Category: America

TORONTO OLAYLARI UZERINE: PLEASE, TEACH THE CHILDREN WELL!

PLEASE, TEACH THE CHILDREN WELL!

To: [email protected]

Dear Michelle Collins,

Please allow me to formulate my op-ed under the following headings in order to provide you with a thoughtful rebuttal to your article ” Turkey Decries Toronto School Board Genocide Course” (Embassy, Canada, August 27th, 2008.)

GREEK-ARMENIAN COLLUSION AGAINST TURKEY:

The accounts of Turkish-Armenian history provided by a Greek-Canadian (Liberal MP, Jim Karygiannis) and an Armenian-Canadian (ANC Exec. Dir., Aris Babikian) in your article are so typically distorted, that they can hardly be considered as much more than “settling of an old score” via “political lynching”. It is quite in keeping with the Greek-Armenian collusion during the ill-fated invasion and destruction of Izmir by Greek army (1919) which, in turn, ignited the Turkish Independence War (1919-1922.) This anti-Turkish Greek-Armenian complicity was re-established in 1974 after the failed attempt by the Greek-Cypriots to ethnically cleanse Cyprus of its Turkish-Cypriot population which triggered a military intervention by one of the three guarantors, Turkey.   What we see in Toronto today is just another link in that anti-Turkish Greek-Armenian-collusion chain.

GENOCIDE CHARGES UNFOUNDED:

Babikian’s version of history is so “Diaspora” that one can easily write a 500-page book on it, effortlessly. I don’t have time to write it, so I’ll try to make my response as manageable as possible. While some amongst us may be forgiven for taking the ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value, merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for us, Turks, most of whom are themselves the descendants of Turkish survivors of the yet mostly untold, readily dismissed out of bias, or ignored massacres of Turks during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, the World War I of 1914-18, and the Turkish Independence War of 1919-1922. Collectively termed, “seferberlik” (meaning “the mobilization” in Turkish,) those endless war years of 1912-1922 rained death and destruction on Turkish people. The Ottoman Empire was under vicious attacks from all corners and Armenians shamelessly sided with the invading enemy armies when not violently revolting.   Those countless, nameless, faceless Turkish victims, doing nothing more than defending their home like any citizen anywhere in the world would do, are killed again today with those politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.

GENOCIDE CLAIMS IGNORE “THE SIX T’S” OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT:

Allegations of Armenian genocide are racist and dishonest history. They are racist because they imply that Turkish or Muslim dead are not important, only Armenian or Christian dead are. This racist approach ignores the immense Turkish suffering: about 3 million dead during the WWI; around half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists. By ignoring the suffering of one side completely, any war, including the American civil war, may be made to look like a genocide. And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they deliberately dismiss “The Six T’s” of the Turkish-Armenian conflict:

1) Tumult (as in many violent Armenian armed uprisings between 1882 and 1920)

2) Terrorism (by Armenian nationalists and militias from 1882-1920 perpetrated on non-combatant Muslim civilians, mostly Muslim women and children, and elderly men)

3) Treason (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies and killing their Muslim neighbors and other fellow citizens, including the Ottoman-Jews)

4) Territorial demands (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority)

5) Turkish suffering and losses (i.e. those caused only by the Armenian nationalists)

6) Tereset (Temporary Resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)

Armenians, thus, effectively put an end to their millennium of relatively peaceful and harmonious co-habitation in Anatolia with Muslims by killing their Muslim/Turkish neighbors and openly joining the invading enemy. Western diplomats and Christian missionaries were behind all of the “6 T’s” listed above.

TURKISH VIEWS CENSORED ACROSS THE EDITORIAL BOARDS DUE TO A “CONSENSUS OF BIAS”

Excluding responsible opposing views in covering any controversial issue is a form of censorship which violates the notion of freedom of speech. Decent people everywhere have a responsibility to ensure that the public is given a fair chance to hear all sides of a controversy such as the Turkish-Armenian conflict. “Partisan accounts” of history should not be taught children as “settled history” . We must all strive to “teach the children well.” Fairness, honesty, and truth are all that I ask.

HERE IS THE BIG PICTURE:

Millennium: Turks and Armenians—and other Muslims and Christians— enjoyed a reasonably harmonious co-habitation in Anatolia for a millennium (that’s a thousand years!) under that “crescent” that the Greek-Armenian conspiracy loves to demonize.

