Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide





Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

A Nobel for Defeating Cheneyism

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 15, 2009
White House / Pete Souza

By Joe Conason

Outraged babble and sanctimonious tut-tutting over President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize will pour forth until the very evening he accepts the prize in Oslo, and then for years afterward. His critics are infuriated, they say, because he didn’t earn the prestigious award, or because he didn’t refuse it—or just because those left-wing Norwegians have a lot of nerve. How dare they insult us by bestowing their highest honor on the president of the United States and inviting him to deliver a lecture?

The conservative media machine has nearly seized up, filling hours of airtime, reams of newsprint and zillions of pixels with glowing rage.

A columnist for The Wall Street Journal, usually known for her saccharine sentimentality, calls the award “wicked and ignorant.” A radio talker with an enormous audience says that the Nobel committee “suicide-bombed itself” and declared that he sides with the Taliban and Iran in their disdain for the committee’s choice.

A nutty host on Fox News Channel suggests that the president had delayed escalating the war in Afghanistan in order to win the prize. An even nuttier and far more celebrated Fox News host insists that the Nobel Prize is merely the latest development in a conspiracy by “global interests that have extraordinary power.” (And the Republican National Committee chairman dispatched a quick direct-mail hit, hoping to channel all the anger into cash.)

Following closely behind this flood of bile from the right came the sour emissions of mainstream commentators, who either demand that the president reject the prize or warn that it will hurt more than help.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Stirred up as the wingnuts seem to be, neither they nor their friends in the media possess much understanding of this little episode. If the hotheads understood how Obama actually did earn the prize, in the minds not only of the Norwegians but presumably most of the world’s inhabitants, their fury might reach nuclear levels.

The five members of the Nobel committee are much too polite to explain their decision in unambiguous terms. All were selected by Norway’s parliament, in accordance with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will, and are politicians themselves. That could be why they were so impressed by the American president’s single big and undeniable accomplishment last November: He inflicted a clear political defeat on those excitable extremists and their politicians, and removed them from power before they could do any further damage to world peace and security.

He kicked out the neoconservative faction, led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, that prefers armed confrontation to diplomacy—and the world applauded in relief, along with the majority of Americans. Whatever the new president may or may not have done since then, nobody beyond a minority of die-hards would wish the Cheney faction to return.

Stopping John McCain, a neoconservative belligerent, and his dangerously clueless sidekick, Sarah Palin, was a significant achievement—and a close call until the final week or so. That is what Obama did, along with millions of other Americans. It is not a mere aspiration or a hope or a pretty speech.

Will the prize help Obama? For a fair assessment of that issue, it is helpful to know who gave it to him. Conspiracy theorists and smug commentators alike contend that the prize is somehow diminished by a supposed association with the left, always neglecting to note in their own ignorance that such figures as Henry Kissinger were among the recipients back when Norway’s parliament was thoroughly dominated by socialists.

While the committee’s current chairman is indeed a leader of the social democratic Labor Party, two of the members of the committee that voted unanimously to honor Obama are politicians of the right. The deputy chairman is the former leader of Norway’s Young Conservatives, and another member also belongs to a conservative party.

Right and left, the world agrees that Obama is a refreshing change. He is restoring the prestige and admiration squandered by the Bush-Cheney regime, as worldwide surveys have lately proved. The prize is merely a symbol of what has already happened—and what may someday help the president to achieve his most important international objectives.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer. To find out more about Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate Web site at www.creators.com.

© 2009 Creators.comthreatening to use the Website to air an internal arguement by writing a disclaimer


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By DBM, October 28, 2009 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

Let’s try that again more carefully:

Regardless of who it has been awarded to in the past, the Nobel Peace Prize is the highest profile recognition there is of diplomacy and other efforts at achieving peace.

It would be nice if it was given to world leaders who have made progress or taken concrete steps towards ending or avoiding conflict.

I agree that Obama hasn’t earned this one yet.  I can only think that it is being awarded as “guidance” towards peaceful options ... or that, as the article says, simply heading up the most enormous military machine in human history in an adult way is seen as progress enough.

Report this

By DBM, October 28, 2009 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Regardless of who it has been awarded to in the past, the Nobel Peace Prize is the highest profile recognition there is of diplomacy and other efforts at achieving peace.

It would be nice if it was given to world leaders made progress or taken concrete steps towards ending or avoiding conflict.

I agree that Obama has earned this one yet.  I can only think that it is being awarded as “guidance” towards peaceful options ... or that, as the article says, simply heading up the most enormous military machine in human history in an adult way is seen as progress enough.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 28, 2009 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

Agreed Ardee, I for one don’t consider the Nobel Peace Prize to be trivial even if it has been given to posturing warmongers in the past. It still might be redeemed in the dim future.

Report this

By ardee, October 28, 2009 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

marthagfy96, October 28 at 5:32 pm

If you don’t care why post?

I speak only for myself when I say that there are actual deserving people out there working tirelessly for peace. Barack Obama is not one of them and thus deprived someone from actually earning this award.

Report this

By Sodium, October 21, 2009 at 12:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Outraged,October 20 at 1:54 am.

“Great post.”

Outraged,

It is heartening to read your two word “Great post”.

Such a compliment,especially coming from one of the most intelligent and enlightened blogger around,must mean something,even more than the meaning of the word"heartening”,because it makes the time spent in searching for reliable information and possibly knowledge,about the Nobel Peace Prize and its five-member committee,elected by the Norwegian parliament,quite worth it. It was not easy,at all,digging and studying the information and segregate the essentials from the marginals,as they appeared to me.

I must admit that,at times,I felt that the right thing to do was quit posting,for good,because of the almost constant deviation from the topics written by various columnists,at different threads. Why some posters do that?,I have some ideas about the “why” of some posters I had horrible experiences with,but I am not very sure of the “why” of others. Your two words quoted above make me hesitant of saying good-by to posting on Truthdig’s website,since part of my thoughts say: never relinquish informing others of what they may not know. It is only a human obligation to just do so. Thank you for making it more difficult for me to leave.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 20, 2009 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Tony, I am sure you are talented in some way to have lived so long and thrived, which I hope you have.  But that talent does not extend to ideology.  You are, and I say this with all due respect, an ideological cretin.  Anaarcissie once posted a link to a Newyorker piece by a policital scientist that stated 90% of the American people did not have a consisstent ideology.  They did not know “what went with what.”  they would want to increase social spending while advocating tax cuts. 

tony, you belong to this majority.

Tony, Zbig is a militarist, the Dem equivelent to PNAC.  He is part of the reason that the US is in Afghanistan, implicitly supporting it in his 90’s book THE GRAND CHESSBOARD.

He is being interviewed by Posner, a journalist whose widely acknowldeged dishonesty puts him in the forefront of American journalist community. He has written dishonest books wildly acclaimed by the mass media for supporting the offical truth about the Kennedy and King assassanations and 9/11.  Which you oppose.

there is delusive HOpe, and then their is cretinism.  You apparently have the Hope that a power systerm that has massacred three thousand Americans is going to honestly investigate it and bring high power figurres to trial.  this is part of the American Drreasm: We Are A Governemtn of Laws Not Men.

What disturbs me is not your personal tragedy,if that is what it is, but that the Amerian people share your ideological blindness.  IF they do, we must wait until they die off and talk to their children.  Who of course they have helped indoctrinate.

Report this

By DBM, October 20, 2009 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

With regard to Obama bashing (nice post Louise), I heard what sounded like a very clear-eyed analysis of the Healthcare situation recently which is relevant.

In the 90’s Clinton lost the financial support of the health industry.  The Dems lost the congress and Clinton’s remaining years as President were Oh-so-fun. 

Obama is trying to find a way to get some improvement in America’s abysmal Healthcare (face it people, it is shite compared to the rest of the developed world) while not losing the Dems the congress in 2010. 

IF money couldn’t buy votes, then what he’s doing would be stupid and short-sighted (shafting most everyone in favour of the Healthcare industry, the Financial industry and the military-industrial complex—though not as much as President Palin would have once McCain passed on).  However, we all know that in the current system money DOES buy votes so what Obama is doing is totally rational.

A system that makes you weep.  It will all end in tears anyway.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 20, 2009 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Louise, October 20 at 11:20am,

So far, the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST war mongerers are not up to peace in any way and will do everything in their power to obfuscate and hinder President Obama’s efforts.

Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST pie for the 70% MAJORITY Common Population of the United States, or of nations the U.S. occupies, is “subjective pie” or “pie in the sky”.

Peace will be when the greedy Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS learn to use their subjectivity mixed with reality to start only “subjective wars”, because peaceful “subjective wars” would be far safer than the “objective wars” the Right-Wing EXTREMIST Conservatives start, and “we the people” would never have to worry about flag draped caskets coming home.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 20, 2009 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Everyone knows, at least they should!

Louise, nice post portraying sentiments on the subject akin to my own.  The constant whining reminds me of ex spouses badmouthing the other spouse to the kids. This kind of simplistic mental exercise contributes nothing but seems to disengage everything especially reason.

It may be some folks from the right are prodding the left along, for some status quo is preferred to change or movement in unknown directions, hence the constant fear factor. 

It seems for some folks,  movement is never fast enough or solid enough or right enough, some folks should acquire even a minor semblance of reality! (Reminds me of Goldylocks and the three bears) Sure it is everything above and may be true, but I refuse to whine about it for the unknowns exceed any known’s. 

Obama offers a kind of leadership not seen in our counrty for many years, the world sees it, the Nobile Peace people see it, but the whiners do not. Obama inherited a cesspool of discontent, the world is in it we are in it, realization acquires stepping back and seeing the crap for the cesspool.

Obama ran his platform on many things, anyone with te smallest ability to utilize reason knows politicians always use something called rhetoric. Some folks evidently accepted Obama’s rhetoric as gospel, one could say a mistake?  Riding the hope train heading for change (in some minds) must be annoying, especially when it may be a life long trip!  If a politician happened to gave me everything I wanted or if they gave me one thing I wanted, that would be a miracle and I do not believe in miracles! 

Please provide me the names of one politician who followed through on every bit of campagin rhetoric they preached when running running for office,  please point them out to me, enlighten me!

