Announcement

**Gavur** · 07-05-2006, 01:45 PM

Senate Holds up Confirmation of New Ambassador to Armenia

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week postponed the
confirmation of Richard Hoagland, the Ambassador to Armenia
Designate, in response to sharp criticism by the Armenian-American
community, members of U.S. Congress and the media.
By holding up the confirmation of Amb. Hoagland, the Senate panel
clearly wanted to indicate its displeasure with the White House and
State Department for the dismissal of the current Ambassador to
Armenia, John Evans, who used the term "Armenian Genocide" last year
during remarks at an Armenian-American gathering in California.
On June 28, three nominees for U.S. ambassadorships to Ireland,
Switzerland and Armenia appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. With scant attention being paid to the Ambassadors
Designate for Ireland and Switzerland, the Senators spent the entire
hour-long hearing to pepper Amb. Hoagland with numerous questions
regarding the Bush Administration's refusal to characterize the mass
killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide.
Later that day, the nominations of Ambassadors Designate for Ireland
and Switzerland were approved by the Foreign Relations Committee and
the full Senate on the following day. The nomination of Amb.
Hoagland, however, languished in committee for an undetermined length
of time, thus placing an informal hold on his nomination.
After ignoring for months all inquiries from Members of Congress and
the American public, the State Dept. was finally given an ultimatum
by Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Ranking Democrat on the Foreign
Relations Committee, just days before the Senate confirmation
hearing. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sen.
Biden asked a series of very tough questions and warned that unless
he received appropriate answers, he would "not be prepared to move
forward with any Senate action that would prematurely end" the tenure
of Amb. Evans. Even though the State Dept. was alarmed enough to
respond immediately to Sen. Biden, the reply of Jeffrey T. Bergner,
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, was largely
non-responsive. In addition, Bergner's letter contained several
misrepresentations, such as alleging that Amb. Evans had in fact
resigned from his post (after being fired!) and that the Turkish
government had no contact with the Bush Administration on this issue
(contradicting Turkish press reports).
Pushing for dialogue between Armenians and Turks, Bergner touted as a
positive accomplishment the legal analysis of the Armenian Genocide
conducted by the International Center for Transitional Justice, under
the auspices of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission. Since
the State Dept. seems to be so proud of the study it had funded, why
does it not then adopt its verdict that qualified the systematic
killings of Armenians as genocide?
Lastly, after quoting Pres. Bush's words that described what took
place in 1915 as "the forced exile and mass killing of as many as 1.5
million Armenians by Ottoman troops," which in fact is an
acknowledgment of genocide without actually using that term, Bergner
suggested that the characterization of this "tragedy" should be
"determined through heartfelt dialogue, not through diplomatic or
political proclamation." Did Mr. Bergner realize that by saying so,
he was in fact qualifying as useless Pres. Bush's annual April 24
statements, and slighting Pres. Reagan's Presidential Proclamation of
1981 that referred to the Armenian Genocide as well as the two
resolutions adopted by the House of Representatives on this issue in
1975 and 1984?
In addition to Sen. Biden, eight other Senators -- six of whom are
members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- took issue with
the Bush Administration's evasiveness on the Armenian Genocide.
Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Christopher Dodd
(D-CT), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Paul
Sarbanes (D-MD) wrote strongly worded letters to the State Dept. or
submitted written questions to Amb. Hoagland regarding the Bush
Administration's policy on the Armenian Genocide. Sen. Sarbanes also
delivered lengthy and highly critical remarks during the Foreign
Relations Committee hearing.
Particularly noteworthy was the interrogation of Amb. Hoagland by
Republican Senators George Allen of Virginia and Norm Coleman of
Minnesota. Sen. Allen, who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee's
confirmation hearing, and Sen. Coleman, a member of that panel, did
not shy away from sharply criticizing their own Republican
Administration's unacceptable position on the Armenian Genocide and
its refusal to provide a clear explanation for the dismissal of Amb.
Evans.
In his opening remarks, Sen. Allen said: "Many of my colleagues refer
to the tragic events of 1915 as a genocide and have strongly
encouraged the President to do so as well. I hope that in the future
our Administration will recognize this terrible event for what it was
-- genocide."
Sen. Coleman added: "I am of the Jewish faith. I cannot imagine an
Ambassador to Israel being effective without talking about the
Holocaust. I am not sure how we can continue to have Ambassadors to
Armenia who can be effective, unless they give recognition to the
Genocide."
Mr. Hoagland, who is currently the U.S. Ambassador to Tajikistan, was
caught in the horns of a dilemma. Realizing full well that his
predecessor, Amb. Evans, had lost his job for saying "Armenian
Genocide," he carefully sidestepped using that term during the
hearing. On the other hand, he was cognizant of the fact that unless
he and the Bush Administration appease the disgruntled Senators and
incensed Armenian Americans, he runs the risk of not getting
confirmed! Pressed by Sen. Coleman, Amb. Hoagland finally pledged
that, if confirmed, he would use proper internal channels to raise
with State Dept. officials the issue of the acknowledgment of the
Armenian Genocide.
The hour-long confirmation hearing of Amb. Hoagland turned into a
comprehensive and critical review of the Bush Administration's
unacceptable position on the Armenian Genocide. It now remains to be
seen whether the State Dept. and the White House would be more
forthcoming on this issue and provide an honest explanation for the
dismissal of Amb. Evans. Until then, Amb. Hoagland's confirmation may
languish in the Senate.
Clearly, the Senate and the Administration have taken seriously the
concerns expressed by the Armenian American community. Given this
initial success, it is now incumbent on everyone to thank the
Senators - particularly Sen. Allen and Sen. Coleman - who supported
the Armenian demands and ask them to continue pressing the State
Dept. and the White House on this issue.

