WEIGH ANKARA
Opinion Journal, NJ
O ct 22 2007
The Armenian genocide resolution, al Qaeda in Iraq, high-tax states
and more.
Paul Gigot: This week on "The Journal Editorial Report," a
congressional resolution condemning a massacre in Turkey a century
ago threatens to endanger military progress in Iraq today. Plus,
a new report says al Qaeda in Iraq is on its last legs, but is it
really time to declare victory? And thinking about making a move?
Stay one step ahead of the tax man with our state-by-state guide
to the best and worst places to live. Those topics, plus our weekly
"Hits and Misses," but first, these headlines.
Gigot: Welcome to "The Journal Editorial Report." I’m Paul Gigot.
A House committee voted last week to condemn the mass killings of
Armenians in Turkey in World War I as an act of genocide, despite
warnings from the White House that the vote would severely strain
relations with one of our most important Iraq war allies. Following
the vote, Turkey recalled its ambassador to the U.S., and officials
there warned if the resolution is approved by the full House, they
will reconsider their support for the American war effort, which
includes permission to move essential supplies through Turkey into
northern Iraq.
Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California is the author of
the Armenian genocide resolution. He has more than 70,000 ethnic
Armenians in his Los Angeles district.
Congressman, welcome. Good to have you on the program.
Schiff: Thanks, Paul. Nice to join you.
Gigot: This atrocity occurred 90 years ago. Why should the
U.S. Congress bring it up now, make a statement on it now, at this
delicate moment in the Middle East?
Schiff: Well, Paul, you have to put this in perspective. We’ve being
trying to recognize the genocide really for years, even for decade.
We introduced this resolution before the Iraq war, and the
administration said, You know, now is not a good time. We introduced
the resolution before the war in Afghanistan; the administration said
it wasn’t a good time. Before 9/11 and said it wasn’t a good time.
I stood yesterday in the Capitol Rotunda and watched the
president bestow the Medal of Honor on the Dalai Lama. And you know
something, Paul? I was proud of him. I was proud of him doing that,
notwithstanding the fact that China protested that it was deeply
offensive to our strategic partner in China. And someone asked him,
Mr. President, why are you risking antagonizing China?
Earlier in the day, the president in a news conference said that
preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon could be so important it
might stop World War III. Well, Paul, you know whose vote we need on
the Security Council to prevent Iran from getting the bomb? We need
China’s vote. But, you know something? The president said that when
America stands up for human rights and freedom, America is always
serving its national interest. The president was right then.
But the president believes that the situation in Tibet, the invasion
that took place 50 years ago, it’s important to recognize what took
place in China, but not what took place in Turkey, even though it
involved the murder of a million and a half people. That doesn’t make
sense to me.
Gigot: Congressman, the current dispute in Tibet is actually ongoing;
it’s about human rights in Tibet now.
Schiff: And you know something, Paul?
Gigot: This resolution is 100 years ago.
Schiff: The dispute going on is important now as well. Just last
week, Turkey brought up on charges the son of a murdered Armenian
journalist in Turkey, who was killed earlier this year, on charges for
publishing his father’s words about the genocide. Is that freedom in
Turkey to speak out about the genocide not important? Is the freedom
of expression, the freedom to talk about some of the darkest chapters
in the history of the world, not important? Why is freedom in China
important but freedom in Turkey of so little value?
Gigot: Congressman, let’s say that Turkey does take offense, and
they say they will, and they decide to cut off supplies, the supply
route–you know, we have an important airbase there, Incirlik. If
they do decide to cut off supplies to Turkey, are you as a member of
Congress willing to take responsibility for the consequences of that?
Schiff: Paul, I think we have to expect that Turkey is going to act
in their national interests. They’re an important ally to us, and we
are an important ally to them. The fact that the European Union wants
to make genocide recognition a condition of Turkey getting into the
EU hasn’t stopped Turkey from wanting to be in the EU. So I have to
expect that Turkey is going to act rationally.
But I also think, Paul–and maybe can you point to an example of
the contrary–that it has never been the case that we have served
our national interest well by denying the truth, particularly when it
involves genocide, and I don’t think that this is going to be the first
time where it was advantageous to our country to deny that truth. At
the ceremony yesterday, Elie Wiesel said that speaking truth to power
gives power to the truth. That’s true with China. It’s also true with
Turkey. And I think we have to speak that compelling historic truth.
