Psalm 137

I was in a pew at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois, on September 16, 2001. Although I was never a member of this now infamous congregation, I did attend Trinity regularly during the seven years I lived and worked in Chicago.

September 16, 2001 was the first Sunday after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC. On that Sunday Reverend Jeremiah Wright preached a sermon whose often-distorted excerpts became fodder for attack on candidate Barack Obama. Most people in America remember it as the "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" sermon.

For me, Wright's sermon on that Sunday will always be the sermon of Psalm 137.

On the clear, blue morning when terrorists took down the World Trade Center towers, destroyed the Pentagon, and murdered thousands of my fellow Americans, I was six months pregnant with my first child. As an expectant mother I felt a particular kind of terror in the aftermath of the attacks. Like other Americans, I knew the world was forever changed; the reality into which my daughter would be born would be marked by this violence in ways I found scary and unpredictable. Like many others, I was confused, angry, sad, and deeply terrorized.

In this state I found my way to church. I remember how sad and unusually quiet we were as a congregation. I remember that many of us were looking for meaning and for comfort. I remember Reverend Wright preaching from Psalm 137.

Here is what he said:

"There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back. A move if you will from worship to war. A move in other words from the worship of the God of creation, to war against those whom God created. And I want you to notice very carefully the next move. One of the reasons this psalm is rarely read in its entirety because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.

Look at the verse, Verse 9: 'Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks.' The people of faith, by the rivers of Babylon, how should we sing the Lord's song if I forget thee? The people of faith have moved from the hatred of armed enemies, these soldiers who captured the King, those soldiers who slaughtered his sons and put his eyes out, the soldiers who sacked the city, burned their towns, burned the temple, burned their towers. They moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. The babies. The babies. Blessed are they who dash your babies' brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be."

I was an expectant mother, and those are the words that have stayed with me for more than eight years: happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks.

Reverend Wright went on to warn that, in the shadow of our anguish, fear, and confusion after September 11, we stood on the precipice of a dangerous political reality, one where, as a nation, we could easily move from hatred of armed enemies to calling for revenge against the innocent. Such a move, he warned, would be destructive to all nations involved.

I thought of Reverend Wright's sermon today when President Obama decided to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. I am not surprised by his decision. As a candidate, Barack Obama made it clear that he believed Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the most important theater in the war against terror. Strategically, I am not distressed by the decision. Even as he deployed more soldiers, President Obama, unlike his predecessor, offered clear objectives, an exit strategy, and a timeline for withdrawal. Politically, I am less worried than some on the Left, who perceive Obama's decision as equivalent to Johnson's choice to escalate in Vietnam. The parallels are not as straightforward as televised versions of American history would lead us to believe.

I am not surprised, strategically opposed, or politically distressed, but I am profoundly, morally uneasy with my nation's escalation of a war that began as a terrified, revenge response. I am a Unitarian Universalist, and certainly not a biblical literalist, but there is important insight available in Psalm 137. This is the story of a dispossessed people terrorized by their enemies, who find joy in the possibility of killing the innocent in revenge for what they have lost.

If there is a parallel to be made with Johnson, perhaps it is the need listen again to the prophetic voice of Martin Luther King, Jr, who spoke forcefully against the war in Vietnam. He did so despite the fact fact that Johnson was his ally on domestic matters. King did not speak against his rival or enemy, he spoke to a nation he loved, led by a president he respected. Still, King stood in the pulpit at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, and said "it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war." He made the case for our shared humanity across national borders and the urgent need to reimagine non-violent solutions for our deepest conflicts.

Jeremiah Wright is certainly not Martin Luther King, Jr. I have never agreed fully with Reverend Jeremiah Wright theologically or politically. I have been openly critical of Wright. But his invocation of Psalm 137, as a warning against the destructive force of revenge, has been a basic moral framework shaping my responses to American intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Today I thought of it again as we move even more deeply into this ill-advised war.

President Obama is a thoughtful and careful leader, but he is constrained by deep and old expectations about war, conflict, and national security. I believe we have already destroyed too much of ourselves and of our so called enemies. I mourn this decision to feed the dogs of war and to bash the heads of babies against the rocks.

