This is what Sarah Palin said:
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
This is remarkable, for almost too many reasons to describe. I’ll concede what the howler monkeys of wingnuttia have been crying all night, which is that Palin is correct: Gibson omits an arguably vital part of her original quotation. But look at what Palin offers as an explanation before she proceeds to argue that yes, indeed, God’s side and “our” side are aligned. She claims that when she was addressing the kids at her old pentecostal church earlier this year, she was “repeating” — those of us on the coastal elite wine track call this “quoting” or, less formally, “offering a shout out to” — Abraham Lincoln. What she doesn’t say* is that the quotation derives from a pre-Civil War anecdote in which Lincoln receives a delegation of secessionists who insist that their cause is God’s cause and that, if war erupts, the South will triumph.
Lincoln’s response, fictional or not, is to chasten his callers by asking them to reflect, humbly and with extraordinary care, on the possibility that they’re about to embark on a reckless mission that does nothing to further “God’s plan.” This would not only have required Lincoln’s visitors to consider what, precisely, “God’s plan” happened to be, but also to consider — in earnest detail, with considerable attention to actual historical facts — whether the Confederacy’s cause was indeed as righteous as its standard-bearers assumed. It was, in other words, an admonition against a transparently stupid course of action being waged by regional ideologues who, it turns out, well-nigh wrecked the republic.
What Bush and Cheney have offered — and what Palin-Chernenko McCain are promising to re-up — is a foreign policy orientation that is exactly the opposite of the sort of patient reflection, self-criticism, and wisdom that Lincoln was encouraging in his southern brethren. If this is indeed God’s plan, then it’s high time someone punched God in the face.
*because I don’t think she knows this**
**because I don’t think she was actually intending to quote Abraham Lincoln***
***because I don’t think Sarah Palin had ever heard this quotation before the two-week cramming session she completed before the interview


32 comments
September 12, 2008 at 2:33 am
Bob van den Eijkhof
Nobody likes Mcain! Atleast not if you ask… the rest of the WORLD!
Done some reading and it appears that BBC recently did a survey in 22 countries, asking people who they belive would improve Americas relation with the rest of the world. Well to summon up …
46 percent voted for Obama and
20 percent for Mcain and
34 percent said they where not shure!
AH… In Canada which after all is the neighbouring country 69 percent voted for Obama, Italy 64%, France 62% and Germany 61%…
ONLY in USA… in a new survey it reveals that Obama gets 47 percent of the votes and Mcain 46! How in the world is it that the rest of the planet, people like Obama vastly more than Mr Mcain … while only in The US, it appears to be equal?
No matter the reason, I believe the rest of the planet also should get their say in this election… (or at least the 100 countries America has put under their military control !!) Anybody more affected by an election should be able to vote… otherwise it cant under any circumstances be called a democratic system. We live in a global world where no nation stands excluded from neighbours around. Obviously its hard to have a global election for the president-post in every country, but think about it… don’t you believe a great deal of people in Iraq are more affected by this election than a whole lot of people in the USA… ? I do! If the US e´wants all this global military/financial responsibility, they can atleast hear what the world has to say… jao!
But hey … anywho anyways anywhat, that just me right!?
September 12, 2008 at 4:26 am
Palin: “THIS WAR against extreme Islamic terrorists is the RIGHT THING” « tobefree
[...] God is so totally not on our side Addresses Sarah’s Lincoln reference [...]
September 12, 2008 at 4:48 am
Ben Alpers
How in the world is it that the rest of the planet, people like Obama vastly more than Mr Mcain … while only in The US, it appears to be equal?
Silly, Bob!
‘Cause we are the greatest country in world history, of course!
USA! USA! USA!
Alternative, only slightly more sophisticated, answer:
“Equally irrelevant are the practices of the ‘world community’ whose notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people”– Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting in Atkins v Virginia (2002)
Alternative, Irony-Died-on-9/11 Answer:
Oh my name it is nothin’
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I’s taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
September 12, 2008 at 5:40 am
Ahistoricality
The whole answer is dissembling anyway: she’s perfectly happy speaking for God when it suits her.
September 12, 2008 at 6:23 am
kid bitzer
“I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
[oh rilly? this shouldn't take long...]
And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. ”
[yup--about two sentences from "i would never presume" to presuming.]
September 12, 2008 at 7:17 am
JPool
Dave,
You were doing so well up to that last bit. There’s no need for deifacepunching. You can simply go back to that bit about humbly reflecting on whether this is really what God would want. Rinse, repeat.
Presuming, of course, that one believe in this sort of god. I don’t (my god is a messier god), but that takes face punching off the table as well.
September 12, 2008 at 7:32 am
kid bitzer
talmudic scholars are in agreement that references to the “face of god” must be taken in an allegorical or metaphorical way.
so properly speaking he’d deserve a punch in the neck.
September 12, 2008 at 8:07 am
eric
Aaron Neville.
September 12, 2008 at 8:11 am
bw
She may not speak for God, but she’ll email in His name from time to time:
After months of reflection and prayer, friends say, the Palins, who are Christians, had come to believe God had sent them Trig.
Later that day, Ms. Palin sent an e-mail message to her relatives and close friends about her new son, Ms. Bruce said. She signed it, “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”
UPDATE: God emails back.
September 12, 2008 at 8:16 am
Fats Durston
Palin-
ChernenkoMcCainSo you’re saying she’s Gorbachev?!
(Don’t forget, she compared herself to Harry Truman in her speech. Who also succeeded when an old guy died.)