**Gavur** · 07-05-2006, 01:48 PM

Senate Delays Hoagland Confirmation

WASHINGTONIn the wake of this past Wednesday's contentious Senate Foreign
Relations Committee nomination hearing for Ambassador to Armenia Designate
Richard Hoagland, panel members John Kerry (D-Mass.), Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.),
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have each submitted a
series of detailed written questions asking the nominee to explain the
guidance
he has received from the State Department concerning its policy on the
Armenian
Genocide, reported the Armenian National Committee.
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) also sent a letter of inquiry this week
concerning the recall of the current US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans
following his statements affirming the Armenian Genocide.
During the June 28th nomination hearing, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), Sen. Norm
Coleman (R-Minn.), and Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) pressed the nominee for an
explanation of the State Department's guidance regarding the use of the word
"genocide" to properly characterize this crime against humanity. Senators
Allen
and Coleman peppered the nominee with numerous questions and expressed
frustration as the Ambassador-Designate avoided giving direct answers to
any of
the questions, resorting to the use of euphemisms.
Ambassador-Designate Hoagland's June 28th appearance before the Foreign
Relations Committee was alongside nominees for the US ambassadorships to
Ireland and Switzerland, who were subsequently approved by the Committee and
then the full Senate on June 29th. In contrast, the Committee deferred action
on confirming the proposed new ambassador to Armenia.
"Seven of the eighteen members of the Foreign Relations Committeeover one
third of this influential panelare already on record raising serious concerns
about confirming a new ambassador to Yerevan before receiving a full, open,
and
official explanation of the circumstances surrounding the recall of our
current
ambassador, the instructions given to our prospective ambassador, andmore
broadlythe exact nature of our government's policy on the Armenian Genocide,"
said ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian. "In light of the seriousness of these
issuesand the lack of responsiveness from the Administrationwe were gratified
that the Committee has wisely delayed action on the new ambassador to Yerevan
until these fundamental questions have been answered."
In the days leading up to the confirmation hearing, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Ranking Democrat Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Secretary Condoleezza
Rice for a thorough explanation of the circumstances of the premature
recall of
US Ambassador to Armenia John Marshall Evans over his public comments
affirming
the Armenian Genocide. In his June 23rd letter to Secretary Rice, Sen.
Biden, a
potential 2008 Presidential candidate, stated that he would "not be
prepared to
move forward with any Senate action that would prematurely end his [Amb.
Evans'] tenure in Yerevan" until a series of questions concerning Evans'
dismissal and the State Department's failure to properly recognize the
Armenian
Genocide had been answered. Sen. Biden wrote further to Secretary Rice,
"Recalling an accomplished American diplomat for speaking truthfully about
genocide could feed widespread cynicism about United States' foreign policy. I
hope that you will carefully reconsider the long-term implications of this
decision on the United States' ability to promote freedom and respect for
human
life."
Senator Kerry submitted a three-page set of detailed questions to the
Ambassador-Designate. Among his inquiries was the following:
"During your June 28, 2006 confirmation hearing, you stated the following
when
responding to a question on the State Department's policy on the Armenian
Genocide: "I simply studied the policy, I studied the background papers on the
policy, I know the policy and my responsibility is to support the president."
1. Please describe, in detail, the source, purpose, content, and
conclusions of
all "policy" documents, "background papers," and other materials concerning
the
Armenian Genocide that you reviewed and provide copies of these materials to
the Committee for its review. Turkey has consistently denied that it committed
genocide against Armenians and in fact has jailed several journalists for
stating otherwise, as in the case of Hrant Dink, a Turkish publisher who was
convicted for simply writing about the Armenian Genocide. And the criminal law
penalizing speech on the Armenian Genocide remains on the books in Turkey.
2. What is the Administration's position on these imprisonments?
3. Do you believe the policy of non-recognition encourages the repressive
actions taken by Turkey?
Senator Sarbanes, who spoke at Wednesday's confirmation hearing, followed up
today with a set of seven additional questions:
1. How many people died, and during what period, in the Armenian Genocide?
2. What were the causes of these deaths?
3. What actions were taken by US diplomats in Turkey at that time to warn and
report on the events?
4. What steps were taken to punish perpetrators of the Armenian genocide?
5. How does the US define "genocide"?
6. Does the United Nations consider the atrocities against Armenians to be a
"genocide"?
7. Since the Ottoman Empire is long gone, why does Turkey view discussion of
the genocide as a reflection on its own government and people?
Among the questions asked by Senator Chafee was a request that
Ambassador-Designate Hoagland explain "the State Department's policy regarding
statements by official US government representatives, such as yourself, about
the Armenian Genocide." The Rhode Island legislator also asked if the nominee
had "ever been counseled to not refer to the events of 1915 as the Armenian
Genocide."
Sen. Dodd outlined his concerns in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, stating that he is "interested to learn more about the circumstances
that
lead to his [Evans] departure," noting that "an effort, intended to destroy in
whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, clearly
constitutes an act of genocide."
Last week, House Armenian Genocide Resolution lead sponsors George Radanovich
(R-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined with Congressional Armenian
Caucus
Co-Chairs Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.) in urging
Secretary Rice to reconsider replacing Amb. Evans, noting that "allowing John
Evans to continue as Ambassador to Armenia sends a strong message on the
necessity of Turkish recognition, and will be an important step in
establishing
the US position on the Armenian Genocide."
Over the past several months, scores of Senate and House Members have
directed
questions to State Department officials, calling for answers surrounding the
controversial firing of Amb. Evans, including 60 Representatives who joined
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in a letter to Secretary Rice, Rep. Grace
Napolitano (D-Calif.) who submitted questions to Assistant Secretary of State
Dan Fried, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who submitted questions to
Secretary
Rice. Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry also asked Secretary
Rice for clarification on the Amb. Evans dismissal. The Administration has
either failed to provide responses or provided responses, which have been
largely perfunctory, citing that Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the
President, but giving no clear insight into the State Department's decision to
dismiss the career diplomat after 35 years of distinguished service.
The State Department, with the blessing of the White House, fired Amb. Evans
in response to his February 2005 statements at Armenian American community
functions, during which he properly characterized the Armenian Genocide as
"genocide." Following his statements, Amb. Evans was forced to issue a
statement clarifying that his references to the Armenian Genocide were his
personal views and did not represent a change in US policy. He subsequently
issued a correction to this statement, replacing a reference to the genocide
with the word "tragedy." The American Foreign Service Association, which had
decided to honor Amb. Evans with the "Christian A. Herter Award," recognizing
creative thinking and intellectual courage within the Foreign Service,
reportedly rescinded the award following pressure from the State Department in
the days leading up to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's visit to
Washington, DC to meet with President Bush.
Armenian American response to Amb. Evans' dismissal has been widespread with
thousands calling on their legislators to take action and demand answers. In a
March 8th letter to Secretary Rice, ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian noted that
"if,
in fact, punitive measures are being taken against Ambassador Evans, this
would
represent a tragic retreat from our nation's core values. It would also
represent a new low in our government's shameful complicity in the Turkish
government's campaign of denial. Not only does the State Department
continue to
be publicly silent as Turkey criminally prosecutes its writers and citizens
for
speaking about the Armenian Genocide, it appears the State Department is
following Turkey's lead by muzzling and punishing an American diplomat for his
speech and his acknowledgment of a genocide that is extensively documented in
the State Department's own archives."
In Yerevan, a candle-light vigil was held by hundreds of human rights
activists during the June 28th Senate confirmation hearing, as part of the
"Yellow Ribbon Campaign" protesting the firing the Amb. Evans. On April 24th,
tens of thousands had tied yellow ribbons in solidarity with the US
Ambassador,
who had stood with the Armenian people in honoring the victims and
survivors of
the Armenian Genocide.