Gigot: On the other hand–
Schiff: Yes, I have an Armenian community in my district. And I’ve
sat in their living rooms, and I’ve heard the stories about how their
parents and grandparents were wiped out. And you know something, Paul,
if it was your parents and your grandparents, you’d be screaming to the
rafters that we should recognize what happened to them. And the fact
that it was our neighbor’s family and not our own shouldn’t matter.
Gigot: Congressman, there is a long list of people on the other
side of this, and I just want to go through it for you. Gen. David
Petraeus, as you know, the head of American forces in Iraq; eight
former secretaries of state, including Madeleine Albright. When this
issue came up in 2000, President Clinton called the Republican speaker
of the House then, Denny Hastert, and asked him to pull this so if
wouldn’t compromise our situation in the Middle East. He did.
Why shouldn’t the Democrats now, at the request of an American
president, decide to pull something like this when we are at a
similar moment?
Schiff: Paul, these eight secretaries of state you mentioned, this
was their policy. They’re defending their policy during those–the
administrations of those eight secretaries, they were willing to deny
the genocide; they were willing to be complicit in Turkey’s denial.
The last president, Paul, who had the courage to recognize the
Armenian genocide was President Reagan. And what would you have said
to President Reagan, Paul, if you were his adviser? "Mr. President,
I know you talk about the United States being a moral beacon for the
word but we’re in the middle of the Cold War. This will antagonize
Turkey. Mr. President, you shouldn’t do it"?
But you know something? Ronald Reagan had the guts to do it. He had
the guts to say, No, this country stands for something, and I stand
for something. And you know something, Paul? You applaud him for
that. You applaud him for having that courage. Why shouldn’t we urge
this president to have the same courage? He likes to model himself
after Ronald Reagan. All Republican presidents like to, but let’s
have the courage that Ronald Reagan had to speak the truth.
Gigot: And Congressman, what’s your response to David Petraeus,
who says this is going to make his mission more difficult to achieve
in Iraq?
Schiff: I respect Gen. Petraeus. I’ve been to Iraq three times. I
met him in Mosul on one of my trips there. He’s doing his job, and
he is, I think, a very honorable man. His mission is Iraq. When he
testified before the Senate and he was asked, Is what we are doing in
Iraq making our national security better, is it improving our national
security? You know what he said? I really can’t answer that. And the
reason he couldn’t answer that is his mission is only Iraq.
I think the president needs to look to the greater war on terror and
say, What about our moral standing in the world? What role does it
have when we espouse truth about history in terms of fighting this
ideological struggle in the war on terror? That’s not Gen. Petraeus’s
responsibility. It is the responsibility of the president, and I think
Ronald Reagan had it right, and I think this president has it wrong.
Gigot: All right, Congressman, you get the last word. Thanks for
being here.
Schiff: Thank you.
Gigot: When we come back, a new report says the U.S. military has
dealt al Qaeda in Iraq a crippling blow. But should we be declaring
victory? Our panel debates when "The Journal Editorial Report"
continues.
Gigot: Welcome back. The Washington Post reported this week that the
U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating blows to al Qaeda in
Iraq in recent months. So much so that some generals are advocating
a declaration of victory over the terror group.
Joining the panel this week, Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy
editorial page editor Dan Henninger, foreign-affairs columnist Bret
Stephens, editorial board member Jason Riley and editorial features
editor Rob Pollock.
Rob, Turkey first, before we get to Iraq. This is about–not
about–this resolution is not about this Turkish government. It’s
about the Ottoman Turks a century ago. Are the Turks overreacting to
this now?
Pollock: Yeah. Basically, it’s about the aftermath of World War I,
is what it’s about. It’s not exactly the Ottoman government, but
it’s not the current government either. And look, my view on this
is simply that it’s not about whether you deny or you admit there
was a genocide of the Armenians. It’s about whether a Congress or
parliament is the best place to have this debate. I happen to think
the best place is to have this debate is among historians.
And another thing Americans have to understand, and I really don’t
think they appreciate it, is now really, really is a bad time to be
doing this, because the PKK, the Kurdish–
Gigot: Terror group.
Pollock: –terror group, which operates partly from across the Iraqi
border, has been causing a lot of casualties in Turkey. And we need
to understand that the Turkish press blames these casualties, fairly
or not, on us. Every time one of those soldiers–
Gigot: And this gives an excuse to the Turks–
Pollock: Yeah, yes, yeah.