Comments (74)

1. As much as Wright went on to indulge some wacky conspiracy theories involving AIDS and made a categorical condemnation of America without an appreciation for the good America has often done, I actually agree with you that his explication and development of Psalm 137 were very good and at times compelling. I still maintain that a nation clearly has the right to defend itself and to secure the safety of its citizens both now and in the future, but we have to be very careful not to let that slip into war that's motivated by revenge of some kind.

   You want a nice example of the latter line of thought? Toby Keith's "Brought to You Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)." Or even, perhaps a bit more subtly, "Have You Forgotten?" by Darryl Worley.

   Posted by Thrawn at 12/01/2009 @ 10:30pm

2. You have pretty much expressed my feelings, I understand why and I am not surprised, but I am still sad and wonder when it will quit being this way. Perhaps never.

   Posted by jjfahl at 12/01/2009 @ 10:35pm

3. I mourn this decision to feed the dogs of war and to bash the heads of babies against the rocks.

   Such FALSE ethos reveals the hypocrisy of the leftists who gladly support killing millions of unborn babies through abortion. Sorry I don't buy such foolish appraisals.

   Bringing murdering enemies of the American nation to justice is NO parellel to ancient hebrew desires for murderous revenge!

   Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 11:01pm

4. Excellent piece.

   So ... for whom do we vote in '12 if we're convinced war is not the answer?

   Posted by sloper at 12/01/2009 @ 11:18pm

5. Thank you for the wonderful article.

   I think that what is misunderstood about those of us who see parallels between Viet Nam and Afghanistan/Iraq is the idea that we see a 1 to1 comparison.

   As the President pointed out last night the reasons for entering both wars is dramatically different. However, what both wars do have in common, is that they illustrate how often even the most noble cause can go astray. The original mission in Afghanistan was to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice. Yet, somehow that mission seemed to become an afterthought over the past eight years. Quite possibly because a few always had their eyes on oil-rich Iraq. And now, after 8 years at war, we are asked to believe that the original mission can be accomplished with 30,000 more servicemen & women and 18 more months. That is asking a great deal from a war weary nation.

   Both wars also illustrate how a clearly superior fighting force can be bested by an untrained, un-educated and ill equipped by zealous adversary.

   Posted by pamlyn at 12/02/2009 @ 02:00am

6. The sooner you clowns figure out that the words of the Old Testament are the words of Satan, the better.

   Posted by DejaVu at 12/02/2009 @ 03:33am

7. Prof. Lacewell:

   Thank you for this thoughtful piece. I have been so caught up in the strategic aspects of this escalation, that I had not yet considered the moral aspects, which you define so well.

   But, if you'll bear with me for one second: I find it odd that people think strategically this is the right decision because he campaigned on it, as you yourself said.

   But, the campaign was over a year ago. Since then, new information has come out that has changed our understanding of Afghanistan. Shouldn't the president evolve his thinking?

   We know now that Karzai is corrupt and his government can't be trusted. We know now that there are maybe 100 AQ members left in Afghanistan. We know now that there are perhaps some Taliban whom we can trust. We know now that counter-insurgency in Afghanistan doesn't protect our interests in Pakistan, which is where the real danger is.

   In light of all of this new information, how can you still strategically support this decision??

   Posted by klondiker at 12/02/2009 @ 04:36am

8. While we shouldn't be surprised, we should be strategically opposed and politically distressed, in addition to being morally outraged.

   Strategically I do not see how introducing more violence for at least 18 months will improve the situation in Afghanistan or Pakistan, either militarily or politically. Are you prepared to send other kids, then your own, to die for Karzai?

   Politically Obama tried to make everybody happy, and unusually for him, his attempt is awkward and transparent. The Bluedogs and Republicans will beat their chests and demand more blood, while calmer heads are asking whether we can support a man who has so far done nothing, nothing for those of us who wanted to see change.

   It's true Obama supported the endless slog in Afghanistan during the campaign, but he also said in a larger context he wanted to change the game, not just the players. From health care to the economy to our belligerent foreign policy, he has utterly failed to change any game.

   Posted by goodc at 12/02/2009 @ 08:33am

9. Uh-oh, you mentioned a Bible verse, Ms. Harris-Lacewell....

   now, Larry-antisoc is going to show up to tell us what it REALLY means.

   Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 08:57am

10. 'Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks.' -- Psalm 137

    .

    CBS News report:

    'Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a lot of explaining to do.

    He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons... With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

    ...

    One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus. ' -- CBS News -- 17 January, 2007

    http://www.cbsnews .com/stories/2007/01/17 /politics/main2369157. shtml

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 08:59am

11. Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 08:59am

    Who exactly opposes abortion, HL?

    I mean in the sense of actually doing something to stop it? GOP had House, Senate, and White House from 2003-2006...and the "Human Life Amendment" never even came up for a Committee vote.

    So....who exactly wants to end it?

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 09:24am

12. 'Such FALSE ethos reveals the hypocrisy of the leftists who gladly support killing millions of unborn babies through abortion.' -- BigPasture

    'One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.' -- attributed to Josef Stalin, among others

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 09:33am

13. In light of all of this new information, how can you still strategically support this decision?? Posted by klondiker at 12/02/2009 @ 04:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --for the democrats and liberals who support this, it's about looking "tough" to the undecided voters in '12 and neutralizing criticism by conservatives and republicans that obama would be a cut-and-runner.

    it's a political move.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 09:37am

14. Who exactly opposes abortion, HL? I mean in the sense of actually doing something to stop it? GOP had House, Senate, and White House from 2003-2006...and the "Human Life Amendment" never even came up for a Committee vote. So....who exactly wants to end it? Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 09:24am | ignore this person |

    --same for democrats now re: gay marriage.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 09:39am

15. 'In a slight shift from his campaign trail promise, President Obama announced Monday that his administration's message of "Change" has been modified to the somewhat more restrained slogan "Relatively Minor Readjustments in Certain Favorable Policy Areas." "Today, Americans face a great many challenges, and I hear your desperate calls for barely measurable and largely symbolic improvements in the status quo," said Obama...' -- The Onion (satirical newsweekly) -- 29 May, 2009

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 09:44am

16. Ah, your faith in the humanity of your fellow Americans is like the scent of jasmine on a cool summer breeze.

    Yes, I remember the firefighters rallying around the familiar cry of, "Bash their babies heads in!" and the sweet lust for innocent blood that bonded us as a nation. I remember Bush imploring us that, "Islam is a religion of peace. NOT! We must kill all Muslims!" and the hearty cheers that went up. I remember the glowing embers of the mosques on fire from Maine to Cali, the way the light danced on the faces of the scared towelheads we chased through the streets with bats.

    Would it be too much to say that you MHL, are the Walt Whitman of our generation. Your prose sings the soul of America! The dark, ugly, evil, fetid, yellow-toothed, overweight, unattractive, shiftless, unbathed, malodorous, mangy, avaricious, bad-skinned, greasy, transfatty, bovine, porcine, yucky, gangster, gangsta, developmentally disabled, stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic, ismist, baddy supremacist, varicose veined, balding, large stomached, flat-assed, bow-legged, flat-footed, hammer-toed, ingrown, inbred, insular, inebriated, insulting, insolent, ignorant, stoopid, boorish, overeating, belching, gassy, incontinent, bad-breathed, evil soul of America.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 10:24am

17. The dark, ugly, evil, fetid, yellow-toothed, overweight, unattractive, shiftless, unbathed, malodorous, mangy, avaricious, bad-skinned, greasy, transfatty, bovine, porcine, yucky, gangster, gangsta, developmentally disabled, stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic, ismist, baddy supremacist, varicose veined, balding, large stomached, flat-assed, bow-legged, flat-footed, hammer-toed, ingrown, inbred, insular, inebriated, insulting, insolent, ignorant, stoopid, boorish, overeating, belching, gassy, incontinent, bad-breathed, evil soul of America.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 10:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --what does being bald have to do with being a supremacist? what does avarice have to do with developmental disorders? what do varicose veins have to do with boorishness?

    you're a faux-intellectual.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:35am

18. >>>Reverend Wright went on to warn that, in the shadow of our anguish, fear, and confusion after September 11, we stood on the precipice of a dangerous political reality, one where, as a nation, we could easily move from hatred of armed enemies to calling for revenge against the innocent. Such a move, he warned, would be destructive to all nations involved. <<<

    Thank you, MELISSA, for this wonderful piece on the dangers of revenge. You are correct that the war initiated by Bush was all about revenge initially, then all about fear-mongering as he attempted to justify even more military adventurism in Iraq.

