Posted on 11/26/2001 9:07:31 PM PST by ouroboros
Five days after declaring war on terrorism, the president urged Americans to be patient: "This crusade ... is going to take awhile." Immediately, the cry arose, "How could he be so cruelly insensitive!"
Bush was scourged and admonished that he had insulted the Islamic world. Did he not know the Crusades were wars of criminal Christian aggression marked by pillage and massacre? The president apologized, and no one has since embraced the dreaded term.
At Georgetown, Bill Clinton suggested Sept. 11 may even be payback. "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless," said the paragon of the Woodstock generation. "In the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the temple mount. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the temple mount, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East, and we are still paying for it."
But why Americans, whose first president was a Mason who did not take office until 1789, should be slaughtered in 2001 because of a crusade preached by a pope in 1095, Clinton left unexplained.
A little history. In 600 A.D., the Mediterranean basin was largely Christian. But within a century of the death of Mohammed in 632, armies of Islam had conquered Syria and Palestine, swept over North Africa, and overrun Spain, only to be defeated at Poitiers by Charles Martel. Had they triumphed, Christianity might have died in Europe, as it would in the cities of Augustine and Athanasius.
"The common assumption that the Crusades were an act of unprovoked Christian aggression" is false, writes Warren Carroll, the historian of Christendom. Before 1095, "all the aggression had been Muslim. The Muslims were the original and continuing attackers and conquerors of Christian territory." Only after centuries living in fear of the hosts of Islam did Urban II preach the First Crusade.
The goal that animated the Crusaders was Jerusalem. "Those who deride this as a Christian objective have lived too long in books and under lamps," writes Carroll. "Real men and women, as distinct from scholarly abstractions, have homes which they love. Jesus Christ was a real man. He had a home. He loved it. His followers [and] worshipers who came after Him loved the land and places He had loved and trod, simply because He had loved and trodden them. Utterly convinced that He is God, they could not believe it right that any people not recognizing Him as God should rule His homeland."
A majority in Palestine was probably still Christian in 1095, writes Carroll, "They had ... as much right to their land as the Muslim conquerors." If Mecca were overrun by heathen armies, would not Muslim peoples be justified in launching a "jihad" to liberate their holy city? Would they apologize or be ashamed of having done so?
The Crusader armies, led by Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse, captured Jerusalem in 1099, where a massacre did occur. But that same evil befell the knights, and their wives and children, when the last Crusader castle, Acre, fell to the Mameluks in 1291. Have we heard any apologies for the slaughter at Acre?
Offered the title King of Jerusalem, Raymond and Godfrey both refused to wear a crown of gold in the city where Christ had worn a crown of thorns. It was an age of faith. The First Crusade, writes Carroll, was "a just war conducted for a deeply spiritual purpose, though often seriously flawed in its execution." As was World War II.
After that Good War in which British Air Marshal "Bomber" Harris incinerated thousands of refugee women and children in Dresden, Dwight Eisenhower titled his memoir "Crusade in Europe." If he was not ashamed of the term, why are we?
Because this generation has been indoctrinated in a pack of lies by the moral sappers of the 1960s nesting in our schools. To them, Western Civilization is an abomination. The greatest explorers, like Columbus, are genocidal racists. Our founding fathers were slave-owning hypocrites. The soldier-statesmen of Western empires were brutal imperialists. Now, we must also be ashamed of crusades launched to recapture, in the name of our Lord, the Holy Land seized from Christendom by the armies of Islam.
The great enemies of the West today are its over-privileged children who are undermining this greatest civilization the world has ever seen. If we should be ashamed of anything, it is for having twice elected one of them as president. Bill Clinton could not carry the sandals, let alone the sword, of Godfrey of Bouillon.
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national televison shows, and is the author of six books. His current position is chairman of The American Cause. His newest book, "Death of the West," will be published in January.
Beyond the hideous immorality of it all, do you know what the result would be? Yep, you guessed it. Every Muslim left on the planet (well maybe not every, but many, very many) would work towards nuking the US (Israel too, but who cares about Israel?), from a suitcase or whatever. Governments might clandestinely join in. The gloves would be off, totally.
Live with it.
If you are referring to Buchanan's putting his principles above party loyalty; yes, I admire that.
And no, I wasn't wild about his choice of running mates.
Look, here's the point: American foreign policy, and money given to foreign countries, should of course be with a view, from America's perspective, of "What's in it for us?" The problem is, there are many that think "What's in it for us?" is synonymous with "Let's screw Israel". It is not and I want no such thing; Israel has been, for the most part, a loyal and important ally.
