Two Views Of Obama's Armenian Genocide Policy

View one. Obama broke his campaign promise. This YouTube makes it clear. Samantha Power (who is a new mommy today -- congrats to her) -- said Obama would speak truth to power.  Obama himself said he'd use the word "genocide."  And he didn't.  He needs Turkey too much.

View two, courtesy of reader Bruce Johnson:

Most analysts see Obama as capitulating on the Armenian issue due to real-world foreign affairs. I see it differently. If you watch Obama's behavior patterns in the controversial arenas (torture, anyone?), he seems doggedly determined to not let emotionally charged issues (however valid) derail far more important agendas.

    In the case of the Armenian genocide, Turkey and Armenia are making real, substantial diplomatic progress on their relationship, and the Turkish prime minister has acknowledged the role of historians in reaching some type of conclusion (however complex). While I realize that Obama does not mind dodging a bullet for now, I also believe that he is even more reticent to inflame passions and risk setbacks while the Turkish and Armenian governments build new bridges. The real question is, "What action (or inaction) at this moment will help us reach the goal (Turkish-Armenian rapprochement) in the shortest timeframe and with enduring results?"

    It's the same, I believe, with the torture issues. It's a huge moral issue, it must be dealt with, but the costs of settling it "right now" would put many important national goals in serious risk of failure. How would history judge the Obama administration if he settled everything on the torture front quickly and thoroughly, but lost the small window of political momentum where financial reforms, health care reforms, entitlement restructuring, new energy policies, etc. wasted away to the Washington purgatory they've been in for generations?