    But Obama really is different than Bush/Cheney and is simply trying to withdraw from BOTH of these conflicts in a "responsible" way. It was Bush/Cheney who decided to do nothing in Afghanistan after Tora Bora, and THAT decision is what forced Obama to take corrective action by putting in place a 2-3 year plan to prepare Afghanistan to assist us in securing their country so we can leave.

    This common sense approach to security is NOT "revenge against the innocents" at all, so Obama at least has heeded the message in the Psalm 137 sermon, and wants to end these conflicts responsibly.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 10:48am

19. Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 09:44am

    Doesn't quote-mining a PARODY newspaper, sort of cut into your street cred, HL???

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 10:55am

20. It's called cataloguing and the absurdity was intentional. See the work of Saul Bellow and get back to me later. (For better examples of absurdist cataloguing I mean. No, Im not Bellow.)

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 10:56am

21. Metteya,

    Come over to the dark side. There are sensible libs out here. They call us "conservatives." We won't even require that you accept the neocon project. Plenty of us don't. You are trying to impose rationality on people with a highly irrational view of the world.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 11:08am

22. Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 11:08am

    Where exactly WERE all these "rational non-neo-con conservatives" from 2001-2006?!?!???

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 11:09am

23. It's called cataloguing and the absurdity was intentional. See the work of Saul Bellow and get back to me later. (For better examples of absurdist cataloguing I mean. No, Im not Bellow.) Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 10:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --no one's buying from your catalogue. and don't ever mention yourself and saul bellow in the same sentence ever again. ever.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 11:19am

24. Me thinks gangpapist has a thesaurus.

    Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:25am

25. --no one's buying from your catalogue. and don't ever mention yourself and saul bellow in the same sentence ever again. ever.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 11:19am

    Saul Bellow read Harold Bloom's book, as did I.

    Posted by Mistral at 12/02/2009 @ 11:58am

26. Saul Bellow and I are both former Chicagoans. Oops, same sentence.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 12:08pm

27. Saul Bellow did something to earn a Nobel Prize in literature, but I didn't and neither did Barack Obama, whose Nobel Prize was for peace, and who just decided to send more soldiers to Afghanistan.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 12:27pm

28. "...and who just decided to send more soldiers to Afghanistan."-----Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 12:27pm

    So, HL, sending more troops to Afghanistan is NOT the "way to peace" there?

    Please...love to hear you either contradict yourself or the Right's talking point.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 12:38pm

29. Saul Bellow and I are both former Chicagoans. Oops, same sentence. Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 12:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --so are you and Barack Obama!

    BOOM!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:38pm

30. Good work. You have something in here that should manage to make everyone reading it either uncomfortable (poor babies) or angry (not far enough left or right). Is that what happens when you go to Church?

    Posted by hivanh at 12/02/2009 @ 1:04pm

31. The sooner you clowns figure out that the words of the Old Testament are the words of Satan, the better.

    Posted by DejaVu at 12/02/2009 @ 03:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Didn't figure you as a believer in god and Satan. But in fact the words are from neither. The words are from human beings, expressing eternal and universal heartache and passion for justice/revenge. The words reflect the values, morals and practices of that time. The Bible is not the problem; the problem is those who believe the words to be eternally unchangeable and take them literally.

    Posted by gren at 12/02/2009 @ 1:14pm

32. Ms. Lacewell, please save your pious remarks for the sheep, you and the good Rev. both.

    This bit about turning the other cheek only works if the enemy won't hit you too hard the second time. It doesn't apply to the real world.

    Can you imagine writing this article during WWII. Did the cycle of violence continue after we defeated Hitler and Tojo? Uh, the answer is no.

    Please leave the defense of our country to those who understand how to defend it ok?

