Yesterday marked the 94th anniversary of the massacre and deportation of as many as 1.5 million ethnic Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. Already divided in their response to a speech delivered by US President Barack Obama in Turkey earlier this month, bloggers react to his statement marking the occasion, but which avoided directly referring to the WWI events as genocide. Many were already resigned to the inevitable breaking of a campaign promise designed to attract the Armenian-American vote. Indeed, others had already noted Turkey's strategic importance to the West, and a potential breakthrough in efforts to normalize relations between Armenia and Turkey which would reportedly involve the latter coming to terms with its own past. Tsitsernakaberd Genocide Memorial, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2008, Licensed under Creative Commons This view is echoed by Yerevan-based Armenian-American analyst Richard Giragosian in a guest post on Post Global. […] any narrow focus on only the genocide issue or President Obama's choice of wording obscures the point, as the burden for addressing Turkey's historical legacy now rests with Turkey itself, which has already embarked on a significant, and at times painful, reexamination of its past and redefinition of its identity. […] Thus, given the unique opportunity now before us, we can only hope that Turkey and Armenia will be able to move forward together, coming to terms with the legacy of the past, but based on a shared commitment to the future. […] Even so, some Armenian bloggers such as Sevana at Life in the Armenian Diaspora disagree and were furious even before the presidential statement. So an announcement like this can only mean one thing. It's April 22nd, and Turkey is worried Obama will say GENOCIDE in his April 24th statement. […] Will Obama keep his promise, or will the Turkish games win the day? I want to believe that good will prevail, that this time, the campaign promises could be believed, but… the doubt is strong in me. In a second post after the statement was made, the blogger simply branded the U.S. president a liar, a view shared by some non-Armenians such as Cervantes who compares Obama to his predecessor. Barack Obama was unequivocal during the campaign: As president, he would recognize the nearly century-old massacre of Armenians in Turkey as genocide. In breaking that promise Friday, the president did the same diplomatic tiptoeing he criticized the Bush administration for doing. Sam Lapena is even more outspoken. Today the President – my freakin’ hero, one of the few people on the face of this planet who I could say, with a straight face, that they are an inspiration to me – dicked around with his promise, effectively turning vital acknowledgement into a game of semantics and terminology. […] […] I hope that the second Turkey stops being of use, he’ll stand up on international fuckin’ television and say ‘It was a genocide.’ I’m hoping for now, but I won’t hold my tongue. I won’t say I’m not disappointed. I am very, very disappointed and I can’t even imagine what many Armenians and Armenian-Americans must be feeling. […] Obama is not impervious to criticism. Well, here’s mine – what the HELL was that bullshit? This crap better be god-damned fixed soon […]. You cannot sit up there, tout yourself as ‘change’ and ‘different’ and ‘humane’ and ‘for the people’, making vital promises […], then reneg on those promises when it gets icky for you. If that’s the case, you’re no more ‘change’ than every other privilege-marinated President we’ve had before. […] There sure as hell has to be a good reason for this. I’m talking ‘avoid loss of life’ reason, not political fucking diplomacy. Egalicontrarian also believes Obama should have referred to the events of 1915 as genocide. I am pro-Presidential usage of the term “genocide” to describe the genocide against the Armenians. However, I think I am anti-Congress passing a statement declaring it a genocide. This is because I don’t think determining historical truth should the responsibility of the government. Instead, it should be done by historians. But I think congressmen should, as people who talk about things in the world, use the word genocide freely when it is accurate, just like the President should. In other words, they shouldn’t consciously avoid it as a political strategy. Ironically, even Talk Turkey was unimpressed by Obama's efforts to appease both Armenians and Turks, but mainly because it believes the president only succeeded in alienating everybody. […] here's what I say to Obama. With your statement today, you've actually chickened out of taking a stand.