THE LOYAL NATION:

Turks liked and trusted the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire so much that Turks called the Armenians “Millet-i Sadika” (the loyal nation.) Armenians enjoyed high standards of living in the Ottoman Empire mostly engaging in trade, construction, arts, and more, while Muslims did most of the heavy lifting of the empire such as agriculture, soldiery, administration. (It is interesting to note that some Armenian propagandists use this as a proof of inequity, however, when the Armenians were given the right to soldiery after 1908, the Armenians invented ways to get out of that civic duty (see the letter by Armenians sent to the Lausanne Conference in 1923 asking for the right to be free from soldiery to be bestowed upon the Armenian community.)

PROSPERITY & STABILITY:

The above picture, i.e. with all its shortcomings and/or defects, was still the nearest thing to perfection, given the state of humanity through the middle ages around the world, especially in Europe with wars, conquests, colonization, slavery, mass killings, mass deportations, crusaders, inquisitions, holocausts, pogroms, and more. Compared to all this mayhem in Europe in the last millennium, the Ottoman Empire with its unique “ millet system”, was so peaceful and orderly that it could be considered the USA or Canada of Europe at the time. Armenians were one of the major beneficiaries of this centuries-long stability.

ARMENIAN REBELLIONS, TERRORISM, TREASON, TERRITORIAL DEMANDS:

All that started changing for the Turkish-Armenian relations after 1878 Berlin Peace Conference. Russia started claiming special protector’s right over the Ottoman-Armenian community with an keen eye towards capturing Istanbul and the straits (Bosporus & Dardanelles) to extend the Russian imperial reach into warm waters of the Mediterranean. Britain and France were not exactly innocent bystanders as they were eyeing other parts of the Ottoman Empire for themselves. The U.S. Protestant missionaries, headquartered in Boston, with their many educational and medical facilities dotting Anatolia used as convenient cover for their missionary activities, focused their attention on the Armenian community once they realized that proselytization of Muslims, Jews, or Greeks were nearly impossible. The Boston missionaries started dividing and polarizing not only the communities of the Ottoman Empire but also the Ottoman-Armenian community itself. The missionary sermons were incendiary, pitting Armenians against Turks, Muslims against Christians, and even Protestants against the Gregorians and Catholic.   Thus, these religious men abused the traditional hospitality of Turks by organizing a hate-filled resistance among the Armenians against the Turkish rule, causing untold miseries on all sides… These men of god, thus, caused much spilling of innocent blood in the name of god. In that sense, the Protestant missionaries may well be considered the guiltiest party of them all, followed by Tsarist Russia, Imperial Britain, Colonialist France, and Western media (The New York Times, for example, topping the list in biased coverage by publishing 145 anti-Turkish articles in 1915 alone with an incredible “ZERO” Turkish rebuttals allowed!)

ARMENIANS REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATIONS LAUNCHED A BLOODY CAMPAIGN:

The Armenians started creating revolutionary organizations: “Ermenakan” in Van, Turkey (1882), “Hunchack” in Geneva, Switzerland (1887), Dashnaksutiun in Tbilisi, Georgia (1890) and many others of many sizes and locations. Almost without exception, they were all bent on armed resistance against the Turkish rule. The Armenians used propaganda, agitation, terror, rebellions, and supreme treason, in that order, from 1882 to 1915, when finally some of the Armenians (not all) were sent on a Tereset (Temporary Resettlement). Tereset was a justified military measure because the Armenian bands would conduct violent raids on the unprotected Muslim villages, frustrate the Ottoman military supply lines, and even harass the rear of the Ottoman Army during a time of war. No country (including the U.S. and Canada) would tolerate this kind of wide open rebellion, pandemic treason, and omnipresent terror to be put into action by any community, large or small, at a time of war the least of all.

ARMENIAN NATIONALISTS USE CIVILIANS AS “HUMAN SHIELDS” AFTER DEVASTATING ATTACKS ON MUSLIMS:

The Armenian bands would launch their bomb and gun attacks during the night and then hide in ordinary homes during the day, turning Armenian women and children to little more than human shields for their murderous and treasonous acts. Those who cry out today “Why did the Turks force some helpless Armenian women and children to move?” should re-phrase their questions and first ask the nationalist Armenian leaders “Why did you use the non-combatant Armenian women and children as your cover before and human shields after your dastardly acts of terror against the Muslims?”

