BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:48 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:51 AM

You missed, Terry.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: bankley
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 11:58 AM

what they didn't tell the Prez was that the 'Peace' prize is Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 12:41 PM

If the Nobel Committee is giving Obama the Prize to encourage him to make peaceful
decisions, who can argue with that? But supposing there is more buildup in Afghanistan,Pakistan and Iraq's troops are not brought home?

This might have the adverse effect of giving Obama the right to do what he wants in terms of military buildup. They might rubber-stamp his war effort.

It's a political calculation that may have positive or negative ramifications.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 01:09 PM

Glenn Greenwald, who has acted as a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York, criticises a top Democratic National Committee official for describing some Republicans of having "thrown in its lot with the terrorists" and putting "politics above patriotism" because -- just like the Taliban and Hamas they objected to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama.


"That the domestic political opposition party would echo the sentiments of one of our nation's fiercest enemies is truly striking. The global community honoring the American President with one of the world's top awards should be a cause for national celebration, not cheap political games.
One could expect this reaction from our nation's enemies, but it is unseemly and downright unpatriotic coming from American political leaders."

Greenwald argues -

"What's particularly bothersome about yesterday's attacks is the premise that it's improper, unpatriotic and even Terrorist-mimicking to do anything but cheer -- have a "national celebration" -- when Obama is awarded the Nobel Prize.

Whether Obama is actually pursuing policies of peace happens to be an extremely legitimate topic of debate.

The same is true for whether he's done anything meaningful yet to merit the award.

Numerous liberals in good standing objected to Obama's award -- from Ezra Klein ("It is undeserved. It is a bit ridiculous") to The Nation's Richard Kim ("I woke up, read the New York Times website and thought I had come to the Onion instead . . . Obama doesn't deserve the prize, yet") to Naomi Klein ("disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize"). While there are arguments to make in his favor -- I even made some myself yesterday in the first two paragraphs of what I wrote -- there is something unquestionably bizarre about awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a leader who did not merely "inherit," but is advocating, actively prosecuting and escalating, a major war that is killing large numbers of civilians with no plans to stop, while at the same time building prisons to house people who will have no due process.


Unquestionably, those are and must be legitimate topics of debate."

full article

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: pdq
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 01:28 PM

repeat: "...a top Democratic National Committee official...describing some Republicans of having 'thrown in its lot with the terrorists' and putting 'politics above patriotism' because -- just like the Taliban and Hamas they objected to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama.

That the domestic political opposition party would echo the sentiments of one of our nation's fiercest enemies is truly striking. The global community honoring the American President with one of the world's top awards should be a cause for national celebration, not cheap political games. One could expect this reaction from our nation's enemies, but it is unseemly and downright unpatriotic coming from American political leaders."


Again, this divisive crap came from a top member of the DNC and is, for practical purposes, the official position of the Democratic Party. This country is more divided now than anytime since the Civil War. That is not by accident, it is intentional.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: kendall
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 01:48 PM

I am an unabashed supporter of O'Bama but it is quite clear to me that he was nominated simply because the rest of the world sees some hope now that Bush is gone. He won it because he is not bush. Period.As far as acomplishments go, well,he's trying to quit smoking.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Genie
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 02:59 PM

I hope that if President Obama has not read Greg Mortenson's "Three Cups Of Tea" and/or met with Greg, he will do that soon.   And if Mortenson has had the President's ear, either in person or by way of the book, I hope Obama will give serious thought to the approach that Mortenson describes in the book.


I'd like to think that if Mortenson had been awarded the Peace Prize the US might have taken serious notice of that and the reasons for the award. But in all probability, if anyone as relatively unknown as Mortenson had received the Nobel Peace Prize, the award would have been mentioned only in brief blurbs on page 37 of most newspapers and totally ignored by radio and TV (except perhaps for shows like The Daily Show or Rachel Maddow or Thom Hartmann).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 02:59 PM

You are right, pdq, that the divided nature of America has not happened by accident, but is intentional.

The easiest way for a shadow government of huge finanical interests to disempower the general public is to set them at each other's throats through divisive partisan politics and divisive issues of all kinds. It also provides a good excuse for heightening domestic surveillance, increasing police powers, and reducing civil rights.