Report this

By Louise, October 20, 2009 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

RdV,

“It is a racket that actually shields Obama by those whose worldview, like Bush, is limited to binary opposites. And these are the very same people who rely on worn talking points and catch phrases, posturing as the “adults” and accusing others of living in denial when it is them unwilling to see their hero has continually betrayed them, but continue to hope against hope, if we just give him more time… It is all they have and their lack of clarity prevents the outrage from finding a unified expression opposing the continued Right-wing drift.”

~~~

Ah yes, the “right-wing drift”. Always handy to point at, even though there is no such thing. What there is, is a right-wing ocean. An ocean we all thrash about in, hoping no-one will remind us we carried the water for oh those many years filling up that ocean. Now we drown and desperate for a mouth full of salt-free water scream how dare anyone blame us for our own condition, How dare they not notice we are all victims here! And being the victims of our own design, we feel slighted, frustrated, overlooked because it wasn’t supposed to happen this way. We were promised, weren’t we? Promised if we just shrank government, cut taxes, target the other and obediently watch Wall Street we would all live in La-La Land.

Nobody mentioned without taxes, the physical would collapse. Nobody reminded us when Wall Street profits are based on pie in the sky, they evaporate if someone tries to eat a piece. Nobody wanted to know how we were paying the bill. Nobody warned us to get a life raft before our self-made something for nothing, profit over people ocean of greed, overwhelmed our world!

Ah but there were warnings all along. We just chose to ignore them, until our little piece of highway collapsed from under us.

This isn’t supposed to be funny, but it is. Those who scream the loudest about Obama not being the hero who was supposed to drain the ocean overlook one simple fact. In the real world the only hero’s are the ones created by accident. Good people spring into action when disastor strikes. The rest of us find satisfaction in talking about the action that saved lives, while we all watched from the side-lines. But seems a lot of folks find even more satisfaction in watching efforts to help with the disaster fail. Success is spoken of briefly, then forgotten. But failure, that gives fodder for babble for generations!

Those of us who voted for Obama did not do so because he is our hero. We voted for Obama because he knows how to think! Thinking is not something we’ve seen in the White House for a good many years. So when someone comes along who actually knows how, we are overwhelmed. This is foreign, strange, so unrecognizable we expect, no demand everything get fixed right now! But change comes slowly. Especially when grumblers and fault-finders are ill prepared to embrace change, preferring instead to throw stones.

Has it ever occurred to any of the critics that endless criticism feeds into the so-called dems reluctance to stick their toe in the ocean? For those who have difficulty taking a stand, endless criticism can be misunderstood as support for the right-wing. But lets not go there, why open that can of worms!

By the way, to spare you all the need to attack me for lumping “us” and “we” in the same basket, I apologise. I ackowledge there may be perfection among the critics. I understand there are actually some folks who have never done anything wrong.

Off hand I cant think of anyone, but I’m sure they’re out there. smile

Report this

By ardee, October 20, 2009 at 3:11 am Link to this comment

Outraged, October 19 at 7:14 pm #

Re: ardee

Your comment: “No, you do not see at all, as per usual I am sorry to note,You have your head so far up your own opinion that you simply cannot see that the criticisms of Obama from the right are a far differing animal than are those from the left.”


Thank you for your willingness to prove my point. Why I do not understand, but thanks ever so much anyway.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 19, 2009 at 10:54 pm Link to this comment

Re: Sodium

Great post.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 19, 2009 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

Re: LemuelG,

Your comment: “Thge Taliban hate heroin… are you now a junky?

Right-wingers love God… do you now worship Satan?

I bet Rush Limbaugh takes his coffee white… do you now drink it strictly black? Or vice-versa?”

Bluntly… you have it ass-backwards.  These commenters (“ardee”, used only as an example..) are in full agreement with what they claim to be the polar opposite of their views.  Me… well, I like to engage the views of ALL non-fruitcakes.

Re: Lefeller

Try changing the size of the type (upper left-hand corner of the page).  Wow…. through the wonderful world of electronics we really can change our worldview.  I’ll say a prayer tonight for Disney.  (That’d be Walt Disney, not the corp.)  About that type…. ANNOYING ISN’T IT… we’ll have to see what “ardee” thinks.

Report this

By LemuelG, October 19, 2009 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

Thge Taliban hate heroin… are you now a junky?

Right-wingers love God… do you now worship Satan?

I bet Rush Limbaugh takes his coffee white… do you now drink it strictly black? Or vice-versa?

Report this

By Sodium, October 19, 2009 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

PART 2 OF 2
===========

CONCLUSIONS:

(1) The Nobel Peace Prize Committee seems to have strict requirements that must be met before deciding to award the Prize to anybody. That is evident as the Committee refrained from awarding it to anybody for a total of 16 years. A remarkable restraint.

(2) The recipients who were assassinated/killed/died mysteriously certainly deserved the Prize since they had known the risk involved for shaking the hands of their once enemy and yet accepted the risk involved and put their lives on the lines for peace.

(3) The recipients of the Prize for their humanitarian accomplishments,namely Mother Teresa,Albert Schweitzer,George Marshall and Jimmy Carter certainly deserved the Prize.

(4) If Henry Kissinger,Theodore Roosevelt,Woodrow Wilson were awarded the Prize inspite of their hawkish tendency,then President Obama certainly deserve the Prize even more since he brought a tremendous change favorably for dialogues while he was still campaigning for election to be President.

(5) Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded the Prize because of the profound changes he made in the Soviet Union through his GLOSNOST (OPENNESS) and PERESTROIKIA (RESTRUCTURING) and DEMOCRATIZATION. The changes were so drastic to a point being felt in the Baltic states,Poland,East Germany and the rest of the Soviet Empire and even in the rest of the world.  He had done all that,inspite of the challenges he was encountering in Afghanistan,Chashenya and the dangerous nuclear leak at Chyrnoble,a city of 140,000 people turned into a ghost town. Even some hawkishes public figures such as Margret Tatcher of Britain and Bush Senior of the U.S. expressed admiration of what Gorbachev had done. The whole idea was the drastic change from confrontation to dialogue and accommodation. The world of the 21ST Century is witnessing,right now,a similar drastic change,initiated and beautifully orated by a forty six year old man named Barack Obama,the current President of the United States. Only fools are those who wish to deprive him of the honor he deserves for bringing the badly needed changes to a great nation and deserving people of the world.  No wonder,two separate citations,the Nobel Peace Prize Committee publicly declared for Gorbachev and Obama,were strikingly so similar. If this particular conclusion is not persuasive enough that the Nobel Committee did the right decision in awarding the Prize for 2009 to Barack Obama,I do not know what will be.

Some personal thoughts keep bugging me,inspite of what I wrote above:

*  Why did Obama as a President did not insist that all those who were involved in the process of decision making to invade ,destroy and occupy Iraq be held accountable and be investigated? The change has been great from war mindset to dialogue mindset. WHY?

*  I keep wondering why Nancy Pelosi,the Speaker of the House,right away after she and her Democratic Party won the majority of seats of Congress in the 2006 midterm election,suddenly declared that impeachment was off the table? The change has been also significant from a hawkish majority to a majority that wants to end the wars.  WHY?

*  I also keep wondering why internationally towering and so admired ( and bald-headed ) figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Dwight Eisenhower are not among the list of winners of the Nobel Peace Prize! Strange! Well,we all are human beings and vulnerable to making mistakes due to our own shortcomings. The members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee are no different from the rest of us.  But they have made the right decision in selecting Obama.

Report this

By Sodium, October 19, 2009 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

THIS IS PART 1 OF 2
====================

Subject: President Obama and Facts/Conclusions about the Nobel Peace Prize.

Because of the world-wide interest in President Obama officially declared the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the subsequent meanspirited and vicious attacks against him and the Norwegian committee that made the decisin as well,I had found myself compelled to do some ynpleasantly tedious reseaches about the Norwegian committee and some of the winners of the most prestigious Prize known.

For clarity,an outline of the searches is divided into two parts,the first part is label,FACTS,and the second is entitled,CONCLUSIONS(all information based on the information provided by nobelprize.org):

FACTS:
=======

Fact One: The first Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant,Frederic Passy,in 1901 and the last one was awarded to President Obama,in 2009. That is a total of 109 years the Norwegian Peace Prize Committee had to contend with.

Fact Two: The Committee had refrained from offering the Prize to anybody,specifically in: 1972,1967,1956,1948,1943,1942,1941,1940,1939,1928,
1924,1923,1918,1916,1915 and 1914. That is a total of 16 out of 109 years. Interesting.

Fact Three: In different years,the following organizations were the recepients of the Prize: Intergovernments Panel On Climate Change,United Nations,United Nations Peacekeeping Forces,International physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,International Labour organization, United Nations Children Fund,Red Cross(won the Prize several times),Friends Service Council,American Friends Service Committee,Office of the United Nations for Refugees,Hansen International Office for Refuggees,Permanent International Peace Bureau,Amnesty International and Institute of International Law. Total of,at least,14 organizations since the Red Cross has won it several times.

Fact Four: The following recepients of the Prize were eventually assassinated or killed accidently? in a plane crash,or died from a mysterious dicease: Anwar Al-Sadat of Egypt,Martin Luther King of the U.S.A.,Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden,Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority,Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. A Total of five.

Fact Five: Mother Teresa,Albert Schweitzer,George Marshall,and Jimmy Carter were the recepients of the Prize for their truly remarkable services for humanity. A total of four.

Fact Six: Desmond Tutu,Nelson Mandela and F.E.De Klerk were awarded the Prize for accomplishing a genuine harmony between Black and white people in South Africa. A total of three.

Fact Seven: Adding all of the above recipients of the prize as a sum of a whole,we have a total of at least 26 recipients who truly deserved the Prize. Perhaps some interested readers may wish to add to the total of 26. With a few exception,the rest of the recipients(after subtracting the 26 recipients and 16 for the years in which no Prizes were awarded to anybody,a sum of 42),there remained 57:

109-42 = 57 recipients whose accomplishment/achievements are not quite clear to me. I need help here to satisfy my own curiosity.

SEE PART 2 FOR THE CONCLUSIONS

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2009 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Outraged, using Caps and bolds is most annoying to read, by not allowing the Tequila to settle in my politically infested mind, like flashing lights they disrupt my ability to focus.  I am reminded of the time I was laying on the train tracks the one and only time I saw the light.

Report this

By MK Ultra, October 19, 2009 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How tragically ironic, just today, Democracy Now! had this to report:

US Drone Attacks in Pakistan Rise Dramatically under Obama

Investigative reporter Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine reveals the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan has risen dramatically since President Obama took office. During his first nine-and-a-half months in office, Obama authorized as many CIA aerial attacks in Pakistan as President Bush did in his final three years in office. At any time, the CIA now has multiple drones flying over Pakistan, scouting for targets. Mayer writes, “there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official US policy.” David Kilcullen, a former adviser to General Petreaus, says that the propaganda costs of drone attacks on civilians have been disastrously high. He recently wrote, “Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/19/headlines#3