DO DIASPORA STORIES PROVE GENOCIDE?

What most coverage in the media describe are personal tragedies experienced by Armenians. Note that corresponding personal tragedies on the Turkish side, such as mine, are neither reported nor investigated, nor even wondered at all, in the Western media.   While it is not this writer’s intention to minimize the Armenian suffering, it must be questioned as to how it can be considered as “separate” from the Muslim suffering in the same area, same era, and under same conditions, when there was a terrible world war was going on that engulfed the Christian and Muslim communities producing an irregular warfare. How is my Turkish grandparents’ suffering caused by Ottoman-Christians any less than Armenians’ suffering caused by Armenian rebellions, terrorism, treason, territorial demands, and Tereset? How is Turkish suffering any less painful than Armenian suffering?    How are Turkish dead belittled and ignored while Armenian dead are exaggerated and glorified?   I am sure Armenians lived through some or most of those personal horror stories s often told in the media (though definitely not all of them.)   But they pale in comparison to what we, Turks, had to endure at hands of the likes of those Armenian terrorists, rebels, traitors, backstabbers, and murderers. My personal family story is much more tragic than most Armenians’, if anyone cares to know about it, please read the following essay of mine as it is too painful to write it here again: TURKISH LAST NAMES : HONEST STORY TELLERS :

PERSONAL TRAGEDIES BY THEMSELVES DO NOT MAKE IT A GENOCIDE:

Not all killings, not all sufferings fall automatically under the classification “genocide”. The U.N. 1948 definition is crystal clear: there must be an intention to destroy all or part of a community. Without intention, a murder is just that, a murder, and penal code can amply deal with that. The Armenians or their sympathizers have never proven Turkish intent to annihilate Armenians. In fact, History shows that just the contrary is true:

a) a millennium of peaceful co-habitation between Turks and Armenians;

b) endowment of Ottoman-Armenians with a “ loyal nation” status;

c) highest posts for Armenians in all walks of Ottoman life (the parliament, politics, diplomacy, military, trade, business, art…);

d) all of the above followed by, unfortunately, an intense period of organized Armenian terror, rebellions, treason, and territorial demands, and more…

e) triggering a temporary military, wartime safety measure of moving only those Armenians who posed a serious threat to Ottoman Empire’s war effort;

f) Note that Armenians of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne, Aleppo and other places were not moved, as they were not considered a threat;

g) Armenians in the armed services, doctors, and most inner city people were also kept out of the Tereset (Temporary resettlement) order;

h) detailed steps were described in countless official orders—too many to be dismissed casually—on how to move the community safely and orderly and claim the properties back on their return (contrary to common misperception, many did return!)

There is more, much more, but I already wrote most of them at www.turkla.com.   I don’t want to re-write them here. You are welcome to check it out yourself.

ETHOCIDE:

Frustrated by the persistently biased coverage of the Turkish-Armenian civil war during WWI and the ensuing censorship of Turkish views in American media, I have coined a new term back in 2003—my humble gift to the English language and a thoughtful and long overdue supplement to Rafael Lemkin’s definition of genocide: “ethocide”.

A brief definition of ethocide is “extermination of ethics by systematic and malicious mass-deception in exchange for political, economical, social, religious, and other favors and benefits.”

The civil war that had been raging up to 1915 and the Tereset it inevitably resulted in was no genocide, but what the Armenians and their sympathizers did in misrepresenting it ever since is clearly ethocide.

I urge . therefore, an end to the ethocidal coverage of the Turkish-Armenian conflict in the Western media and academia.

LAST WORD:

It was a wartime tragedy, engineered, provoked, and waged by Armenians, with support from Russia, England, France, the U.S., and Western media; but not genocide.

Please, teach the children well!

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

3.Son of Turkish survivors from both maternal and paternal sides

###

August 29, 2008
Rizelli Cafe brings Istanbul to Brookline

Inquisitive foodies have been wondering what happened to Huseyin Akgun, chef/owner of the popular Istanbul Cafe. In 2003, the restaurant moved from its original Beacon Hill location to larger digs in Brighton. But when that venture closed two years later, Akgun’s whereabouts were unknown.Last summer, Akgun quietly opened Rizelli Cafe in Brookline Village. The menu isn’t as extensive as its predecessor and too many menu items are unavailable. But one bite of mucver or Adana kebab and you’ll break into a smile – yes, Akgun’s cooking is as good as ever.