The shadow government I am referring to controls both the Democratic and the Republican parties (through the power of lobbying and funding), and they use those 2 parties to keep the public's attention diverted...and divided. Meanwhile, the real game goes on behind the scenes, and the real game is all about money.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:04 PM

Well, the UN Peacekeeping Force got it in 1988.   Of course, that was several years before the blue hats stood by silently as thousands of Muslems were murdered in Bosnia and hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were abandoned to their fates. I guess that was premature too, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:05 PM

Bankley: What a great idea! Bruce could be a big help to Obama. Ah, the conversations they could have!!


FROM the White House:
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: GUEST,Astro
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:06 PM

Just a few corrections...the Peace prize is voted on by a Committee selected by Norwegian parliament...so there is possibly some political overtones here. Certainly, they not only had the small amount of time that Pres. Obama was in office but the long period of time between his announcement of running for office and when he was elected.

This prize was awarded out of the blue for the Pres. Instead of bashing him as often and everywhere that is possible...maybe, for the world's sake, we should say Congrats! and do well! It seems that there is sour grapes continually by those who oppose his positions and therefore lets gripe at anything.

There is difficulty in many of the things which Obama faces, such as Gitmo...It is too bad that both sides of this conflict could back down, but the last that I heard, that has not happened. It would be nice to duck our heads in the ground and believe everything will be all right, but it'll just end with our asses being blown off...!

The best we can do is to support the democratic processes in other nations and to do what Obama has done, which is to see that we are in a mult-power world and therefore international cooperation is necessary. Obama has proceeded to do that early. Much different then the conservatives did when they were in power here.

As for those who are toiling away in those forgotten places doing wonderful work. We are so thankful that you are there. This particular prize typically is given to much higher profile individuals and groups for political aims, but that does not reduce the work done by these courageous folks.

So hurray for the President and we can't wait what will happen in the future with you!

Astro taking things in stride...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:18 PM

Obama's own response to receiving the award is, as usual, very well-spoken.

Part of the problem is that Obama cannot do it all by himself...needless to say, I hope! He's not a dictator, he's a constitutional president. He must have the support of a majority in Congress to pass legislation. If he can't get the support of enough people in his own party to bring in a comprehensive universal healthcare plan...because those people have been bought off by the health insurance companies...then he's helpless to bring in the plan, isn't he?

If he can't get the support of enough members of Congress to close Guantanamo, then it stays open.

He must have a progressive congress to enact progressive legislation. Looks to me like he has a corrupt congress that is simply doing "business as usual" just as they have in the past....meaning they're bending over to the major lobbyists. If that's the case, then his hands are tied.

He will get the blame, but it won't be his fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:19 PM

Well said, Astro!

Dorothy, thanks for posting that.

It amazes me that the same people who voted for eight years of the shrub and have been rabidly against Obama from the start are now denigrating Obama for not have UNDONE all of the terrible, terrible mistakes the shrub made over eight years. It reminds me of when a woman is pregnant and may weary of her swollen body wondering if she will ever "get her figure" back. She is told, it takes nine months to get that way; allow nine months to return to "normal." So...by that reckoning, Obama ought to have eight years before the far right, etc. get after him, esp. as they are the ones who gave the shrub carte blanche to ruin the world, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Peace
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:20 PM

The NPP has not often awarded because one created peace. It is usually awarded because one is working toward peace. I am surprised but happy that it went to Obama. He is worthy of the honour.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 07:03 PM

Peace: What do you suppose the reaction of the awards committee will be if Obama approves sending General McCrystal the 40,000 additional troops he said would be necessary to bring peace to Afghanistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Genie
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 07:42 PM

DougR, it may depend on what those troops are used for.   If they blow up villages and treat the Afghani people as enemies, that will obviously be at odds with this "Peace Prize." If they serve more in ways that help rebuild Afghanistan while using espionage, etc., to find and destroy Al Quaeda, the "war" there may be over (or at least we may be able to withdraw) sooner.

Little Hawk is right.   There is not a lot that Obama can do to work towards peace as long as the big corporations who own our courts and our legislatures see war as good business.
And as long as the military is so heavily indoctrinated by right wingers, Obama may not have the kind of cooperation he needs from them.

Little Hawk - PM
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 02:59 PM

You are right, pdq, that the divided nature of America has not happened by accident, but is intentional.

