Defining genocide down

I first read this article and thought "this is the last gasp of the K Street machine."

Then I thought: wait a minute, the Democrats are in power now. The K Street machine should already be pushing up daisies. Where's the awesome lack of corruption that Jonathan Chait promised me?

Comments

Yes, it is the Democrats fault that Republican Bob Livingston is corrupting congressional Republicans.

Posted by Justin | October 17, 2007 9:04 AM

Turkey could have saved the $12 million. I'd be perfectly happy to go to Congress for free and explain to them why one doesn't have to accept the Turkish position on this issue to recognize that passing this resolution today is absolutely insane. (And that's giving the Democrats the benefit of the doubt that they're motivated by cluelessness, not an active desire to undermine Iraq.)

If I were Condoleeza Rice, I'd be telling Nancy Pelosi that she can get herself over to Ankara and sort this mess out herself. If I were felling generous, I'd remind her that her headscarf from Syria isn't appropriate a Turkish office.

Posted by JSinger | October 17, 2007 9:50 AM

My first thought when reading this was, "Wow... Congress is wasting time and money on this?" How about they tackle problems such as corruption, health care, education, illegal immigration, etc... before they spend a lot of time passing non-binding resolutions about things that happened almost 100 years ago on other continents.

EI

P.S. Anyone who actually believed that the Democrats would be less corrupt than the Republicans needs to Just Say No...

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 17, 2007 9:59 AM

I strongly doubt this is the last gasp of the K street machine. I would wager that the K street machine will outlive both of us, except for the difficulty in settling up the wager.

Posted by Dave | October 17, 2007 10:06 AM

Does anyone understand why this post is titled as "Defining genocide down".

Am I missing some subtle statement or is this just blogger error?

Posted by Colin Fraizer | October 17, 2007 10:09 AM

> Does anyone understand why this post is titled as
> "Defining genocide down".

It sounds to me like she is taking a stand on this issue with her title.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | October 17, 2007 10:50 AM

"Does anyone understand why this post is titled as "Defining genocide down""

See, on the subject of genocide we must always be very principled. Thus, we need the House to determine that the genocide of Armenians was in fact a genocide. It is very important to do so even though passing the bill will have no practical effect as to changing anyone's mind, but will have the practical effect of gratifying some Armenians and really pissing off Turkey--a country we have been pissing off a lot lately. We like to do that: Piss off countries whose help we need.

Of course we mustn't always be pricipled on the subject of genocide. We have very complicated ideas about what we did to Native Americans. Very complicated. Slavery too. Lots of complication, and we probably wouldn't like it if our NATO allies passed resolutions defining those complicated things as Genocide. In fact we might wonder, when there are so many things going on, and so many challenges, why they were wasting their time with it. And we might also wonder why they were targetting us in this way. We might even boycott their luxury goods. But, really, Turkey should just get over this genocide question even though it is bound up with their sense of identity--kind of like our own issues with slavery and the disappearance of most of the native inhabitants of this land.

Posted by d | October 17, 2007 11:35 AM

"Does anyone understand why this post is titled as "Defining genocide down".

Am I missing some subtle statement or is this just blogger error?" - Colin F

Yes, and No.

It's called the Armenian Genocide measure for a reason... look it up if you want to see a really sad period of history.

One wonders in 100 years if Darfur will be seen the same way... under-reported and the perps trying to re-write it out of history

Posted by D | October 17, 2007 11:37 AM

D: the perps of the very real Armenian genocide are dead. So are the survivors. I am sure it is very gratifying for Armenians to have this recognition of their suffering, but to my mind the House of Representatives is being ridiculous, naive, and belligerent and causing very real problems with a country we can't afford to have any more problems with. Beyond academics, who have been doing good work on the issue, it is up to the Turkish government to pass official statements or individual Turks and Turkish media to make statements on this, not the US House of Representatives. We can all make non-official statements of course, and should, but seriously, does anyone think that the US House passing this is a moral victory or not pratical stupidity?

Posted by d | October 17, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm with Justin. The article did not find one Democrat who changed positions, but multiple Republicans who have. Why do you blame the Democrats for the Republicans' corruption?

