Conservatives Rehabilitate the Crusades While Scott Wolter Says He's Not Sure What Happened on 9/11
In the news this week has been the disturbing reaction of Christian conservatives, particularly Republican officials, to Pres. Obama’s reference to the Crusades as an example of religious violence. Because history is a weapon in today’s world, this episode in history, which left between one and three million people dead, has become a litmus test for how much one loves Jesus and identifies with a particular brand of conservative Christian culture against all others. Here’s conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum justifying the Crusades:
The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom. They hate Christendom. They hate Western civilization at the core. That’s the problem.
Jonah Goldberg declared that the Crusades were defensive in nature.
Muslims conquered Jerusalem from the Christian East Roman (Byzantine) empire in 637 CE. (It had previously fallen to the Persians in 614, but had been regained.) The Crusades began in 1095, and the Crusaders retook Jerusalem in 1099—more than 450 years after the conquest! In chronological terms, it would be like Spain deciding today that it was finally time to revenge itself against England for the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
[Update: The claim that conservatives were citing the fall of Jerusalem as a justification for the Crusades, repeated in the Daily Beast article linked above, appears to originate with Slate journalist William Saletan, but after more research, I have not been able to confirm exactly how many conservatives specifically cited this. William Donohue of the Catholic League was one, and Jonah Golberg was another, both citing Bernard Lewis.]
This isn’t just a disturbing bit of Christian apologia but also symptomatic of the widespread revisionist history we see across the fringe spectrum as well. The Crusades made the careers of the Knights Templar, and we see in fringe history a similar justification of the Crusades as having a secret agenda that somehow excuses their barbarity. The Disinformation Guide to Ancient Aliens etc. attributes the Crusades to the Templars’ manipulation to recover the Ancient of Days. Similarly, Scott Wolter, as you remember, excused the Crusades as a conspiracy designed to get the Templars to Jerusalem to recover from the Temple Mount “technology,” “scrolls,” and other material that the Muslims somehow failed to find while building the Dome of the Rock. Wolter, like Santorum, similarly accused Islam of aggressive actions that resulted in the “proto-Templars” fleeing Spain for Arizona.
Speaking of Scott Wolter, over on his blog, our favorite forensic geologist expressed sympathy for the 9/11 Truth movement. When someone brought up a conspiracy theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a jet on September 11, 2001, Wolter, who worked on analyzing the Pentagon crash site after 9/11, rightly criticized this conspiracy theory before making some ill-considered remarks that suggest that he sympathizes with conspiracy theorists about the destruction of the World Trade Center: “I have no problem with people being skeptical about what happened on 9-11. I don't know all that happened at Ground Zero, but I do know what happened at the Pentagon.” Conspiracy theorists who share Wolter’s obsession with Freemasons have asserted that Al-Qaeda targeted the Twin Towers as representations of Freemasonry’s twin pillars, Jachin and Boaz, which in turn are implied in some Masonic texts to be related to the Pillars of Wisdom set up by Enoch before the Flood to preserve antediluvian knowledge.
It is perhaps interesting that Wolter sees no conspiracy where his reputation as a geologist would be directly impacted by such conspiracy theories, but remains open to questioning 9/11 events where he was not directly involved.
Wolter also told another visitor to his blog that he could not use the Hooked X® in a screenplay because (a) another company is already making a Hooked X® movie and (b) the Hooked X® is trademarked. The latter claim is false. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Wolter holds a trademark on the words “Hooked X” and that this trademark is limited to “publications, namely, books in the field of historical artifacts.” This wordmark does not cover the actual symbol of an X with a hook on the end of one stave, and I have a letter from the attorneys for A+E Networks, the parent of Wolter’s network overlords, confirming their agreement that the symbol, more properly called the variant-A rune, is in the public domain since it has been known since at least 1898.
It doesn’t really surprise me anymore when fringe history figures say weird things, but Ancient Aliens star Giorgio Tsoukalos surprised me by telling his Twitter followers that he believes that all organized religion is attributable to the influence of ancient astronauts.
I suppose that if one’s claim is that God is simply a mask for aliens that this would make some sort of sense, but it grants the aliens an enormous amount of influence over human behavior, particularly when huge swaths of modern religious expression can be traced to specific decisions made by known humans in historic times. I’d also be interested to hear Tsoukalos debate his mentor, Erich von Däniken, on whether Jesus was an alien. Tsoukalos may be open to the idea, but von Däniken has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that Jesus was a space alien.
I will wait with baited breath for their views on the how the Crusades were organized by competing factions of aliens as a proxy war to control Middle Eastern monoatomic gold reserves. Oh, wait: In 2002’s The Gods Were Astronauts, von Däniken implies (but never actually says) that the Crusaders recovered space alien secrets from the tombs of the patriarchs in the Holy Land and hid them away in the Vatican.
You might also find it interesting that Wolter and Tsoukalos have both blocked me from reading their tweets, as though the minor inconvenience of having to log out of Twitter before they become visible somehow will keep their feeds hidden from me.
2/12/2015 06:10:20 am
His show suggests that 20th century engineers and physicists were divinely, I mean, extraterrestrially inspired. So sure, why not all religions. Agrees with what Vallee suggested about contactee groups in Messengers of Deception (that they were created either by intelligence agents or other political actors, or by his "control" force), as well as the suggestion in "The Call of Cthulhu" that religion stems from the psychic emanations of an ancient alien stuck in an ancient city underwater. I find all three sources to be about as good.
2/12/2015 10:22:51 am
I wonder if Tsoukalos meant to include the really dumb organized religions, like Scientology?
Duke of URL
2/13/2015 03:09:51 am
EP, Scientology is /nothing but/ ancient aliens - haven't you ever heard of Xenu?
2/13/2015 03:46:49 am
That was part of the joke Duke of URL...
Ah, of course you knew. Sorry, I've been reading too many posts by 666 and StL...
2/13/2015 07:31:49 am
2/12/2015 02:06:31 pm
I get the feeling that Tsoukalos of all the Ancient Aliens folks particularly aims at the "iconoclastic" sweet spot on the moebius strip of the fringe that reflexively rejects organized everything and believes everything is a lie but has no greater ideology beyond what has floated by them in the last month or so. It's that spot the Zeitgeist movie catered to a few years ago, and the one that Icke successfully danced on for a few years.
2/12/2015 02:32:59 pm
I tried watching Zeitgeist. It became too disturbing because I caught myself literally fantasizing about everyone who is into it being herded into re-education camps. You know, razor wire, guard towers, the works...
2/13/2015 07:19:48 am
Come on now. Your average Zeitgeist fan is going to be too wasted to get off the couch (as long as they have their phone on them to still be able to write comments). I get really worried about nutters who can get co-opted by or hijack political power. About all that crowd is going to seize is a bag of Doritos.
2/13/2015 07:28:09 am
That's why I readily admit that my reaction is irrationally excessive. I make no apologies for fantasies of Glenn Beck and his fans being herded into FEMA death camps :)
2/12/2015 06:15:01 am
To be fair, I think in reading the initial primary source, the call was made by Urban, and as wiki reports, was "responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia."
2/12/2015 06:48:57 am
You're right, Byron, about the difference between the rhetoric and the reality. The Byzantine emperor needed help defending the empire, and he appealed to Christian solidarity to secure that help. But he wasn't as concerned that the invaders were Muslims as that they were invading his empire! The Church, on the other hand, according to accounts written after the fact, preached the Crusade as a way to free the Holy Land from the "wicked race." I'm sure the Byzantines would have been fine with it not being cast in those terms, but the Crusaders (though perhaps not Urban II himself) saw the goal as freeing Jerusalem, which they used as the justification for expanding the war beyond the Byzantine frontier. For them, if not for the top elites, the war was imagined as righting a 450 year old wrong, even though no one thought to try for 450 years!
2/12/2015 06:54:29 am
Also, I must mention, I believe of the few primary sources on Pope Urban II's speech at the Council of Clermont some were written decades after the event. These later accounts include the Holy Land and Jerusalem more than the earlier ones.
2/12/2015 07:00:30 am
(cont. from above)
2/13/2015 12:17:07 am
2/13/2015 12:21:59 am
2/13/2015 02:06:48 am
That's a touching travelogue, did you write it 666? Of course since the walls around Jerusalem were built in the 16th century by Suleiman the location of the crusaders breech is probably a guess.
2/13/2015 02:11:17 am
Broken link from above:
2/13/2015 02:28:25 am
It was written by Jeff Fountain, YWAM Europe
2/17/2015 03:01:02 am
Excellent; I was going to make mention of similar, but you handled much better than I could have.
Turkey's troops went over the Syrian border because of ISIS/ISIL threats
2/22/2015 05:21:02 am
2/12/2015 06:20:23 am
Without stepping into the modern culture wars - a difficult process - it's possible to argue the initiation of the crusades was defensive. But that's primarily because the Byzantine emperor under pressure from from the Islamic advance caused by the defeat at Manzikert wanted mercenaries, hopefully ones who could maybe push into Syria. He certainly didn't want a full religious crusade.
2/12/2015 06:51:11 am
It would be pretty hard for modern culture warriors to argue that the Fourth Crusade was a shining moment in "defending" Christendom.
2/12/2015 10:15:59 am
But I suppose they *could* argue that the Albigensian Crusade was purely defensive in nature and that anyone who doubts that hates Western Civilization (and America!)... :)
2/12/2015 06:40:17 am
Godfrey de Bouillon massacred both Jews and Muslims
2/12/2015 06:56:14 am
Just wait until ppl who blog about '9/11' find out what Wolter's been getting up to recently, vis-a-vis his expertise wrt the 9/11 commission.
2/12/2015 07:13:05 am
I also like how most people who try to rationalize the Crusades fail to understand that the Crusaders also ended up killing large numbers of Christians in the Byzantine Empire and across the Holy Land. Heck, the Fourth Crusade only really succeeded in sacking Zara and Constantinople, both Christian cities!
2/18/2015 05:08:34 am
Well said. As I recall, there were plenty of Christians in Jerusalem as well. The Crusaders killed everyone though- regardless of religious background/ beliefs.
2/12/2015 09:58:11 am
My understanding of the Republican stance on the crusades as it relates to recent comments made by the President is a little different than yours, Jason.
2/12/2015 10:14:06 am
To be fair, Santorum does not speak for the Republican Party. He speaks for the Christian Conservative fringe of the Republicans. Identifying him as the voice of the Republicans is almost like identifying the segregationist Southern Democrats as the voice of the Democratic Party circa 1950.
2/12/2015 10:52:41 am
Here we have a wide range of responses, which range from people like Santorum, who are pandering to extremists without reference to facts, to conservative pundits who have made various forms of the claim that the Crusades were a good thing. Some follow your line of reasoning; Ross Douthat for example notes exactly what you did, though, some of the less scrupulous pundits did not: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/the-case-against-the-case-against-the-crusades/?_r=0
2/18/2015 05:14:06 am
Maybe not at the top, but I'm a conservative and know lots of diehard conservatives. They've mentioned the Muslim conquest of Spain way back in the day, as well as killing Christian pilgrims.
9/3/2015 09:13:27 am
Islamic forces had been conducting holly wars against Christians and other religions for sometime its how Islam spread at the time. and at several points they conquered European land. Islamic empires did not recognize " Infidel" governments. The main reason for the crusades was access to trade Constantinople was essential to Europe's trade routes. Most of the religious aspects of the crusades where purely rhetoric. The insinuation that the crusades are any more deplorable than any other conquest in history is absurd.
2/12/2015 11:01:58 am
By the way, it must be pointed out that even if we accept that the Crusades were largely defensive (a tenuous, though not an indefensible position imo), that does not stop them from being an example of mass relgious violence. Ditto if we identify non-religious causes of the Crusades (geopolitical, socio-economic, etc.) or think that they are morally defensible or ultimately beneficial.
2/12/2015 03:07:00 pm
2/12/2015 03:22:56 pm
EP, I totally agree.
2/18/2015 05:16:34 am
Yeah, it looks like anyone would want to distance themselves from any action that involves things like roasting dead babies and slaughtering entire populations (aside from stuff in the Bible)...even if religion hadn't been involved...but apparently not?...
2/12/2015 11:22:27 am
The Tsoukalos thing becomes weirder when we consider that believes in God (as he's said in the past), but doesn't believe that God is responsible for *any* organized religion.
2/12/2015 11:55:21 am
Surely Tsoukalos has progressed beyond the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds!
2/13/2015 04:40:42 am
Does double-think count as a religion?
2/13/2015 05:23:59 am
Well... It *is* a way of life... ;)
Duke of URL
2/13/2015 07:33:52 am
Shane, you have it backward - double-think is an essential part of religion, but not a religion in itself.
2/12/2015 06:39:27 pm
The Templars recovered ancient technology scrolls? Of course! Surely one of those scrolls contained schematics for building some kind of holographic projector which projected the image of a giant head much like Zordon from Power Rangers which lead to the eventual trial and destruction of the Templars! It all makes sense now!
2/12/2015 07:42:42 pm
In regards to the Obama dustup, I understand the points Jason has made, as well as, those made by some of the commenters. I can also understand why some would be offended by what Obama said.
2/13/2015 03:51:41 am
Giogrio should post that video of him making two rubber figurines hump at a dinner table. The one that is (or at least *was*) on his Facebook page.
2/13/2015 06:30:52 am
Now why would that remind me of the scene in Spaceballs, where Colonel Sanders walks in on Dark Helmet playing with his dolls?
2/13/2015 06:35:02 am
2/13/2015 05:04:30 pm
Why, EP, why!? I considered you my brother!
2/13/2015 07:40:01 am
Considering that the US has launched thousands of air strikes and at least a few covert on the ground missions against ISIL, and that Obama just asked for a declaration of war against the organization (which is being criticized largely as a fig leaf on an already existing war months old), I'm not really sure empathy is the right word.
2/13/2015 08:09:53 am
"One cannot understand the American Right in the early 21st century without understanding conspiracy culture, because that lies at the core of the movement now."
2/13/2015 08:49:39 am
There is something of a struggle, sometimes. Other times, they embrace.
2/13/2015 09:12:48 am
Traditional Republicans are there. They are just going Democrat (if they are sufficiently moderate and honest) or staying out of the fight until the wackjobs wipe each other out (if they are like Romney).
2/14/2015 02:19:49 am
Interesting discussion. Conspiracy theories have paid political dividends for more than 230 years here in the U.S. that's why they are often employed. During the Tea Act crisis, theories were floated that tea caused all sorts of mental and physical maladies, kind of similiar to "Reefer Madness." Recently, during the Clinton years the crazies on the right came out accusing him of a spate of conspiratorial murders, akin to insane ideas about our current 'socialist Muslim anti-Christ' President. As long as people are so easily steered by their hatreds and dislikes instead of heeding any critical thinking we will have these wackadoos believing the latest two-bit Karl Rove claiming crazy things for political gain.
2/14/2015 02:35:59 am
Byron, did you ever endorse any anti-Bush conspiracies that you kinda now wish you didn't?
a pundit seyz
2/21/2015 03:05:30 pm
Rick Santorum is not a theologian, he is a politician.
MITT ROMNEY IS NOT A BAY STATE LIBERAL, HE's A CENTRIST....
2/21/2015 03:11:27 pm
Rick Santorum is running once again for the same high public office
2/13/2015 08:03:22 am
Don't get me wrong, spookyparadigm, I agree with you. The empathy thing is something I remember Hillary Clinton saying, well before Obama started asking for a declaration of war.
2/13/2015 08:40:45 am
Not all, no. But I also don't cotton to false equivalence on this topic. Things like corruption it seems are pretty bipartisan. But this particular thing is skewed to one side.
2/13/2015 08:53:11 am
Recall the Bush years, however. Loose Change, Skull & Bones, Leo Strauss... the list goes on. (Even the Segway fall was a Big Oil conspiracy, for God's sake!)
2/13/2015 09:05:35 am
2/13/2015 09:17:10 am
I'm putting them in the same bucket as desperate allies against the cancer destroying their party. I am not suggesting that they are ideologically close. In fact, that's why I distinguished between them in the first place.
2/13/2015 10:41:24 am
EP, both my experience watching such, and polls I've seen at the time and since, suggest that about half of 9/11 Truthers, Skull and Bones, etc. conspiracy believers during the Bush years were far-right conservatives of the Ron Paul/Alex Jones set.
2/13/2015 10:48:47 am
To clarify, if conspiracy theory in the US followed who owns the white house, then we would expect that the vast majority of Birthers etc. now would be GOP, and the vast majority of Truthers to have been DNC.
2/13/2015 10:52:09 am
"there is a much larger core of American conservatives who more habitually view the world through a conspiracy theory lens"
2/13/2015 10:56:10 am
"This was not the case."
2/13/2015 10:57:20 am
The never ending well of corporate support for as "just entertainment" or "balance" is kind of the meta-point of Jason's TV reviews.
2/13/2015 11:17:34 am
It's one thing to flirt with Holocaust denialists if you're in publicity-reliant entertainment. It's another thing if you're planning to run for public office in America. That is why corporate backing of envelope-pushing, unpredictable wackjobs is a double-edged sword politically, even if it's good business.
2/13/2015 11:22:57 am
Precisely, but regarding your way out in the above post, there still seems to be way too much money interested in supporting the radicals. Sure, the GOP organizers who want Romney or Bush III clearly understand the problem they face, but between conservative media and various donors (Koch backing Scott Walker, at least for now) are insulated from failure and can continue to throw out red meat either because it is a legitimate business strategy or because they don't feel the sting of failure and just figure they weren't _correct enough_ last time.
2/13/2015 11:42:53 am
The Koch brothers should ask Ross Perot about the sting of failure. Or, better yet, ask all those who got burned by his antics. (Also, keep in mind that quite a few of these people, like Howard Ahmanson, have serious psychological issues and may not be the best judges of what to do with their own money.) Being good at making money doesn't always coincide with being good at politics. I think we're back to the question of scientists in conspiracy circles... heh...)
2/14/2015 02:24:28 am
I would like to make a couple points in response to Only Me.
2/14/2015 08:20:51 am
The problem with Scott is he has made it a point to refer to himself as a forensic geologist. He has staked his reputation on the veracity of his "Big Three" rune stones. He has made repeated claims that because he's doing "hard science", academia simply must accept that he's right. Now he's trumpeting that the Church will have to come clean with their centuries-long conspiracies because of his "research" into the Templars-Holy Bloodline.
2/13/2015 09:01:17 am
As a libertarian and conservative this one is a tough one for me to respond to without appearing defensive. Defending the crusades as a defensive or preemptive war is beyond silly. Was it a way to unite a very fragmented Europe by the only central authority..sure. But by the time of the crusades, the Moslem threat to Europe for the most part had subsided at least until the fall of the Byzantium empire a few centuries later and by then it wasn't so much a religious conflect as a proto nation state (Ottoman versus the various Balkan kingdoms).
2/13/2015 09:23:50 am
"many of us have science and engineering degrees, probably more than liberals."
2/13/2015 10:53:21 am
Actually, I'd disagree with that. Engineering degrees seem almost over-represented (I've not run any numbers if one could, but it seems very common in my experience) in conspiracy circles, followed by theology; with media studies degrees (for those on the left). I'll leave any explanation of that to the psychology people except to note that conspiracy theories are inherently about people, not physics.
2/13/2015 11:06:01 am
All things being equal hard science or engineering degrees impart some level of critical thinking. It's not hard to find some very ill informed thinking by liberals based more on emotion than facts. And I'm still unclear on how republicans who are not wall steer or neocon types are a threat to the party. If being against crony capitalism,deficit spending, bailouts of the well connected , annd for peace is considered fringe we are in trouble.
2/13/2015 11:06:29 am
But we're talking about conservative engineers, not conspiracy-mongering engineers. As far as crazies, yeah, I get the same feeling. (Though one must always be careful to separate the worthless/fictitious degrees, which is a huge part of Theology degrees, I believe.)
2/13/2015 11:12:56 am
What I was saying (I don't want to speak for spookyparadigm or anyone else) is that the Christian Right (as well as some xenophobic and anti-government hangers-on) are turning more and more extreme and in the process making it hard for the Republicans to make a persuasive case to the moderate Americans when it really counts. I mean, Sarah Palin, Todd Akin, the recent abortion ban fiasco, the anti-gay campaigners... things like that...
2/13/2015 11:18:42 am
Re: Emotional "non-critical" liberals
2/13/2015 11:30:27 am
A lack of basic common sense seems to pervade fringe types. I asked scott wolter how the Minoans led minning expeditions to upper Michigan given their naval vessels, lack of navigation tools, problems of coming down the saint laurance. He responded that we need to learn more about their sea skills and engineering. Just read a book on the atlantic by the author Simon Winchester, until the 15 th century, the technology simple wasn't there for major minning expeditions and support across the Atlantic.
2/13/2015 11:34:27 am
I think we should all agree that no part of political spectrum is immune from appeals to emotion. And, unlike the case of conspiracies, I don't think there is even any prima facie evidence for thinking that one side is more resistant to them than the other.
2/13/2015 12:58:31 pm
As someone who is involved in local economics clubs you can't stop fringe types from participating. There was this guy dressed like a biker who came to debates we had on bailouts and the fed back in 2009. He was out there but just because he supported say a fed audit didn't mean the idea was fringe.
2/13/2015 01:23:44 pm
"you can't stop fringe types from participating"
2/13/2015 12:16:52 pm
Just a few additional recent statements made by Scott Wolter on his blog...
2/13/2015 12:24:17 pm
That last comment makes me wonder how hard Scott will have to work at exonerating Steve St. Clair's bloodline from the "oppression and tyranny" that *he* claims lead to the birth of the Templars...the same order Steve's family testified against!
2/13/2015 01:27:48 pm
Hey, you can't fight The Call of the Blood. After all, everyone knows that if there is anything crazy inbred Egyptian pharaohs were all about, it's freedom and democracy! :)
2/13/2015 06:11:09 pm
Get a load of this post on February 4th that Wolter put on his blog in regards to the KRS mold:
2/14/2015 03:20:42 am
He won't allow proper rebuttal to be posted on his site, such as this from a University of Minnesota Geology Professor who had seen the KRS both before and after:
2/14/2015 06:26:41 am
Sanatorium conservative? Maybe a bush conservative but the guys economic views are pretty statist and is foriegn policy pretty interventionist. The GOP before he bushes were very hesitant to engage in war. Warren Harding actually signed the peace treaty with germany, robert Taft was against the police action in Korea, Ike declined to fight the Russians in Hungary and ended the Korean war and stopped the illegal israeli,France, British Invasion of the suez in 56. Heck even Nixon ended the Vietnam war. It wasn't until those crazy neocons took over the party with daddy bush that the GOP wanted to fight to make the world safe for goldman Sachs, and crony Arab states like Kuwait. Sanatorium us the problem Ali g with Lindsey graham, McCain, and the whole israeli first gang that tends to dominate the establishment GOP foriegn policy experts. They should just go back to the Democratic Party where they came from. Bill kristol and friends are a much bigger threat to our rights than Bernie sanders.
2/14/2015 06:50:50 am
I think your use of the word 'conservative' is in conflict with contemporary usage. You're free to use it however you like, of course, but you can't expect to be understood or get exasperated when people use it appropriately.
2/17/2015 05:04:43 am
I disagree. Reducing down to a media driven paradigm maybe defines movements for the chattering classes but you would be surprised how many people understand the definitions given by the media and academic/govt elites are often wrong and simply serve their interests. What is "liberal" today? I would suggest liberals talk often about equality and economic populism. Yet the Fed has stolen billions from savers with zero percent rates...that impacts the poor an those on a fixed income the most all to bailout billiionare bankers. How could a liberal who believes govt should regulate pretty much everything by setting prices be against auditing the Fed? Yet so many are. If "contemporary" usage is wrong, then its productive to define the usage in the correct way. If we don't then we simply fall into the false narrative the political class wants us in to serve their agendas.
2/17/2015 05:17:56 am
I.e., you think you know what words mean better than the experts. Okay. How is one to respond to that?
2/21/2015 02:19:10 pm
Rick Santorum holds views that are different from
2/21/2015 02:37:03 pm
Rick Santorum is a Reagan Democrat on metaphoric steroids
Titus, so what that Harding signed the treaty with Germany and Austro-Hungary, or rather the nations that came out of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and with Turkey and the rest of the old Ottoman Empire? The only reason it wasn't ratified prior to 1921 ( I believe) was that the congress and senate Republicans refused due to their opposition to the League of Nations. Frankly , giving him credit for ending WWI is like giving Jimmy Carter credit for the Vienna Congress. Neither did anything at all, and years after the fact they both signed because the congress and senate got their fingers out and ratified.
2/21/2015 02:48:46 pm
Teddy Roosevelt served in Bill McKinley's War Dep't and
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.