Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

- Collapse -
It's interesting what he thought God was doing.
Mar 1, 2004 5:57AM PST

"...Nevertheless, in the Second Inaugural he speaks plainly, if provisionally, about God's purposes in the war. They are two. One is to remove slavery from America. (Notably, neither side had intended to do so. At the outset of the war Lincoln had pledged not to attempt to do so.) The other is to judge both sides, North and South, for the offense of slavery"

and, I guess, thinking that he was fulfilling his part in God's plan.

- Collapse -
Consider, Josh...
Mar 1, 2004 6:17AM PST

Consider something, Josh. You used "Divine Right of Presidents" in relation to Bush (for the obvious reason) and in that post you bought up Lincoln.
You mentioned something about there being no reason for my asking a question?

- Collapse -
The question you asked....
Mar 2, 2004 12:46AM PST

....was whether Edwards cited a source for the Lincoln quote he used. The transcript that KP linked to indicates that he did not; therefore IMO there was no need to ask.

- Collapse -
Would you prefer, Josh...
Mar 2, 2004 5:59PM PST

Josh, after a search, I couldn't find that quote. Would you have prefered that I came out of the chute saying that I suspected that his attribution was false rather than atempting to say it somewhat more gently?
Would you prefer that I not have said that a past "situation" might come up in a Byrd reelection campaign or have spelled out and said that he was a "Kleagle" (a rank) in the Ku Klux Klan?
It seems to me that in some situations it might be better to not use wording that some might consider "lacking in grace" if not downright inflammatory.

- Collapse -
Re:Would you prefer, Josh...
Mar 2, 2004 10:35PM PST

Hi J:

Considering how many quotes have been incorrectly attributed to Lincoln, I don't think it would have been out of line to say that you had reason to think this might be another one. IMO it would only cross the line if you had suggested that Edwards knew it wasn't a Lincoln quote but said it was anyway.

On the Byrd thing -- I knew what you were referring to and interpreted your choice of words as a "winking" reference to prior discussions about Byrd's past in this forum. It wouldn't have made any difference to me if you had made a direct reference to the KKK.

- Collapse -
I'm not sure of the authenticity of the quote ...
Mar 1, 2004 10:17AM PST

Maybe Lincoln said it, maybe not. But the quote expresses the right idea either way.

Actually, the idea behind the quote is ancient. When Joshua led the army of Israel to conquer Jericho he had a reminder of that concept, as illustrated at WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE. It's from a Christian 'sermon' based on the Old Testament book of Joshua.

I did find one web page that claimed the Lincoln quote was from the second inaugural address, but I don't find the quote at Historical Text Archive: Articles: Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address or Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

- Collapse -
I'm with you on this; "I'm far more concerned that we are on God's side." (NT)
Mar 1, 2004 10:39AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Is the bottom line, Bill..
Mar 1, 2004 2:15PM PST

Bill, does the "bottom line" say that it is O.K. to make up a quote of a famous political icon or try to change historical fact if it suits your current political purpose?

- Collapse -
No, falsely attributing the quote is wrong ...
Mar 2, 2004 6:10AM PST

There is some complexity in this case, though, since the quote has been widely attributed to Lincoln for many years. As noted in another post, even Richard Nixon used that quote in a speech back in 1972.

I do, however, think that the quote expresses an accurate sentiment regardless of who actually created it initially.

That said, knowingly attributing it to somebody like Lincoln would not be right.

I certainly cannot say that the quote is not legitimate, but I am suspicious that it is not. If the quote were known to be from Lincoln then surely it would not be hard to find the original context.

- Collapse -
Looks like I spoke too soon...
Mar 3, 2004 2:10AM PST

...in this post.

If you have good reason to believe Edwards "made up" the quote and knew it wasn't really something Lincoln said, please share it.

- Collapse -
Was Lincoln a Christian?
Mar 1, 2004 3:09PM PST
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm

The quote attributed to him was something Secretary Seward claimed Lincoln said, probably from the Thanksgiving address, but speaking of that Lincoln replied;

"Oh, that [his Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward's nonsense, and it pleases the fools."
- Collapse -
He may have been. That is not for us to judge. (NT)
Mar 1, 2004 3:18PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Kerry not too sure God is with us in the war on terror.
Mar 1, 2004 3:20PM PST

Well God is sure as hell not on Saddam's side.
God is not on the side of the terrorists who causes massive numbers of death of innocent people.
A very stupid question I.M.O.
Is this the best that Kerry can produce?
God help America if he becomes President.

- Collapse -
Steve, right now the terrorists who cause massive numbers of death
Mar 2, 2004 1:19AM PST

.
of innocent people is our fault. Over 200 just this morning in a matter of minutes. When the number gets greater than the ones Saddam killed what will we be called? Will we get his title of murderer and monster?