Gigot: –to be able to say, Look, we’re going to–Bush is asking
the Turks to show restraint. He’s saying, Don’t go in; you’re going
to complicate things for us in Iraq. But this resolution is giving
the Turkish government and the Parliament an excuse to say, Go ahead
right in. We can ignore the United States because they are ignoring
our concerns.
Pollock: Yeah. Basically what they’re saying is, You’re already
helping to kill our soldiers, or at least you’re not doing anything
about it. Now you’re going to poke us in the eye about this old thing.
Gigot: But if Congress passed a resolution, Bret, denouncing the
Holocaust in World War II, we wouldn’t have any objection to that,
would we? What’s the difference between that and this?
Stephens: There are a couple of issues here. One is that there is
a genuine historical debate–not about the fact that hundreds of
thousands, or in fact over a million, Armenians were murdered, but
whether there were direct orders from the government of Young Turks
to their soldiers to carry out those orders. And some of the people
who are so-called deniers or doubters are people like Bernard Lewis
or Gunter Lewy of the University of Massachusetts–
Gigot: Great historians.
Stpehens: –who are serious people. So it’s a little bit different from
the Holocaust in that perspective. But I agree with Rob. I think the
forum here for this debate to take place is among serious historians
and not among politicians answering to domestic constituents.
Riley: I think getting into the substance of this is almost giving
too much credit to the Democrats. I really think this is of a piece
with the Democrats’, like Sen. Jim Webb’s attempt to micromanage troop
deployments and the like. It is an attempt by Democrats to undermine
the war effort, plain and simple. And it’s really despicable that the
Democrats would allow a foreign lobby, the Armenians, to use them as
a tool to undermine our efforts in Iraq.
Henninger: That’s the end result. I mean, this is not Tibet. The
bottom line is, we have troops on the ground, as we speak, in Iraq,
fighting and dying. Turkey is crucial to that effort. That was Gen.
Petraeus’s point. And for Congressman Schiff and Nancy Pelosi to
introduce something like this in the midst of that is just simply
irresponsible.
Gigot: Rob, why aren’t we doing more–that is the American forces
in Iraq, and the Iraqi themselves–doing more in Iraq to stop the
PKK terrorists, who are in the mountains on the border with Turkey,
and are going in, as you said, and are actually killing Turks? Why
can’t we stop that? Because that’s what the Turks object to. They say,
Why don’t you do more? We won’t have to go in if you do more.
Pollock: Quite simply, because Kurdistan is the one part of Iraq that
works pretty well, and we’re afraid to destabilize this. Look, the
Turks have a point. Massoud Barzani is one of the Kurdish leaders. He
definitely sort of winks at the PKK. I don’t know that he supports
them, but he doesn’t do anything about them. So the Turks do have–
Gigot: I agree that’s the case. But then why are we objecting if
the Turks go in to say, We have to intervene here, we have to send
our military in to protect our citizens? If this were something that
were happening in Texas from over the border in Mexico, we would be
invading Mexico to stop Americans from getting killed. How can we
say to the Turks, Don’t do it?
Pollock: Like I said, we don’t want Iraq destabilized. That’s our
position.
Stephens: I don’t know how serious the Turks are about actually
invading northern Iraq. For one thing, the PKK is fairly well-hidden.
For another, it’s well hidden not just simply across the border.
Gigot: But do they have a right–are they justified in saying We
should do so–that they have the right to do so and should to protect
their people?
Stephens: I think that the question for them is weighing what their
national interests are. Of course they have a right to protect their
people. But do they do so best by destabilizing a fairly stable
neighboring Kurdistan? I’m not sure they do.
Gigot: And you think they run the risk of that if they do?
Stephens: I think they run–
Pollock: If they do any major incursion, yes, they will destabilize
it. What they’ll probably do is go in, I think, a little bit over
the border, do some shelling in the mountains, and pull out and say
they’ve done something, and really not solve the problem. That’s
going to be the easy course of action, I think.
Gigot: OK, Dan, let’s move on to this other question, the report
this week–in the Washington Post of all places, which has been very
critical of the war in its reporting–saying that in fact American
generals now think that they’ve dealt a devastating blow to al Qaeda
in Iraq, enough so that maybe they can actually declare victory. Do
you believe that? Should we believe that? And what’s going on?