    Keep having your babies and do your part to teach them right from wrong and how to make their own way in the world. If you can do that, you'll become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:32pm

33. Posted by pamlyn at 12/02/2009 @ 02:00am

    A brief comment:

    Defense of the United States and our allies, includes making sure that the engine of our productivity, OIL, keeps flowing. Politicians never talk about that because pious people, the holier than thou types who also benefit from the fossils, would go ballistic if they knew that we actually fight for oil.

    These noble words like freedom and liberty and justice all equal the smallest word of all, OIL.

    So why not kill two birds with one stone.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:38pm

34. This common sense approach to security is NOT "revenge against the innocents" at all, so Obama at least has heeded the message in the Psalm 137 sermon, and wants to end these conflicts responsibly.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 10:48am

    Appearantly, you didn't hear the part about how he will proceed with the drones in Pakistan.

    I don't think any responsible President, entrusted with the security of the nation pays attention to Psalms of any number.

    The problem that this President has is that he is now beginning to understand that he can't keep everybody happy all of the time. He'll actually have to make some tough decisions. He can't vote 'present' anymore.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:46pm

35. A brief comment: Defense of the United States and our allies, includes making sure that the engine of our productivity, OIL, keeps flowing. Politicians never talk about that because pious people, the holier than thou types who also benefit from the fossils, would go ballistic if they knew that we actually fight for oil.

    --so you admit bush is a liar. that's step #1.

    These noble words like freedom and liberty and justice all equal the smallest word of all, OIL.

    --so you admit the gov't pushing for research into and eventually massive use of "green" energy sources like solar, wind, water, etc. is actually a national security issue. good, step #2.

    So why not kill two birds with one stone.

    --"kill" the operative word in your vocabulary!

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:05pm

36. Keep having your babies and do your part to teach them right from wrong and how to make their own way in the world. If you can do that, you'll become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --do you have any tots or buns in the oven who you can send to an oil rich country in the middle east or asia in 15-20 years? if not, get crackin, we need to send your dna to get killed!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:07pm

37. Eww Urmy, get em.

    Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:13pm

38. Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:46pm

    The drones in Pakistan are messy and an imperfect solution, but these are all high value SECURITY targets based on credible intelligence, not a revenge effort. In other words, these guys are ACTIVELY planning more attacks against America and Americans.

    While I was impressed with Obama's international legitimacy argument last night, I think this becomes more tenuous as more time has elapsed since 9/11 and the scope of NEW attacks take on a dramatically different character and even different targets.

    Ultimately, we need to move to a more sustainable international legitimacy model where a magistrate at the World Court looks at drone applications much like judges do here for wiretaps and search warrants. The standard of proof should be higher of course, as probable cause is not a high enough standard to warrant drone assassinations.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 2:18pm

39. Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 11:08am

    I am not much of a "dark side" kind of guy, and I prefer the "pragmatic progressive" label used by Obama.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 2:20pm

40. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:05pm

    Here we go again. Are you having fun sounding clueless?

    --so you admit bush is a liar. that's step #1.

    Actually, GWB is the only one who ever admitted that it's about the oil. He wasn't the brightest blub in unscripted remarks either.

    --so you admit the gov't pushing for research into and eventually massive use of "green" energy sources like solar, wind, water, etc. is actually a national security issue. good,

    It's always a good idea to look for alternative sources of fuel. The earth only contains so much oil. Drill baby drill. That's a n0-brainer.

    --"kill" the operative word in your vocabulary!

    Maybe you would prefer just beating them up. hopefully before they kill YOU.

    Child's play.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:28pm

41. --do you have any tots or buns in the oven who you can send to an oil rich country in the middle east or asia in 15-20 years? if not, get crackin, we need to send your dna to get killed!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:07pm

    Been there, done that.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

42. Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 2:18pm

    Can't have it both ways.

    BTW, how do you feel about Obama, a "black man" running around bowing to white people and other people of color?

    You've dodged this question before. How about answering it this time. Please don't give me the protocol thing.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:31pm

43. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:05pm

    Here we go again. Are you having fun sounding clueless?

    --are you having fun fear mongering?

    Actually, GWB is the only one who ever admitted that it's about the oil. He wasn't the brightest blub in unscripted remarks either.

    --not officially though. no, officially he lied his ass off.

    It's always a good idea to look for alternative sources of fuel.