Until we entered the country the Iraqis weren't being bombed and killed by the hundreds by terrorists. It isn't a question of God being on our side or Saddam sides. Lincoln made the point, the question is: are we on the side of God?

It's not a black and white situation.

- Collapse -
Re:Steve, right now the terrorists who cause massive numbers of death
Mar 2, 2004 1:31AM PST

You're right it's not black and white. And while we bear responsibility for helping the Iraqis form a peasceful society with a government of their choosing, I disagree somewhat with your statement-

"...terrorists who cause massive numbers of death of innocent people is our fault. "

Granted Saddam controlled this, but by exterminating anyone and any group (of any size) that dared oppose his decrees. After a time, he had terrorized everyone into compliance.

Some of the terrorists are no doubt there to hurt and embarass US and coalition troops. But I'm afraid some of it is religious war between more than one religious fractions intending to take control now that they don't fear Saddam's retaliation. Saddam had years, and native supporters, to infiltrate every group in his country. He used the intelligence from spys and tortured confessions to imprison and torture any who dared question him. I doubt anyone here would advocate us doing the same, even if we had the native intelligence, which we don't.

Yes, it didn't happen until Saddam's machinery was overthrown, so we bear some responsibility. But the individual who chooses to kill both troops and civilians to advance his cause, be it anti-US or because his religion must be supreme, bears responsibility for his actions, now and after death.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
We are responsible. It is our fault.
Mar 2, 2004 1:51AM PST

We conquered a country that had a stable governing order that kept the peace. Regardless of our many objections it did perform that governing role. Now we went in and made ourselves responsible for the peace and safety of the population, the security of the borders, and the establishment of a functioning government. By any measure we have failed all three tasks. We are still trying, but we have failed so far.

I hope we get our act together soon. We owe these people better than the chaos we have delivered so far.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:We are responsible. It is our fault.
Mar 2, 2004 3:36AM PST

I don't deny a responsibility. I don't deny there are problems.

I did object to the previous claim that we're responsible for for the terorists actions.

"We conquered a country that had a stable governing order that kept the peace. Regardless of our many objections it did perform that governing role. "

That is true, but it doesn't negate the fact when talking about violence now the way it control the same type of violence by wholesale government terrorism of it's citizens so no one trusted anyone. Everyone might report you. A bit like the 1984 novel government in fact. (I know I'll get slammed by someone for involving a novel, so be it.)

As far as us "We owe these people better than the chaos we have delivered so far." they deserve better and we have to try to help achieve it. However, I don't believe we bear the only responsiblity for it.

The question of should we have attacked when we did is a debateable one. The accusation that the bombings are all our fault IMO isn't accurate.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
The problem wouldn't be there Dan if the terrorists didn't cause all the trouble
Mar 2, 2004 6:24AM PST

We had years of this sort of terrorism in Northern Ireland, and it was the hardest thing in the world to find a solution to.
We did in the end by negotiation, but it took a long time to get all the parties around the table.
It will take massive effort to get the terrorists' leaders around the table, if ever that was possible.
The country was led with fear, and now the fear has been removed it will take quite a while to get things fully under control.
Do you think it was good that the people were treated so harshly to maintain order, and that includes people having their hands cut off in public, and women being stoned to death?
Do you think that Saddam putting people into acid baths alive was a good thing?

- Collapse -
Not good things.
Mar 2, 2004 10:39PM PST

Anyone who could read my posts and think that I believed any of those are good things should give up on the whole reading bit.

I'm saying that we are 100% responsible for conditions in Iraq right now. No one else. We went out of our way to conquer the country and take on the responsibility. So far we are doing a poor job of it. No one could argue differently.

Dan

- Collapse -
Well said Roger - We are responsible for planting the bombs? that's absolute rubbish!
Mar 2, 2004 6:10AM PST

I find it unbelievable that anyone should blame the coilition for these bombs and death after all the effort being put into making Iraq a decent place to live.
I think what Rosalie said is absolutely disgusting.

- Collapse -
Re:Well said Roger - We are responsible for planting the bombs? that's absolute rubbish!
Mar 2, 2004 12:55PM PST

I think Rosalie was thinking more about the government's decision to go to war than about the individual troops. I think some of her opinions are wrong, but that is my opinion.

I disagree with being totally responsible for not being able to prevent the bombings. We have a responsibility to help establish security, and train the Iraqis to handle it perhaps.

We're not responsible for the terrorist choosing to target Iraqis trying to help us rebuild their country. And even if we could infiltrate in a few months like Saddam did over years, we wouldn't use his methods to control the dissidents.