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 19, 2009 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

Re: ardee

Your comment: “No, you do not see at all, as per usual I am sorry to note,You have your head so far up your own opinion that you simply cannot see that the criticisms of Obama from the right are a far differing animal than are those from the left.”

AGAIN, I disagree.  I realize you find that difficult to grasp, but I disagree.  I absolutely, positively DISAGREE with you.  Does that help…?

As I’ve said, “It appears to me that anything outside of your specific perspective, you feel is wrong. Your position from what I can ascertain, claims that you have every right to say how and what you feel (you have dubbed it “dissent”, although this could easily be debated).”  And, “Btw, the fact that many of your comments are directly related to or indicative of right wing mantras is not an opinion as the link I provided earlier demonstrates.”

Such as your comment, “a travesty when awarded to a hypocrite who speaks one thing and acts in another way entirely, or fails to follow through on all the pretty words.”  So…. you think it a “travesty” that Pres. Obama received the Nobel Prize, just like the right wingers and the Taliban.

The Taliban: “Afghanistan’s Taliban mocked the award of a Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday, saying he should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.”
http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-43043420091009

The Ideological Right: “Today’s news is just another demonstration of how politicized the Nobel Peace Prize has become, from President Carter winning in 2002, to Al Gore in 2007, to President Obama in 2009,” Bolton declared..

“Such a joke,” said Glenn Beck. “I think that everybody is laughing,” intoned Rush Limbaugh. “Our president is a worldwide joke.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/411211_joel16.html

I’m not even going to address that “hypocrite” comment of yours, that’d be downright mean…lol.  However, your other comment, “fails to follow through on all the pretty words”.  Uncanny how your comments “follow” the Newsmax article I quoted earlier almost verbatim,.... remember?

John McCain and Sarah Palin also urged common sense, and look who beat them in the general election — an unaccomplished amateur too busy speechifying about change to say anything memorable about common sense.”
http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_marxism_beck/2009/08/24/251541.html

LOL.  Why you’re staying as close to the fruitcake script as is humanly possible.  Christmas is still a way off, save some for your “guests”.  Btw, when you get frustrated and haven’t a valid position you always opt for the words, “silly” and “childish”.  Always.  Is that a talking point or a simply a personal representation of your lack of creativity?

Here’s your comment:  “That you resort to the extremely childish technique (Are you really a fan of Martha/Thomas?) of tarring any who disagree with your own writ large and in gold opinion,as a right winger? How stupidly silly of you. Is honest debate that far above you that you cannot even attempt it?

Of course this time I was “stupidly silly”....lol.  “Stupidly silly”....? hmmm… “stupidly silly”?, it’s hard to know… is what I’m saying now “stupidly silly”?

Report this

By ardee, October 19, 2009 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, October 19 at 11:05 am #

You noted:
“Ardee,

“I see”.  Was that a quote? (FYI, in my case for some reason I have trouble seeing italics).  Those are my quotations added to your italics, Ardee who were you replying to or commenting on? Poster “I see”? 

Sometimes posts are pulled by TD? “

I respond:
Below is the sequence you seek. I , too,, seem to fail to see, but it is quotes I miss. Note I didnt italicize your question.

Posts go missing, I think Rod Serling must be at the bottom of this repeated occurance. Sometimes a post deserves to go missing, mine own included, some posters deserve to go missing as well. But we must all applaud free speech, even when it isnt so free.
*****************************************************

Outraged, October 18 at 6:21 pm

Re: ardee

Your comment: “I think that your lumping of the critiques of left and right towards this administrations decisions as the same is unfair and untrue. Your unending loyalty needs tempering I fear.”

I see…......the rest deleted as it can be found below.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 19, 2009 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

FT,

Here’s some more brain-dead dingbat hope for you:
Check this interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Daily Beast. He recommends telling Israel, and meaning it, that if they try to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the U.S. will shoot them down when they fly over Iraqi air space. At least he ain’t no Zionist. He also says the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is looking more like the Soviet one every day, and the time remaining to get out of there is getting short. All in all, I would be happy to see the Obama administration follow Zbig’s advice compared to that of his other foreign policy advisers. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message/

Report this

By Folktruther, October 19, 2009 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

Quite right, RdV, and very well expressed.  Religous Faith for the Gops, political Hope for the Dems, both preventing the legitimation of hte reality-based political truth.  But since new policies must come from the left, it is the political Hope that is more insrumental in confusing, obscuring and diluting the indignation that would chrystalize into a new truth consensus. 

The Cons state absurd talking points that create bargaining positions that move the American political truth consensus to the right.  The mainstream Prog leaders and truthers then sweetheart up to them implicitly while ostensably opposing them, carrying along the Prog rank and file.  Preventing effective resistence to the plutocarcy.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2009 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Ardee,

“I see”.  Was that a quote? (FYI, in my case for some reason I have trouble seeing italics).  Those are my quotations added to your italics, Ardee who were you replying to or commenting on? Poster “I see”? 

Sometimes posts are pulled by TD?

Report this

By RdV, October 19, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Obama could duplicate Bush policy, with perhaps minor tinkering or window-dressing- but to observe such a trend automatically earns one the accusation of “right-winger”, which in essence is an effort by those in denial to shout down and silence reality.
  One is left to ask how Obama, his appointments, his servile pandering to Wall St, his backtracking on major issues, his military escalation, and so on can be held accountable, can be made to “do it” when any efforts to do that are met with charges of Right wing allegiance. The irony is, it is they who back Right wing policy by backing Obama when he furthers right wing policy, but they are blinded by partisan allegiance and recognize only symbols.
  It is a racket that actually shields Obama by those whose worldview, like Bush, is limited to binary opposites. And these are the very same people who rely on worn talking points and catch phrases, posturing as the “adults” and accusing others of living in denial when it is them unwilling to see their hero has continually betrayed them, but continue to hope against hope, if we just give him more time… It is all they have and their lack of clarity prevents the outrage from finding a unified expression opposing the continued Right-wing drift.

Report this

By ardee, October 19, 2009 at 3:59 am Link to this comment

I see. 

No, you do not see at all, as per usual I am sorry to note,You have your head so far up your own opinion that you simply cannot see that the criticisms of Obama from the right are a far differing animal than are those from the left.

That you resort to the extremely childish technique (Are you really a fan of Martha/Thomas?) of tarring any who disagree with your own writ large and in gold opinion,as a right winger? How stupidly silly of you. Is honest debate that far above you that you cannot even attempt it?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 19, 2009 at 3:58 am Link to this comment

Samson is typical of rewriting history by ignoring it.  And FT loves to agree with fairy tales.

Like most with only a passing knowledge of history, Samson is totally unaware of the Populist Party and how the Democrats absorbed it and, to some extent, became it.  This occurred in 1896 when William Jennings Bryan (yes, that Bryan) first ran for President on both the Democratic and Populist tickets—with two different Vice-Presidential candidates.  Bryan took on a key Populist demand of expansion of the money supply and going from the Gold Standard to a Gold and Silver standard.  Bryan, an excellent speaker was nicknamed “Silver-tongued” for his “Cross of Gold” speech saying that the common man will not be crucified on a cross of gold.

It was at this moment that the Democratic party drastically shifted to being much more a party for ordinary farmers and workers, a major tectonic shift.

As for Democrats getting us into wars, well, this is an OLD GOP lie—considering they held the Presidency when the Civil War and the Spanish-American War started.  Any student of WWI knows that our involvement was inevitable and that Wilson, for all his faults, postponed it for 3 years, so that when we entered, we tipped the balance for victory by the Allied and Associated Powers (we were never an ally in WWI). The Germans made a bet that by re-starting unlimited sub warfare in 1916 they could win the War before the USA could mobilize to enter it. The Germans DECIDED to attack American shipping, knowing it would force us into the War.

Could Wilson, a total Anglophile, have prevented it by being more accommodating to Germany and less to the UK? Quite possibly, but we’ll never know, now.

The charge that FDR led us into WWII is about as supportable as the charge that Obama isn’t really an American—rumors gen’d up to try to discredit him, based on the charges laid by an elderly and disgruntled Charles Beard, who had been ignored by the FDR admin.

True, Truman led us into Korea—but with a GOP dominated House and Senate they were all gung-ho for it.  It wasn’t until 1952 when the war wasn’t going so well that Eisenhower, who would be a centrist Democrat today, said he would end it.

But Eisenhower got us involved in Viet Nam, meddling in the results of the national elections, which led to the War.  Advisers were there even before JFK came into office, so the charge that Dems started the Viet Nam War is clearly questionable.

Of course, the next wars were Grenada, the attacks on Libya, and the First Gulf War, under Reagan and Bush 41.  Oops—they were Republicans.  To their credit, in all 3 cases the objectives were set, met and “mission creep” avoided.

Yes, Clinton got us into the Balkan War (and somehow won it without getting a single American serviceperson killed!)  and Somalia—but, to his credit, when Somalia blew up, got us out in a hurry.

Bush 43, of course, got us into Afghanistan, Iraq, and nearly Iran (had Cheney not been on the outs with GWB the last 12-18 months it may well have happened. Cheney, the super-chicken-hawk of all time was all for attacking Iran, despite that being both unjustified and likely to start WWIII).  And, of course, Bush totally botched both invasions, being an incompetent ignoramus.

Typical re-writing of history.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 18, 2009 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

By Purple Girl, October 17 at 7:52 am #

“The more the Repugs Bitch about it, only confirms the fact that Obama earned it and deserved it!”

PG,

Unfortunately, here at Truthdig we have to hear mostly left-wing types bitch about it instead.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 18, 2009 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment

Re Outraged

“The fact that Obama is currently reflecting on how many additional troops to send into the morass of Afghanistan, if any, seems to oppose your hopeful view. I see little difference from the previous administration in this one’s agreement that a military solution is possible. Do you share that belief?”

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I hope Obama is reflecting on whether or not to cave in to the terror-industrial complex, which is manufacturing the Afghanistan war, as it manufactured the Iraq war, and as it manufactured 9-11. I hope he is reflecting that even if he wanted to he can’t sell the American people this war, that his liberal base will completely desert him and he will be a one-term president if he tries. Political calculation may force him to do the right thing.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 18, 2009 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