The easiest way for a shadow government of huge finanical interests to disempower the general public is to set them at each other's throats through divisive partisan politics and divisive issues of all kinds. It also provides a good excuse for heightening domestic surveillance, increasing police powers, and reducing civil rights.

Obama himself does seem to have a whole different attitude towards the value of other nations and their people (and cultures) and towards how to work towards peace than the previous administration did.   At least, unlike Dubya, I don't think one of his goals or main strategies is "to be seen as a war President" for political capital.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: kendall
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 07:43 PM

It's a case of damned if he do and damned if he dont. He can not win this one.

I keep wondering if any of these people know any history.
Alexander the Great, the greates general in history was stopped in Afghanistan, the British were defeated there, the Russians left with their tails between their legs, so what makes the war mongers think we will sucdceed?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 08:03 PM

Robert Fisk is an English writer and journalist; he has been based mainly in Beirut for more than 30 years.
He holds more British and International Journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent.

today he observes....

'No way are they going to win.
The neocons say that "the graveyard of empire" is a cliché.
It is.
But it's also true.
The Afghan government is totally corrupted; its paid warlords – paid by Karzai and the Americans – ramp up the drugs trade and the fear of Afghan civilians'

Whether or not consensus can be achieved inside the White House, there are doubts across the political spectrum about the wisdom of sending more troops.

The word 'peace' is not used instead there is
'what it takes to get the mission done' from John Kerry, Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee

But, as he adds.....

"But the question is, given the absence of governance in Afghanistan and the fact that Al-Qaeda has been largely driven out of Afghanistan, exactly what that mission ought to be."

Peter Galbraith, the former United Nations deputy special representative to Afghanistan, who was sacked last month after speaking out on the election fraud, drew parallels with 1963, when Kennedy faced his dilemma over Vietnam.

"Obama clearly has doubts about sending more troops," he said. "It's his Kennedy moment — a young, untested president being pushed by all his military to send more troops and I hope he will make the same decision as Kennedy not to send more.

"How will you have success with a corrupt, ineffective government that most Afghans view as abusing power, and now compounding that is the illegitimacy of its election"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Genie
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 08:31 PM

I think you're right, Kendall. Especially where Afghanistan is concerned, Obama is in a no-win position, thanks to the previous administration.
(We should have treated the "war" on Al Quaeda as an intelligence and police operation from the get-go -- starting, for instance, with not kicking fluent speakers of Arabic and Farsi out of the military for being gay.
I think Bush and Cheney, and their cohorts in the "war industry," felt it would be just fine if we were "stuck" in Afghanistan indefinitely.   More money for the defense industries, more fear on the part of the voters, more power to the Republicans, so more money to them and the other kinds of industries they are in bed with.
(And, yes, too many of the Dems are in bed with the same industries.)

Unfortunately, though we now have a new administration, getting out of this quagmire is no simple matter.   And if the Obama admistration could just order all of our troops home and then Al Quaeda regrouped in Afghanistan and, heaven forbid, pulled off another major attack on the US, we would soon have the same kind of Congress back in power as we had from 2000 to 2006 and another hawkish administration would be back in power in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: pdq
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 08:40 PM

"How will you have success with a corrupt, ineffective government that most...view as abusing power, and now compounding that is the illegitimacy of its election..."

Note: by leaving out one word from the esteemed Mr. Fisk's statement, it now applies to every country in the world. I mean every country including Canada, the U.S., France, South Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 08:58 PM

If Al Quaeda had the ability to pull off a major attack on the USA (such as 911), they would not necessarily need to do it from a base in Afghanistan. They could just as well do it from some other hidden location(s) in some other countries in Asia, the Middle East or Africa.

Occupying Afghanistan does not stop Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda is not a movement tied to any specific nation or government. It's a political movement.

Furthermore, I doubt that Al Quaeda even was the primary organizer of the 911 attacks. I think the primary organizer was much closer to home.

Anywy, if they weren't, then there never was any real reason to go into Afghanistan in the first place...that is, no real reason that the US government is openly telling you about, I mean.

It's much easier to start a war (or any kind of a fight) than it is to end one's involvement in it. All you have to do is start shooting or throw the first punch.

The 911 attacks were not an act of war, because they weren't committed by a foreign government or a nation's armed forces or a revolutionary army of any kind at all. They were committed by a secret cabal, a secret group of well-organized conspirators. As such, it was a criminal matter, not an act of war, and it should have been dealt with by international police work, not by war.

But it is my opinion that the 911 attacks were launched for one and only one purpose: to enable war to begin. So you have to ask yourself who wanted such a war, and why? And what was the objective? And who stood to profit? Who needed a "Pearl Harbor" level event to enable the USA to go to war?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 09:12 PM

And how many conspiracy theorists can dance on the end of a pin?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 09:19 PM

That would depend on the relative size of both the pin and the theorists.

The people who put together the official 911 report are also conspiracy theorists, by the way, but their particular conspiracy theory is full of gaping holes...and omissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Genie
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 09:22 PM

Oh, LH, I totally agree with
your last post,
but for the very reasons you outlined therein, if Obama were to rapidly withdraw troops from Afghanistan -- especially against the advice of his Generals -- and we were to be attacked again, the Right wing and their lapdog media would surely use that to convince the populace at large that it just proves that Democrats can't "keep us safe."

(The fact that the Bush administration managed to convince so many people that they had "kept us safe" when the 9-11-01 attacks happened on their watch - that boggles the mind.)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 09:45 PM

Yes, Obama's in a very tricky spot in that sense, Genie. I don't believe he can win that war, but he is more or less obliged to somehow make it look like he has won it...at some point. I would not want to be stuck with that job.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:13 AM

"Peace: What do you suppose the reaction of the awards committee will be if Obama approves sending General McCrystal the 40,000 additional troops he said would be necessary to bring peace to Afghanistan?"

I don't know what they'd say, Doug. Speaking as a Canadian, I'd say, "Thanks for the help!"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 07:41 AM

Although not a member of NATO Australia has 1500 troops stationed in Afghanistan; as Australians point out, their lives and the billion-dollar bill to support them - hinges on what the Americans decide.

One recent Australian report sums it up as -

…. polls show an increasing number of Americans want out.

The disenchantment is fuelled by rising violence, increasing US deaths, a perception that the US is not winning, and that the Afghan Government is inept, corrupt and inefficient.

At issue is whether the US should send more troops (US commander General Stanley McChrystal is reported to want between 10,000 and 40,000) and where they fit into a strategy aimed at shoring up an Afghan administration so it can ultimately provide security and some form of coherent government.

The primary aim is to prevent Afghanistan again becoming a base for al-Qaeda terrorists'

Along the way, the Taliban have re-emerged, using tactics taken from Iraq, exploiting the failings of the Afghan Government and the inability of foreign troops to provide security, and feeding on anger over civilian casualties inflicted by allied air strikes'



Officially, Washington "will not tolerate" the Taliban returning to power in Kabul despite their investment in Hamid Karzai who has encouraged Taliban political participation

It has been reported in the American press that Obama administration officials are signaling a slight shift, emphasizing the importance of the U.S. fight against Al Qaeda and its global ambitions while defining the group's Taliban allies as an indigenous movement.

However discussions on preventing a resurgent Taliban from "giving renewed sanctuary to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan" clearly forget that al-Qaeda had voluntarily left Afghanistan for Pakistan where there is a far greater aversion to foreign occupying troops than to Al-Qaeda

According to the Huffington Post some U.S. military and civilian officials in Afghanistan are now trying to negotiate with Afghan Taliban fighters to encourage them to "reintegrate."

Although Robert Gibbs said last week that if the ultimate goal is eliminating Al Qaeda, the Taliban is still a target. other U.S. officials made it clear that they are willing to consider some role for the Taliban in Afghanistan's government.
Asked whether the administration would tolerate any such role for the group, the State Department said it would be up to the people of Afghanistan.

"I think this is ultimately a decision for the Afghans," said P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman. "You solve insurgencies through political processes and reconciliation."

If militants are brought into the political system and choose to be part of it, "that would be a positive development.
There are a wide range of groups within the label 'Taliban,' tribal figures that are used to changing sides depending on what is happening at any particular time,"

So what is the war for?

And is the demonstration of additional force for -

'We need to show visible progress so that OUR publics at home know their sacrifices have not been in vain.

