where the gravesite of Robert was under construction next to John’s.

    Majority leader Mike Mansfield of Montana welcomed his new assistant, saying, “Of all the Kennedys, the senator is the only one who was and is a real Senate man.” On July 18, 1969, Mansfield predicted that his colleague would not run for president in 1972, saying “He’s in no hurry. He’s young. He likes the Senate.”

    On that same day, Mr. Kennedy arrived on an island that his actions would make notorious. On Chappaquiddick, across a narrow strait from Edgartown on Martha’s Vineyard, six women who had worked on RFK’s campaign gathered for a reunion at a rented cottage.

    Mary Jo Kopechne, 29, had worked for RFK’s Senate office. A passenger in a car driven by Mr. Kennedy, she drowned after the car skidded off a bridge. Mr. Kennedy failed to report the accident for several hours. The accident gave the senator a minor concussion and a major personal and political crisis.

    On the same day American astronauts walked on the moon, fulfilling a JFK pledge, the accident was front page news across the globe. The senator was unable to explain the accident for days. After consulting in Hyannis Port with his brothers’ advisers, he gave a televised speech a week later. He praised Kopechne, wondered aloud “whether some awful curse did actually hang over the Kennedys,” then asked Massachusetts voters whether he should resign. They replied overwhelmingly in the negative.

    His critics snarled that Mr. Kennedy “got away with it” at Chappaquiddick, but the price he paid in personal grief was as high as the cost in presidential politics. During the Cold War, voters expected quick and cool judgment from presidents. Mr. Kennedy, in effect, disqualified himself when he confessed on television that he should have alerted police immediately: “I was overcome, I’m frank to say, by a jumble of emotions: grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion, and shock.”

    He returned to his work in the Senate and in December 1969 began a long campaign “to move now to establish a comprehensive national healthcare insurance program.” He also led the effort to give 18-year-olds the right to vote. After winning reelection in 1970 with 62 percent of the vote, he found how Chappaquiddick reverberated in the Senate chamber. In January 1971, Byrd defeated Mr. Kennedy for whip by a 31-24 vote of the Democratic caucus.

    Years later, Mr. Kennedy privately thanked Byrd because the loss made him concentrate on committee work in healthcare, refugees, civil rights, the judiciary, and foreign policy, areas in which he would leave a lasting imprint.

    While involved in Senate work, he discovered that his teen-age son, Edward Jr., had to have his leg amputated. His son’s cancer cooled the senator’s ambitions about running for president in 1976.

    Jimmy Carter of Georgia, elected president in 1976, was not a Kennedy Democrat. The ideological divide between the two was profound. Mr. Kennedy thought Carter’s healthcare programs were timid. The president sometimes resented Mr. Kennedy’s celebrity status, especially when foreign leaders consulted with the senator.

    Democrats held a mid-term conference in Memphis in December 1978, dominated by the senator’s nautical metaphor. “Sometimes a party must sail against the wind,” he said. “We cannot afford to drift or lie at anchor. We cannot heed the call of those who say it is time to furl the sail.” Carter’s response included telling a group of Democratic congressmen that if Mr. Kennedy did challenge him, “I’ll whip his ass.”

    On Nov. 7, 1979, saying he was “compelled by events and by my commitment to public life,” Mr. Kennedy formally declared his candidacy for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination. “For many months, we have been sinking into crisis,” Mr. Kennedy said. “Yet we hear no clear summons from the center of power.” He stood on the stage of Faneuil Hall, before a giant painting of Daniel Webster, a Massachusetts senator who never became president.

    Unable to persuade Democrats to abandon a Democratic president, Mr. Kennedy won only 10 of the 35 presidential primaries. In July, he reluctantly endorsed Carter at the Democratic National Convention in New York. After congratulating Carter, he said, “For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

    In 1981, because of Ronald Reagan’s coattails, Mr. Kennedy was in the Senate minority for the first time. But he was accustomed to reaching across the aisle for support. Throughout his career, Mr. Kennedy’s name animated Republican fund-raising efforts. In reality, the GOP’s bete noire cooperated with party leaders from Barry Goldwater to Bob Dole to Orrin Hatch.

    Mr. Kennedy’s success owed more to craftsmanship than charm, more to diligence than blarney. In 1985, outside the hearing room of the Armed Service Committee, a reporter encountered Senator John Warner, a Republican of Virginia, who spontaneously volunteered praise of his liberal colleague from Massachusetts: “This man works as hard as anyone. When he knows his subject, he really knows it. He listens, he learns, and he’s an asset to this committee.”

    In 1985, Mr. Kennedy renounced presidential ambitions, saying to Bay State voters, “I will run for reelection to the Senate. I know that this decision means that I may never be president. But the pursuit of the presidency is not my life. Public service is.”

    He had watched with pride as his nephew Joseph won the seat vacated by House Speaker Tip O’Neill in 1986 and in 1994 as his son, Patrick, won a congressional seat from Rhode Island. But not all family matters were a source of pride. In 1991, the senator had to testify in Palm Beach about rape charges brought against his nephew William Kennedy Smith in the aftermath of a drinking party organized by Mr. Kennedy. The incident embarrassed the senator into silence during judiciary committee hearings into allegations of sexist conduct against Clarence Thomas, later confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

    Mr. Kennedy’s reputation as a roustabout lingered until, years after he and Joan divorced in 1982, Mr. Kennedy met Victoria Reggie, a lawyer and divorced mother of two who was 22 years younger than he was. They wed in 1992 and began a partnership that brought equilibrium and focus to Mr. Kennedy’s life.