It appears that some want this immediate fix, or some type of dictatorial stance from Pres. Obama proclaiming, “There will be peace.”  Sorry, it’s not going to happen, history DICTATES that.

PEACE, by its very nature cannot be had by being dictatorial.  There are complexities to consider, much of the mantra it seems is demanding a simple fix for an incredibly complex situation.  Mark Danner on Bill Moyers Journal:

“BILL MOYERS: As you speak, I think of something that Obama said during one of the debates last year. I believe it was early in January, just as the campaign for the nomination was starting. And he said, and I’m paraphrasing, I’m running for President because I want to change the mindset from waging war to peace. Now, was that naïve?

MARK DANNER: I don’t think it was naïve. And I think he has begun to do that. I think one of the aspects, you know, one of the reasons behind the Nobel Prize, for example, was a recognition that the rest of the world is so grateful he’s in place. And that he is speaking eloquently about a world of inclusion, of cooperation, and not of unilateralism.

Because the Bush administration was really the nightmare that the world had always feared, which is an America unbounded by anything but its own power. Unbounded by international law, judicial processes, anything. And Obama has changed that impression of the United States, which is extremely important.

And ideologically, it’s important when it comes to the “war on terror,” when it comes to, you know, with relations with Europe. European countries, European leaders can cooperate more easily with the United States when the American President is popular among their publics.

It stands to reason. These are democratic countries. So, this has had real consequences. The question is: can he make institutional changes? Can he go to the next step? Can he represent inclusion when it comes to multilateral institutions? Can he expand our security council?

BILL MOYERS: NATO, U.N.

MARK DANNER: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: IMF, World Bank.

MARK DANNER: G-20, for example, which where he has indeed taken, you know, what was formally the Group of Eight countries industrialized countries, which made the big decisions on economic, world economic decisions, they met together. He now has shifted that decision-making power—to be fair, carrying on a change that was going on under Bush—to the Group of 20, which actually does include Brazil. It does include India. We have a much broader spreading of decision-making power that I think is extremely important. And that indicates a way to put these beautiful words of Obama into real action.”
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10162009/transcript3.html

I agree with Mr. Danner in this regard.  As to the portion I have bolded, it needs to be remembered that this “America unbounded by anything but its own power. Unbounded by international law, judicial processes, anything.”  was felt by all here in the U.S. as well.  It was extremely trying, and many were hurt.  There are no “easy fixes”, it’s going to take a lot of time, energy and wherewithall to right this ship of state.  Complaining just won’t cut it.

Report this

By DBM, October 18, 2009 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

It is well said that Obama has made little effort to “defeat” Cheneyism in that he has steadfastly refused to prosecute Cheney for the crimes which Cheney has been loudly and publically admitting to.

Clearly, Obama sees that this could come back to bite him as he has no intention (or, to give him some credit, little chance) of reversing the decisions which have allowed the power of the Presidency to usurp the law.

All of this needs to be seen in the context of the new political reality in the U.S. where one party is bought and paid for by corporate interests ... the other (the Republicans) is there to provide such a frighteningly insane alternative that people will vote against their own self-interests for the former.

BTW - a fascinating essay on Democracy by Arundhati Roy with an enlightening introduction:

http://www.tomdispatch.org/post/175119/arundhati_roy_is_democracy_melting_

Report this

By Folktruther, October 18, 2009 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

Good point, Samson.  also the Democratic slave south started the civll war by attacking fort Sumpter, in Caralina.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, October 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

The Democrats have only been an ‘anti-war’ for two periods of history that I can think of.

In the early 1970’s, what was essentially a mass popular revolt against the Vietnam war overturned the pro-war Democratic establishment and nominated Sen. McGovern as the Presidential nominee.

In the 1850 and early 1860’s, the Democrats opposed the idea of ‘the Civil War’.  The Democrats did so because they were the pro-slavery party of the era.  Thus, the Democrats were completely opposed to any action the US might take to end slavery, including going to war against the South.

Otherwise, the Democrats have consistently been a pro-war party.  Democrats led America into WWI, WWII and Korean Wars, and started the Vietnam war.

The Democrats are not an anti-war party.
The Democrats are not a peace party.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

Re: Folktruther

Your comment: “I say this with all affection and respect- you are a braindead dingbat.”

Explain how it is that you can call someone “a braindead dingbat” with… as you claim, “all affection and respect”?  Come again…? What is this strange conceptual thought process in which the entirety of humanity appears so concretely deficient, yet you alone possess?

Re: ardee

Your comment: “I think that your lumping of the critiques of left and right towards this administrations decisions as the same is unfair and untrue. Your unending loyalty needs tempering I fear.”

I see.  Again, I disagree.  It appears to me that anything outside of your specific perspective, you feel is wrong. Your position from what I can ascertain, claims that you have every right to say how and what you feel (you have dubbed it “dissent”, although this could easily be debated).  According to you, I should “temper” my position/perspective simply because you happen to disagree.  I can see no logical premise to entertain the “helpful hints” in your previous post as to who or what I should be or say. Nor do I see much validity regarding the context of your perspectives/posts, as they are rarely backed with evidence.

Btw, the fact that many of your comments are directly related to or indicative of right wing mantras is not an opinion as the link I provided earlier demonstrates.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, October 18, 2009 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Surely at some point, even dense Democratic voters who say they want peace have to realize that they don’t get peace when they elect Democrats.

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, October 18, 2009 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.  You don’t have to be a drooling reactionary to realize that.  Henry Kissinger never deserved it either. He deserved a date with the hangman.  But the Nobel Committee can occasionally act like the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences and hand out its Oscar to box office boffo, in this case, Obama.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 18, 2009 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

Tony- I think that you accurately reflect the views of the marjority of Americans who are Democrats.  This raises an historical problem since-and I say this with all affection and respect- you are a braindead dingbat.  The Dem rank and file simply do not want to accept that obama is continuing the policies of Bhush, both being instuments of the American plutocracy.

Currently one out of every nine Americans are on food stamps and this number is increasing, as the moneymen get richer.  This class inequaality can only be maintained by volence, so Obama is increasing the number of gunmen in the US and around the world.  The volence necessary to defend inequality is concealed, disguised and justified by the American truth and the truthmen united by the American truth consensus.  People like yourself.

the American people have been indoctinated in the American truth, the Faith-based truth for the Gops, and the Hope-based truth for the Dems.  We consequently identify with the American power that is oppressiing us. Until the American people reject American power, the moneymen, the gunmen, and the truthmen, the rule by the plotocracy will continue to drive the American people into the ground.

And since you appear to be typical of a large fraction of the american people,  I am beginning to lose HOpe.

Report this

By denk, October 18, 2009 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

blood on your hand, mr prez
http://tinyurl.com/ykmqc4j

Report this

By ardee, October 18, 2009 at 5:06 am Link to this comment

Tony Wicher, October 18 at 2:52 am #

Obama is using a very subtle and patient political strategy to further his health reform agenda. I don’t fault him there; we might yet wind up with something significant.

Excepting for the fact that President Obama turned the entire task over to a Congress splintered and concerned more with campaign funding from that Industry than real reform. This certainly merits the questioning of his leadership I think.

You may very well be correct in that this first effort to reform our health care mess will lead, eventually, to real reform. I do not know.

In the area of national security, Obama started out as a big disappointment, avoiding investigations of crimes committed during the Bush adminstration as far as possible, and charging forward in Afghanistan, his so called “right war” - as distinguished from the Iraq war. But now I think he is beginning to realize that Afghanistan isn’t the “right war” either, and the American people are not going to support such a silly thing as sending 100,000 troops to Afghanistan to do what - catch 100 so-called “Al Qaeda”?

The fact that Obama is currently reflecting on how many additional troops to send into the morass of Afghanistan, if any, seems to oppose your hopeful view. I see little difference from the previous administration in this one’s agreement that a military solution is possible. Do you share that belief?

Outraged, October 18 at 1:04 am

“Mere unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society.”
Earl Warren

I think that your lumping of the critiques of left and right towards this administrations decisions as the same is unfair and untrue. Your unending loyalty needs tempering I fear.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, October 17, 2009 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

Obama is using a very subtle and patient political strategy to further his health reform agenda. I don’t fault him there; we might yet wind up with something significant. In the area of national security, Obama started out as a big disappointment, avoiding investigations of crimes committed during the Bush adminstration as far as possible, and charging forward in Afghanistan, his so called “right war” - as distinguished from the Iraq war. But now I think he is beginning to realize that Afghanistan isn’t the “right war” either, and the American people are not going to support such a silly thing as sending 100,000 troops to Afghanistan to do what - catch 100 so-called “Al Qaeda”? So then Obama still has to decide between caving in to the terror-industrial complex and giving them 60,000 more troops and hundreds of billions of dollars or standing with the people. It remains to be seen what he will do. We the people should do everything to support him against the terror-industrial complex by urging him to get out of Afghanistan, to end the state secrets privilege and to open a public investigation into the events of 9-11. If he does that, then he will deserve a lot more than that Nobel.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

Re: Joe Conason

Article quote: “Right and left, the world agrees that Obama is a refreshing change.”

In this regard, it needs to be considered...., how is it that supposedly in America this appears NOT to be the case…? (at least according to SOME)  I sense a case of “mistaken identity” to be the overriding conundrum.  How was it the insurance industry HIRED, shall we say, “naysayers”, to subvert the wishes of the people?

More succinctly, engage this Newsmax article mantra (a KNOWN right-wing entity).  They claim:

“The latest conservative voice pleading for common sense to counter President Barack Obama’s politics of disaster is that of rising Fox News commentator Glenn Beck.

Witness the messes Obama has made in just six months. Whatever happened to common sense? Like other common-sense conservatives, Beck is frustrated.

Fred Thompson called early for common sense, and it got him next to nowhere in his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

John McCain and Sarah Palin also urged common sense, and look who beat them in the general election — an unaccomplished amateur too busy speechifying about change to say anything memorable about common sense.

LOL, as if John McCain, Sarah Palin and Glen Beck spew common sense.  Whoa, there horsie…  Let’s move on.

This same article from Newsmax claims:

In their mind, when things go bad in a capitalist, democratic society like a recession or — hallelujah! — a depression, that’s great. “For things to get better, first they must get worse” qualifies as a Marxist slogan.

So it becomes the bounden duty of faithful Marxists and allies to help as many things as possible to “get worse.” They don’t ballyhoo it, but that’s their creed.

This is why, from where they lurk, what looks like one disaster after another emanating from the Obama presidency is actually a cornucopia of good news.

Back in the real world, Beck is overflowing with consternation, and it’s good news that he is. For, he’s right — as Thompson, McCain, and Palin were right — in striving for what makes common sense.

Obama’s leftist fantasy world makes no common sense.
http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_marxism_beck/2009/08/24/251541.html

YET, we have these same supposed lefties.... screaming this SAME mantra here at TD.  Hmmmm….. either some have bought this BS… HOOK, LINE and SINKER, or are they not who they PROFESS to be…..

Two and two are NOT making four here.  It leads a person to wonder… who’s on, whose side?  Certainly.  You bet.  Especially when reading the comments of supposed “lefties”....  Oh yeah, me thinks “something is rotten in Denmark”. (Again, no offense Denmark… just a euphemism)

PRESIDENT OBAMA according to Reuters: “U.S. President Barack Obama lashed out on Saturday against the “deceptive and dishonest” efforts of health insurance companies, who he said are trying to kill healthcare reform, no matter the cost to the country.

Sharpening his attack on insurers, Obama also signaled support for a congressional review of the insurance industry’s long-standing exemption from federal anti-trust laws. Some Democrats want the privilege repealed.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN17525473

I see that this has had NO BEARING upon their supposed “leftist” view.  Strangely enough, according to them… it means nothing.

Unlike “them”, to me…. THIS MEANS SOMETHING.  In fact, it means alot.  Pres. Obama and many in Congress are pursuing an agenda that does help Americans.  YES, they are… do not be mislead.

Report this

By SteveL, October 17, 2009 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

The United States is the only country that has used nuclear weapons against
another country.  The U.S. spends more on the military that all other countries
combined.  For the Bush/Cheney years we truly had mad men in charge.  For the
rest of the world Obama would be a welcome relief and would merit the Nobel
Prize.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 17, 2009 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

Fivish, In defense of the loony left, your comment sounds like it is coming from the loony right which means you do not comprehend what you read or not read at all, take the tea bags out of your eyes!

Report this

By Folktruther, October 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

Hang in there, Johannes.  We don’t get enough comment from Europe.  Don’t worry about the grammar and spelling.  as you see, Americans ain’t no good at it neither.

Report this

By Angel Gabriel, October 17, 2009 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How more right wing - Loony can you get than “Libertarian” Ardee?
You’ve become tone-deaf over the years - you fit right in with the Hannity’s O’Reilly’s, Rush’ and Beck’s in this world - You are now such a good ole “merikan Boy! Congratulations!

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2009 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

Fivish, October 17 at 11:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I am sure that the $1,400,000 Nobel Prize money will come in handy…it will pay the bill for the lawyers protecting the secrecy of his birth certificate

Only in right wing loony land could you have missed the statement by the recipient ( that means Obama) that the money will be donated to charity.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, October 17, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Of course, if you take off the Democrat-sycophant blinders and look, what you really see is that Obama has apparently gotten the Nobel Peace Prize for DEFENDING CHENEYISM.

—Gitmo is still open.
—The US Military still holds tens of thousands prisoners.
—The US still tortures.  The legalistic line got moved back a bit, and the more extreme acts are once again committed by foreigners to whom we ‘rendit’ the prisoner, but trying to break a prisoner via psychological and physical pressure is still a much beloved act in Obama’ America.
—The US still spies on its citizens.  Obama has openly defended all of Cheney’s domestic spying plans, maintains and continues them, and will probably act to expand them if the Clinton era is any guide.
—The wars still continue.  Obama has withdrawn only about 5,000 troops from Iraq, while adding another 30,000 to Afghanistan.  And it seems likely that soon Afghanistan will have more US troops than Iraq, even though the numbers in Iraq aren’t falling.  Of course, Cheney never was able to start more wars in Pakistan and Iran.  Those are pretty much Democratic wars started by Obama now.

Obama is not challenging ‘Cheneyism’.  Obama is defending the ‘gains’ that Cheney obtained is his time.  This is the role of the modern, corporate Democrats.  To defend Republican ‘gains’ during times when the Republican brand becomes impossibly unpopular.  The Democrats aggressively act to make sure there is no real roll-back of Republican policies.

Report this

By johannes, October 17, 2009 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

Sorry, sorry, To Madame Purple Rain, and not To Mad. Purple Rain.

In France Madame is some times shorted to Mad. thats stupid, translated in the Englisch language its mad.

So again sorry Purple Rain.

Johannes.

Report this

By bogi666, October 17, 2009 at 7:32 am Link to this comment

After awarding the Noble prize to Henry Kissinger, America’s insult to the world and universe, means that anyone is eligible and would be an improvement. Remember, Kissinger shared the award with the “North” Vietnamese counterpart who refused it.Sharing a “peace” award with Kissinger would be a disgrace for Henry is a despicable, ingrate, cretin and anyone with dignity would not want to be associated with him. If Henry didn’t refuse it, perhaps Hitler should be granted the Noble peace prize posthumously so Henry can have some company. Remember, there was never a country of “South” Vietnam, it was concocted in the imagination of the MIC for the purpose of having a war there.

Report this

By johannes, October 17, 2009 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

Dear Mad. Purple Girl

President Obama did not won or deserved this honour, but he did geth it, for wath, he maby will showe us.

Yours

Report this

By Fivish, October 17, 2009 at 6:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am sure that the $1,400,000 Nobel Prize money will come in handy…it will pay the bill for the lawyers protecting the secrecy of his birth certificate!

Obama is also in the good company of Arafat who also won the Nobel Peace prize even though he was an unrepentent terrorist.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke, a Loony Left - Useful Idiot of a joke.

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2009 at 6:02 am Link to this comment

Purple Girl, October 17 at 7:52 am

Talk is cheap, torture continues. Peace talks chaired by Mitchell have gone nowhere, will go nowhere and nothing will get done. Israel continues to be shown the carrot when they need the stick.

Obama is a great speech maker and a (so far) lousy Executive.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, October 17, 2009 at 4:52 am Link to this comment

Executive Order to abolish the Torture techiniques used by the Bush Regime alone earned Obama that award.
Immediately assigning an envoy to the Isearli/Palestine conflict is reason #2- instead of waiting 7 1/2 yrs to even recognize the decades old conflict which has caused so many other wars to brreak out around the world- including the inspiration for AQ??
Didn’t Obama also finally sign the International Human Rights agreement that had been ignored for over two decades- protecting Women and girls from heinous acts of violence?
Of Course the Neo Cons hate that Obama won this award, it signls their final demise from the Global stage after nearly 3 decades of tyranny.
The more the Repugs Bitch about it, only confirms the fact that Obama earned it and deserved it!Nothing more than Dinaosuar shrills from the Tarpit! Good Riddance. The only global appearance these assholes should be making, from now on, is in front of the International Court as Defendents for their War Crimes and crimes against Humanity.Hang them Low and Slow!

Report this

By johannes, October 17, 2009 at 3:36 am Link to this comment

May I, put two Americans in I love, Kurt Vonnekut, Flannery O’Conner, two people on polar distance, but in the end very close

Report this

By Larry, October 16, 2009 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not many people capable of original and independent thought really care how the liberal/conservative media line up…it is often too difficult a task to distinquish between the two to bother.  The point is that the Nobel Prize is austnsibly a Peace Prize…why are pontificators on both sides of the divide so intent upon redefining it?  Well, yes, it was intended to award individual efforts made toward the goal of peace.  According to the guiding precepts of the award, it was not intended to award hope, or good intentions or wishful thinking, but rather achievement and “peacful deeds.”  By successfully “throwing the buggers out” in defeating the reactionary elements in the last election, Obama should be commended, but not overly so.  Deposing of such sinister and inept “old order” elements was not that great a feat.  Who else gave the US middle of the road electorate what they wanted?  Corporate America was not concerned or alarmed, either…they knew Obama was not the spontaneous shooter from the hip rebel he affected on the campaign trail, but rather a long time member of the corporate “hip pocket” elite.  He quickly proved this with bank bail-outs before he even stepped into the Oval Office.

If we look at Obama’s “peaceful” rhetoric in the campaign, we can see where his theme of “change” originated…While pointing with pride to his vote against going into Iraq, or the rather the circumambulating resolution to not give Bush the ultimate say.  But once confronted by a sizeable conservative voting block who bought the late-term Bush/Cheney rationale of an orderly and gradual Oil-producing withdrawal, it was fairly obvious which way the rabit would go.  The decision had little to do with concern for the safety of OUR TROOPS, or for protecting the grand democratic strides we had made with the Iraqi police and military (those forces, after all, at the center of any nation-building exercise we undertake).  But the rest is fairly academic.  We are still in Iraq, and will probably leave, ironically, at the behest of the reigning Iraqi authorities.  Afghanistan is an all together different story.  Obama was able to muster some hawkish approval from the right about going after Al Qaeda (all one-hundred of them)in their “heartland”...now, was that Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia.  Sounded good coming from a former reluctant dove earlier in the three+ year campaign.

My point?  You don’t have to be conservative or reactionary or racist or fascist to disapprove of Obama’s so-called peace record.  He quite clearly does not have one.  You might be considered all those things, however, if you speak out against this so far phoney sacred cow.  His next award:  World Health Prize

Report this

By Folktruther, October 16, 2009 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

“My heroes are Buckminster Fuller, John Denver, Paul Newman, Mark Twain, and Peter Kropoktin. All of these guys teach civics by example. ’       

  Thank you for the political advice, Skateboard.  I see you choose from a variety of heroes.

Report this

By tony, October 16, 2009 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Never get your info from just once source. And just as important to getting the
facts from a reliable source, you have to also watch the news that is
misrepresenting the truth. That way, you can better understand the significance
of the lies. It is also a good idea to get news from abroad about your own
country. It gets easier to see the bait and switch now. Like the mainstream
media all talking about Valerie Plame and the blown cover. When really, that
story was about Powell claiming weapons of mass destruction and them getting
it from Nigers, and Plame’s husband (Wilson) speaking out after Powell saying it
is not true. So the real story was an administration going after the guys wife
because he was messing up the reason for going to war. Meanwhile, people
argue on the blogs about the wrong thing. And the administration is laughing
at us. You do know they think we are idiots. Have you once heard a president, a
mayor,  say that he wanted to know from the people what his next move is; no.
Until that happens, nothing will change. And it will not happen by waiting for
your neighbor to do it.

I just wanted to give that example above, to show how this stuff gets twisted.