But I don't think it hurts us to ask Israel what they can offer us, aside from the occasional Jonathon Pollard. To do so is only in the best interests of the US, and not with an eye to screwing Israel. What does the US get from Israel anyway, in return for our generosity; I'm not trying to be combative here, I honestly don't know.
This is not a budget argument I am making, it is one of practicality. I agree that 3-4 billion is not a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
...your continued slander of Buchanan. Please show mw where I have continued to slander Buchanan.
Many people believe in conservative causes but do not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan or his foolishness. There are liberals who agree with the beliefs of Al
Sharpton but for these same reasons, wish not to be associated with the person of Al Sharpton.
Here you state that nobody wants to be associated with Pat Buchanan or "his foolishness." I guess stating that Pat's thoughts are foolishness isn't slander in your book. Then stating that Pat is to conservatism what Sharpton is to liberalism wasn't an attempt at slander either right? It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. You think of a person who's an absolute disaster who's almost never made a sane productive comment, then tie a man like Buchanan to him, despite the fact that Buchanan has and continues to make concise fundamental and superlative observations to this day, even on this thread. Without directly comparing Buchanan to Sharpton, you achieve the same goal. When you guys can't slam him on his comments, and you can't endorse comments that you know to be dead on target, you simply make blanket statements intended to deligitimize him. Not only is it dishonest, it's beneath a true conservative to adopt the tactics of James Carville. Sorry bud, you slandered Buchanan big time and you know damn well you did.
Why then would you state that it's not worthy of discussion at this time? The Office of the Presidency provides a level of visibility that is unequaled. Setting the record straight is the very issue being addressed by public relations firms that have been hired to tell our side of the story to the Afghanistan and other middle-eastern nation's citizens. Why then would you consider it un inconsequential for Bush to mention the Crusades a couple of times? Why did you edit this supportive paragraph out of my response?
I never stated the crusades were not worthy of discussion. I only stated that I am glad we have the president we do in George W. Bush who is properly more concerned about building a coalition that will win the war, not settle an old score.
At minimum, Pat has a public image problem, and a lack of political deftness that shows itself in his article above. He critizes President Bush for abandoning the word
'crusade' and not taking the time and energy to challenge the world's preceptions on the mid-evil crusades. This is a good example of focusing on the minor things, not the major tasks at hand. Personally, I like how Bush is handling the war and am glad he didn't waste any time, energy or political clout to "prove" to the world that Christians continue to be maligned in the history-telling of the Crusades.
How can you sit there and type that you never stated the crusades were not worthy of discussion? You dismiss the call by Buchanan for Bush to do so stating that, "This is a good example of focusing on the minor things... I... ...am glad he (Bush) didn't waste his time, energy or political clout to "prove" to the world..." On the one hand you trash Buchanan for suggesting it, then applaud Bush for not wasting his time, then claim you never stated the Crusades were not worthy of discussion. In the overall skeme of things you certain did.
I explained why it is important for Bush to do so. We want the middle-easterners to hear this aspect of history which clearly isn't being taught them at home. We wamt them to begin to understand that we are not the pariah they have been taught. And during the time when we have their attention, it's very prudent to do so. In five years we won't have their attention or good will from just having liberated them. In reaction you dismissed my comments, edited them out and restated your own misguided opinion, then denied again the reality of what you have now said twice.
You have a fixation on Pat that borders on the absurd. The guy writes a descent article and all you can say is, "Yes but..." Many people believe in conservative causes but do not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan or his foolishness. There are liberals who agree with the beliefs of Al Sharpton but for these same reasons, wish not to be associated with the person of Al Sharpton.
My comments sought to focus your attention to Pat's comments which were timely and dead on target. To ask Bush to address the issue of the Crusades wasn't a monumental cheap shot at Bush. It was an attempt to bring to light an important issue. Once again, you got your hackles up before putting your brain in gear. Instead of realizing the importance of clarifying issues in the middle east, you instead turned your sights on Pat. Then your prime directive took over and you began to damn Pat at any cost, even if his comments had merit. Instead of addressing this oversight when I brought it up, you lashed out with the Al Sharpton diatribe.
You ignored the focus of my comments to level more charges. This has become so typical and knee-jerk on your part that you don't even see it. God knows, you're not the only one.
Pat has this same problem, except he now only agrees with conservatives half of the time.
Once again you are dead wrong. Pat does not disagree with conservatives half the time. He disagrees with RINOs about 80% of the time and with true conservatives about 10% of the time. The problem is, you are absolutely blind to a number of concepts that contribute toward this reality.
What gives? Nothing that you have posted justifies your actions. I was thinking the same thing about you.
Well, you are certainly free to continue to do so. Just realize that perceptions being what they are, certain of us are not going to understand your ability to do so.
You are either not reading the posts before you reply or are engaging in the behavior for which you have condemned Bush supporters.
I have addressed each of the issues you touched on. After doing so, this last sentence stands hollow as a Clinton promise. True enough, it does seem that one of us is not reading the same material. From my vantage point it even appears that one of us isn't reading his own posts, or at least comprehending what he has purposefully or inadvertantly conveyed. As for which of us is emulating Bush supporters track record with regard to Buchanan, I think that's abundantly clear.
I agree with you here. Each candidate is ultimately responsible for his own victory.
But Buchanan's response to Michigan losing a Right to Life/ NRA/Chamber of Commerce Senator and gaining a Teamster/NARAL/Handgun Control Senator is maddening to those of us who have to live with her for four years.
The fact that Pat Buchanan would brag about gaining enough votes from a conservative and thus replacing him with a liberal says volumes about his true intentions as a presidential candidate.
You are right, on both counts. If you had read all the posts you would have seen that I corrected myself on this point.
As to the rest of your post, here goes:
Fact one: Like it or not, many conservatives DO NOT want to be associated with Pat Buchanan due to his image problem. [I did not say that “NOBODY” wants to be associated with him or his foolishness, as you wrongly stated.] But you are not being intellectually honest by denying that Pat is not popular even with conservatives he claims to represent..
My statement about Pat’s “foolishness” has more to do with his controversial comments about the state of Israel, WWII and his chumminess with Lenora Fulani and Jimmy Hoffa. [I am not going to be dragged into rehashing every word he has said. But I think even Pat would agree that he has said too many things in these areas without thinking.]
Fact two: The Sharpton analogy holds true even if we substitute Newt Gingrich for Al Sharpton. Many conservatives do not want to be associated with Newt or his foolishness. We are thankful for many of the things that Newt has done for conservatives and many of his positions, but he too has an image problem. [“President Clinton made me ride in the back of the plane… sob, sob..” And how about Newt’s bashing Clinton for his Monica problem while he is banging his own secretary?] Newt, as well as Pat, was unfairly treated by the press. But like Buchanan, like Newt, was his own worst enemy.
Fact three: The world’s perception of the crusades IS worthy of discussion, but it IS NOT, nor should it be, the responsibility of President Bush at this time. Before attempting to educate the world on the virtues of mid-evil Christians and the barbarianism of Muslims, Bush should first ask himself, “Will this help us destroy Al-Queda, capture bin Laden, or crush the Taliban?” If the answer is ‘no’ then the idea should be left to those who write columns for conservative web sites, not the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief.
Do middle-easterners need to hear this side of history, as you claim? Yes. Can Bush do this job, while enlisting help from the leaders of the countries where these people reside? No.
Fact four: Pat only agrees with conservatives “half” the time. We may agree with Buchanan on abortion, putting God first, smaller government, NEA, etc. But we strongly disagree with Pat on support of Israel, free trade, taxes, fighting foreign terrorists, etc. [Whether it is 50 percent or not, I don’t know. But the issues we disagree on ARE significant.] BTW, I disagree with Bush on his education plan and on immigration.
And I strongly disagree with Pat Buchanan’s motives. He considered the upset of a conservative Michigan senator a victory for his campaign, even if that meant the election of an abortion supporting, big government, gun control, Teamster-backed senator would replace him. Like I said in an earlier post, this speaks volumes as to why he ran for president in the first place.
To which I say, “Thank God for the president we have in George W. Bush.”
I consider them essential to the understanding of Freedom.
And I consider Thomas to be one of the 'Founding Fathers'.
redrock
That's certainly the wish of the tireless band of haters who don't want Buchanan to get a hearing. Same tactics the campus Left have used for decades to shout down those they hate. Funny the similarity.
Yes, you and I know what their game is. And no he's not interested in intellectual honesty. And yes he is interested solely in demonizing Buchanan.
As for him conceding a point, he doesn't have to. Any normal person reading this tread would realize what he's up to, and that was my intent.
When I called him on specific point after specific point, and he continually ignored those main points only to make further slanders, he's didn't fooling anyone but himself. So I guess the one place I'd disagree with you is your assertion that he isn't ignorant. I beg to differ. I handed his lunch to him a number of times, which was abundantly clear by the end of my last extensive post. He said he did or didn't do something. Then I posted his own words to refute him. He didn't have the capacity to either note that I handed him his lunch or lauch a meaningful rebuttal. He simply replayed Side B at 33 1/3 rpm. This guy's only about three decades behind the curve.
Thanks for your comments. They document that another person that loves this nation was able to spot an intellectually dishonest disrupter when they saw one. I appreciate that. Take care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.