(c) 2006 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.

**Gavur** · 07-10-2006, 12:06 AM

US Armenians seek to delay new Yerevan envoy's confirmation

Monday, July 10, 2006
Armenian protests reinvigorated over firing of predecessor, who used g-word for Armenian killings

�MİT ENGİNSOY

WASHINGTON - Turkish Daily News

U.S. Armenians have launched a fresh campaign to delay congressional confirmation for the United States' new ambassador to Armenia in protest of the firing of the previous envoy, who last year classified the Armenian killings of World War I as genocide.

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), an umbrella organization of radical Armenian groups, urged the Senate to delay the confirmation process for Richard Hoagland until the Washington administration formally clarifies the reasons for his predecessor's firing.

An ANCA statement on Friday encouraged U.S. Armenians to ask senators �to delay the confirmation of ambassador designate Hoagland until the State Department honestly and completely addresses Senate and House concerns regarding the dismissal of John Evans and the U.S. policy regarding the Armenian genocide.�

During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing in late June, Republican Senators George Allen of Virginia and Norm Coleman of Minnesota grilled Hoagland with questions about what Armenians call �official U.S. complicity in Turkey's campaign of genocide denial,� questioning him regarding �his ability to effectively represent the United States in Armenia without properly recognizing the Armenian genocide.�

ANCA said that so far nearly half of the Senate committee's 18 members and scores of lawmakers at the House of Representatives had submitted questions and sent letters to the State Department, �all of which have been either ignored or provided perfunctory answers, noting that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.�

Presently Hoagland's case is awaiting confirmation at the committee. To assume his new post, he needs confirmation by both the committee and the full Senate. Normally, the confirmation of ambassadors is a routine process, but in Hoagland's case Armenian groups and their congressional backers have raised a controversy over Evans' firing.

Addressing an Armenian audience in the United States in February 2005, Evans said that the World War I killing of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide.

Warned by his superiors at the State Department, he then issued a �clarification� in which he said his remarks reflected his own views. Still pressed by the State Department, Evans later issued a further �correction,� admitting that his statement misrepresented U.S. policy.

But President George W. Bush fired Evans in May after the latter continued to deviate from the official U.S. policy, according to analysts.

Evans' dismissal has led to an uproar in the Armenian-American community and among pro-Armenian lawmakers in Congress.

�Ambassadors serve the president, and they are obliged to follow his policy. President Bush's policy as it regards the mass killings of Armenians is precise, and he mentions it in his annual statement,� Matt Bryza, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, recently was quoted as telling an Armenian newspaper.

�Certainly if somebody doesn't agree with the president's policy, he can take his own decisions; however, they should not be announced publicly. We all serve the president, and our job is to contribute to his policy. We should also give him advice, but when the matter concerns public statements we should support the president's policy,� the Armenian news agency Asbarez July 6 quoted Bryza as telling Haykakan Zhamanak.

During the June 28 confirmation hearing at the Senate committee, Allen, Coleman and Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democratic member, all said the Armenian killings clearly were the first genocide of the 20th century and urged Bush's administration and Congress to recognize the violence as genocide.

Hoagland tried to eschew insistent questions by the senators over how he would qualify the Armenian killings during his planned tenure in Yerevan.

Recalling that in his last April 24 statement Bush referred to the Armenian killings as �a tragedy the world must not forget,� Hoagland said, �I represent the president.�

He also said, �Instead of getting stuck in the past, and vocabulary, I would like to move forward.�

Analysts said that in a year of critical congressional elections in November, the Armenian groups have considerable leverage over the legislative body and that Hoagland's confirmation probably would not be completed before Congress' August recess.

**Joseph** · 07-25-2006, 06:05 AM

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.anca.org

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 24, 2006
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

STATE DEPARTMENT MISLED SENATE ON
TURKISH COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT AMB. EVANS

-- Signed Statements Contradict State Department's
Official Denial

-- Justice Department Records Reveal Repeated Contacts
by Turkey's Foreign Agent with the State Department
Concerning Remarks by the Ambassador to Armenia

WASHINGTON, DC - In yet another troubling development concerning
the controversial nomination of Richard Hoagland to serve as U.S.
Ambassador to Armenia, Department of Justice records have revealed
that the State Department has misled the U.S. Senate regarding its
communications with the Turkish government concerning the February
2005 public affirmation of the Armenian Genocide by U.S. Ambassador
to Armenia John Marshall Evans, reported the Armenian National
Committee of America (ANCA).