The sad truth is besides those that will use any opportunity to attack the US and it's allies, there are also many using the opportunity to reactivate decades, even centuries, old conflicts within the region and fight to be the fraction in control. Those don't want to participate in the government, they insist on dominating the government. They have the idea it's their turn now to replace Saddam.

Unfortunately it still kills combatants and innocents alike.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
It's the terrorists fault.
Mar 2, 2004 2:01AM PST

If you pull the trigger, don't say that someone else made you do it. It doesn't wash. The terrorists are simply trying to impose their will on the Iraqi people, just as Saddam did. After all the graves, why do you assume that Saddam would not have continued filling graves?

- Collapse -
It's our responsibility
Mar 2, 2004 2:09AM PST

Once we stepped in and conquered Iraq we assumed the responsibility for the welfare of its people. That much is obvious. We are failing in that responsibility. That is obvious, too.

Dan

- Collapse -
To stretch the point...
Mar 2, 2004 5:14AM PST

The bombing occurred during the celibration of a holy day that Saddam had banned during his regime 30 years ago. The celebration was facilitated by the fact that we overthrew the regime. Simplified, No overthrow, no celebration, no bombing. So at a stretch I suppose you could say we had a hand in the bombing. IMO we shouldn't have gotten involved in this war for the simple fact that this area has been fighting amongst themselves for thousands of years. To think that we can ride in and fix thousands of years worth of turmoil supports our foreign friends opinion that the US EGO has overloaded it's a--. Going back to lurk while you guys beat on me Happy

- Collapse -
We tried to do the same thing in the Balkans. Were you in favor of that?
Mar 2, 2004 6:04AM PST

In this case, we had no choice. People in the area are engaged in organized attacks against us. We had to move in to start showing these people that it's not a good idea to attack us. People, who I think understand the Muslim mind, tell me that a Muslim respects strength and has contempt for weakness.

- Collapse -
Hi KP
Mar 2, 2004 6:19AM PST

I try not to get too involved with these kinds of discussions but I'll give you my thoughts. No - I was not in favor of the Balkans or Grenada or Viet Nam for that matter although I served with honor during that period. Personally I think wars are vile wasteful events. I fully support our troops as they are following lawful orders as is their job. Should we bite when poked with a stick? Of course. Should we involve ourselves in battles where we are the agressor for trumped up reasons NO. Do I believe there is a Bush conspiracy - NO. Do I believe he acted hastily on faulty intelligence and for reasons other than stated - YES. Do I believe the country would be different had Gore been elected? I don't know. Probably different but not necessarily better. Anyway - as I stated in another post - I forgot my medication today and it's making me light headed.

- Collapse -
It's refreshing to see someone who's not following the standard line
Mar 2, 2004 6:39AM PST

on either side. I think I agree more than I disagree with you. Glad you've joined us. Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Hi KP
Mar 3, 2004 1:17AM PST

Not a bad summary IMO.

As the intelligence seems to have been proven false, now we know it was faulty. Did Bush have a inclination to believe? quite possibly, but that's a long way from the idea of conspiracy. As for his speech, well all politicans choose their words to get the results they want, even without lying, just by method of expression.

The what if's are always debated, and impossible to quantify the probabilities of what someone different would have done.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re:To stretch the point...
Mar 3, 2004 1:12AM PST

Your point about getting involved in a region where war and conflict has been a way of life for generations is well taken. It's one of the aspects I'm afraid wasn't considered in planning.

I tend to believe we would have had to deal with Saddam sooner or later unfortunately. I've never been sure the timing was the best.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
It's not so obvious to me.
Mar 2, 2004 5:57AM PST

Again, we aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, responsible for someone else's decision to kill. It was their decision, and they did it for their own reasons. We don't even know what those reasons were. Don't forget, there is parallel violence going on in Pakistan between Sunnies and Shiites.

Why begin the timeline at the invasion of Iraq. Why not begin it with Saddam's refusal to satisfy the UN that he had fulfilled his obligations? Then, he's responsible. Or, we could start the time line at The World Trade Center. Then, Osama Bin Laden is responsible. We could play that game forever. No, it's the people who done the crime that's responsible.

Why is it so obvious that we're failing the people's welfare? We won't get it from Peter Jennings, but I occasionally hear that the situation on the ground is much different than what we hear. Power and utilities have been restored, there is food, water and medicine, the people have agreed on a constitution, etc. A lot of good things are happening which are building Iraq's future. BTW, the latest word is that the Muslim nations are condemning these attacks.

Why is the left so constantly insistant that the US and/or the Republicans are responsible for everything that happens? If we refuse to bail out Aristide, we're bad guys. When we do, we kidnaped him after forcing him to resign. It would be a comedy if it were not so ludicrous.