And for the record, I am no republican/democrat, I dont fit in any neat box or
title. When you label things, it takes away all meaning. It makes it easy to
handle for you, but every topic has a trail. This news thing is either a true story,
or a false story. There is no two sides,, or an opinion. Look up the word,
opinion. They are getting us to hate, and fight. I say we are smarter than that.

Report this

By Fraser Tothus, October 16, 2009 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Excellent posts, you lovers of liberty, who do the heavy lifting in what often seems a vain attempt to restore the democratic republic to its ideals.  Ridiculed, ignored, with no corporate voice, no money, fought at every turn, incessantly bombarded with the lying commercial propaganda and encouraged to be a passive spectator by every means available to the handful of avaricious men who can hire others to do the dirty work and avoid getting blood on their own grubby hands. Despite all of this, there are still some who recognize lies when they hear them, sophists when they read them, and trust not the words, but the actions of those who would set themselves up as kings and nobles, who distrust democracy, and fear freedom or reward for any but themselves alone. In a world in which a mass-murderer like Kissinger can receive a Nobel prize, it is foolish to put any weight on such an obviously meaningless reward.

Report this

By skateboardkid, October 16, 2009 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Folktruther, aljazeera is another one who got cold feet on giving the news
without the bias.

Another good site is uruknet, great news from abroad. A much quicker way to
read the news, is to use the RSS Feeds, or XML feeds. Look at the top of yopur
screen in the address bar. there should be a blue RSS Icon, or an orange XML
Icon. Click on it, and hit save to my favorites. Otherwise, you may search the
site for the feeds to get you going. Then each day; articles will come from each
news feed. Yopu will see the number of articles in parenthesies next to the
favorites list. Just click on the favorite, and you will be taken to a blue screen
with all the articles for that feed. I use about 25 feeds from technology,
medicine, astrobiology, poverty news, and people problems (politics). I also
spend allot of time researching people, I like learning about the good guys. But
I also have to learn about the bad too, wish I could use this time for something
better though. After a while, you get a pulse of what is going on. You start to
see how we are all misinformed, and scared. This is why some post, is because
they are scared and just looking to lash out. I was one of them.

Another really neat site is A.P.O.D., astronomy picture of the day. It really puts
things in perspective, and miraculous to see.

Report this

By skateboardkid, October 16, 2009 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Folktruther, I just pasted what someone else said here, down below. It’s not just
truthdig, a while back I saw Hunffington Post do this same turn around, and
David Swanson did not believe me.  Now it is no secret. Money just corrupts all,
doesn’t it.

I get most of my news from David Swanson at afterdowningstreet.org,, and
Amy Goodman at democracynow.org.

Have been spending about three hours a day for the past 9 years studying the
human behavior behind politics. I wanted to know why people just sit and
watch, and do not get mad or involved. And the answer rests on our shoulders.
They want us to argue, to split up and disorganized. That is why Malcom X was
so dangerous, he spoke to all people and said we have the same problems in
common.

My heroes are Buckminster Fuller, John Denver, Paul Newman, Mark Twain, and
Peter Kropoktin. All of these guys teach civics by example.

I usually am speaking with people who are ignorant about politics, or are the
blame for our problems. So it is nice to come here to a mixed crowd,

I wrote to the Nobel, and in a respectful way; so that they will read it. I
reminded them of the symbolism, and how it could be better used. I pleaded
that they take back the prize from our president. Then I posted my letter so all
could see on the internet. I suggest you all do the same. Imagine if the money
and prize went to a war resister, or to someone who is in media, and speaking
out despite the cost of losing their job. This would speak volumes about our
current situation. Right now, the Nobel is just getting in the way of our fight; I
would rather speak put and loss money, than stay quiet and take what is left. It
is better to invest by building our future the way we want it.

Report this

By Angel Gabriel, October 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By ardee, October 16 at 6:44 am #

“Angel Ganriel, October 15 at 5:13 pm

The Nobel Prize is not awarded, or has not been in times past, on the hope that the individual will accomplish great things. It is, instead, a recognition of accomplishments, thus a travesty when awarded to a hypocrite who speaks one thing and acts in another way entirely, or fails to follow through on all the pretty words.”

You know Ardee, I’m surprised at you really. In following this site over the years your comments on issues generally reflect a pretty level sense of balance and logic - well over many other regulars here that are all-over-the-show with their inane and ethereal rants.
In a sense, I CAN understand and appreciate your condemnations of Obama as not having made progress on righting the wrongs of the previous bunch of corrupt thug war mongers that infested the White House. He’s made some eloquent speeches, and as an Orator he is head and shoulders above himself as a Mr. Fixit - the man for change as he claimed.
I’m generally not one to give U.S. Politician’s a lot of scope - They are by their nature Corrupt - It’s the American Way - afterall! But, even in understanding what the American Way is, I told myself that this guy was up against Mt. Everest in the job he had on his plate to attempt to repair the damage that has been done by his immediate and not so immediate predesessor’s.  Very few, if any, of the former leaders of the US have had such a horrid mess to clean up in taking office. He may not be going in all the right direction’s for your Libertarian leaning taste, and he certainly isn’t going to win a Cupie Doll at the Circus from the burnouts on the radical right who self ignite daily, AND he is not the favorite son of even his own thoroughly corrupted party, who are now closely joined at the hip to the corrupt Center right Corporately Prostituted Conservatives in House and Senate, but he is at least making a good show of trying to stem the massive leaks in the American plumbing without getting himself killed in the process (so far). You know damn well how the country works over there and the flow of power , as do I - You know who calls the shots, and it ain’t the President, it’s the constituency with the biggest check books- yet you still yammer away at the man as he tap dances his way through the nuclear mind-fields (pun intended) that is the United States of Bigotry and Corruption.
Is there any wonder that you people can’t clean up your act??? There is non-whatsoever in my mind - you all have such narrow minded opposing opinions of what it takes to get the wheels stuck back on for your own selfish interests that you will never agree with each other on anything the man does, or any man does for that matter. He cannot win! He is destined to be a failed Head of State, and he is going to fit right in, in the Failed State that he is Heading! And it is because of yourselves that you have failed! You have eyes, you can see, and still you refuse to accept the reality in front of your nose and make the changes!
John Lennon made a brilliant statment in one of his songs many brilliant songs if you remember - “Give Peace a Chance”, I’ll pose a change in the lyric, and ask you to support the man to accomplish something positive, and “Give Obama a Chance”.
If you F—king loonytoons over there keep the divisions up you will never put the choo-choo back on the track - ever! You are heading down an irreversible slippery slope and destroying yourselves despite your slightly good intentions. Please stop, you’re killing the rest of us too!

Please consider that the Nobel Committee may never have awarded the prize ahead of the accomplishments in the past, If you want to call Kissinger’s killing machine an accomplsihment, but maybe this time they’ve changed how they make the award in hope of a better future outcome! After-all, Hope is all you have left you’ve burned all the bridges behind you already!

Report this

By @CT, October 16, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s War-waffle du jour:

Pentagon reviews restrictions on photos of wounded soldiers
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091016/usa/us_afghanistan_media_military

Report this

By @CT, October 16, 2009 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

The destruction of memory seems far advanced, when it comes to Obama.

Here’s something from last year, on Der Won’s “I’m like Bush” interview with Tim Russert:

Obama: No Difference Between Me & Bush on Iraq
http://broadcatching.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/obama-no-difference-between-me-bush-on-iraq/

. . . and some “outraged babbling” (not for the squeamish) from a couple of weeks ago:

Rape of Iraqi Women by US Forces as Weapon of War: Photos and Data Emerge

—> oops! Can’t post THAT one: “Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found”. Happy Googling.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 16, 2009 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

skateboardkid, You may be correct TD has grown over the years I have been following it, the advertisements have increased and some seem very conservative.  On the other hand, preaching to the choir inspires little thought or discussion as many conservatives religiously listen to Fox or Limbaugh never hearing the other sides opinions.

Report this

By dihey, October 16, 2009 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

Annie

I wrote the White House and asked whether the President knew that his name had been submitted for the Nobel Peace Prize. The answer was yes. That was not a surprise for me because it is well known that the name of almost every ruler on Earth, even of the vilest dictator, is routinely submitted every year. You can now remove your concern about my assumed paranoia from your brain and sleep in peace.

Obviously President Obama could have asked that his name be stricken from the list of candidates.

Incidentally, if you had made the effort to learn yourself whether the President knew in advance you would have known better than to write what you did so uninformed. Apparently you have a lazy mind or the curiosity of a sloth.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 16, 2009 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

the awarding of the Nobel prize to Obama was put into a reasonable context by Niomi Klein in a piece today on CommonDreams.  A very smart person, possibly because she grew up as a red diaper baby in Canada, not afflicted with the American truth cosensus.  Also a college dropout, although she latter spoiled it by getting a degree.

Her view is the obvious one.  the Nobel Prize was given to Obama by reps of Europe to welcome the US back to a multinatioaal policy, transformed from the Bushite unilateral policy.  The US again leading the West after going off the rails in the Bushite regime.

It is leading the West to barbarism.  Although this return to multilateralism is good for the power systems of Europe and the US, it is bad for the world, as Klein points out in telling details. 

Obama is a war president, continuing Bush’s wars in a Western multinational context.  Which means extending US violence, torture, terrorism, racism and barbarism to Europe and the anglo-saxon countries.

Itis against the interests of both the American people and European people to cement this new alliance.  It would be much better for the people of the world for Europe to look to Russia and form a loose European allaince rather than an Atlantic allaiance. 


In any case the US eoconomic situation is not viable. US firms cannot produce goods in low wage countires and export them to high wage countires because the demand will continue to lessen in the race to the bottom.  As China and Asia rise to lead the world in a new direction.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 16, 2009 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

The really sad thing is that this was a Hope for Peace Prize. A false hope and for the desperate is the only hope. Sometimes you must forgo hope to be able to see clearly and fight for what you want. At the end of the 16th century the Dutch of the “low countries” fought the Spanish empire to be free from their yoke and they had no hope. Hope isn’t everything. False hope is that phantom carrot that lets those who think hope is the only motivator be lead down the prickly briar path of serfdom.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 16, 2009 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

Selfishness and greed,  trickles down to bicker over, while one billion go hungry.

Report this

By Louise, October 16, 2009 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

RdV,

“Give it a rest, Louise, silly dupe.”
~~~