In a letter, dated June 28, 2005 written on behalf of Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice to Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the Ranking
Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State
Department denied that the Turkish government had even approached
the Administration on this issue. However, official Foreign Agent
Registration filings by the Turkish government's registered foreign
agent, the Livingston Group, document that, in the days following
Ambassador Evans' February 19, 2005 remarks, one of Turkey's agents
communicated on at least four different occasions with State
Department officials concerning the envoy's statement and his
subsequent retraction.

"With each new revelation, we see more clearly the corrosive impact
that the Administration's complicity in Turkey's denial is having
on our own core values as Americans," said ANCA Chairman Ken
Hachikian. "This latest failed attempt by the State Department to
mislead the Senate adds to the many compelling reasons to block the
confirmation of a new Ambassador to Armenia."

Consistent with the pattern of unresponsiveness that has come to
characterize the Administration's actions on the Hoagland
nomination, the only answer the State Department chose to provide
in response to Senator Biden's four questions was a misleading one.
His other inquiries - including an official request for an
explanation of why Ambassador Evans was being replaced prematurely
- remain unanswered.

On June 23rd, as part of Ambassador Richard Hoagland's confirmation
process to replace Amb. Evans in Yerevan, Senator Biden wrote a
letter asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a series of
questions including the following: "Has the State Department
received any communication - written, electronic, or spoken - from
the Turkish Government concerning Ambassador Evans?"

Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey T.
Bergner responded on behalf of Secretary Rice with the following
assertion: "Please be assured that allegations that the U.S. is
removing Ambassador Evans under pressure from the Government of
Turkey are simply untrue. The Government of Turkey has not
approached the Administration on this issue, and the United States
and Turkey engaged in no diplomatic exchanges related to this
matter."

However, Justice Department filings by the Livingston Group reveal
that a day after Amb. Evans' statements on the Armenian Genocide
were publicized in an ANCA-San Francisco press release dated
February 24, 2005, a Turkish agent communicated with the State
Department concerning his statements. On February 28, 2005, one
business day after the agent's first phone call, Ambassador Evans
issued his first public retraction - noting that his mention of the
Armenian Genocide was made in a private capacity. Later that same
day, the Livingston Group reported three additional calls between
one of Turkey's agents and State Department officials including the
Deputy Chief of Mission-designate at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara to
discuss Ambassador Evans' retraction. The very next day on March
1, 2005, Ambassador Evans issued a public correction of his
retraction - removing entirely any mention of the Armenian
Genocide.

In addition to the Justice Department filings, several Turkish
press accounts reported that officials of the Government of Turkey
communicated their concerns to the State Department regarding
statements made by Ambassador Evans:

1) Turkish Press

On March 3, 2005, Turkish Press reported that, "Turkey's Ambassador
in Washington Faruk Logoglu reacted to this. Ambassador Logoglu
reminded his interlocutors in the State Department that the United
States did not recognize 'Armenian genocide' noting the expression
in Evans' apology was unacceptable. Justifying Turkey's warning,
US State Department made Evans to issue a 'correction' for the
apology." ("Evans Had to Correct His Statement Again After Using
'Genocide' in His Apology," Turkish Press, March 3, 2005)

2) Anadolu News Agency

On March 4, 2005, the Anadolu News Agency reported that, "The
Turkish ambassador to Washington Faruk Logoglu reacted to this
message and the Washington administration approved Turkey's demand
and made Evans correct the message of apology. Logoglu reminded the
US State Department that the US does not recognize the Armenian
genocide, but the term was used in the message of apology of the US
Yerevan Ambassador. Logoglu noted that a term that is not accepted
by USA could not be used in a statement of policy." ("Double
Genocide Correction from US Yerevan Ambassador," Anadolu News
Agency, March 04, 2005)

3) Turkish Daily News

On May 27, 2006, Turkish Daily News reported that, "'After his
remarks last year that caused reaction at the State Department and
by Turkey, Evans was given a second chance, but he continued to
deviate from the official U.S. policy, working almost as a part of
Armenian groups that have a specific agenda,' one U.S. analyst
familiar with the matter said on Thursday. 'As a result he was
recalled.'" ("US Envoy Fired Over 'Genocide' Claims," Turkish Daily
News, May 27, 2006)

The ANCA has circulated relevant sections of the Justice Department
FARA filings to Congressional offices.

#####

**Joseph** · 03-06-2007, 09:01 AM

ommentary

Amb. Evans Speaks for the First Time

About His Genocide Acknowledgment

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

The USC Institute of Armenian Studies honored former U.S. ambassador to
Armenia John Marshall Evans during a gala banquet celebrating its second
anniversary on March 4, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, in Beverly Hills. Morethan 900
guests attended the event during which over $1 million was raised for the
Institute.

I was asked to introduce Amb. Evans at the banquet. Below is the text of my
introductory remarks followed by the text of the keynote address of Amb. Evans:

Harut Sassounian's introduction of Amb. Evans:

We just watched together, for the first time, the recently discovered video
of the profoundly moving remarks that Ambassador John Evans made two years ago
in Fresno. He delivered similarly candid remarks during the rest of his
February 2005 tour of Boston, Los Angeles and Berkeley.

As the video showed, Ambassador Evans spoke about the Armenian Genocide in an
"honest, forthright and sensitive" manner. He did not make a slip of the
tongue. He did not play word games. He called a spade a spade by referring to the
Armenian Genocide simply as=80�GENOCIDE!

He knew that his honesty could cost him his job. And it did.

Before going to Fresno, on his first morning in Los Angeles, he invited me to
have breakfast with him, during which he freely discussed the Armenian
Genocide in the presence of three other State Department and U.S. Embassy officials.
He said he had studied the Armenian Genocide extensively and asked for
specific documents on this issue.

For those not familiar with the political gamesmanship involving this serious
matter, I must explain that no federal official has dared to use the term
"Armenian Genocide," since Pres. Reagan's proclamation 1981. Successive U.S.
administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have avoided the term "Armenian
Genocide," in order to placate the Turkish government, in disgraceful complicity
with its denialist policy.