Read the full story…

August 29, 2008
The Montreux Convention and energy — outdated or essential?

By JOHN C.K. DALY
UPI International Correspondent

Published: Aug. 27, 2008 at 4:57 PM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 (UPI) — The five-day military conflict between Russia and Georgia over the disputed enclave of South Ossetia has thrown into the spotlight a nearly forgotten 72-year-old treaty governing the passage of both merchantmen and warships between the Mediterranean and Black seas through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, collectively known as the Turkish Straits.

The 1936 Montreux Convention roiled relations between Washington, which wanted to send humanitarian aid on massive vessels through the Turkish Straits, and Ankara, which has steadfastly insisted on the terms of the treaty being respected. The incident is a reminder, if any is needed, that despite Turkey and the United States being close allies and NATO compatriots, the two nations’ strategic interests do not always run in tandem. While America and its NATO allies attempt to cram as many warships as legally allowed up the Turkish Straits, thoughtful analysts should remember that the passage is also a conduit for massive tankers of up to 200,000 tons or more. In 2006, tankers carrying more than 140 million tons of Azeri, Kazakh and Russian oil used the Turkish Straits. Washington’s increasingly aggressive stance with the Kremlin over South Ossetia could have a direct impact on these oil shipments, something that hawks both inside the Beltway and the Kremlin should consider.

The Turkish Straits consist of two waterways connected by the landlocked Sea of Marmara. The 17-mile-long Bosporus, which debouches into the Black Sea, bisects Istanbul with its 11 million inhabitants, and its sinuous passage is only a half-mile wide at its narrowest point at Kandilli and has a convoluted morphological structure that requires ships to change course at least 12 times, including four separate bends that require turns greater than 45 degrees. At its southern end the Bosporus empties into the Sea of Marmara, which in turn connects to the 38-mile-long Dardanelles. Under good conditions merchant vessels currently canpass the 200 miles of the Turkish Straits in about 16 hours.

Under Montreux, Turkish sovereignty is recognized over the entire channel, but while the agreement guarantees merchantmen unhindered passage, the passage of warships of non-Black Sea nations is tightly regulated, which has led to the current friction between Washington and Ankara. Disputes over the waterway date back to the dawn of European history. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey recount the struggles of the Trojan War, which is assumed to have occurred in the 13th or 12th century B.C.; modern archaeology has placed Troy at the entrance to the Dardanelles.

The Turkish Straits now carry 50,000 vessels annually, making the passage the world’s second-busiest maritime strait, whose volume of traffic is exceeded only by the Straits of Malacca, and the only channel transiting a major city. The development of the former Soviet Caspian states’ energy riches has led to an explosion of tanker traffic through the Turkish Straits; in 1996, 4,248 tankers passed the Bosporus; a decade later 10,154 tankers made the voyage, a development that Ankara, worried about a possible environmental catastrophe, views with growing concern as the Turkish Straits have become a tanker superhighway. The tankers transport Russian, Kazakh and, until the 2006 opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, Azeri crude to increasingly ravenous foreign markets.

Under the terms of Montreux, Turkey cannot even charge tankers transit fees or require them to take on pilots to traverse the treacherous waterway.

Montreux is quite explicit on the passage of foreign warships through the Turkish Straits, however, limiting non-riverain Black Sea forces to a maximum of 45,000 tons of naval vessels, with no single warship exceeding 30,000 tons.

Washington originally proposed to send to Georgia two U.S. Navy hospital ships, the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, but both are converted oil tankers displacing 69,360 tons apiece, and the Turks demurred.

Four ships belonging to the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 — Spain’s SPS Almirante Don Juan de Borbon, Germany’s FGS Luebeck, Poland’s ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski and the USS Taylor — last week passed into the Black Sea to Romania’s Constanza and Bulgaria’s Varna ports to participate in a NATO maritime exercise scheduled in October 2007 to conduct joint operations with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. The Bulgarian navy currently has one Koni-class, one Wielingen-class and three Riga-class frigates, one Tarantul and two Pauk-class corvettes, three Osa-class missile boats and a Romeo-class submarine, while Romania has three frigates, four light frigates, three Molniya-class corvettes, three torpedo boats, one minelayer, four minesweepers and 16 auxiliary ships. In contrast, the Russian Black Sea Fleet has 40 warships; its flagship is the guided missile cruiser Moskva. According to the Russian General Staff, these soon will be joined by an additional eight NATO warships, even as the Moskva dropped anchor in Abkhazian waters.

