Obama’s Crusade Rhetoric Ripples Continue; Defense Strategy Run Amuck *Open Thread*

I wonder if Obama and his speechwriters had an idea that so much would be made of Obama’s Crusade speech at the Prayer Breakfast. Whether they did or not, that is still a big topic of discussion. It deserves to be, if you ask me, because it is such a window into how Obama really thinks. It is a DISTURBING window, but a window nonetheless.

One person still discussing this issue is Jonah Goldberg in his piece, “Horse Pucky From Obama.” The headline does say it all, but Goldberg does say more:

[…] “Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” Obama said, referring to the ennobling aspects of religion as well as the tendency of people to “hijack” religions for murderous ends.

[…]

Obama’s right. Terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. I have yet to meet a Christian who denies this.

But, as odd as it may sound for a guy named Goldberg to point it out, the Inquisition and the Crusades aren’t the indictments Obama thinks they are. For starters, the Crusades — despite their terrible organized cruelties — were a defensive war.

“The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living English-language historian of Islam.

As for the Inquisition, it needs to be clarified that there was no single “Inquisition,” but many. And most were not particularly nefarious. For centuries, whenever the Catholic Church launched an inquiry or investigation, it mounted an “inquisition,” which means pretty much the same thing.

Historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, writes that the “Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.” […]

There Goldberg goes – injecting FACTS into Obama’s disturbing rhetorical argument. But he also called Obama out for targeting Christians while continuing to allow Muslims off the hook:

[…] I cannot defend everything done under the various Inquisitions — especially in Spain — because some of it was indefensible. But there’s a very important point to make here that transcends the scoring of easy, albeit deserved, points against Obama’s approach to Islamic extremism (which he will not call Islamic): Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.

Christianity ended greater barbarisms under pagan Rome. The church often fell short of its ideals — which all human things do — but its ideals were indisputably a great advance for humanity. Similarly, while some rationalized slavery and Jim Crow in the U.S. by invoking Christianity, it was ultimately the ideals of Christianity itself that dealt the fatal blow to those institutions. Just read any biography of Martin Luther King Jr. if you don’t believe me.

When Obama alludes to the evils of medieval Christianity, he fails to acknowledge the key word: “medieval.” What made medieval Christianity backward wasn’t Christianity but medievalism.

It is perverse that Obama feels compelled to lecture the West about not getting too judgmental on our “high horse” over radical Islam’s medieval barbarism in 2015 because of Christianity’s medieval barbarism in 1215.

It’s also insipidly hypocritical. President Obama can’t bring himself to call the Islamic State “Islamic,” but he’s happy to offer a sermon about Christianity’s alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

It is beyond hypocritical for Obama to call out Christians for events centuries ago yet refuse to name Islamic extremists for what they are: Islamic. And especially in the face of the mind boggling, breathtaking, barbarism displayed by ISIS just in the past week.

But Goldberg isn’t the only one faulting Obama for his comments as we know. But that an Obama sycophant like Andrea Mitchell speaks out against his comments says a lot about just how low Obama went. From BizPacReview:

[…] “And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don’t lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers,” she said. “You have to deal with the issue that’s in front of you or don’t deal with it at all.”

Host and NBC political director Chuck Todd countered later into the discussion that a lot of conservative politicians invoke faith. But there’s a difference when it’s the head of state, Mitchell insisted.

“But he’s the president and you can’t really go back to 1095,” she said.

“So you think he made a mistake?” Todd asked.

“I do,” Mitchell replied. “Because it’s so out of context and it is so much in passing. If you’re giving a major speech about theology perhaps, but this is the Prayer Breakfast and remember, the context of that is very limited.” […] (Click here to read the rest.)

Can you believe that? ANDREA MITCHELL!!! Wow.

But this mindset of Obama’s, this absolute refusal to name these terrorists for who they are, is having a tremendous effect on our Defense strategy according to former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt.G. Michael Flynn. From the Washington Examiner:

[…] You can’t defeat an enemy you don’t admit exists,” he said, “and I think that we have to clearly define that the enemy is, that’s No. 1.”

He said the nation needs to “clearly articulate a strategy broader than just counterterrorrism.”

Flynn likened the nation to a football team in the huddle on the field: When the quarterback says “ready, break,” the team should head down the field and carry out a unified play to move the ball. “I feel like when we say ‘ready, break,’ all the players that are on the team are going off into different stadiums playing different sports.” […] (Click here to read the rest.)

No, you cannot defeat an enemy you refuse to name as Obama does with Islamic extremists. That he has no qualms attacking Christians who are NOT committing heinous acts of terrorism is troubling on a host of levels, but we cannot defeat an enemy the President refuses to acknowledge.

This mindset of his is dangerous for our nation, no doubt about it. Something’s gotta give, and I sure hope it isn’t our national security…

This is an Open Thread.

Tags: Barack Obama, Islamic terrorism, National Prayer Breakfast, National Security