At our breakfast meeting, I was intrigued by Amb. Evans' intense interest in
the Armenian Genocide. I was surprised at his forthright manner of speaking
about this issue. I was even more surprised, when in the following days, during
his public remarks at various venues, he openly spoke about the Armenian
Genocide. While his Armenian audiences were stunned by his frank remarks, they were
concerned about any possible damage his words may cause to his career.

Ambassador Evans is a highly educated and experienced diplomat. He had
studied Russian History at Yale and Columbia. He served in various diplomatic posts
in Tehran, Prague, Moscow, St. Petersburg, the U.S. Mission to NATO, and as
Deputy Director of the Soviet Desk, among others.

Regrettably, the prophetic words you heard him say in the video, about the
risk of losing his job for talking about the Armenian Genocide, came true.

Immediately upon returning to Washington, D.C. from California, he
courageously told his superiors at the State Department that he had acknowledged the
Armenian Genocide, during his visits with the Armenian-American community.

After receiving complaints from Turkish officials and their lobbyists, the
State Department forced Amb. Evans to issue a retraction as well as a
correction, stating that he was expressing his personal opinion and not government
policy, and that he should not have used the word genocide.

Several months later, when the American Foreign Service Association granted
him the "Constructive Dissent" Award for his outspoken views on the Armenian
Genocide, the State Department made him give up that prestigious honor.

Unfortunately, after all that, this distinguished career diplomat was forced
into "early retirement" from the US Foreign Service. This very honest and
highly competent civil servant's career was terminated for courageously speaking
the truth.

Under the rules of ethics and morality, honesty should be rewarded, not
punished! And justice demands that those who lie get fired -- not those whotell
the truth!

Ambassador Evans, the good and humble man that he is, cannot understand why
he's being honored today for simply speaking the truth. He cannot understand
why Armenians worldwide are calling him a national hero and a "modern day Henry
Morgenthau" -- another righteous U.S. Ambassador who did everything in his
power to save the perishing Armenians during the genocide of 1915 in Turkey.

In closing, I must say that Ambassador Evans did not just dwell on the
genocide issue during his two-year tenure in Armenia.

He and his wife Donna were deeply engaged in every aspect of Armenian life.
To the last day of his service in Yerevan, Amb. Evans was initiating projects,
funding new programs, and helping to strengthen the rule of law and democracy
in Armenia.

He even learned to speak some Armenian and gave brief talks in the Armenian
language. He loved Armenia and its people.

John and Donna Evans went beyond the call of duty to assist the fledgling
Republic of Armenia for which Ambassador Evans was decorated by President
Kocharian with one of the highest medals of the Republic.

Ambassador Evans deserves the undying gratitude of the Armenian nation for
his distinguished service to the United States of America, the Republic of
Armenia and his sacrifices for the Armenian Cause!

Ambassador John Evans remarks:

I do find it unusual that anyone, even a former government official, should
be honored simply for telling the truth. It should not be that way. Perhaps
this is a sad commentary on our times.

In any case, no one should imagine that they owe me any thanks for telling
the truth.

When I called the Events of 1915 by their historically correct name - which
is "genocide" - I used a word the U.S. Government does not currently employ. As
you have just witnessed in this short film, I knew what I was doing and knew
it might have consequences for my career. The decision was wholly mine. No one
put me up to it. I stand by it. I have taken responsibility for it, paid a
price for it. As a consequence, I am free to be with you this evening in support
of the USC Institute of Armenian Studies.

None of us in this room is so naïve as to imagine that the official foreign
policy of great states - even of the United States - is ever based solely on
"the truth." As educated people, we also are aware that even arriving at and
defining the truth can be difficult. But in the real world, when an official
policy diverges wildly from what the broad public believes is self-evident,that
policy ceases to command respect.

Let me give you an example: You may remember the Iraqi Minister of
Information, who, as Coalition Forces were closing in on Baghdad, asked histelevision
viewers, "whom do you believe, your eyes or my words?" Not surprisingly, we
all believed our own eyes.

Of course, when it comes to events that occurred over ninety years ago, we
must rely not on our own eyes, but on eyewitness like Ambassador Henry
Morgenthau, Consul Leslie Davis, on historians, diplomatic archives - and on the
survivors themselves.

The overwhelming consensus of these sources is that the tragic events of
1915, despite all the complicating factors of war, rebellion and Great Power
politics, constituted genocide.

Above the entrance to the State Department Library, there stands a quotation
from Thomas Jefferson, some of whose books are in that library. It proclaims:
"We are not afraid to follow Truth wherever it may lead, nor [are we afraid]
to tolerate any error, so long as Reason is free to combat it."

Unfortunately Reason - which tells us that there was a genocide in 1915 -is
not everywhere free today to combat false assertions that the deaths of as many
as one and one half million Armenians came about as the result of mere
"relocations," "some excesses," "a few mishaps," "disease and famine." One country's
official policy of denying the Armenian Genocide interferes with the process
of seeking the truth; other countries' policies of going along with this
denial do not serve the truth. Instead what we have seen is the horrific murder of
Hrant Dink forty days ago.

Over the last twenty years or so, American politicians and diplomats have
been urging authorities in other parts of the world to listen to civil society
and to take into account what civil society -- that is, the realm of opinion
outside official circles -- thinks. A resolution of the Congress of the United
States calling on the Administration to take into account the fact of the
Armenian Genocide would be fully in harmony with this principle.

The Armenian Genocide should be recognized as such by this Congress.

Many people have asked me why, two years ago, I decided to speak out on the
Armenian Genocide. I am not Armenian. I have no Armenian relatives, even by
marriage, and in a diplomatic career of thirty-five years, I had never before
encountered a U.S. Government policy that I did not like and could not support,
certainly not in my own area of responsibility -- until, as the new U.S.
Ambassador to Armenia, I ran up hard against the issue of the Armenian Genocide. I
believe I owe people an explanation.

I have, therefore, started writing a book to explain the intellectual journey
that took me from knowing next to nothing about Armenia, Armenians, and the
Genocide, to the point where I felt I had to break publicly with U.S.
Government on this issue. I hope the story of my own intellectual journey may help
others, particularly those whose names, like my own, do not end in "-ian", to
reach a similar understanding.