The Pentagon finally got its chance to fly the flag when on Aug. 22 the USS McFaul (DDG-74, 8,915 tons) guided-missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian aid passed the Bosporus headed for Georgia with supplies such as blankets, hygiene kits and baby food, to be followed two days later by the USCGC Dallas (WHEC-716, 3,250 tons) cutter passing the Dardanelles, which eventually will be joined by the USS Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC 20, 18,400 tons), now loading supplies in Italy.

The Kremlin is not pleased by the foreign show of naval force; Russian General Staff Deputy Chief Anatoly Nogovitsyn observed of the NATO exercise, “From the Russian point of view … the usefulness of this operation is extremely dubious,” later labeling the deployment “devilish.”

The Turkish press is now full of speculation that Washington will pressure Turkey to revise Montreux, but is it really in America’s and its allies’ interests to be provocatively flying the flag in waters through which pass a number of tankers fueling European and Asian needs? As Turkey is allowed under Montreux to shut the Turkish Straits completely in the event of conflict, it is a question to which hawks in Europe and Washington ought to give more consideration.

August 28, 2008
Geopolitical Diary: How Far Will the Caucasus Conflict Go?

Stratfor.com
August 28, 2008

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev flew to
Tajikistan on Wednesday for a summit with China
and four Central Asian countries. The countries
are members of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, which meets regularly. This meeting
had been on the schedule for while and has no
significance, save that it brings the Russians
into contact with four former members of the
Soviet Union and as important China.

Each of the Central Asian countries is obviously
trying to measure Russia’s long-term intentions.
The issue will not be Georgia, but what Georgia
means to them. In other words, how far does
Russia intend to go in reasserting its sphere of
influence? Medvedev will give suitable
reassurances, but the Russian empire and Soviet
Union both conquered this area in the past.
Retaking it is possible. That means that the four
Central Asian countries will be trying very hard
to retain their independence without irritating
the Russians. For them, this will be a careful meeting.

Of greater interest to the world is China’s view
of the situation. Again, China has no interest in
Georgia. It does have to have quiet delight over
a confrontation between the United States and the
Russians. The more these two countries are
worried about each other, the less either and
particularly the United States can worry about
the Chinese. For China, a U.S.-Islamic
confrontation coupled with a U.S.-Russian
confrontation is just what the doctor ordered.
Certainly the least problem Washington will have
is whether the yuan floats and, hoping for
cooperation with China, the United States will
pull its punches on other issues. That means that
the Chinese will express sympathy to all parties
and take part in nothing. There is no current
threat to Central Asia, so they have no problems
with the Russians. If one emerges, they can talk.

In the meantime, in the main crisis, Russian
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called attention to
the Black Sea as a potential flash point in the
confrontation between Russia and the West. He
warned that there could be direct confrontations
between Russian and NATO ships should NATO or its
member nations increase their presence there.
According to NATO there are currently four NATO
ships in the Black Sea for a previously scheduled
exercise called Active Endeavor. Putin explicitly
warned, however, that there could be additional
vessels belonging to NATO countries in the Black
Sea that are not under NATO command.

It is hard to get ships into the Black Sea
unnoticed. The ships have to pass through the
Bosporus, a fairly narrow strait in Turkey, and
it is possible to sit in cafes watching the ships
sail by. Putting a task force into the Black Sea,
even at night, would be noticed, and the Russians
would certainly know the ships are there.

As a complicating factor, there is the Montreaux
Convention, a treaty that limits access to the
Black Sea by warships. The deputy chief of the
Russian general staff very carefully invoked the
Montreaux Convention, pointing out that Turkey,
the controlling country, must be notified 15 days
in advance of any transit of the Bosporus, that
warships can’t remain in the Black Sea for more
than 21 days and that only a limited number of
warships were permitted there at any one time.
The Russians have been reaching out in multiple
diplomatic channels to the Turks to make sure
that they are prepared to play their role in
upholding the convention. The Turkish position on
the current crisis is not clear, but becoming
crucial; both the United States and Russia are
working on Turkey, which is not a position Turkey
cares to be in at the moment. Turkey wants this crisis to go away.