Henninger: I think we should believe it. The surge seems to be
working. They are going into neighborhoods and protecting people,
staying and driving al Qaeda out. To me the most interesting aspect of
this story is the reaction to the Washington Post putting a positive
story on the front page. It was treated like a solar eclipse. Oh,
my God! A positive story on the front of the Washington Post!
Pollock: And it wasn’t just their front page. Their editorial board
wrote an editorial saying Petraeus was right. Things are getting
better in Iraq.
Gigot: But the editorial page of the Post has been quite good on Iraq.
Pollock: That’s true.
Henninger: And the question then has become whether we should trumpet
this, whether we should say that we’re making progress. And I think
it shows how deformed our politics has become when it’s impossible
for the military to say explicitly say we are making progress,
there is a positive story, because they’re afraid the press later,
if al Qaeda does something, will repudiate the positive news.
Gigot: But isn’t there a danger here that if the military or the
intelligence services think, you know, we’ve really got a victory here,
now is the opportunity to pare back. We’ve declared victory a couple of
times in Iraq, not just in the famous "mission accomplished," but also
after Saddam Hussein was captured, after Uday and Qusay were killed,
after Zarqawi was killed. Each time the insurgency came back stronger.
Riley: You don’t want to take a premature victory lap. And in fact,
Gen. Sanchez gave a speech last week–the former U.S. commander in
Iraq–saying that military victory alone is not going to cut it. You
need economic progress; you need political progress as well. So the
fact that we have shown the surge has worked, as Dan said–suicide
bombings are down, fewer foreign fighters are coming across from
Syria–that’s all good and well, but there’s more to do.
Gigot: All right, Jason, thank you. Last word.
We’ll be back after this short break. Still ahead, thinking about
relocating? Don’t make a move before you see this. When we come back,
a guide to the best and worst states for taxes.
Gigot: Thinking about relocating? Senior economics writer Steve Moore
is here with a look at the best and the worst states for taxes.
Steve, a new trend in some states: tax hikes. Where are they happening
and why?
Moore: Yes, Paul, after five years of states living high on the hog,
they now have problems with their revenues. And so you have states
like Illinois and Michigan and Maryland and Wisconsin and a bunch
of others that are now talking about raising their taxes to balance
their budgets. The problem, Paul, they’re going to face is that the
evidence is very clear. When states raise their tax rates, people
leave. That’s why people are moving out of the high-tax states,
like the Northeast, and they’re moving to the South and Southwest.
Gigot: But Steve, the economy is not in recession. Housing is down, but
the rest of the economy’s pretty good, and tax revenues are still going
up, although not in the double-digit rates that they were before. Why
are some of these states still in budget deficit or in trouble?
Moore: Because they got spoiled with the 10%, 11%, 12% revenue growth
that they saw during real boom years of the early 2000s. and this is
a pattern that recurs all of the time. I’ve seen it in three of the
last recessions. States think that the economies are going to expand
forever. They spend like drunken sailors. And then as soon as the
economy slows down, they say, Oh my goodness, we have to raise taxes!
Riley: Maryland is a good example. Gov. O’Malley, a Democrat there,
wants to raise taxes on everything–gas, corporate, personal income
taxes. This is a state that, two years ago, had something like a $1
billion surplus. Now they’re looking at a deficit, or a budget gap, at
something like $1.7 million, and why? Spending has increased almost 18%
over the past two years. It is not the case the people are undertaxed,
it’s that the politicians are spending too much.
Gigot: Steve, what are the states–there are some states still without
income taxes, notably Florida and Texas. How are they doing in terms
of their revenue? Because that means they rely on property taxes and
other levies.
Moore: There’s no question that if you look over the long term, over
the last 10 or 15 years, states without income taxes–you mentioned
Florida and Texas, and of course Tennessee and Nevada–have really
had very strong growth. So that’s what most states should do is try
to get rid of their income tax or lower it.
Now some of these states–Florida is an interesting example. For the
first time in a long time, Florida is facing tough problems, because
of decline in the real estate market. And the big problem state I see
next year is California, where housing sales are down by 30%. That’s
going to cause a real fiscal crisis in Sacramento.
Gigot: Let’s put up a chart that we have, which is with the states
with highest tax burden, starting with No. 1 Vermont. Then we’ve got
Maine, New York, Rhode Island and Ohio. With the exception of Ohio,
and I think Wisconsin is in the next five, these tend to be states
in the Northeast. Is that a reason, Dan, that people decide that they
want to retire in Florida or California, Arizona–anyplace but here?
