But first to laredo44:
The author is obviously looking for a device to introduce his "punishment of God" conjecture. The problem is he's told a lie to dramatize his point. This is the way liberals write opinions and report the news. If the facts don't fit the objective, make them up. I expect better from this site.
No offense, but you slipped, Laredo44. Mathewes-Green has established her (that would be 'her', as in: not 'his') credentials over the years as a pro-life, conservative Christian thinker. It's the liberals who would instantly blame the US. While I'm astonished that the thought of some kind of Divine punishment didn't cross her mind, I would be simply flabbergasted if she were liberal and it hadn't crossed her mind. Liberals are the ones just panting for God to punish the US, aching to blame us for everything.
Like it or not, from Amos through Zacariah, the Old Testament prophets see the hand of God in historical events. When Old Testament writers say "The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons," they're not necesarily saying they like that. They're saying that's the way it is. We are paying for our fathers' and gradfathers' support for FDR, for example.
And again, like it or not, we ourselves, whatever our religious or anti-religious affiliation, know that the "innocent" suffer the results of the misdeeds of others. If the contractors who build the bridge are corrupt, the innocent who are on it when it collapses pay the penalty for corruption.
One theme of recent commentary is that x42, the former commander-in-cheat, was too busy covering his, um, indiscretions to pay enough attention to national security and international politics. Remember, one of the themes of his '92 campaign was that Bush41 paid far too much attention to international affairs and not enough to bribing the electorate with their own money. And he won.
Enough voters evidently wanted to be provided for by someone who would coddle them and swathe them in false security. That's what they got -- especially the 'false' part.
And when it became obvious that Clinton was a self-absorbed and luxurious panderer, they STILL preferred him. They preferred a baby-killing adulterer who told them that their sorry situations were the fault of Republicans and that he would take care of them. They preferred to trust a known liar who sheltered them from responsibility for their own lives. And making that choice, they placed at risk not only themselves but the entire nation.
Of course that doesn't mean that ALL the blame falls on Clinton and those who voted for him. But it's hard to see how they don't deserve SOME of the blame.
An argument can be made that if it is somehow a divine law that we should care for one another, then the contra-positive is that the suffering of the innocent weak and poor is, in some respects at least, the consequence of our breaking divine law.
Being human and free involves having a LOT of responsibility.