TIME Magazine announced in its October 8, 2007 issue that Samantha Power will become its foreign-affairs columnist. This is not just any journalistic job, but a plum one, not only working for the most successful news-magazine, but getting a featured slot to boot.


Masthead of TIME page: Samantha Power featured as new commentator

Naturally, the hypocritical world of genocide has enabled Power to be in a unique position to reap certain rewards. Writing her "Problem From Hell" book melted the hearts of lazy-minded intellectuals; she was against genocide, and that made her a media darling. The stance automatically made her "moral," and made her a defender of "human rights." (She subsequently became executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights.) Nobody bothered to check (or, worse, cared) whether any "less desirable" humans were getting pummeled on her way up, and nobody (especially, shamefully, the top journalists and professors from the Pulitzer committee; see next paragraph, and photograph below) checked the journalistic standards of her book, particularly the way she set about establishing the foundation for an Armenian "genocide." The cultural elite simply fell over themselves in ways to reward this angel who was outraged over the worst crime against humanity.

She actually received a 2003 Pulitzer, as TIME Managing Editor Richard Stengel informed in his editorial announcing Power's arrival ("Iraq Churns On"), along with a National Book Critics Circle Award. "Not bad for something that started out as a class paper," Stengel beamed. (He explained the peculiar reason for Power's attendance in Harvard Law School was a means for Power to be "determined to write about why governments do little in the face of atrocity.")

Barack Obama

Power evidently had the power to hobnob with intellectual circles (she also attended Yale; it's usually difficult and expensive for commoners to gain entrance into the nation's hoitiest and toitiest ivy league universities, particularly for frivolous reasons such as attending law school in order to become a writer), and once she tapped into phony genocide sensibilities, the world became hers. She even became an "informal, unpaid adviser to Senator Barack Obama," which probably had a lot to do with Obama's suddenly harping over the "Armenian genocide." (Not that Obama needed Power to harp; it is a given that any U.S. politician seeking election must curry favor with the wealthy, influential and bullying Armenian community, and the best way is to share their genocide fetish.) Obama appears to be a nice man, but it does not say much about his analytical skills to reach important conclusions based on one-sided propaganda (nor does it say much about his judgment, for allowing a blatant propagandist by his side).

Power's first TIME topic had to do with the plight of millions of Iraqi refugees, and Stengel opined that Power was "uniquely equipped to think though this morality tale." In other words, Samantha Power hates genocides. (At least certain genocides, or would-be genocides, at the expense of less popular genocides.) That makes her more "moral" than most.

It is this impression of her as a moralist and ethicist that has opened so many doors for Samantha Power. This is a benefit of joining the genocide club; one could even become a prestigious columnist for TIME Magazine.

The tragedy is, of course, that Power is really an "immoralist." It is immoral to accuse another of a ruinous crime, particularly murder, if one does not have the evidence. (Even more so when the "another" is a nation.) It is also highly immoral to close one's eyes to the high crimes of the designated victims, and to invite hatred against the group that is designated as the villains; particularly by comparing them with Nazis. (In the PBS propaganda show, "The Armenian Genocide," Power actually put modern, and not simply Ottoman, Turks in the role of Nazis.)
.

photo: Joe Pineiro Dr. Patricia Limerick, who won a "genius award," and appears to be a very qualified historian. Why didn't she check the propagandistic sources of Power's first chapter? Why didn't any of these "professional" people? Why do brains go to mush when the topic is "genocide"? The 2003 Pulitzer Board that voted to reward Samantha Power for her book perpetrating hatred against Turks on no evidence, "A Problem From Hell." Perhaps some of these people declined to support this book, but most likely the bulk pitched in, to show how liberally "moral" they were, to be on the right side against "genocide." They went out of their way to award Power $7,500 and a special prize in General Non-Fiction, a "distinguished" book "not eligible for consideration in any other category." Back row left to right: Mike Pride (Editor, Concord Monitor), Andrew Barnes (CEO, St. Petersburg Times), Rena Pederson (Editor, Dallas Morning News), Paul Steiger (Mng. Ed., Wall Street Journal), Henry Gates (Humanities Professor, Harvard University), Jay Harris (Director, Journalism and Democracy, USC), Joann Byrd (Editorial Page Ed., Seattle Post-Inteligencer), David Kennedy (History Professor, Stanford University), Amanda Bennett (Editor, Lexington Herald-Leader), Anders Gyllenhaal (Editor, Star Tribune), Richard Oppel (Editor, Austin American-Statesman), Lee Bollinger (President, Columbia University). Front row left to right: Donald Graham (Chairman, Washington Post), William Safire (New York Times), Sandra Rowe (Editor, The Oregonian), Sig Gissler (Administrator, Grad. School of Journalism, Columbia), John Carroll (Editor, Los Angeles Times), Louis Boccardi (CEO, Associated Press); not pictured: David Klatell, (Dean, Grad. School of Journalism, Columbia). The jurors who nominated the book were Richard Bernstein, New York Times book critic, Diane Ackerman, and Patricia Limerick, Professor of History, University of Colorado.