    --you don't "look for" the "green" sources. They already exist. You have to put money into researching so you can figure out how to harness them on a massive scale. And since you admit this is a national security issue, our gov't should be involved.

    The earth only contains so much oil. Drill baby drill. That's a n0-brainer.

    --"no-brain" indeed

    Maybe you would prefer just beating them up. hopefully before they kill YOU. Child's play.

    --fear monger baby, fear monger! that's a no-brainer

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:35pm

44. --do you have any tots or buns in the oven who you can send to an oil rich country in the middle east or asia in 15-20 years? if not, get crackin, we need to send your dna to get killed! Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:07pm Been there, done that.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --get your patriotic cock out and start fucking...we need more troops!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:35pm

45. Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 2:18pm Can't have it both ways. BTW, how do you feel about Obama, a "black man" running around bowing to white people and other people of color? You've dodged this question before. How about answering it this time. Please don't give me the protocol thing.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --how do you feel about Bush, a white man, holding the hand of an Arab as if they were gay lovers, or as if the Arab is his sugar daddy? Don't give us protocol thing--answer this time.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:37pm

46. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:37pm

    White people don't have any hang-ups about how they're percieved. I was just curious about the black pride thing from a black perspective, that's all. But you're not Mett. I'd like to hear from him.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:54pm

47. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:35pm

    You're a pretty crude individual. Do you get all excited and aroused talking that way?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:55pm

48. gunslinger1, how did you like bush tiptoeing thru the pansies with prince bashir or what ever the princes name was?

    Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 3:00pm

49. "Actually, GWB is the only one who ever admitted that it's about the oil. He wasn't the brightest blub in unscripted remarks either. "----Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:28pm

    I'm curious about this one....when did Dubya "admit that".

    ((gunny only on this, please. Wondering where he sources that.))

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 3:05pm

50. Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 3:05pm

    Unfortunately, I can't give you a direct link because it was an off the cuff remark to a reporter in transit. The clip was played heavily on Olbermann and Hardball at the time. Sorry, that's the best I can do. I really don't care if you believe it or not.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 3:08pm

51. It would be nice if the Muslim/Arab world wasn't going through a protracted, extremely violent Reformation period while sitting on top of black gold.

    We are not siphoning off Iraq's oil free of charge. It's just not happening. But yes, a baddy with a really hot export is potentially more dangerous than a baddy with sunflower seeds.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 3:26pm

52. Well, I would say, anyone who is blissfully ignorant of the United States post WWII foreign policy, has been critical of Reverend Wright. The shocking thing to you and all the other true believers, out there, is that when Reverend Wright stated "Our chickens have come home to roost," pertaining to the attacks on 911, he was absolutely correct.

    America has been imperialistic for most of its history. Thomas Jefferson even cast an imperialistic gaze toward Cuba. The Monroe Doctrine is a declaration of imperialism. It basically stated, to the states outside our hemisphere, keep your hand off; we'll take care of things over here. Perhaps most Americans don't realize that for a government of a country to be imperialistic is not a good thing.

    Especially in the last half of the last century, American presidents have covertly overthrown legitimately elected leaders in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America, they have authorized assassinations of legitimate leaders and installed ruthless dictators. Why, because they were our ruthless dictators.

    America doesn't solve problems, it creates them, and then solves them to its liking, much like the UK. Since the fall of 2000, the American government has been operating under the guidance of The Project for a New American Century which espouses a totally imperialistic doctrine. This is where The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war orignated.

    So please, research our history before you condemn someone for speaking the truth, just because it hurts.

    Posted by clingenf at 12/02/2009 @ 3:38pm

53. Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 3:08pm

    Okay....just curious. Typical right-winger would never accept, much less endorse the idea that Dubya "admitted it was about the oil."

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 3:43pm

54. Posted by clingenf at 12/02/2009 @ 3:38pm

    You wouldn't be a liberal college professor, would you?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 4:21pm

55. For all those who criticize the generals who advise Obama as being war mongers your ignorance about the military is not only laughable, but is totally wrong. The people who are most against war are the armed forces.

    Who said the following?: "I hate war. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."

    A liberal Democrat? NO.