Oh my, looky here! The duper calling me a dupe! How fun is that? Taking marching orders from the all things are bad, so bring the badest back, the always right “right” does the one thing they are bestest at ... name calling.

Good on you. I betcha your masters are proud. One more dollar in the pocket of the pimps who push the putrification called “Peace ... My Way, subtitled, if there’s still a buck to be made off the less fortunate in the world, let’s find it.”

Oh, I forgot, stealing from the poor to keep the rich in power isn’t what this is all about. (Sorry about that.) No indeedy, killing the poor to keep the rich in power is what this is all about. And I’ll betcha you figured we would be “duped” into believing you give a big hairy rats ass whether or not anyone is successful in slowing down the mad march to disintegrate the masses.

Nope. Try again. smile
~~~

“Quit compartmentalizing your thinking. With suckers like you believing that change is so insurmountable that it requires a super human feat—”
~~~

Actually, I don’t believe that change is “so insurmountable that it requires a super human feat.” That’s your interesting choice of words, (which by the way I never used in my comment.) Tell me, is that because you have to swallow hard everytime Obama actually manages to take a stride forward? That has got to gaul, right? I mean in spite of all those banana peels, he stays on his feet! That’s not fair. Look how hard you work to make him look like a failure? Getting to where a hell bent and determined to crash it all crasher cant even parse his words without sticking his foot in his mouth.
~~~

“one is left to wonder how anything in the history of the world was ever accomplished.”
~~~

I suspect you do a good bit of wondering. I bet you have to scratch your brain trying to figure out accomplishment versus failure all the time. So take the simple step. Decide what works for you and try to make that the absolute that makes the whole world turn the way you think it should turn.

That’s oh so conservative.

Lets see, how can we turn black and white into fuzzy blah? Oh, I have it! Turn every small step forward into a step backward. There ya go. everyone is walking backwards! So it only looks like steps forward are being made.

Rove would be proud. smile
~~~

LostHills,

“When your son comes home in a body bag, it’s not going to make much difference to you whether Cheney sent him to his death or Obama sent him to his death.  If you are a villager in Pakistan whose wife and daughters were just blown up by a drone, you’re not going to congratulate the perpetrator for his new “peace prize.”
~~~

You’re right about that. When I burried my sons, I didn’t waste a lot of time trying to lay blame. So, I didn’t blame them.

They, like me, and like Obama didn’t create the conservative horror that rules our lives! So I don’t blame the victims anymore than I blame whoever has to step in every few years and try cleaning up the mess the right (who is always wrong) always creates!

If you-all don’t like being labled a right-winger, maybe you need to think about what you are really saying.

Blaming Obama for being stuck with the mess a lousy pack of rats called “conservative” created is like blaming my sons for being dead!

Report this

By skateboardkid, October 16, 2009 at 7:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony Lynch hits the nail on the head.

“I think the real issue here is why Joe Conanson’s piece is on Truthdig in the first
place.  Is Truthdig positioning itself to join the Mainstream Media?”

We are all about to find out that by selling away our morals for a big bank
account, is no better than storing your nuts in a flooded hole in the ground.

So it is our time to speak out, and we need media.

Report this

By Annie, October 16, 2009 at 6:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

dihey, all you have to do is prove that Obama submitted
his own name and then I won’t think you’re a tad
paranoid

Report this

By dihey, October 16, 2009 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

Annie: “Obama didn’t lobby for the Peace Prize, so I see no blame on him”.
Wait a minute Annie, someone must have sent his name to the Nobel Committee with extensive documentation in support of his case. Am I to assume that President Obama did not know that this had been done? How naive do you think I am?

Report this

By ardee, October 16, 2009 at 3:44 am Link to this comment

Angel Ganriel, October 15 at 5:13 pm

The Nobel Prize is not awarded, or has not been in times past, on the hope that the individual will accomplish great things. It is, instead, a recognition of accomplishments, thus a travesty when awarded to a hypocrite who speaks one thing and acts in another way entirely, or fails to follow through on all the pretty words.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 16, 2009 at 3:43 am Link to this comment

Burning out the right side of ones brain would seem to make a lefty! This award thing is most disgusting. Self promoting crap like Emmie’s and Grammy-es seem nothing but distractions from real life, like the Super Bowl more hype than substance? 

So Obama won the peace prize before the movie came out out or he has not filled the sky’s with doves before his world wide peace movements. At least wait for the movie to start.

Maybe the Norwegians jumped the gun because they did not have much to choose from, it is sort of like someone saying they came in first in a big race,  forgetting to say, no one else was running.

Report this

By ardee, October 16, 2009 at 3:41 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, October 16 at 12:20 am

I applaud this post and the poster for a literate and accurate assessment. Kudos.

Report this

By abdo, October 16, 2009 at 12:30 am Link to this comment

I see this as not a question of whether or not Obama is up to the challenge of a peace prize, but whether or not we the people are up to the challenge of a peace prize.
Louise, October 15 at 10:17 am
you said exactly what I want, and let me remind the left,me, that obama run and is a centrist and needs a lot of push and help on the “socialist !!!!!!!!!!” part of his agenda

Report this

By LemuelG, October 15, 2009 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment

Of all the sycophantic, incompetent pieces written recently defending Obama’s peace-prize, this is easily the worst… by some margin, it is simply retarded - I don’t know how else to describe it (?).

I mean, the author’s point is simple - Obama deserves to win because he is not Bush/Cheney and because he beat McCain/Palin… now, perhaps I’m being rash - maybe the author has a better understanding of Nobel’s will than I - it is possible, I guess.

(or is this asshole just being contrary ‘cause he thinks it’s cool to try and bum-out ‘right-wingers’? I would not even dare begin to lecture on the philosophical folly of any such position, it ought to be clear to anyone in possesion of a triple-digit IQ)

This is amazingly poor writing; I could come up with something deeper and more relevant by feeding my dog Scrabble pieces and arranging them in the order he shits ‘em out. Boo.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 15, 2009 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

* He immediately signed an executive order to close Gitmo. Without any plan of action, it is tabled and not funded.
* He changed our course from the neocon’s path of unilateral preemptive war. Back to multilateral (for the USA’s unilateral plans as in 1990) actions of war on other weak countries on the USA’s list.
* He has publicly committed to cooperation, diplomacy and dialogue with the rest of the world. Yes, to help with the heavy labor of empire abroad. The more Allies the better under the aegis of the USA at all times.
* He announced his commitment and put forth a call to all other world leaders to engage in serious nuclear disarmament talks. Others have called for it but again he must prove he means it. He hasn’t with health care or torture so?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 15, 2009 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

The idea is that if the Cons are against it, the Progs should be for it.  In fact the Con and Prog leaders AGREE on the presuppositions of policies, just as they did in the Nobel Prize committee, both social dems and conservatives agreeing on awarding the prize to Obama.
************************************************

Good to see things are back to normal and my pal, FT, is, as usual, misunderstanding even simple things.

No, FT. The ideas is that if the NeoCons are against it, you should RE-EVALUATE being against it as well, not blindly be for it.

I cannot think of ONE THING Rush Limbaugh has EVER been right about, ever.  The man’s like a weathervane or a barometer.  One would have to be a fool to not read those indicators.

Report this

By skateboardkid, October 15, 2009 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have been thinking since my last post, and really wonder how some people can
be so clueless to what is going on in front of their eyes. He has been in several
public servant positions for us over the years, and he has always sided for making
money for himself and friends; not once, done something for the common person.
It is the worse campaign slogan failure, saying ‘change you can believe in”. I see
nothing new from this administration, and now wonder if there is any hope for
our situation. I listed earlier, a few things he lied about doing; but really, the list
goes on, and on.

And it is not helping the least bit, for people to post on here like they know what
is going on, and confusing others as to where we are in this charade. I mean,
come on; are people really that clueless.

Report this

By skateboardkid, October 15, 2009 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just wanted to add my vote for “no way in hell? does this man deserve the
peace prize.

He did not close guantanamo bay.
He did not undo what all Bush did in office, nor go after the felons.
He is allowing immunity, and the continuation of domestic spying.
he did not recall the stupid Bush war on terror.
he did not select new people in his cabinet for change, most are Bush/Clinton
people.
He did not lift the embargo on Cuba.
He did not create actions that back us away from a cold war with Russia.
He played a part in removing/preventing democratic leadership in Columbia,
and Honduras
He did not created transparency, and regulation of capitalism.
He is complicit to the greatest theft in history with the financial bailout.
He has not looked at voter machine fraud.
He continues to say one thing, then use a signing statement to undo what was
said.
He has not done any thing but change the furniture, and wardrobe in the white
house.

If anyone has to differ, then you are young in your journey in reading politics.
And you have not questions what you were told, by what is actually done.

Report this

By Tony Lynch, October 15, 2009 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think the real issue here is why Joe Conanson’s piece is on Truthdig in the first place.  Is Truthdig positioning itself to join the Mainstream Media?

Report this

By ocjim, October 15, 2009 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

This only indicates that the right-wing miscreants have no integrity, no intelligence and a great deal of vindictiveness. They prove themselves misanthropes who would destroy the world rather than cooperate with one more open and superior to them.

Report this

By @CT, October 15, 2009 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

JFoster2k writes:
“While his efforts to date have been largely symbolic and rhetorical, it’s a start… “and the world applauded in relief”.

“Symbolic and rhetorical”, or endless dithering jive spouting out both pretty faces?

Meanwhile, not much peace for the US elderly and disabled, while Obama and McChrystal want to buy off the Taliban with “jobs”. Yeah, it looks great: the only thing the Oblabla Org is sure about, is mau-mau’ing Fox News. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing.