OUR citizens need to know that we are making progress toward our essential goal of defeating the insurgency and supporting the Afghans in their effort to secure and govern their own country.'
IVO H. DAALDER
U.S. Ambassador to NATO

And….......when did the intent of defeating the 'terrorists' become a war against indigenous insurgents?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:23 AM

The sad truth which our governments will never admit to the public is that the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan have been in vain...as is so often the case with such wars.

The Soviet deaths there were likewise in vain.

And so were the British deaths there long before.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 12:39 AM

True, LH. The single thing that bugs me most about Canadian troops being in Afghanistan is this: When we refused to join the 'Coalition of the Willing" (US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria--recall that sad scene with four people, one from each country on TV) for the invasion of Iraq, we got our peepees slapped big time by the USA and that sonuvabitch Bush. Cost our economy about five billion dollars. I think the trade off was that we send a few thousand soldiers thereby releasing a few thousand American soldiers to then go to Iraq. That pissed me off.

I do not think we should be there, either. However, we ARE there. Give the troops a mission they can do within a few years. NOT some vague "We are helping the Government of Afghanistan--what f#ckin' Government of Afghanistan?--to learn to rule themselves."

Soldiers need to be trained for peace-making. It does NOT come naturally to soldiers. It come from training.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Genie
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 02:51 AM

Good points, Peace.

Oh, and Rachel Maddow made what I think is a very good analysis and evaluation of Obama's being awarded the Peace Prize, with some historical perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJuEOaF84o&feature=channel_page

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Arkie
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 01:10 PM

Objections to Obama's Pulitzer recognition is just one aspect of a dangerous state that exists in America today. Rachel Maddow's analysis of the award is excellent and based on identifiable evidence. Genie, thanks for posting. While I do not expect all Americans to agree on Obama's action and policy I would expect a great majority of Americans to be honored that the elected leader of this country would receive a prestigious prize for world peace. Obama has shown no indication that he believes he is "a panacea for the ills of the world" nor any sign of "ego" as a result of this award. He put the award in perspective and displayed a sense of humility that is not that common among powerful leaders. I would also like to see the foreign involvement in Afganistan come to an end, but that does not mean that country's problems will come to an end. Nor did American involvement in Afganistan create the problems in that country. Obama has not achieved peace in his own country but he had made great effort in that respect. He made overtures to the Republican Party to establish a non-partisan government. He offered to work with Republicans in establishing health reform. His efforts have been refused even though the American people would best be served by the country's leaders joining together to work out solutions. I for one am proud to have a President with high ideals and high expectations for himself, the country, and its people. Even those people who show no respect for him or his office.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 01:44 PM

Thanks for the link Genie.

In the clip, Limbaugh on the Chicago Olympic bid loss reminds me of the Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9-11. Bet he wouldn't like that analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Genie
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 02:04 PM

TIA, the way "El Rushbo" has been acting recently, I'm not so sure he wouldn't embrace his similarity to those who cheered on 9-11.    Conventional wisdom says "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."   So isn't it kind of a corollary that "The friend of my enemy is my enemy?"   If so, I'd think Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk would think twice before bloviating about having the same reaction as the Taliban, Hugo Chavez, etc., to Obama's being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: Genie
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 02:16 PM

Thinking of the reactions of the far Right bloviators to both Chicago not getting the 2016 Olympics and to Obama's being awarded the Peace Prize, this thought jumps out at me:

When Chicago (the US) was passed over for the Olympics (on the first ballot), a huge headline ran in Right-wing newspapers (echoed by Limbaugh, Beck, etc.):
WORLD REJECTS OBAMA

(The subtext, of course, might include "The world rejects diplomacy, liberalism, egalitarianism, populism, etc. in favor of US exceptionalism, militariasm, Christian theocracy, etc." I.e., "The world is sorry that Obama/Biden defeated McCain/Palin in 2008 and would prefer a continuation of the policies of Bush/Cheney.")

I'm not sure exactly when the Nobel Committee voted - was it after the Olympics committee did? - but it really does kind of seem like the Nobel Peace Prize Committee was replying (to that ridiculous headline:

"OH, YEAH!???   THINK AGAIN!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 11:01 PM

I remember a President saying "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". So, those who are against the President are either with the terrorists, or monstrous hypocrites. Their choice.


Note that I am not saying that anyone who opposes the President is a terrorist. But, I was called such for doing such. But the bloviators memories are as short as their greed is long.