    The above comment was from the man who helped save the world in World War II, General Dwight David Eisenhower.

    It'is the politicians who are war hungry, not our men and women in uniform. Those who have seen death and destruction up close are the last people who are for more war and killing.

    Posted by mjkoch at 12/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

56. >>>Can't have it both ways.

    BTW, how do you feel about Obama, a "black man" running around bowing to white people and other people of color?

    You've dodged this question before. How about answering it this time. Please don't give me the protocol thing.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:31pm<<<

    Ceremonial bows are traditional in Asian culture, and it is therefore a sign of respect if one bows and DISRESPECT if one does not.

    As a Buddhist who also practices Yoga, the concept of Namaste (honoring the God within each of us) is another form of "mutual" respect, and, yes, I frequently bow to complete strangers in my Yoga classes in the Namaste tradition.

    The race thing you have in YOUR head is a product of your own upbringing, and I certainly am not going to allow you to project your "racialized" view of the world on me. The idea that one's race is superior or inferior to that of another is the product of pure fantasy and ego, and has no basis in reality, especially the "spiritual" reality that we all must face when our body and ego dies in what we call "death".

    The only thing that survives this "death" is your Karmic-Life-Force-Energy (the summation of all of your deeds, actions, intentions, strong attachments or aversions), and this energy can be reborn anywhere in the world, into any culture, race, religion or economic station.

    So the struggle against racism is really a spiritual struggle against your own attachment to your ego and false sense of self. It is my hope that you engage successfully in this struggle before the death of your current body so that you are reborn into a blissful rather than woeful state.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 5:02pm

57. Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:31pm

    Was that NON-protocol enough for you, GUNSLINGER?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 5:07pm

58. OMG !!!!! If all you saw in what I wrote was liberal bullshit, then there really is no hope for this country. I'm not a college professor, liberal, or otherwise. I'm an American citizen, who, at times, is not proud of what our government has done, but I cannot ignore it.

    Your suspicion that I'm a college professor just because I have a better grasp of American history than you, may explain why you think in terms of liberal and conservative. Get your head out of politics and into a history book, a real history book; not the one you didn't read in high school.

    There's plenty of good information on the internet. For instance, why don't you find out what really caused the Muslim uprising and the Iran hostage crisis. I'll give you a hint, it started long before 1979. It may have occurred before you were born, but the research will be very enlightening.

    Posted by clingenf at 12/02/2009 @ 5:11pm

59. White people don't have any hang-ups about how they're percieved.

    --oh, yeah, right! white people are perception-worry free! you're a fucking dolt!

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 5:26pm

60. President Eisenhower would be called a liberal nowadays. He was a good Prez.

    Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 5:27pm

61. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:35pm

    You're a pretty crude individual. Do you get all excited and aroused talking that way?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I imagine the same way George Carlin felt when he was alive--FUCKING HAPPY I AIN'T YOU!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 5:28pm

62. But yes, a baddy with a really hot export is potentially more dangerous than a baddy with sunflower seeds.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --"potentially"? you're kidding, right. they're the only ones we "care" about

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 5:29pm

63. "With an almost non-existent anti-war movement and a peace movement that is long dead, a Secretary of State and a Vice President eager to do battle to further their careers, a Congress advocating at times for all out war in the Middle East and the Pentagon whose own turf war cedes power only to the contractors from whose trough they feed, is it a surprise that this President shall continue the Yankee interventionism in South Central Asia and the Middle East. It seems that perhaps this continued Yankee interventionism may have a bright spot for its own neighborhood of the Americas. Yankee interventionists there shall have to wait their turn."

    Posted by Scott_ffolliott at 12/02/2009 @ 6:05pm

64. Posted by Scott_ffolliott at 12/02/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes, Scott.

    It would seem, for the time being and probably for the foreseeable future, that we're fucked.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/02/2009 @ 6:33pm

65. And, continuing on that topic, I can't in a million years figure out the rancor, the pissed-offedness, of our rightie friends here to date--since so much of this is going their way.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/02/2009 @ 6:34pm

66. It is amazing and kind of comforting to see a hyperlink to a bible passage in the Nation.

    Posted by Buddy33 at 12/02/2009 @ 7:42pm

67. <i>Posted by clingenf at 12/02/2009 @ 5:11pm </i>

    I'd argue that our history is a very mixed bag. I think that a lot of conservatives overlook the blots on our history or try to minimize them, but that a number of liberals also inflate those blots so much that they conceal the good we've done. Personally, I think that our history has been a very closely intertwined mix of noble deeds and of cruelty. What we did to slaves and to Native Americans was appalling beyond words, and some of the things we've done even in the past half-century have been truly awful, but I think that to focus solely on those and overlook the good things we've done makes you guilty of the exact same oversimplification that infects triumphalist jingoism.