“Pictures of American military deaths are rare, but until now they have not been officially banned during either of the ongoing wars.”
Photos of Military Deaths in Afghanistan Banned
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004022471

As Obama mulls escalation, US military in Afghanistan bans photos of war dead
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/us-military-bans-photos/

White House Denies BBC Afghan Surge Report
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/15/world/worldwatch/entry5385392.shtml

Report this

By JFoster2k, October 15, 2009 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

Like most, I was surprized to hear President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. However, to say he has done “nothing to earn it” is simply not true.

* He immediately signed an executive order to close Gitmo.
* He changed our course from the neocon’s path of unilateral preemptive war.
* He has publicly committed to cooperation, diplomacy and dialogue with the rest of the world.
* He announced his commitment and put forth a call to all other world leaders to engage in serious nuclear disarmament talks.

While his efforts to date have been largely symbolic and rhetorical, it’s a start… “and the world applauded in relief”.

Report this

By chrisx, October 15, 2009 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama did not defeat Cheneyism. His speech on May 21 at National Archive was”a capitulation on most of the points specified by Cheney. Prisoners would now be divided into five categories: those who could be freed because they were innocent; those who could be extradited to foreign countries; those who fell under the jurisdiction of military tribunals; those who could be tried in civilian courts in the US; and then a fifth category – those whom we lacked evidence to convict but who (it had been decided) were too dangerous to set free. These prisoners would be held indefinitely under a new legal dispensation still to be devised. Preventive detention was a step President Nixon had proposed to Congress in 1970, but he never found the support or the temerity to put the program into effect. Yet here was a Democratic president and professor of constitutional law doing what Nixon and for that matter Cheney and his assistants had only dreamed of.”

The above quote is from very interesting article:  http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n20/brom01_.html

Obama has already quietly sent 13,000 troupes to Afghanistan and now is poised to announce 45.000 troupes surge to the same country: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6330163/United-States-to-send-up-to-45000-more-troops-to-Afghanistan.html .

In every area where strong peace initiatives and actions are needed, this president is either silent or waffling or actively promoting war.  So much for the Nobel Peace award.

Report this

By Angel Ganriel, October 15, 2009 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ardee, Folktruther, et al… short sighted R/L American’s.
The award was based on the “hope” that proponents of peace outside the US place in Obama to make good on his (so far) rhetoric that got him elected. It is an encouragement and an endorsement made by the world community, through the Nobel Committee, that there is more to the man than his predessesor’s ever accomplished and he CAN lead to bring about a change in the American war societies course and hegemony in this world. After all, this is a Nobel “World” Peace Prize, and not just a US trophy for enemy kills or bold-faced lying!
It is apparent that your Americanism doesn’t allow you to see beyond your own borders, as has been the case for the 232 years since your birth as a nation. That is, unless you want something someone else has and decide to kill them for it like you did with your own Indigenous Peoples!
Granted, Obama has a long way to go to fulfill his promises that this award was based on, but without the support of you homegrown patriot’s he is only a man standing alone faced with a monumental task of turning a failed state around and rejoining the world in equality to fix the broken peace and welfare that we all lost from your greed and to feed your supposed exceptionalism.
Kia Ora Tate

Report this

By @CT, October 15, 2009 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

Conason’s O-pologetic leans hard on calling those who question the deification of Oblabla cult “wingnuts” and the like—a sorry sort of politics which was first put forth in a major way by MSNBC, by commentators ridiculing the teabaggers.

The best thing about the reign of Cheney-Bush was that people could anticipate—“hope” hahaha—something better, if everybody worked hard to elect a Democrat. The pressure from supposed liberals to embrace Obama’s lite-right flim-flam is annoying.

Some on Nobel Peace panel reluctant on Obama
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091015/us/politics_us_nobel_jury

Top Ten Reasons President Obama Should Give Back the Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=print/content/top-ten-reasons-president-obama-should-give-back-nobel-peace-prize

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, October 15, 2009 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anyone who can read between the lines knows he got the
prise for defeating John McCain who was itching for
another not so cold war with Russia and also for not
flaunting American power but looking more towards
international cooperation.  The prise has been given
for a lot less.  Get over it.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 15, 2009 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Mr Cononson was not duped.  His power function is to dupe others.  The US truth consensus is led by Con truthers who pull it to the right.  the function of Prog leaderss and truthers is to pull the Progressive rank and file to the right the way the Cons do to their Con rank and file.  since the plutocracy are mostly Cons and control the media corporations and other truth organs, they pay people like Cononson to dupe the Progs the same way that Limbargher dopes the Cons.  Faith-based truth for the Cons, Hope-based truth for the Progs.

Report this

By Annie, October 15, 2009 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama didn’t lobby for the Peace prize, so I see no
blame on him. However, it’s a sad state of affairs when
the PEACE prize goes to a man who’s leading two wars
and has no plan to diminish America’s insane military
spending. Couldn’t they have waited a few years to see
where he takes his presidency?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 15, 2009 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

No he is a change of face but the fascist militarism marches on. That is the problem we have a different face and persona but the same kinds of dangerous, to the republic & the world, actions are still being done.

We could have more troops in Afghanistan soon than that “Evil Empire” had at its height of occupation! That is an improvement? Only to the fooled and the desperate to be fooled. Include the Nobel committee. I am astonished that Mr. Conason was so duped. He must be desperate for change too.

Report this

By melpol, October 15, 2009 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

It would be a gesture of humility if the president kept the cash end of the prize
and donated the rest to the Pope. The world would applaud the president for his
generosity and his ability to share.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, October 15, 2009 at 11:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Peggy Noonan had a most ridiculous reaction to the
Nobel award.  Wonkette had a link to it yesterday. 
http://www.wonkette.com  Clink on the picture of Peggy
Noonan at the top of the page.  Peace is a
“mischievous” thing in a time of war.

Report this

By felicity, October 15, 2009 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

A person who has made a life-long study of humanity recently said that the invention of the remote control may be solely responsible for why we humans now expect instant results (gratification) to follow any act we commit. In other words, we now think like 3-year-olds.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, October 15, 2009 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Since many have not seen Robert Fisk’s critical analysis, I post the link on this thread. Anyone interested in criticism based on reality, should take a look:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html

Report this

By Folktruther, October 15, 2009 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

Obama is continuing the violence policies of the Bushites associated with the War on Terrorism, jusstifed, however, with a different Inspiring bullshit.  Instead of the Faith-based truth of the Cons, he feeds into the Hope based truth of the Progs.  Inherit’s view is precisely how this irrationalitycan be justified:

  “if Rush and Fox hate it, it’s worth a second look as a potentially brilliant decision.”

The idea is that if the Cons are against it, the Progs should be for it.  In fact the Con and Prog leaders AGREE on the presuppositions of policies, just as they did in the Nobel Prize committee, both social dems and conservatives agreeing on awarding the prize to Obama.

Awarding the Peace prize to Obama legitimates war.  Obama is now in the process of escalating the Af-Pak war, a necessary political decision but an insane policy decision, and Obama contues to threaten Iran.  He maintained a silence while Israel massacred the Gaza people, and is currently exerting pressure on the UN not to expose war criminals, displaying a contempt for both world and national law.  He has conducted a coup in Honduras, and is increasing seven bases in Colombia to threaten Latin America.

Obama is a neoloiberal, neozionisst war president.  As Anarcissie says, the argument now is that he deserves the Nobel Peace prize because he is not Palin or whoever.  the Progs identify with the Hope-based bullshit and try not to see the policies.  The Inspiring bullshit differs from Bushite bullshit and that is The Change You CAn Believe In.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 15, 2009 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

LostHills:
‘More damage control…..

“You’re either for Obama, or you’re with the the right wingnuts!”

This meme is becoming increasingly strident, as it becomes more and more apparent that it is not working. ...’

They’re beginning to shift a bit.  Before, Mr. O deserved the prize become he was Not Bush.  Now it’s because he is Not Cheney.  I imagine they could work down a considerable list before finally running out of gas.  Not McCain, Not Palin, Not Rove, Not Limbaugh, Not Beck….

Report this

By Super Lou, October 15, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Funny how the “idiotic left” is compared to the “mornoic right wing” (or words to that affect). It’s become the constant, superimposed meme of the “serious moderates” who understand how government works contrary to the reactionary right and idealistic, pie-in-the-sky left.  Straight bullshit to compare rational left thinking, which can or may be too idealistic, with irrational, under any circumstances, right wing thinking.  Straight bullshit.

Speaking of straight bullshit, no way in hell does Obama deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.  Not that the prize, in the scheme of things, counts for or means very much these days, but the masses do give it import and nothing, absolutely nothing Obama has done warrants a Nobel. (In fact he’s a War Criminal for continuating the Iraq occupation and esclatating the Af-Pak conflict, and for continuing rendition, torture at Bhaghram, and not prosecuting Bush/Cheney and their acolytes.) I could go into detail but I’ll leave that to Black Agenda Report, I could easily add 10 reasons to their 10, but you get the point, and they express it much better than I.

For the record, don’t believe all African Americans mindlessly, child-like endorse all of what Obama does, read Black Agenda Report for sobering analysis.


http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/top-ten-reasons-president-obama-should-give-back-nobel-peace-prize

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, October 15, 2009 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

“nobody beyond a minority of die-hards would wish the Cheney faction to return”

Until the next “911”, after which the neo-fascists will return in triumph and mount the dais to mass sighs of relief.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/clock-stoppers/

Report this
skmacksk's avatar

By skmacksk, October 15, 2009 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

How hard is it to understand a critique of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a sitting head of state who is simultaneously waging two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan? One should not be surprised at the usual partisan attacks, from the usual voices, this is their habit. This issuing of insults from the sidelines, an unaccustomed place, obviously not of their liking, is all that they presently have. Their powers of discrimination have surrendered to political desperation.
Surely Mr. Conason has let his anger lead the way in this posting. His usual intellectual and political sophistication have here been made sacrifice to his indignation. Not an occurrence that lends credibility to an otherwise admirable career as a political thinker and analyst.
The thought that a person chosen to receive the most prestigious award yet devised by Humankind, to honor the cause of peace, is prosecuting two wars: and is presently contemplating an ‘escalation’ of hostilities in Afghanistan defies any kind of moral or political logic. This terrible contradiction must be at the center of any critique of the awarding of this Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. The defeat of Neo-Conservative idea and its practitioners is an admirable accomplishment, but ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must be the litmus test for this awarding to have any semblance of moral and political coherence.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook