While searching for CNN's story on Troopergate, I came across a surprising statement of Palin's quoted by Anderson Cooper: that the war in Iraq was "a task that is from God":
Wow! CNN caught Palin saying on tape that Iraq was a task from God. Ouch![Palin] also talked to church members about “being saved” at the Assembly of God and suggested to them that the war in Iraq is a mission from God. Palin said, “our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
But then I listended to the clip. Palin actually said:
“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”I find it hard to believe that Anderson Cooper does not understand the difference between praying for something you hope is true and stating that it is true. Is praying for peace throughout the world the same as saying that there is peace throughout the world?
I'm an atheist, but I'm not so old or out of touch that I don't know that Palin was doing what Christians often do: praying that what the country was doing was God's will. It's not strange for a Christian to hope that what you want to do or think is right is indeed God's will.
When I was growing up, I used to enjoy hearing our local Congressman, John B. Anderson (who ran for president in 1980), preach in the Protestant Church I went to as a child. He was certainly more interesting than our regular pastor. In Chicago, it's common to see news clips of politicians speaking in churches (often African American ones) on the eve of elections, and sometimes those politicians urge that someone vote for a particular candidate.
The people who misinterpreted the remark were either parroting left-wing talking points, which were deliberately skewed, or are not good at reading comprehension (ie: really, really stupid). Or, as you say, they're old and out of touch. Pick your poison.
Oh, and pretty soon there'll be 200 comments or so trying to say that she really was saying that the Iraq war was a task from God. Because the THE ONE cannot be denied victory!
Coming from a Chicago guy, wouldn't '... Iraq is "a mission from God."' have been a better post title?
http://sarahpalinrumors.blogspot.com/
Number of rumors debunked to date: 71 (and growing)
Regarding the subject of your post - that would be rumor #23:
* * *
#23 No, she's doesn't believe that the Iraq War was directed by God. Yes, she did pray that proceeding with the war was God's will: "they should pray 'that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.'” (Ever hear the phrase "Not my will, but Thine, be done"?) Yes, this apparently freaks some people right out.
* * *
http://sarahpalinrumors.blogspot.com/
Yes - it's clear to all that you are much more knowledgable than the Governor of Alaska on all thing international. You're a legend in your own mind.
And Ronald Reagan was an agreeable ignoramus.
And George W. Bush is a moron.
They got elected to the Presidency due to: (1) the ignorance of the public, (2) family connections, (3) [what's the latest excuse?]
Honestly, don't you guys get tired of this line of attack? If you believe your own rhetoric, what does it say about your side if it continues to be beaten by morons?
I'm not saying it's true, but I am weirdly fascinated by Jay Leno's "jaywalking" interviews and that "are you smarter than a 5th grader" thing, so don't dismiss it without argument....
You might try arguing with, or agreeing with, what I actually wrote and not your preconceived notions about what I might believe but did not express.
I would add you have no clue about Iraq policy beyond assigning empty slogans to politicians you disagree with philosophically.
Why is the Liberal Media ignoring this story?
I just said that I haven't heard anything from Sarah Palin that suggests that her knowledge of Iraq policy was particularly deep.
Perhaps she will demonstrate that knowledge in the future.
But either way, that point has nothing to do with whether I would be in my depth discussing the middle east with experts.
The Ace, I didn't assign her the word "victory". She used it in her speeches.
Again, it helps to look at what I actually said. I have seen no indication that her thoughts on Iraq run any deeper than that sort of slogan. Perhaps they do and she will demonstrate it. She hasn't yet.
When?
Where?
How about a link?
Is that all she said?
Don't worry, you can't answer.
And you said it was an empty slogan.
Without any sort of evidence of course.
Palin needs your help. Rescue her from her statements about Freddie and Fannie Mae that revealed her stupendous ignorance about the financial services industry.
Please, PLEASE Jim. You're her only hope.
Palin needs your help. Rescue her from her statements about Freddie and Fannie Mae that revealed her stupendous ignorance about the financial services industry.
Please, PLEASE Jim. You're her only hope.
That's a super fair (and on topic).
Hilarious.
There is a reason you're saying this.
And the reason isn't terribly flattering to your silly assertions.
You leftists can no longer be parodied.
Spin on....
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side."
"I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."
I'd rather none of our politician talked this way. But given that they all do ...
I love this. A new meme!
If you shut the cute picture out and just listen to or read Palin, she sounds an awful lot like Lyndon LaRouche. Sounds sensible but doesn't stand much close examination.
There was a guy named Patton who would disagree with you that "victory" was an "empty slogan"
But what did he know!?
I am agnostic. So, on a certain level, religious rhetoric by politicians leaves me cold. That said, prayers that we be on the side of God seem to me to be just about the most harmless possible rhetoric. I would think every American would hope that our policies be on the side of good, and for a religious believer, one way to express that is to express the hope that we are on God's side.
There's nothing more to Palin's statement than that, and nothing wrong with it.
2. Dilan Esper posted a long time ago and used the word Victory. This was the secret ingredient that turns The Ace into a perpetual posting machine. Energy crisis solved!
Well, that happened to be a different war with more easily definable objectives.
The issue is the use of the term "victory" in a counterinsurgency conflict where we are fighting on the side of the established government against guerillas and irregulars with no recognizable central command. That situation makes victory rather more difficult to define than it was in World War II.
I actually agree with you that "victory" can be hard to define in counter-insurgency efforts. But this can largely be because we set our goals relatively high (which is a good thing).
Coalition troops (mainly the U.S., of course) achieved victory over the regime of Saddam Hussein about 2 weeks after the war in Iraq began - in the conventional WWII model you discuss. Saddam's army folded, we won.
The same type of post-victory creation of a democracy was needed in Germany and Japan after WWII, of course. But for some reason (perhaps due to the Party of the Administration in power), the press has tended to raise the bar to what will be considered "victory" in Iraq.
Nonetheless, measuring the "benchmarks" put in place previously by Bremer is useful. And we have met most of those.
Iraq has an elected Prime Minister. Iraq has a functioning government. Iraq has held elections. Much of the territory of Iraq has been handed over to the Iraqis. The insurgent attacks are down. A large number of the insurgents are dead.
So - even if you raise the bar for what will be deemed "victory" in Iraq - we have largely achieved it. Can things be better? Sure. But, then, that's always true.
Lastly, it's worth noting that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush helped liberate hundreds of millions of people who previously lived under communist dictatorships in the USSR and Eastern Europe.
Now George W. Bush has liberated about 50 million people from the dictatorships that existed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, I know there is this recent tendency (related to the Party of the Administration in power, perhaps) to define "victory" using an ever higher bar. But, surely, Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush deserve some credit for the above.
THAT is what I continue to worry about, though I have become more optimistic lately.
There is some truth to what you say.
But one can wait for proof that "the condition of liberation can be maintained after we are gone" ... until the end of time.
At some point one has to give some credit where credit is due.
While I don't agree with it, that's a perfectly intelligent analysis of the Iraq War.
What I'd like to see is Sarah Palin speaking LIKE that. In other words, whether I agree with her or not, engaging in some intelligent analysis of the outcome of the Iraq War.
My problem is not with arguments that we have either achieved "victory" or which define "victory" in some reasonably coherent fashion and then tell me how we are going to get there. My problem is with using "victory" as a buzzword without any explanation as to what it means in this context.
Really, the key question for me with Sarah Palin is whether she is qualified to be President. I don't like anything Dick Cheney stands for, but I have no doubt that if something happened to Bush, he has sufficient knowledge of the federal government and the issues facing this country to take over competently. I also believe Gore had that knowledge, and H.W. Bush, and Mondale. Clearly Ford and LBJ did. The question, as yet unanswered in my mind, is whether Palin meets that standard.
No credit till we pull out and it's okay. Any President can barge into a country and depose a leader.
I'm not planning on waiting till the end of time to see if the country is still a country, unless we don't pull out till the end of time.
"...if she was properly vetted"??
Did you just wake up from a coma?
McCain met Palin in February 2008 in DC during the National Governor's Association meeting. He was impressed. His campaign vetted her in the traditional, meticulous method during the 7-month time-span thereafter.
Honestly, attacking Palin regarding her "vetting" and her "experience" has worked out so well for your side. Do you really want to go down that road again? It's fine with me. Maybe in a week, McCain-Palin will lead Obama-Biden by 20 points.
Wouldn't it be easier for you to say what you really think: women (including Governors) should be barefoot and in the kitchen ... unless they're a one-term Senator from New York ... in which case they're AWESOME!
Laugh out loud funny.
Um, let me guess, because you say so, right?
My problem is you saying politicians you disagree with philosophically are using "victory" as a buzzword without any explanation as to what it means.
You have no evidence for you claims.
There is a reason for that.
In the twentieth century being "well-spoken" came to mean speaking in such as way that you can't easily be discredited by being quoted out of context. — Jon Roland, 1995
How would you know?
This is all quite verifiable.
Except you won't take what you are saying is the pedestrian step of verifying this.
There is a reason for that.
Are non-Americans any smarter? Lets look at a few national average IQs.
USA: 97
New Zealand: 99
Italy: 102
Britain: 100
Japan: 105
France: 98
China: 103
Germany: 98
Brazil: 86
Chile: 89
Columbia: 84
India: 82
Turkey: 90
Nigeria: 69
Swaziland 68
Philippines: 86
Russia: 97
South Korea: 109
Iran: 84
India: 82
Kuwait: 86
So the US is approximately the same as Europe, less than Asia, especially South Korea and greater than South America, Africa and the Middle East. So at least from this viewpoint the US is not particularly moronic.
Who cares about what Palin said? What's important here is that Uncle Creamy has be one of the most unique VC user names ever seen.
Almost . . . too unique.
Is that you, Mr. Putin?
I could give a rat's ass if the war is blessed by God. When I was in the military, if my leaders told me to go, I went. Similarly, I don't care whether God blessed or blesses the Iraq war. My leaders have ordered it, so whether it is blessed by God or not, I would go. If I don't like it, I change leaders. That's what elections are for.
That's bunk. I've been going to churches for 20 years and I can say that most Christians I know pray sincerely that God would direct them and that what they do is really what God wants and not the other way around. I've heard this phrased many times and many different ways (because extemporaneous prayer isn't meant to be an exact policy statement or theological treatise.) Only rarely have I heard someone selfishly pray that God do their will exclusively and their statements are typically shunned afterward. On the other hand in just about every popular representation of Christians in print, TV and film Christians are presented as selfish purveyors of God's will and blessings on the hapless heathens. I find this unfortunate because it leads to beliefs and statements like yours.
WWII and Korea, apparently, are still ongoing.
I think you can make a reasonable argument the Philippines is not OK, so I think that means we lost the Spanish-American war.
Your honorable stand taken here is humbly appreciated, as I've been unfair to you in the past. I have some confidence that, given the opportunity, Palin will demonstrate to capacity you seek. I also suspect that, given the chance, Palin will prove to be something of a Manchurian Candidate for causes non-left liberals hold dear, not the least of which is the political and economic liberation of women. Dobson is already feeling the heat.
She really is less beholden to the Republican machine than any candidate since Eisenhower, and the virulent attacks from the left secure the adoration of the Right, however liberal she in fact chooses to be. In that sense, she's potentially the mirror image of the young (Bill) Clinton.
So far, only embarrassing for her detractors.
But hey, that works.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
The task? The Iraq war.
Where did it come from? God.
Well, that seems pretty straightforward.
I guess she had to find a story that wasn't that Middle Eastern wars are for oil (something she hasn't repeated since first said).
I guess the Revolutionary and Civil wars were a failure too as we still occupy that territory...
Can you blame him? We from IL know the political machine that whelped Obama. I feel guilty for inflicting him upon the national stage...
Oh wait, King Daley says there is no Chicago Machine! LOL.
The US is a very religious country. When religious people see the clip of her talking, they will think it is no big deal. In fact, I think that the majority of them will agree with it.
I guess the Obama campaign is done with that religious outreach program now.
And their guns. Which really ought to factor into your decisions.
We're 70 posts in and you still haven't read the whole sentence? "Pray that our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God." That's as opposed to "sending them out on a task that is not from God." Since the soldiers are going to Iraq either way, she plainly means that she hopes their task in Iraq is from God. This is further made clear by the second sentence, "Pray that there is a plan and that it is God's plan." I'm an atheist, but even I can parse a prayer like that.
"Every time I read blogs where Christianity is discussed with disdain and see it in the MSM I am astonised."
I guess you don't read much American history. Skepticism is a rich and honorable part of our heritage.
You're listening to what is said, but you're failing to hear. Christians do frequently pray that things are unfolding according to God's plan, I admit. But they just as frequently claim to be acting in accordance with God's plan, and the language they use to express these two subtly different sentiments is not precisely clear or clearly distinguishable. If you were more familiar with the language, rhetoric, and strategy of the American Evangelical movement, perhaps you'd recognize that.
Well—maybe you do. This kind of attack is typical of many conservative commentators, in that it seeks to avoid an implication anyone with any sense can see by picking at words and at technicalities. For example: McCain never said that Obama was the anti-Christ! (He just juxtaposed images and statements which apparently suggested that association for viewers already familiar with that particular fringe claim.) That's an effective strategy for unifying the pundit tut-tut class, but it's not intellectually honest. But, as I've stated before, I'm beyond thinking that "intellectual honesty" is the sort of thing you care about.
I know what was meant; Anderson Cooper, to the extent he was speaking from his own understanding, knows what was meant. Palin, no less than Bush, understands the mission in Iraq to be of God's will. That she dressed that belief in the terms of (false) Christian humility is unremarkable save for those who seek to weave a tale about media bias.
He met her one time.
If there was meticulous vetting, why did the GOP send up lawyers after the announcement? Why did various AK politicians and media people state clearly that they had never been contacted and had never heard of anyone that had been contacted.
The preponderance of the evidence says that McCain went with his gut or otherwise made a hasty decision. Politically it might turn out to be a good decision, but it doesn't speak well of his actual decision making skills. I am prepared to see Palin shine and show some policy chops, but until she does, it sure does look like McCain put party and self first and the country 2nd. So far she has told quite too many lies to be likable.
That's cute. Sarah Palin's reaction to the Freddie and Fannie Mae Bailout is that it is occuring because they are costing taxpayer's too much money.
Twist words how you will, but that's a ridiculous statement to make about two private organizations on the EVE of being taken over by the government.
Truly breathtaking spin, by the way, kudos.
"also believing that the Iraq war is an appropriate foreign engagement"
There is surprisingly little evidence that Palin actually thought this to be the case. I'd be happy to hear any you might be able to offer.
Nate:
"private organizations"
As if.
Good Strategy:
"The preponderance of the evidence says that McCain went with his gut or otherwise made a hasty decision."
Of the evidence of which you are/were aware. This is not coterminous with the evidence that did/does exist.
"He met her one time."
Amazing what technology can do these days.
"Why did various AK politicians and media people state clearly that they had never been contacted and had never heard of anyone that had been contacted?"
Because they were in the 20% that didn't approve of her performance? I'm sure the Biden vetters made sure to interview several prominent Delaware Republicans.
I was also uncomfortable with trying to mind-read what Obama "meant" by mispronouncing the name of Palin's town.
Surely there's sufficient debate to be had over issues we know are issues, without applying our personal mental Rorschach to every breath each candidate takes.
I think it's you who doesn't understand the financial system.
No vetting can stop pathological liars.
I read Palin's prayer in that light, since it's what she said. Which counts, afaik.
The Anderson Cooper quote says exactly what you are saying it doesn't say. You are the one misrepresenting it:
"That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan."
That quote is in his story and in your post. Why are you ignoring it in order to say that he is misrepresenting this?
Also, while what you are saying is technically true, it's illogical. She's asking people to ask God (pray) that the war is a task from God. This makes no sense whatsoever! If she were really asking God, she would say: "Pray that God tell us whether or not this is His will." But no. The war is a done deal, in her mind, now she wants to urge God to decide that the war was His will. It's twisted Christianity at its finest.
"Make me an instrument of Your Will" is a prayer made famous by St. Augustine. It wasn't something that Obama invented. Don't be silly.
People use "prayer" all the time to express their own opinions. I often hear prayers where people, in a group holding hands say things like, "Father, please give Theresa the strength and determination to do well on her Calculus final. Please help her focus and work hard and pass that exam." Not only is this perverse (are you really asking the Almighty to help on your daughter's trivial calculus exam?), it's also less of a message to God than a message to Theresa. Perverse, perverse, perverse. And not Christian.
Since the war was on when she prayed, it would hardly make sense to pray as if the decision was yet to be made.
The war could be against God's will, or in accord with it. Her prayer was clearly that the latter is the case.
Anyway, since atheists don't believe in such things, none of it matters.
And, who is in a position to say the war in Iraq isn't God's will?
Step right up.
That's the point. She could have prayed for God to decide whether or not it was God's will. She didn't. She wanted affirmation (that is was God's will) or nothing. In other words, she was "hoping" that this was God's will. If it's not, she offers no alternative. Thus, she believes that the war is God's will.
That's a stretch. She's hoping it's God's will. My guess is, that if it isn't, she isn't going to get the memo, nor will you.
So she's hoping, praying, and, possibly, confident in her faith, believing.
She could have ended the prayer with, "but if it's not His will, we pray he ends it." Problem is...what does that mean? We know that Obama and the NYT were okay with genocide if that was the likely outcome of a precipitate withdrawal. Would that be His will?
Or, given the war is ongoing, perhaps the Bush plan for stabilizing the country is the best bet when God works through imperfect human instruments.
There's a difference between ending the war and bringing all the troops home now. The latter would change the lineup, but not end "the war".
To conflate the two is dishonest, not that anybody didn't know that, and to imply that failing to pray for that is somehow flaky is dishonest as well.
He spoke at my HS graduation. All in all a good man and a great politician.
In short: 1) the people need to pray to get a pipeline built, and 2) the governor's work does no good if the hearts of the citizens are not right with God. Now, I'm a Christian and it makes sense to me that even in public life, one wants to accomplish good things that would be favorable to God. I also realize that it's Love Sarah Palin season on this blog, so it's anathema to raise even the tiniest question about her.
However, in the rush to praises, could someone at least explain how we are to know when the hearts of citizens are right with God? Will the evidence be that the pipeline goes through? If not, were the hearts not right? Who judges such matters, and which God does a citizen have to be right with? His or her own, or the God worshipped by the Assemblies of God church? Can atheists have good, pipeline-supporting hearts? I think these are reasonable questions, even though they doubtless call into question the authenticity of my libertarian leanings. It's like she's Angelina Jolie and I'm Team Aniston, and the VC is the sanctuary of the Brangaloonies.