It is not going away. With the Russians holding
position in Georgia, it is now clear that the
West will not easily back down. The Russians
certainly aren’t going to back down. The next
move is NATO’s, but the alliance is incapable of
moving, since there is no consensus. Therefore,
the next move is for Washington to lead another
coalition of the willing. It is coming down to a
simple question. Does the United States have the
appetite for another military confrontation
(short of war, we would think) in which case it
will use its remaining asset, the U.S. Navy, to
sail into the Black Sea? If it does this, will it
stay awhile and then leave or establish a
permanent presence (ignoring the Montreaux
Convention) in support of Ukraine and Georgia,
with its only real military option being
blockade? If this happens, will the Russians live
with it, will they increase their own naval, air
and land based anti-ship missile capabilities in
the region, or will they increase pr essure
elsewhere, in Ukraine or the Baltics?

In short, how far does this go?

August 28, 2008
Obama Wins Nomination; Biden and Bill Clinton Rally Party

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

Senator Barack Obama joined Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. on stage on Wednesday. More Photos >

DENVER — Barack Hussein Obama, a freshman senator who defeated the first family of Democratic Party politics with a call for a fundamentally new course in politics, was nominated by his party today to be the 44th president of the United States.

Skip to next paragraph

Multimedia

Slide Show

Working the Convention Crowds

Related

Man in the News: A Consistent Yet Elusive Nominee (August 28, 2008)

News Analysis: For Obama, a Challenge to Clarify His Message (August 27, 2008)

Clinton Rallies Her Troops to Fight for Obama (August 27, 2008)

The unanimous vote made Mr. Obama the first African-American to become a major party nominee for president. It brought to an end an often-bitter, two-year political struggle for the nomination with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, standing on a packed convention floor electric with anticipation, moved to halt the roll call in progress so that the convention could nominate Mr. Obama by acclamation. That it did with a succession of loud roars, followed by a swirl of dancing, embracing, high-fiving and chants of “Yes, we can.”

In an effort to fully close out the lingering animosity from the primary season, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech that had been anxiously awaited by Mr. Obama’s aides given the prickly relations between the two men, offered an enthusiastic and unstinting endorsement of Mr. Obama’s credentials to be president. His message, like the messenger, was greeted rapturously in the hall.

Mr. Clinton asserted, as Mrs. Clinton had when she spoke to the convention on Tuesday night, that the nation needed to elect a Democrat to restore the damage he said President Bush had done to the country, at home and around the world.

“Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world.” Mr. Clinton said. “Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States.”

Mr. Clinton was followed by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s choice for vice president, who used his speech to set out the Democratic case against the Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.

“Our country is less secure and more isolated than in any time in recent history,” Mr. Biden said. “The Bush-McCain foreign policy has dug us into a few deep holes with very few friends to help us climb out.”

“These times require more than a good soldier,” Mr. Biden said. They require a wise leader.”

In an address that was at turns personal, emotional and barbed, he said, “Today the American dream is slipping away.”

“John McCain doesn’t seem to get it,” Mr. Biden said. Barack Obama gets it.

To the delight of the crowd, at the conclusion of his address Mr. Biden was joined on stage by Mr. Obama, who made a point to thank Mr. Clinton — with whom he has had a prickly relationship — for his leadership as president. The historic nature of the moment quickly gave way to the political imperatives confronting Mr. Obama, who arrived here in the afternoon and is to accept the nomination Thursday night before a crowd of 75,000 people in a football stadium. After days in which the convention often seemed less about Mr. Obama than about the two families that have dominated Democratic politics for nearly a half-century, the Kennedys and the Clintons, he still faced a need to convince voters that he has concrete solutions to their economic anxieties and to rally his party against the reinvigorated candidacy of Mr. McCain.

The roll-call vote took place in the late afternoon — the first time in at least 50 years that Democrats have not scheduled their roll call on prime-time television — as Democrats sought to avoid drawing attention to the lingering resentments between Clinton and Obama delegates. Yet the historic nature of the vote escaped no one, and sent a charge through the Pepsi Center as a procession of state delegations cast their votes and the hall, slightly empty at the beginning of the vote, became shoulder-to-shoulder with Democrats eager to witness this moment.

As planned, it fell to Mrs. Clinton to put Mr. Obama over the top. He was declared the party’s nominee at 4:47 p.m. Mountain Time after Mrs. Clinton, in a light blue suit standing out in a crowd that included almost every elected New York official, moved that the roll call be suspended and that Mr. Obama by declared the party’s nominee by acclamation. The vote was timed to conclude during the network evening news broadcasts.

