Thursday, April 17, 2008

The boob.

... The [...] leader [...] approved of Sarkisian’s first ministerial appointments and defended the authorities’ decision to cordon off much of downtown Yerevan during the new president’s April 9 inauguration. He argued that failure to take such unprecedented security measures would have enabled a large number of Ter-Petrosian supporters to disrupt the ceremony and re-ignite tensions in the country...

find out who it was here.


Anonymous said...

Well, again manipulation.

1. Nazarian forgot to add final remarks of the ... leader - “I’m not justifying that,” said [the leader] . “But in a tense atmosphere, you can at least understand why that was done.”

2. And now about professionalism of rfe/rle. Hopefully I listened to VM and can see how rfe/rl works. In revolutionary schemes - which the USA pushes in many countries - there is a golden rule, get rid of alternative oppositional leaders.

2. I understand rfe/rl's value base and how they professionally manipulate news but I don't justify it.

instead of "veteran politician" they could use "seasoned politician", instead of "post-communist first prime minister" they could say "the first prime minister of independent Armenia", etc, etc.

3. At leaset rfe/rl's could compare the most closest example to what VM did, instead of giving unknown Stalin Khruschov comparison for known reasons of using that paradigms.

Here is the example.

Al Gore's concession speech

Good evening.*
Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. And I promised him that I wouldn't call him back this time. I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we've just passed.

Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you." Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.

Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, "Not under man but under God and law." That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest, as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

Let me say how grateful I am to all those who supported me and supported the cause for which we have fought. Tipper and I feel a deep gratitude to Joe and Hadassah Lieberman, who brought passion and high purpose to our partnership and opened new doors, not just for our campaign but for our country.

This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny. Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will. Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in a spirit of reconciliation.

So let it be with us.

I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.

And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome. Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities. I, personally, will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us -- to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party; we will stand together behind our new president.

As for what I'll do next, I don't know the answer to that one yet. Like many of you, I'm looking forward to spending the holidays with family and old friends. I know I'll spend time in Tennessee and mend some fences, literally and figuratively.

Some have asked whether I have any regrets, and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you. And I will not forget.

I've seen America in this campaign, and I like what I see. It's worth fighting for and that's a fight I'll never stop. As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe, as my father once said, that "No matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out."

So for me this campaign ends as it began: with the love of Tipper and our family; with faith in God and in the country I have been so proud to serve, from Vietnam to the vice presidency; and with gratitude to our truly tireless campaign staff and volunteers, including all those who worked so hard in Florida for the last 36 days.

Now the political struggle is over and we turn again to the unending struggle for the common good of all Americans and for those multitudes around the world who look to us for leadership in the cause of freedom.

In the words of our great hymn, "America, America": "Let us crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."

And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others: it's time for me to go.

Thank you, and good night, and God bless America.

reflective said...

Can anyone here even IMAGINE Levon giving a speeach even remotely resembling this? We complain about the quality of the authorities but don't seem to place any of the responsibility on the opposition on the level of quality of politics in Armenia.

Forget concession speeches...LTP overtly expressed disdain for the whole democratic process when he announced BEFORE the election that he had won, a habit hard to shake from 1996.

Anonymous said...

I especially like this part of AlGore speech which is hard to understand for machos but easy understandable for a true leader of his nation:

"Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."

tzitzernak said...

Nice comparison Anonymous/Reflective. However, you fail to leave out the slight differences- in the US at that time there were no major demonstrations taking place for Gore in the streets daily, there was not a whole new movement to change the course of the country, people were not being arrested and imprisoned, there were one-sided restrictions on campaigning and broadcasting of news, and on and on and on....
Not to mention the fact that just because that is what he did, it, in the end, is Right - which is not a statement as to whether it was right at the time or not. What was at stake in the country, in the US, that is, was much different than what is at stake in Armenia now. Though maybe the people of Iraq see it differently (not to bring US politics into this).

reflective said...

You are partially right tzitzernak - There was also not a movement calling for a revolution, there was no presidential candidate running a racist campaign of hate, and there weren't candidates who declared victory before the elections had even taken place!

nazarian said...

So, anonymous at 3:56 am, you are saying that the way the 2000 elections in the US were conducted was the same as the 2008 elections in Armenia?

I don't think you can honestly say 'yes' or 'maybe'.

Anonymous said...

Hi Nazarian

My comment was on VM speech.

I can't compare quality of 2000 USA and 2007 Armenia elections. Political culture and traditions differ both in opposition and in the Government.

But I can compare the results. And in both elections the results were controversial and disputed /more in the USA than in Armenia/. Al Gore could go further, start demonstrations, etc, etc. However he chose not to divide the nation. here is his words: "And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."

In Armenian case change the word democracy to "the State at whatever level of Democarcy it is".

nazarian said...

Had the elections in Armenia been conducted on par with the US elections, I am sure we would have had a similar speech.

But since we all know that they were rigged, expecting or demanding a concession speech like that is, to put it mildly, shortsighted. We don't even know who would have given that concession speech - SS, LTP, VH or someone else?

reflective said...

And Nazarian, I am quite sure, even if the elections had been run as well (as poorly, in some Florida cases), that we would NOT have heard something similar.

LTP was - even according to his own rhetoric - not interested in elections. Only in goading the authorities and pushing the people to disregard the state institutions. He announced his victory BEFORE the elections took place (deja vu 1996), announced that 65% of the people voted for him (based on absolutely nothing, and confirmed by no-one), and demonstrated disregard for the Constitutional Court ruling, the assessments of international observers (I will not even mention the opinion polls, exit polls or other local or western surveys).

So, I have no reason to believe that he would EVER have given a concession speech. His team was on record in 96 saying that even if 100% of the vote went to Vazgen Manukyan, that he wouldn't give up power. And we are supposed to expect concession speeches??

Anonymous said...

Here I partly agree to reflective. Its only simply blamng LTP. Neither RK nor SS and any other political leader in Armenia is capable of concession. Its about political culture which equals to "փողոցային ռազբորկա".

In street fights machos sometimes are happy of third party intervention dissalowing to escalate further. And machos internally are happy to both safe the face and the possible consequences.

Who will be LTP's face-saver?

Anonymous said...

I ment "Its not simply blaming LTP."