Wash. Post quoted White House saying not for Congress to "work[] out" whether Armenians suffered "genocide" -- but Bush himself did in 2000

In the October 15 Washington Post "In the Loop" column by staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker about a resolution approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on October 10 -- labeling the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923 as genocide -- the authors reported that "President Bush has found himself in a morally and politically ambiguous position on what may be one of the most vexing questions that can face an occupant of the White House: When does carnage rise to the level of 'genocide'?" The article further quoted White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe saying, "What happened nearly 100 years ago in Turkey and Armenia is tragic, but is an historical issue that needs to be worked out by those two countries, not the United States Congress." But the column did not mention that as a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush sent a letter to the Armenian National Committee of America, in which, according to a press release on the organization's website, he wrote that "[t]he Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension." According to the excerpt of the letter posted on the website, Bush also said that if elected president, he "would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people," as Media Matters for America documented. Similarly, October 15 articles by The New York Times, the Associated Press, and The Washington Times, reported the Bush administration's objections to the resolution but did not note Bush's pledge in 2000.

On October 10, the blog Think Progress highlighted the Armenian National Committee of America's press release. Despite Bush's reported characterization of the Turkish killing of Armenians a "genocidal campaign" and his reported pledge as a candidate that he would "ensure" that the United States would "properly recognize[]" the event, as president, he does not appear to have used the term "genocide" -- or any variant thereof -- to describe the killings, according to a search of the White House website. From the "partial text" of Bush's letter on the Armenian National Committee of America website:

The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.

From the October 15 Post article:

President Bush has found himself in a morally and politically ambiguous position on what may be one of the most vexing questions that can face an occupant of the White House: When does carnage rise to the level of "genocide"?

He came out forcefully last week against a congressional resolution labeling as genocide the killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians between 1915 and 1923, even though most historians agree with that conclusion. Yet Bush continues to describe atrocities in Darfur as genocide, even though many experts, including some in his administration, doubt that the situation there of late qualifies.

Underlying those decisions are political dynamics as much as technical definitions. The administration worries that the Armenia resolution could imperil relations with Turkey, a key U.S. ally that has hinted at all manner of retribution, such as barring the U.S. military from transferring goods for the Iraq war through the Incirlik air base. By contrast, the administration has little concern about alienating what it considers a loathsome regime in Sudan and does not want to retreat from a principled stance.

The White House acknowledges little contradiction between the positions Bush has taken on Armenia and Darfur. "A genocide has taken place in Sudan," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said by e-mail last week. "If the United States always waited for the rest of the world to act in Africa, more people would already have died of HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB, more people would have less food, and more innocents would have died in Sudan."

Johndroe added: "What happened nearly 100 years ago in Turkey and Armenia is tragic, but is an historical issue that needs to be worked out by those two countries, not the United States Congress, which has a lot of other legislation it needs to take up at the moment."

From the October 15 New York Times article:

The Bush administration is continuing intensified efforts to prevent passage of the resolution, which Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, is promising to bring to the floor.

Eric Edelman, an under secretary of defense, and Daniel Fried, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, arrived in Ankara, the capital, on Saturday in an effort at damage control. "We have to be realistic about the difficulties of defeating this resolution but we intend to keep fighting it and make our points as clear and strong as we can," Mr. Fried said in a telephone interview.

From the October 15 AP article:

President Bush has said the resolution is "not the right response to these historic mass killings," but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said the measure's timing was important "because many of the survivors are very old."

In an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Pelosi noted that the resolution would make the U.S. the 24th country to acknowledge the genocide.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called the measure "irresponsible."

"What happened 90 years ago ought to be a subject for historians to sort out, not politicians here in Washington," he told "Fox News Sunday."

From the October 15 Washington Times article:

The Bush administration says the resolution could undermine the U.S. position in Iraq as it urges Turkey to refrain from any major military operations in northern Iraq. The Turkish government is planning to seek parliamentary approval for military operations against a militant group, the Kurdistan Workers Party, based in the mountains of northern Iraq.

"I don't think the Congress passing this resolution is a good idea at any point, but particularly not a good idea when Turkey is cooperating with us in many ways, which ensures greater safety for our soldiers," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said yesterday on "This Week."

But Mrs. Pelosi denies the measure will permanently weaken diplomatic relations with Turkey or put U.S. troops at risk.

"I think our troops are well-served when we declare who we are as a country and increase the respect that people have for us as a nation," she said, dismissing the possibility of Turkish retaliation as "hypothetical."