    In the 1992 presidential election, Mr. Kennedy endorsed his home state colleague Paul Tsongas, but enthusiastically backed Bill Clinton in the fall. In 1994, when Republicans recaptured the House for the first time in 40 years, no Democrat was safe, even the leading lion of liberalism in Massachusetts. A Republican businessman, Mitt Romney, ran against him and captured the attention of some until, in a Faneuil Hall debate, Mr. Kennedy proved his mastery of the issues.

    For the senator, it was a relatively close call. He won with 58 percent of the vote, his smallest margin since his first election in 1962. Mr. Kennedy returned to form, winning re-election by lopsided margins in 2000 and 2006.

    During the administration of Republican President George W. Bush, Mr. Kennedy led the Senate’s antiwar faction as the president pressed Congress for the authorization to use military force against Iraq.

    In a speech at Johns Hopkins University about a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Kennedy said the administration had failed to make the case for a pre-emptive attack.

    “I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous, that the risks of waiting are greater than the risk of war,” he said, recalling his brother’s restraint in dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962.

    Two weeks later, the House and Senate passed the Iraq war resolution by wide margins. Mr. Kennedy was among 23 Democrats who voted in opposition.

    But Mr. Kennedy displayed a willingness to be helpful when he thought Mr. Bush was right. He was a force behind the Bush administration’s chief domestic policy achievement in its first term, No Child Left Behind, the sweeping education bill that mandated testing to measure student progress.

    Mr. Kennedy was a lead author and attended the signing ceremony in February 2002 at Hamilton High School in Ohio. When Mr. Bush introduced him, the president said: “He is a fabulous United States senator. When he’s against you, it’s tough. When he’s with you, it is a great experience.”

    In early 2008, shortly before his own cancer diagnosis, Senator Kennedy surprised much of the political world by endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The comparisons between Obama and John F. Kennedy were obvious to many, and the endorsement was seen as a passing of the Kennedy torch to the man aspiring to be the nation’s first black president.

    Less than two weeks before Obama would face the far better-known Clinton in
    “Super Tuesday” contests in about half the states of the country, Senator
    Kennedy’s endorsement came at an optimal moment. Obama held Clinton to a draw in the Super Tuesday contests, setting him up for his nomination and election as president.

    Despite his illness, Senator Kennedy made a forceful appearance at the Democratic convention in Denver, exhorting his party to victory and declaring that the fight for universal health insurance had been “the cause of my life.”

    He pursued that cause vigorously, and even as his health declined, he spent days reaching out to colleagues to win support for a sweeping healthcare overhaul; when members of Obama’s administration questioned the president’s decision to spend so much political capital on the seemingly intractable healthcare issue, Obama reportedly replied, “I promised Teddy.”

    The Boston Globe

  • Turkish Diaspora Manages To Dismiss Us Congress’s Resolution On “armenian Genocide”

    Turkish Diaspora Manages To Dismiss Us Congress’s Resolution On “armenian Genocide”

    Tuesday, 25 August 2009

    The United States, Washington, Aug. 25 /Trend News, N.Bogdanova/

    The political circuits of Washington DC and US based Turkish Diaspora organizations are not accepting seriously the Armenian initiatives concerning “Armenian genocide” in the US Congress and local law-making organizations, one of leaders of the Turkish Diaspora in California Karahan Mete toldTrend News.

    For example, during the last several months Armenians tried to put through three resolutions in California State’s local Congress, but US based Turkish organizations (TCCA, Turkish Defense Fund, ATAA, TAAF, PAX Turcica, TAAC, Turkuaz, TADF) managed to dismiss those three resolution projects, Mete said.

    He mentions that, the State of California, where Armenian and Greece Diasporas are dominant – is the center for Armenian’s anti-Turkish activities.

    Close relationship between Turkish Diaspora and Senator Darrel Steinberg helped to hinder implementation of a resolution project number AJR 14, which was dedicated to the issue of “Armenian genocide”, and was aimed to keep the “Armenian genocide” on agenda, Mete said.

    The Turkish Diaspora also prevented Armenians’ another resolution number SB 234, which was aimed to propaganda the “Armenian genocide” issue in California’s schools.

    The first version of this resolution meant that any Armenian could go to a school and talk about what happened in 1915 to his relatives, Mete said.

    But in the last version (revised by the Turkish Diaspora) only those ones who participated in 1915 events can do these kinds of lectures at schools.

    “And as nearly none of the participants are alive it seems impossible,” told Mete.

    The third resolution project still remains on California Senate’s agenda under the number AB 961, and it is aimed to prohibit the cooperation between local government and organizations which are working with Turkey.

    The Turkish Diaspora is working hard in Washington DC on dismissing the discussion of “Armenian genoside” in the US Congress during the up-coming fall session.

    Besides the Turkish organizations, the Congressional Caucus on Turkey also works closely with this issue, Congressman Ed Whitefield (Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey)  office told Trend News.

    According to Congressman Whitefield’s office, in an open editorial about US-Turkey relations the law-maker says that with Turkey’s record as such a steadfast ally to the U.S. during troubled times; it would be a dangerous misstep to unnecessarily risk alienating the Turkish people. Yet, efforts are, once again, afoot in the U.S. Congress to label the deaths of ethnic Armenians during the final days of the Ottoman Empire in World War I as genocide.

    He stresses that, “This sort of proclamation, which bears no legal effect, would almost certainly be seen as a slap in the face to Turkey and a harpoon to U.S. relations with the country”.

    According to Congressman, the “Armenian genocide” issue remains a matter of debate by historians, making it foolish, arrogant, and dangerous for politicians to make historical claims for political points”.

    Ed Whitefield also adds that with the two countries (Turkey and Armenia) already working in step to resolve their differences and advance their relationship, U.S. involvement in the situation appears unnecessary and intrusive.

    Turkish Weekly