On that other site, Amphipolis's commnt is really spot on.

Was it genocide? Almost certainly.... and so what? There were many genocides committed around WWI.

The people responsible are long dead. In fact, the number of people who were even alive then that are still around today is almost vanishingly small.

As Amphipolis said, "Why not condemn the Norman invasion, the Mongol sack of Baghdad, the Spanish conquest of Peru?"

The answer, of course, is that peopl would if there wree political gain in it, just as with what is happening with Turkey and the Armenians.

As another poster said other there, "the Democrats have waited until now to use it for poliical gain. It’s disgusting!"

That's exactly right. The only modern-day relevance of said genocide is the political leverage it is giving to certain groups.

The proper response to an entirely political strategy is political.

So, I think President Bush should support this condemnation of genocide... as long as it lists and condemns every other genocide in the last 150ish years. That would allow the truth to come out, but blunt the political advantage.

Oddly enough, I think support for said resolution would drop like a rock, which would also make a good political point.

Sad, really. In several regards.