Henninger: Well, it’s absolutely the reason. Because the tax burden
never falls, and the legislatures always feel that when they have
these shortfalls, they have to raise taxes.
Now you know, we reported in The Wall Street Journal–let me give you
an example–that a company called Boston Scientific had a big earnings
shortfall. They’re now laying off 2,300 people. Every company that
was written about in The Wall Street Journal, when they get into a
situation like this, tightens its belt and reduces costs.
That never happens in the public sector. They’re incapable of reducing
costs to match these kinds of shortfalls. And people certainly react
when they raise taxes. You are able in the United States to vote with
your feet, and people do.
Gigot: But Steve, it used to be the case when one of these states
would raise taxes, that there would be a popular reaction against
it often. We saw in Virginia, when Gov. Mark Warner raised taxes a
couple of years ago, Democratic governor, that there wasn’t much of
a reaction. And now he’s the frontrunner in the race for Senate. Are
we seeing that the end of the tax revolt is at hand here?
Moore: Oh no, not at all. In fact, look at, Paul, what happened in
Michigan, which just two weeks ago passed the biggest tax increase
in the state’s history. Now there is a huge grass-roots revolt there.
You actually have a lot of the citizens saying they want to recall
the politicians, throw them out of office, who voted for this tax
increase. And can you think of a worst state to raise taxes than
Michigan? It’s already in a recession, and now they want to that
chase more businesses and people out of that state.
Gigot: Yeah, but the governor won re-election just a year ago.
Moore: Yeah, but she said she wasn’t going to raise taxes and that
after she was elected–it sort of presages what we might have in
Washington, D.C., if the Democrats take control of everything. I think
you’ll see taxes go up in the federal level and states and localities
as well.
Gigot: All right, Steve, thanks. Last word.
We have to take one more break. When we come back, our "Hits and
Misses" of the week.
Gigot: Winners and losers, picks and pans, "Hits and Misses," it’s
our way of calling attention to the best and the worst of the week.
First, in an update to a story we brought you last week, a hit to
House Democrats for extending the Internet tax ban. Jason?
Riley: Yes, this is a hit for the Democrats, who extended the ban on
taxing Internet connections, including cable and wireless connections
that are becoming increasingly popular. This is clearly the right
thing to do. I would prefer that the ban be made permanent, but a
four-year ban is better than nothing. If the Senate follows suit,
it’ll be extended for another four years.
The Internet over the past 10 years has been a big boon to productivity
and economic growth in this country, so letting this moratorium expire
would certainly be a step in the wrong direction.
And we also know that opposing taxes goes against the nature of
Democrats. So I want to thank them for doing the right thing here.
Gigot: All right, Rob, next, a hit to the Dalai Lama–excuse me,
for President Bush for meeting with the Dalai Lama.
Pollock: Who got the Congressional Gold Medal this week, and that
was the occasion for the meeting. But in any case, I guess I find
myself answering the congressman who appeared earlier: Why is it OK
to offend China to meet the Dalai Lama, and why is it probably not
a good idea to offend Turkey to condemn the Armenian genocide? Well,
one is an ongoing problem. You could probably do some good by bringing
attention to it. Another is something that’s probably better left in
the past. Look, if the Democrats want to run into the next election
with their foreign policy being about the Armenian genocide and the
Republicans go forward supporting human rights in China, I think
that’s a pretty good position for them to be in.
Gigot: OK, thanks, Rob.
Finally, a hit for the little guy as the Colorado Rockies head to
the World Series of all places. Steve?
Moore: Americans love an underdog, and there is no greater underdog
story this year than the Colorado Rockies. A month ago, Paul, this team
was in fourth place in their division. Now they’ve got a ticket to the
World Series. Contrast that, sorry Paul, with George Steinbrenner and
the Yankees, that spent $200 million this year, four times more than
the Rockies did, and all George Steinbrenner got was a lousy T-shirt.
What does it prove? That in life, there’s two things you can’t buy
with money–one is love and the other is a ticket to the World Series.
Gigot: So economic incentives don’t work in baseball?
Moore: No more of those long-term guaranteed contracts.
Gigot: All right, Steve.
That’s it for this week’s edition of "The Journal Editorial Report."
Thanks to Dan Henninger, Bret Stephens, Jason Riley, Rob Pollock
and Steve Moore. I’m Paul Gigot. Thanks to all of you for watching,
and we hope to see you right here next week.