In my book I intend not only to explain my own actions, but also to look at
some of the things that could and should be done to deal with the great wound
and the resulting problem posed by the Genocide. This is a difficult subject on
which honest people can disagree, and do, but I already have several ideas
that I hope to develop. I do not plan to work in a vacuum, but rather to talk to
people on all sides of the issue, many of whom are in this room. I dare to
hope that some of my readers will be Turkish-Americans and even Turks.

In the meantime, there is much work to be done. First and foremost, the
Republic of Armenia needs our help. I am personally proud to have been involved
in implementing the U.S. Government's official assistance programs, which now
include the hugely important Millennium Challenge Account. Taken together, the
official assistance programs of all the donor countries and institutions have
made a measurable difference in Armenia. The California Trade Office is now
open for business in Yerevan, and investment is taking place, if more slowly
than one would like. I know that many of you personally and through your work
have also made generous contributions and investment in Armenia. Thank you for
all you have done and, no doubt, will continue to do for Armenia. Armenia is
facing elections over the next twelve months. The United States is attempting to
help Armenia to stage the best possible free and fair elections, in the
belief that strengthening democracy will strengthen
Armenia itself.

Obviously not all Armenians live in the Republic, and it is also important
that the needs of Diasporans, especially young people, be met. For that reason,
I want especially to salute the USC Institute of Armenian Studies, which,
despite its relative youth, is doing a great job of ensuring that Armenian
history, arts, science and letters receive the serious academic attention they
deserve. The Institute should become even more capable, after this evening's
fund-raising event, of providing a vibrant center for the growing communityof
scholars it serves.

In any family there will always be divisions and differences of opinion, even
bitter quarrels. As an "odar" and friend of your particular family, I thinkI
can safely say that the Armenian-American community is at its best when it
joins forces for a common cause, as happened most notably in 1988 at the time of
the earthquake. To the extent that unnecessary divisions can be overcome,
without sacrificing democracy, the community will become stronger and more
capable of achieving its goals. Unity does not always need to occur as a result of
tragedy and disaster. Supporting the USC Institute of Armenian Studies ought to
be one of those unifying issues that merits your unified and continuing
support.

Although we have spent some time tonight thinking about the past, I
personally am looking forward to what we can achieve in the future, workingclosely
together as we have done in the past. Pari yerego yev shnorhagalutiun!

**Joseph** · 04-25-2007, 09:28 AM

The diplomat who cracked

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-welch24apr24,0,2351310.story?coll=la-promo-opinion

An interview with former U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Evans, who lost his job after referring to the Armenian genocide as genocide.

LA Times

Opinion Daily

The diplomat who cracked

An interview with former U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Evans, who lost his job after referring to the Armenian genocide as �genocide.�

By Matt Welch

April 24, 2007

John Marshall Evans, a career U.S. diplomat with extensive experience in Central and Eastern Europe, was sworn in as ambassador to Armenia in August 2004. In February 2005, Evans made a trip to California, the capital state of the Armenian diaspora. At three different meetings with Armenian-American groups, when asked about Washington's lack of official recognition of the 1915-23 Armenian genocide as a "genocide," Evans said some variation of the following: "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide."

Since this deviated from State Department guidelines, Evans was eventually asked to resign. Now the mild-mannered foreign service veteran is preparing a book about his "intellectual journey" that led him "rock the boat" of U.S. policy.

I caught up with Evans this March, a few days after he gave the keynote speech explaining his dissent to the second annual banquet for USC's Institute of Armenian Studies. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

To start with, when did it become unusual, your preparation for this job? When you said that basically you wanted to read up on this controversial historical thing before assuming the ambassadorship, one does that before one goes to a foreign posting, anyway; at what point did that process become different than your usual diplomatic posting, in terms of fact-gathering, and conclusions that you might come up with? [...]

[M]y nomination for Yerevan was announced in the first half of May 2004. I was confirmed in late June, I can give you the exact dates. And then I had a window of a couple weeks in which I went into a kind of monastic retreat and read everything I possibly could about Armenia.

Now, I had the advantage that [...] [in] 1989, that year I had received a Cox Fellowship, and was spending a year reading Ottoman history at the Wilson Center in Washington, at the Kennan Institute. And so I read a lot of history. So I wasn't coming to the issue of Armenian history with a totally blank slate; I'd read mostly mainstream books -- Lord Kinross and various others who have written about Ottoman history. [...]

I read as much as I could before I went out to Yerevan. I read [former U.S. ambassador Henry] Morgenthau's story, which had a profound impact on me, and [...] I proceeded [to Yerevan], but not before having a discussion with my immediate boss about the issue of the genocide, and how it was treated in State Department materials. I felt that it was not being adequately addressed, but at that point I had no sense that we couldn't do a better job basically in the same lines that we were already using. I had not abandoned the policy, but I felt we could do a much better job with that policy, and in particular using the things that had been said by President Bush and President Clinton.

So I went out there and I became increasingly frustrated when I returned to that subject, at the fact that it was considered taboo. And it was; I couldn't really get it onto the agenda for at least a discussion. [...]

Let me also just say that I never departed from the U.S. policy line in Armenia. The question, if you look at public opinion polls in Armenia, what you see is that although the question of recognition of the genocide is on the minds of people, it's sort of the ninth or tenth issue behind social stability, having a job, worrying about their retirement, you know, worrying about Nagorno-Karabakh. And then you get down to the single digits, the people who put the recognition of the genocide at the top of their lists. Single digits.

So in a way it's much bigger for the diaspora?

That's right. That's correct. And I did not ever -- I rarely got a question about it when serving as U.S. ambassador to Armenia, and I never used the word 'genocide' in answering any question there. Almost never; I can't remember a time when a local journalist asked me about it.

By the time of my trip out here in February in 2005 I'd been in place for about six months, and I'd done more reading. I was more upset than ever about both the issue and the policy, and about the prospect that this is just going to be a situation that was going to continue ad infinitum. I mean, Turkish interests, and U.S. interests in Turkey; a country with 72 million, a member of NATO of long standing, with valuable strategic property in the Middle East, secular, Muslim, in a time when we're contending with forces in the Muslim world that have produced this fundamentalist ideology and terrorism. Turkey is a hugely important ally, and little landlocked Armenia, population 3 million at best, is never going weigh in those scales in such a way as to even make a showing.

And yet, the facts of the matter, the facts of the historical matter, and the legal definition of genocide as basically codified in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which we ratified, does count for something in my view. I felt that something had to be done to rock the boat, and to open up some space around this taboo subject, which in the State Department was routinely referred to as "the G-word." Which to me is sort of reminiscent of potty training. [...]

I never in 35 years had encountered a U.S. policy that I could not at least live with. Certainly not one in my own area of responsibility.

I wonder how much of that is the fact that you had the good fortune, mind you, to spend most of your life basically working in what in retrospect can seem like the most virtuous of American endeavors, which is --

Winning the Cold War

Winning the Cold War in Central Europe in particular. You know, it's a lot different having done that than if you had to deal with Saudi Arabia, ever, you know, or other parts of the world where we have a much more realpolitik type of appraoch.

Well you bring to mind another point that I made Sunday night, and that is since 1989, American diplomats have spent a lot of their time encouraging the growth of civil society. [...] Civil society does matter, and when civil society, taken together -- that is, historians, journalists, public people who've thought about issues -- when the vast majority of them perceive that there was a genocide of Armenians in 1915, and we are withholding that in our declared policy, it sets up a very difficult situation: You can't call it cognitive dissonance, exactly, but as I expressed it the other night, when a policy is perceived as not conforming to the broadly accepted truth, the policy becomes less supportable, and may not be supportable.

I came to the point where I felt this strongly, that it couldn't be -- it was not -- sustainable. That this flew in the face of the facts as we know them from people I hugely respect, starting with Henry Morgenthau, and our past diplomatic colleagues. [...] The truth as we know it from very good sources had diverged to an unsustainable degree. [...]

But was it reasonable for you to imagine that your rocking the boat wouldn't get you fired? [...]

Clearly when I was here in February 2005, I knew that by mentioning this word, I could get myself in trouble. I didn't know precisely what the degree of that trouble would be, but I knew that it could range from a slap on the wrist to being immediately canned. And as it turned out it was something between those extremes: I got more than a mere slap on the wrist, I wasn't immediately canned. I basically was eased out after about 18 months, although I had more time on my clock. [...] I was basically asked to go ahead and retire. [...]

How would you characterize the reaction of your superiors or even just your colleagues when you said "Hey, this is a policy that I'm beginning to believe is untenable, we need to shift it this way"? And when I ask you how would you characterize it, is it your impression that they, too believed that this is a historically settled issue, it's just one that is inconvenient to talk about?

Nobody ever used those terms, and I never had that kind of a conversation. [...]

The problem for me was not that we were having an argument about it, the problem for me was we couldn't talk about it. I couldn't even get it on the agenda. And I couldn't take the policy positions that had been devised for dealing with this, I couldn't get them properly deployed, because nobody wanted to even touch it. I kept running into this sort of impossible Maginot Line, or just obstacle to even getting the issue onto the table, and that's where I decided to do an end run.

So it was less that people were saying, you know, "Stop knocking on this door"; it was more of just like, "Oh, I gotta go fill up my water glass now"?

Well, it was sort of "Now's not the time." But there never -- given the realities -- there never would be a good time to face this issue, if one does the traditional calculations of well, Turkey is 72 million, Armenia is 3 million, it was 92 years and counting, and so on and so forth. This is a formula for it to go on for 500 years.

**Steph** · 07-18-2007, 02:10 AM

Richard Hoagland not to be appointed as US Ambassador to Armenia?
17.07.2007 14:22 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Richard Hoagland, US Ambassador Designate to Armenia, is about to be reassigned to another country, according to several confidential but highly reliable sources. This decision was made after his candidacy was twice blocked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both times Sen. Robert Menendez from New Jersey placed hold on Hoagland’s nomination, The California Courier reports.

“The US administration must have realized that Richard Hoagland’s nomination as Ambassador to Armenia is despairing. After languishing for a whole year at an empty desk in the State Department, Ambassador Hoagland deserves to have an assignment at a diplomatic post in a country other than Armenia. His superiors’ mismanagement of this issue should no longer keep his career in limbo. Only time will tell if the Bush administration has properly understood from this episode the deeply-felt sentiments of the Armenian-American community. In view of the embarrassment suffered by the State Department on this occasion, it is hoped that, henceforth, the administration would think long and hard before showing any more disrespect towards the Armenian-American community on the core issue of the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” The California Courier writes.

On September 7, 2006 thanks to Senator Robert Menendez’s efforts Hoagland’s candidacy was blocked in the Senate. On December 1 the New Jersey legislator joined with Majority Leader Harry Reid in calling on the Administration to offer a new candidacy for this post. The negative attitude towards Richard Hoagland’s nomination is connected with his outright denial of the Armenian Genocide in response to questions posed during and after his June 2006 confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Former US Ambassador to Yerevan John Evans was forced into early retirement last year, after he used the words “Armenian Genocide” to describe the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey.

**Joseph** · 11-29-2007, 07:49 AM

MRS. EVANS REVEALS INTRIGUING DETAILS OF HER HUSBAND'S RECALL
By Harut Sassounian, Publisher, The California Courier

AZG Armenian Daily
29/11/2007

More than two years after her husband became the first U.S. diplomat
to publicly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Donna Evans revealed
some of the behind-the-scene details of Ambassador John Evans' tenure
in Armenia and his dramatic forced retirement from the U.S. Foreign
Service. She spoke at the Armenian Assembly's Annual Capital Region
Holiday Reception held at the Armenian Embassy in Washington, D.C.,
on November 18.

Mrs. Evans began her talk by describing the phone call she received
from her husband, telling her, "Assistant Secretary of State Beth
Jones had just informed him that he was the State Department's choice
to be assigned as Ambassador to Armenia in the summer of 2004. She
told him that it was a small country but growing in importance and
had a significant assistance program and a new Embassy was being
built. She encouraged him to accept it and he did, without hesitation."

After Senate confirmation, Amb. Evans and his wife moved to Armenia
in fall 2004. Mrs. Evans described the constant "tension" because the
"unwritten policy of the State Department was that the word 'genocide'
had to be in quotation marks and, if spoken, it would be referred to
as the 'g' word." She said Foreign Service officers "knew, for certain,
that the word 'genocide' was a strict taboo."

She went on to state, "The Armenian genocide was a very sensitive
subject and therefore avoided in diplomatic circles in Yerevan. The
wives of other ambassadors did not talk about it even in private. The
first time we drove by the Genocide Memorial my husband whispered to me
'there's the Genocide Memorial.' I looked over and caught a fleeting
glance of the spire. As I turned back, our driver's eyes caught mine
in the rear view mirror. I was so uncomfortable. My husband told me
that we were allowed to go there once a year, on April 24th."

Amb. Evans' problems began during his speaking tour of the Armenian
communities in the United States in early 2005. Upon the couple's
arrival in California, Mrs. Evans said her husband informed her that
"he was going to use the word 'genocide' and that it might cost him
his job." She said she was "stunned at first but then very proud of
him. I hoped that telling the truth would result in no more than a
reprimand and that he would be marginalized for a while. I thought
that losing his job was the very worst-case scenario."

Once her husband used the term "genocide" in public, Donna Evans was
amazed that the Armenian American media did not rush to publicize it
immediately - "It was as if they were protecting the Ambassador."

Eventually, after a press release from ANC revealed that Amb. Evans
had actually used the words "Armenian Genocide" during his talk
at Berkeley, she said her "husband went on to Washington to brief
the State Department on what had transpired. The reaction was not
pretty to say the least" which made her "sick at heart." Meanwhile,
the Ambassador did not know "whether his recall orders would be on
his desk when he returned to Yerevan. I did not know whether I would
be returning to Yerevan myself."

Mrs. Evans had harsh words for the State Department for buckling under
Turkish pressure. "It was unthinkable that the Turkish ambassador and
the Government of Turkey had enough clout to get a knee-jerk reaction
from the State Department and cause the recall of an ambassador,"
she said.

Leaving his ambassadorial post voluntarily was out of question,
Mrs. Evans said. "Not resigning was the right thing to do. My husband
had not committed a crime, he only acknowledged a crime," she said.

Upon returning to Yerevan, Mrs. Evans said her husband went on
carrying out his diplomatic duties and "acted as if it was business
as usual.... However, each morning he arrived at the office wondering
if the morning e-mail and telegram traffic would include his official
recall. Then, on July 2, 2005, the dreaded telephone call came." Dan
Fried, the Assistant Secretary of State, called to inform that her
husband's position was "about to be posted as open for the summer of
2006 and that we could be removed at any time," she said.

Mrs. Evans said she was "furious" particularly since this call had come
"just before July the 4th, Independence Day and axed a professional
diplomat with 35 years of faithful service to his government --
and a 12th generation American -- just because he said 'genocide'
in an academic setting in the United States."

Mrs. Evans further revealed that she wrote a personal letter to First
Lady Laura Bush because she said she believed "in spouse power." She
never received a reply.

When the word got out -- this writer was the first to report that
Amb. Evans was about to be recalled for his statement on the Armenian
Genocide -- Mrs. Evans reported that "the pressure was on...[there was]
wild speculation in the Armenian papers, some calling my husband a
hero and others not so flattering and some downright ridiculous. Again
the press had a field day.

My husband's answer had to be 'I serve at the pleasure of the
President.' I died a little every time I heard him say it."

Notably, Mrs. Evans revealed that during those tumultuous days, "the
diplomatic community" supported her husband "privately." She then
described April 24, 2006 as "an unforgettable day" in her life when
thousands of Armenians from all walks of life tied yellow ribbons to
a fence at the Genocide Memorial Monument in Yerevan, in support of
her husband. "How this was pulled together and who supported it is a
remarkable story. I wish I could give them all a hug individually. This
event inspired us to stay strong during a very trying time," she said.

As they say, the rest is history. The White House cut Amb. Evans'
service short and announced the nomination of his successor, Richard
Hoagland, who never made it to Armenia.

Showing her continued support for the reaffirmation of the Armenian
Genocide, Mrs. Evans said that when the House Foreign Affairs Committee
adopted the Armenian Genocide resolution, it was one of the happiest
days of her life.

However, she was "stunned and outraged" when her husband showed
her the letter that was signed by eight former Secretaries of State
opposing the congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide. "How
could Secretaries of State so blindly sign such a document?

What I would say to the former Secretaries of State is 'shame on
you' for being used by the Turkish lobby. By your actions, you have
set back any progress that has been made to normalize diplomatic
relations between Armenia and Turkey. It would have been better to
remain silent. A special shame on Secretary [of State Alexander]
Haig because he served under President Reagan, who acknowledged the
genocide," she said.

Donna Evans described her dismay at some of the negative reactions to
the genocide resolution. "What followed was the worst turn of events
that I had witnessed in all my time in Washington. The supporters of
the recognition of the genocide were in shock and awe at the cruel
commentaries, articles, and Internet buzz. What we were witnessing
was a hyper-overkill of a human rights issue."

She concluded her remarks with heart-warming words: "The Armenian
experience has woven itself into my soul like the intricate carvings
in the Khachkars. It is beautiful, it is sad and it is hopeful. So
what do we do now? We don't give up. We bide our time and return
to the fight, more experienced, better informed and therefore better
armed. Most important of all we continue to educate. Grassroots support
is vital. You are vital. This issue needs to be resolved. You and your
ancestors deserve an apology and recognition of the first genocide
of the 20th century...the Armenian Genocide."

Announcement

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

"America's next ambassador to Armenia is a verbal gymnast.

"America's next ambassador to Armenia is a verbal gymnast.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment