Running against history, Rick Santorum defends the Crusades

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rick Santorum is insane. And he doesn't know anything about history either:

Rick Santorum launched into a scathing attack on the left, charging during an appearance in South Carolina that the history of the Crusades has been corrupted by "the American left who hates Christendom."

"The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical," Santorum said in Spartanburg on Tuesday. "And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom."

He added, "They hate Western civilization at the core. That's the problem."

After asserting that Christianity had not shown any "aggression" to the Muslim world, the former Pennsylvania senator — who is considering a 2012 run for the White House — argued that American intervention in the Middle East helps promote "core American values."

So he's defending the Crusades and directly linking them, a bloodthirsty, rapacious, avaricious assault on the "Holy Land" and on Islam generally, to the Iraq War and other warmongering interventions (i.e., invasions) in the Middle East?

It's like he's trying to out-Palin Palin. Which of course he is. He's dropping hints about running, he's making high-profile appearances in early-primary states like South Carolina, and he's evidently trying to capture the right-wing Republican base that loves Palin in order to succeed against the likes of Romney and Pawlenty -- the former who has yet to win over conservatives (and who never will) and who will only win moderates and perhaps business-oriented conservatives, the latter who is trying desperately to come across as a hardcore social conservative but who is a dull midwestern governor who may only win establishment Republicans, if anyone at all. Should Palin not run, there will be room in the race for a far-righter. It may not be Huckabee, who's a bit of a renegade anyway, and it won't be Pence, and it's not Rubio's time yet, and no doubt most of the smarter Republicans realize it's a long shot to beat Obama in any event, so maybe it'll be Santorum who fills the void.

Makes sense, even if Santorum himself does not.

I would just note, getting back to the Crusades, that it's not really a "scathing" attack if it's completely crazy and utterly ill-founded.

And it doesn't mean you hate Christianity, and certainly not "Western Civilization," when you point out that the Crusades were pretty bloody violent and that the Christians who went on them were not entirely motivated by those noble and supposedly "Christian" ideals of peace, love, and understanding. They were about conquering the Holy Land, yes, but also about raping and plundering and making off with as much booty as possible, and the targets were not just Muslims but Jews and others as well, including other, non-Roman Catholic Christians (Santorum, by the way, is Roman Catholic), and of course domestic politics played into them as well. (It was all quite complicated, much more complicated than Santorum's ignorantly superficial revisionism suggests.)

To anyone who actually cares about, and seeks to understand, history, Santorum's claim is simply ridiculous. But of course he's appealing not to those who care about history, nor to those who live in reality and seek to deal with reality as is, but to the Republican base, to those who live deeply embedded in ignorance, delusion, and deception, willfully or otherwise.

It's too early to say how well he's doing, but he's sure going for it.

(image)

Turkish delight: House fails to vote on Armenian genocide resolution

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The "Lame Duck" Congress did a great deal, yes, but unfortunately it did not pass -- and did not even vote on -- a resolution by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) recognizing the 1915-17 massacre of about 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks for what it was: genocide.

As you may know, Turkey, along with its agents in the U.S. (including the Congressional Turkish Caucus), has waged a massive campaign to revise history and silence anyone who would dare call it genocide. That word, it seems, is just too much -- even if it's absolutely the right word to use.

This campaign has been waged around the world, but in the U.S. what Turkey wants it to block Congress from passing any such resolution and the president from saying genocide. So much so that it has threatened diplomatic reprisals.

Various resolutions have made their way out of committee in recent years, but thus far no resolution has been passed. And Obama has thus far refrained from saying genocide.

The pressure from Turkey and the concern over U.S.-Turkish relations have no doubt trumped any other considerations. In this case, as The Hill reports, "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent Obama a letter Monday asking him to prevent the vote, warning that it could damage ties between the two countries." Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu also pressured Hillary Clinton.

I have written about this issue -- the Armenian genocide and the failure to recognize it as such -- a few times already:

-- Genocidal denial: Bush, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Oct. 2007)

-- Genocide is genocide: Exposing the truth about the Turkish massacre of Armenians (Mar. 2010); and

-- Anything but genocide: Obama, Turkey, and the Armenian Holocaust (Apr. 2010).

What happened was genocide. What is going on now, almost a century later, is still a despicable cover-up. I repeat what I wrote in the third of the posts listed above:

While I suspect that Obama [and Nancy Pelosi, too, who refused to bring Schiff's resolution to a vote] knows full well that it was genocide, and that the Turks are, on this issue, a nation of collective revisionists (and liars), he is effectively contributing to the Turkish campaign, perpetuating Turkey's massive lie, taking Turkey's side against efforts in Congress to call it genocide, and all because he wants to avoid annoying the Turks and risking... what?

Yes, what exactly? Is he afraid that Ankara won't return his phone calls? Is Turkey such an essential ally that it must be appeased no matter what? Would Turkey really refuse to do business with the U.S. and/or support U.S. foreign policy if Obama actually took a firm stand and called it genocide? Sure, the Turks would whine and complain and threaten to sever diplomatic ties, as they've done before (even over non-binding committee resolutions in the House of Representatives), but so what? Does anyone honestly think Turkey can do without America? Please.

Honestly, I wish the president would pull a Jon Stewart and tell the Turks to go fuck themselves.

Diplomatically, of course.

Just call it genocide. And stop helping Turkey get away with it.