Posted by Adam | October 17, 2007 1:47 PM

I'm with Justin. The article did not find one Democrat who changed positions, but multiple Republicans who have. Why do you blame the Democrats for the Republicans' corruption?

From the article...

And he courted a powerful Democrat, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, who earlier this year asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Democrat, not to bring the measure up for a House vote.

and

Those arguments were put forth by the Bush administration, Mr. Livingston and another prominent lobbyist, Richard A. Gephardt, of Missouri, the former House majority leader and a Democrat.

and

Mr. Gephardt, a senior counsel at the law firm of DLA Piper who retired from Congress in 2005, began working for Turkey in March under a yearlong contract worth $1.2 million. He has been criticized by Armenian-Americans because he previously supported Armenia and co-sponsored an earlier genocide resolution.

and

When Democrats took control of the House last year, Turkey continued to rely on him as its principal lobbyist, though it eventually brought in Mr. Gephardt’s firm. Reports on Mr. Gephardt’s activities have not been filed.

and

Mr. Livingston’s courtship of Mr. Murtha began in February. After a meeting with Mr. Livingston and another lobbyist from the firm, Mr. Murtha was among a group of members who met with Mr. Livingston, Mr. Sensoy and the Turkish foreign minister, Abdullah Gul. Long opposed to a genocide resolution, Mr. Murtha wrote Ms. Pelosi on Feb. 8 asking her not to allow a floor vote.

Mr. Livingston contributed $3,000 to Mr. Murtha’s campaign in February. A Murtha aide said the contribution reflects support for his record on the issue.

and

Since then, a Republican and a group of Democrats have dropped their backing.

Posted by Bob Montgomery | October 17, 2007 2:04 PM

Bob Montgomery wins the thread and two posters' heads on steel pikes.

Posted by anony-mouse | October 17, 2007 2:14 PM

As far as Murtha, the article never makes the allegation that Livingstone changed Murtha's position on anything - and Murtha says that he always had supported Turkey on this issue IN THE ARTICLE. As far as the "group of Democrats" there is no evidence at all that the "group of Democrats" for any corrupt reason at all - I think the President's (well-advised) warnings and Turkey's unreasonable response would convince some number of people to change their positions for completely non-corrupt reason.

The article also brings up an allegation that Livingstone tried to corrupt Lantos and failed.

There is, however, a serious allegation leveled against Jindahl, and a lesser (or at least incomplete) one against Tancredo. Both are Republicans.

Once again, where is the Democratic corruption?

Posted by Justin | October 17, 2007 3:24 PM

So, declaring a genocide to have been a genocide = "corruption"? In the face of paid lobbying to do the exact opposite?

I think for it to qualify as corruption, the action in question would have to be, in someway, morally wrong or objectively detrimental to the nation. I fail to see that demonstrated.

Posted by glasnost | October 17, 2007 4:12 PM

Where's the corruption? Isn't that all business as usual in Congress? People pay lobbying firms, make campaign contributions, and persuade Congressmen to vote for or against bills?

By any reasonable standard, they're all corrupt. By Congressional standards, this doesn't look unusual to me.

Seriously, is this the first time y'all have heard of high-paid lobbyists using campaign contributions to influence Congressmen?

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 17, 2007 6:06 PM

I was impressed when I saw Murtha on TV opposing this appropriate but incredibly ill-timed resolution. Now I realize it was probably Murtha's venality, not his wisdom, that determined his position. I should have known.

Posted by E. O'Neal | October 17, 2007 6:17 PM

Oh Bob Montgomery, don't you know your quotes and evidence are powerless against me and my philosophical platitudes and democrat line-towing? Murtha is a fine, upstanding public servant, and we should all be so wise as to take advice from the president on foreign relations.

(Typing that last sentence caused me to throw up in my mouth a little.)

Posted by Justin Impersonator | October 17, 2007 8:20 PM

thanks for the GREAT post! Very useful...

Posted by Whatever-ishere | November 21, 2007 11:17 AM

Very interesting... as always! Cheers from Switzerland.

http://dogtrainingtipstricks.blogspot.com

Posted by Dog training | November 22, 2007 11:59 AM