But doesn't TIME Magazine have journalistic standards? Shouldn't TIME require more from a journalist, than simply blowing moral smoke? A reporter's duty is to question. A reporter has an ethical responsibility to investigate all sides of an issue before making impartial conclusions. Samantha Power does not operate in this fashion. Samantha Power, at least with issues she is too emotional about (which puts into question anything else she analyzes), begins with the conclusion first, and is not averse in using any contaminated claims that will back up her agenda. Any professional journalist who takes the trouble to look into how Samantha Power built her case for the Armenian "genocide" would have his or her hair stand on end. Almost without exception, in the first chapter of her book, Power has relied on 100% pure propaganda. (Mainly "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," and bigoted, hearsay-ridden New York Times articles, one of which she points to actually admitting how "unreliable" the massacre stories were, because no U.S.  journalist witnessed anything firsthand.) (But, of course, one did. His verdict: no genocide.) Moreover, Power reportedly admitted in her 2002 book tour appearance at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum that she has read many contra-genocide books, which means that she deliberately ignored the rock-solid and generally Turk-unfriendly sources which cannot be construed as propaganda; in other words, if what she claimed was true, she cannot cop an ignorance plea, and she is a deliberate manipulator, and a conscious deceiver. In her Armenian chapter, she referred to the forgeries of Aram Andonian not once, but three times. How could TIME Magazine be caught dead hiring a writer who not only purposely omits the real facts, but unconscientiously presents blatant lies?

Before we fault TIME for having hired someone based on political celebrity rather than for journalistic excellence, we must ask, how has TIME itself sized up the Armenian "genocide"?

The answer comes as no surprise. For reasons of prejudice and/or politics, TIME is fully in support of this "genocide" as a reality.

Lucky for TIME it wasn't around during the WWI years, otherwise its "genocide" history could have been almost as disgraceful as that of The New York Times. Its "genocide" coverage has not been plentiful, but there is one striking example from Aug. 23, 1982 that deserves special notice.

We learn of an Armenian terrorist episode in Ankara which killed nine and wounded seventy-two, and the article correctly begins with, "The (anti-Turkish) hatred is venomous, relentless and overwhelming." Sounds like a set-up for faulting these fanatical Armenian terrorists, doesn't it? Surely we expect a sense of sorrow over this horrifying episode of violence against humanity.

Yet the sorrow never arrives. Instead, we soon get the picture that TIME itself is a contender for this "venomous, relentless and overwhelming" anti-Turkish hatred.

The segue to the article's hateful portion tells us that a French official recognized these "1915" events as genocide, which led to TIME's point of Turkish protest "contributing to an atmosphere that encourages Armenian violence." There is truth there as well, but what we are really being told is that the Turks were in the wrong, and thus what the Armenian terrorists were doing was somewhat justifiable.

Whenever an Armenian terrorist was caught in France, the French government usually let the perpetrators go with a slap on the wrist. (Even the rare ones with heavier sentences were released after a few years.) It was this condoning of Armenian propaganda that fed, and still feeds, the ever continuing cycle of hatred. And TIME did not disappoint; with this particular article, TIME decided to blatantly publicize Armenian propaganda, in a piece that initially promised to vent outrage on a destructive terror incident.

The article tells us in no uncertain terms who the real criminals and the real victims were. "During World War I, the Turks exterminated or deported virtually their entire Armenian population because they held the unfounded suspicion that members of the ethnic group were disloyal." Note TIME's irresponsible journalism. The word "allegedly" wasn't even added before the word "exterminated," which is curious, because there is no evidence of murder, or "extermination," on the part of the Ottoman government. (To the magazine's credit, the article would actually take a stab at offering real proof, however; read on.) We can only approach genocidal territory if a nation deliberately and systematically targeted innocents. Most Armenians, like most Turks, died of famine and disease; murdered Armenians died in the hands of marauders and renegade forces. (Whereas the bulk of the half-million Ottomans killed in the hands of Armenians had to have been systematically destroyed under a predetermined plan.)

As far as how "unfounded" the "suspicion" was, regarding Armenian disloyalty, who better to ask than a primary Armenian leader of the period, Boghos Nubar (January 30, 1919, The Times of London): "...[E]ver since the beginning of the war the Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts...the Armenians have been belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey." Nubar bragged of a combined Armenian force of 200,000, a serious number, perhaps some 60,000 greater than the number of American soldiers used  in the first phase of the Iraqi invasion. (Not that all 200,000 were involved at once in the Ottoman front; yet, perhaps 100,000 Ottoman-Armenian men had defected to the Russian side, either by crossing the border or by staying behind to fight, and there is no question that the Armenians declared war.

Since the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide exempts political groups, as even Power noted in her "Hell" book, already we know the Armenian experience cannot be termed as a "genocide."

Here's how the Armenians' and Samantha Power's own guru, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, felt about the likely U.S. response, if the USA should ever be victimized by a rebellious and traitorous community during a time of war (from his 1918 "Story" book): "'But I am told,' said Von Jagow, 'that there will be an insurrection of German-Americans if your country makes war on us.' 'Dismiss any such idea from your mind,' I replied. 'The first one who attempts it will be punished so promptly and so drastically that such a movement will not go far...'" Naturally; it would normally be considered any nation's right to defend itself from forces out to destroy the nation.

If war were a matter of national life and death, as was the case with the Ottomans, maybe the USA would not have even bothered (given the scenario mentioned above) with a "deportation," which is the pro-Armenians' synonym for "genocide." If German-American rebels committed atrocities upon America's defenseless populace, with soldiers away at multiple fronts, perhaps the U.S. would have shot first and asked questions later. As America basically did in the Philippines, barely a generation prior to WWI.