September 12, 2008 at 8:32 am
Ben Alpers
(Don’t forget, she compared herself to Harry Truman in her speech. Who also succeeded when an old guy died.)
This is also a favorite comparison of Dubya’s. It’s a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card for the public and/or press thinking you’re a miserable failure. Shorter Truman comparison: “In the future, they’ll appreciate my genius!”
September 12, 2008 at 8:33 am
bitchphd
She signed it, “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”
So Trig Palin is the second coming?
September 12, 2008 at 9:24 am
Giblets
Quit picking on God. He’s old and he’s tired and nobody visits anymore and he just wants to watch his stories.
September 12, 2008 at 9:25 am
fafnir
Just cause you like McCain doesn’t mean you get to say he’s God, Giblets.
September 12, 2008 at 10:40 am
kid bitzer
i don’t think i approve of fafnir spiking after giblets sets.
given that they are the same divinity (even if different persons of the trinity), this looks too much like a foul in volleyball.
September 12, 2008 at 10:44 am
eric
kid, aren’t you yourself a multi-personned entity thingy? Should deities in glass chapels throw stones?
September 12, 2008 at 10:59 am
kid bitzer
as to the multiplicity, that’s not what i mind (neither do i). what i minded was having one entity set itself up for punchlines.
the persons of the trinity are not supposed to be the father, the straight man, and the holy top banana.
September 12, 2008 at 11:08 am
eric
the persons of the trinity are not supposed to be the father, the straight man, and the holy top banana
Hey, speak for your own trinity, kid.
September 12, 2008 at 11:40 am
Walt
To be fair, I’m sure Palin got the quote not from her extensive readings of Lincoln, but from Madeleine Albright, who used it in the sense that Palin advocates.
September 12, 2008 at 11:47 am
kid bitzer
there’s fair, walt, and then there’s ridiculous.
sarah palin thinks that “madeleine albright” is the name of a house-cleaning temp agency.
September 12, 2008 at 11:48 am
eric
“madeleine albright” is the name of
aProust’s house-cleaning temp agencyI mean, I know she doesn’t think that. But it is.
September 12, 2008 at 2:44 pm
davenoon
Shorter Truman comparison: “In the future, they’ll appreciate my genius!”
I’m actually writing an article on the Truman analogy in the Age of Bush. I’m going to use this as the epigraph. No one who doesn’t read lefty-type blogs will get it, but then again, no one will read the article to begin with…
September 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Josh Carrollhach
If God were on our side I think we would have won already. God has this reputation of being all-powerful and shit. Just sayin’.
September 12, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Josh Carrollhach
Biden’s knowledge of Iraq makes anything Sarah Palin says look even more ridiculous.
September 12, 2008 at 10:11 pm
CLH
I don’t believe Palin’s read anything written by Lincoln or about him, or anything attributed to him. I just don’t. That was a canned response/excuse, and Lincoln ought not be pressed into this kind of service. Especially not Lincoln, who understood that theological justifications for slavery and war were obscene, but who also knew that he had to use theological language to battle those justifications.
The irony here, and in the context of the Palin interview, of course, is that Lincoln was an atheist. And that’s another thing I doubt Palin knows.
Not on Sarah’s crib sheet, I’m sure — this quote from Lincoln, who had ideas about things that sound alot like the, um, Bush Doctrine:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure . . . . If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us,’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’”
It’s that phrase — “Be silent” — that haunts.
September 12, 2008 at 10:20 pm
ari
Nice comment, CLH. Thanks very much for stopping by. I hope you’ll come again.
September 12, 2008 at 11:07 pm
urbino
And, of course, he was gay.
September 13, 2008 at 2:49 am
kid bitzer
harsh, urbino. this clh guy drops by, makes a good post, ari says something nice to him, and you say he’s gay? i mean, is it possible that ari was just complimenting clh on a good post, without hitting on him?
unless you were referring to lincoln.
on that question–are there any historians around here?
cause i’d be interested in the mature assessment of the evidence on that score. i remember when there was a big noise about this a few years ago, and i looked into it to no depth whatsoever, and came away with the impression that the case for lincoln being gay was entirely circumstancial, and pretty thin at that.
as i recall it went:
lincoln was pretty depressed and tormented a lot;
he had lousy luck with women;
some other dude says he has nice legs;
he shared beds with other dudes.
the trouble with the ‘nice legs’ thing is that it might tell you something about the other dude, but it’s not clear what it tells you about al.
the bed-sharing was more common then, and if we are to infer he was having sex with his bed-partners, then we should conclude not only that he was gay, but that he was also an incestuous pedophile, since he also pretty often shared his bed with his sons.
yeah, he was depressed and tormented, yeah, he had lousy relationships with women, no, that doesn’t really say much about sexual orientation one way or another.
did i miss some more evidence? did i weigh it all wrong? should i have spent more than 20 minutes researching it? probably, if i cared that much, but mostly i just remember people like andrew sullivan saying ‘yippee! one of my heroes is a gay man!’, and sully’s ability to weigh evidence dispassionately has never bowled me over.
then again, i *am* part of a coastal fifth column, or would be if lake michigan had salt water.
September 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm
urbino
unless you were referring to lincoln.
Bingo.
September 13, 2008 at 1:30 pm
ari
What you said is what I think, kb: urbino’s a homophobe. No, seriously, the Lincoln-was-gay thing is maybe plausible but entirely circumstantial.
September 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm
urbino
urbino’s a homophobe.
I sound like some other word? Which?
September 14, 2008 at 10:36 am
kid bitzer
have you tried herbeano?
it’s the new herbal digestive aid, with the black currant taste!