    America isn't God, and America isn't the devil. America is a human country, with good inclinations and bad ones. Why is that so hard for many people to recognize?

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/02/2009 @ 8:55pm

68. Posted by Thrawn at 12/02/2009 @ 8:55pm |

    Good question. I'm one of the "righties" around here, yet I pretty much have the same view of our Cold War entanglements in Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia that our leftist friends do.

    Call me crazy, but the neocon project for me, was a step away from the often amoral realpolitik of the past, though it was tainted by some of the old Cold Warriors (Rumsfeld, Cheney), and some crass profiteering (that's any war, even a "good" one.) It may have been foolhardy pie-in-the-sky, but I'm not ashamed to have put my ass on the line for it.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 10:27pm

69. Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 5:02pm

    Phew! Far out man.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:21pm

70. Ms Lacewell wrote: "President Obama is ...constrained by deep and old expectations about war, conflict, and national security. "

    Many bloggers have written similarly that Pres. Obama does not have a free hand. None says what or who is constraining that hand. I say name names! Who is it, which persons are coercing him? Who threatens him or his family?

    Lyndon B. Johson was threatened, as depicted in the videos and other memoirs we have, that the right-wing would excoriate him had he pulled out of Vietnam. Probably so, but that is not an excuse for killing thousands of Americans and millions of Asians. That is political cowardice!

    If that is the coercion that Pres. Obama feels, then he, too, is a political coward, and his decision is reprehensible!

    Posted by goedel at 12/02/2009 @ 11:29pm

71. With his decision yesterday, President Obama has condemned to death at least another 200 of our beloved soldiers and youth. That if the current trends continue. Do you realize that Mr. President? I would not be able to sleep.

    To get what? In the best scenario a strategic retreat of the Taliban conceding us the 'victory' to return in a few months stronger and most decided....and with thousands of more adepts bred with the hatred at the US occupation. I don't see a cure for Afghanistan that does not pass through education and modernization, and that takes at least 25 or more years.

    Yes, I agree again. War is morally not right, it is only justifiable when defending our lives when attacked. But not like this, looking for preemptive situations and being enemies with everybody there....and not by having 100,000 people there we increase our chances of getting say Bin Laden. We will only with intelligence and by befriending the Afghan and Pakistani people.

    For me Psalm 137 shows how sometimes our souls are parted by hatred. We do love God looking for his love that heals, but sometimes the wounds inflicted by humans ache more, take over our soul and claim on us revenge. We think that revenge will make us feel better... but God tells us that is not the way. Hatred multiplies like wild grass and suffocates human beings, is the most contagious and venomous soul state. It is in the best interest of everyone to cut this interminable chain of hatred and trade it by understanding. God will always help us understand.

    Understand even people that are our declared enemies. Their rancor may have 99% of illegitimacy, but maybe 1% is legitimate attributable to the way we do things. It is just another poor human being dominated by hatred. Help heal him/her as well.

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:34pm

72. Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    bom shanka

    Posted by gren at 12/03/2009 @ 10:22am

73. President Eisenhower would be called a liberal nowadays. He was a good Prez.

    Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 5:27pm

    Kind of reminds me how Time magazine puts Reagan on the cover and says how great he was or how sad they are his successors don't measure up, or how Truman (or that other cold warrior JFK) is held up as a paragon by the present people in the opposite party.

    In 2050 who knows what nice things will be said about Obama or Bush or Clinton, etc. by those who haven't even been born yet?

    Posted by Mistral at 12/04/2009 @ 08:58am

74. .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    test

    Posted by Mistral at 12/07/2009 @ 2:53pm