“With eyes firmly fixed on the future in the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and country, let’s declare together in one voice, right here and right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our president,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States,” she said.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, standing at the lectern, asked for a second and was greeted by a roar of voices. A louder roar came from the crowd when she asked for support of the motion.

When the voting was cut off, Mr. Obama had received 1,549 votes, compared with 231 for Mrs. Clinton.

The hall pulsed when Mr. Clinton strode onto the stage for a performance that became a reminder of why Democrats had considered him a politician with once in a generation skills. There were no signs that screamed “Clinton,” but Democrats waved American flags in quick tempo to welcome him to the stage. Again and again, Mr. Clinton tried to quiet the crowd; they ignored him.

Skip to next paragraph

“You all sit down: We’ve got to get on with the show!” he said as the applause lingered on for more than three minutes and his wife watched from the floor.

Without mentioning Mr. McCain by name, he offered a sharp denunciation of him and Republicans as he made the case for Mr. Obama.

“The Republicans will nominate a good man who served our country heroically and suffered terribly in Vietnam,” he said, “He loves our country every bit as much as we all do. As a senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American Dream and how to restore America’s leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years.”

“They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more,” he said. “Let’s send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks.”

For Mr. Obama, the nomination — seized from Mrs. Clinton, who just one year ago was viewed as the obvious favorite to win the nomination especially against an opponent with a scant political resume — was a remarkable achievement in what has been a remarkable ascendance. It was less than four years ago that Mr. Obama, coming off of serving seven years as an Illinois state senator, became a member of the United States Senate. He is 47 years old, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya.

Mr. Obama’s nomination came 120 years after Frederick Douglass became the first African-American to have his name entered in nomination at a major party convention. Douglass received one vote at the Republican convention in Chicago in 1888; Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana went on to win the White House that year.

Making the moment even more striking was the historical nature of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. She was the third woman whose name has been entered as a candidate for president at a major party convention. As she moved to end the roll-call vote, some women in the hall could be seen wiping tears from their eyes.

The presidential candidate is typically an absent figure during the first few days of a convention. In this case, Mr. Obama’s vacuum was filled by the Clintons and the tribute paid to the party to Mr. Kennedy on Monday night. What has taken place over the past two days might have politically necessary and even helpful, but it did not go far in helping Mr. Obama achieve some of the critical goals of this convention.

As a result, he is under considerable pressure Thursday night to use this speech in an ambitious setting, a football stadium, to present a fuller picture of himself, Americans who might have doubts about whether he is ready to be president, and begin presenting a picture of what he would do in the White House. For Mr. Obama, the final appearance is not the coda to a convention; in many ways, it may prove to be his entire convention.

Mr. Obama, who arrived in Denver just after 3 p.m., was at his hotel in downtown Denver with his wife and daughters when he learned that he had been nominated by acclamation.

Kitty Bennett, John Broder and Janet Elder contributed reporting.

August 28, 2008
This should be sent to all New World Order supporters-Viva Novus Ordo Seclorum, Viva Obama

From: Sam Dogan [mailto:[email protected]]
Subject: this should be sent to all obama voters
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:59:41 +0000
Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach ‘Change’

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United Statesto stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmondon Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cubaand what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubansthought Cubaneeded a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love w ith him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said ‘Praise the Lord.’ And when the young leader said, ‘I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,’ everyone yelled, ‘Viva Fidel!’

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cubahad been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a milli on people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it to shore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in Americafor a young leader who promised change , without asking what change? And most important How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we?

Sharon

——————-

Subject: this should be sent to all obama voters

Aslinda baslik soyle atilmaliydi:

“This should be sent to all New World Order supporters”

veyahut da acikca,

“Viva Novus Ordo Seclorum, Viva Obama”

da denilebilirdi…

Novus Ordo Seclorum tanimini, Yeni Caga Acilim olarak tanimlamaya calisacak, kuresel emperyalizme kulp bulmaya calisacak birileri cikarsa karsiniza, o zaman da, Zeitgeist’de anlatilanlarin dogru oldugunu kabul etmek zorunda kaldiklarini soyleyebilirsiniz.

Saygilar,

Gusan Yedic

August 28, 2008