- ‹ previous
- 251 of 2798
- next ›
Morning Roundup
Hey, good morning. Anything new going on today? Let's see.....NASA crashed a probe into the moon....a car bomb killed 49 people in Pakistan....Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace prize....
Wait a second. Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? What for? Says here it's in recognition of "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
I'm going to head out into the blogosphere and see what people think of this. But before I do, I just want to say that this is ridiculous. I mean, I'm all in favor of making wingnut heads explode, but the guy's been in office for slightly less than nine months. That's barely enough time to make a baby, let alone bring world peace. Shouldn't the luminaries in Oslo have waited until he had done something more significant than making nice with his former primary opponent before declaring him a man for the ages?
Oh well. Sometimes people do dumb things. At least we get to see wingnut heads explode.
UPDATE: OK, I've now spent a few minutes taking in reaction from all corners. Is there anyone who's defending this choice? Couldn't they have just given it to Bono instead? At least then maybe we'd get some nice music at the awards ceremony.
I know what you mean, but
I know what you mean, but I'm thinking this mostly indicates the huge worry the international community had when the US was under Bush, so there is great relief when we seem to have come to our senses.
So I'm going to believe that this award is really to the American people who seem to have finally grown up.
But really, what do I know. I'm guessing about something that doesn't mke much sense to me.
Tripp
America didn't grow up.
Of course there was a huge worry in the international community when Bush was President. Was he articulate? No. Dynamic? No. Intelligent? I think not. But at least he would point out the bad guys and try to stop them.
The reason why the members of international community are so thrilled by Obama is that most of the world is run by bad guys - tyrants and dictators. Obama doesn't oppose them. He cuddles up to them. It's disgusting. These leaders now know that their respective places of power atop the oppressed peoples of the world are utterly safe for at least the next four years. They will be completely unchallenged from the outside while they gleefully execute dissenters each Friday at home. (No cameras though, please. We wouldn’t want that getting out to people like Tripp).
America hasn't finally "grown up" as you put it. Instead, America just elected a communist-dictator-in-sheep’s-clothing to run what used to be the free world. The way I see it, America just took a step back about 250 years. So many people I know who voted for Obama literally knew nothing about him. Literally. Not one policy vote. Not one issue position. Nothing. They just thought he was cooler than Bush. How is that "grown up" at all? That is the essence of adolescent naïveté.
Yeah...very mature, America. Very mature.
Kevin, It is a great
Kevin, It is a great decision and Obama absolutely should accept it. In addition to pissing off the Right it has revealed the Left’s congenital inability to think strategically into the future further than 10 minutes. The point is how do we get to a better world. It starts with rhetoric that reaches into the heart, and lots of it. The ancient world knew this. The Nobel Committee has chosen to shift in some years from awarding accomplished peacemakers to setting up the rhetorical means for making it happen. There’s a good deal of danger in that, for the Committee—and they have also made it hard for Obama in some immediate ways, such as in his Afghanistan policy. But this ups Obama’s hand in dealing with the leadership in Mideast countries where their publics have aspirations for peace and they can use the Nobel to vocalize it in a way which isn’t dangerous to them from their own governments. Obama can also use the acceptance speech to talk to people more generally, and if he is to become a true world leader, which is what we need, this is the way to go. I am heartened by the fact that the Nobel Committee has some grasp of what the world needs, and is willing to place a bet. Only in the West do we think that things can be changed just by getting elected—it’s insane. The work merely begins, then. Good leaders can’t do it in a vacuum (and this is pretty much what the U.S. Left provides, in any practical sense.) I have begun to wonder whether Obama’s biggest problem—the virulent Right being stupid and despicable clowns—isn’t really the cynics in his own party. If he doesn’t get all the help he can, then how stupid is everybody, anyhow?
The Right is going to find
The Right is going to find It far is more laughable than reason to get pissed. My gosh....Has there ever been a man in history who have has received so much recognition for accomplishing so little. To even call his accomplishments “so little” is overstatement.
Have to agree - - and of
Have to agree - - and of course globally we were destroyed with the previous administration (The hellish Bush years) and Obama is truly a breath of fresh air - merely because of his life's perspective! You bet they saw that in him - just what they were looking for and dare I say - truly hoping for as our next elected Prez, based on our horrible record with the globe in the last 8 years......we do not need anymore enemies - we have far more NOW than we could possilby even kill (thru war).....and let's hope our own citizens from all directions can wrap their head around this concept that the USA has gracefully been awarded and support our LEADER. You bet he should accept it - - try to follow the reasoning behind the committee's choice.....rather than chastize them for not doing it as it has "always been done" kind of system.....afterall the vote was unanimous......
I agree totally.
I agree totally.
shouldn't they at least wait
until they see whether or not Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan?
Or is this a pre-emptive strike? Like when we give Tripp the good citizen award and so he decides not to spit on the sidewalk?
Total headscratcher, and
Total headscratcher, and when he doesn't quit Iraq or Afghanistan or close Gitmo, that prize is gonna have egg all over its face.
All I can think is they want to encourage him to do good things, but I have the feeling it will just encourage is middle of the road tendencies even more.
You'd think they would have learned something after giving it to Kissinger.
Excellent Choice
The Prize committee is apparently Norwegians. From their perspective, Obama is a huge change, a big breath of fresh air. He is tackling some of the biggest international issues of the day… nuclear proliferation, climate change, middleeast peace, plus more, including the West’s relations with Islam and stopping torture.
This is more than just an anti-Bush prize. It is to award who they consider the most important person in the world getting things on the correct track.
You can't win
The Right decries the Left for putting down the United States, for denying its exceptionalism, for disputing there is anything "special" about us as a nation or people. Tea parties, Congress, Fox News, talk radio and all similar outfits slam Obama for supposedly wanting to minimize or belittle America, for not touting our achievements and rich history. So, Obama lobbies for the Olympics and loses. Yay, Yay!!! America lost the Olympics!! Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize..........an American president bestowed a high honor, praised and rewarded for the world to see. Boo, Boo!! He doesn't deserve it!! Heads I win, tails you lose. Thank you Mr. Drum for joining the wingnut fun.
Not Fair to Drum
I don't think that's fair to Drum. It's an example of the "if you disagree with me, you're one of my enemies" way of thinking that, frankly, is (or should be) more representative of the ring-wing nutcases you oppose than those of us on the left.
In my opinion, the award isn't entirely meritless, but it's close. Obama does seem to be genuinely more interested in diplomacy and peace than any President since Carter. On the other hand, Nobel Peace prizes shouldn't be given on the basis of character and intention. The right ridicules Carter's award (a Fox News chyron is "Roosevelt, Wilson, & Carter Have Won"), but he certainly deserved it for his many years of being an international peace and diplomacy activist. Obama in no way compares—not to Roosevelt or even Wilson, either.
The award is transparently a "Thank God America has Come to Its Senses" award. I can emotionally understand this, and agree with it on those terms, but I can't intellectually justify it. And let us not forget that Kissinger won in 1973. You can't really argue that the prize is credible on its face.
As far as the domestic politics is concerned, my intuition is that this will just further polarize those who are most partisan. It won't mean that much to the left, who already strongly support Obama (with some dissidents to the far left, to be sure); and it will only further inflame the right and far right. The center will mostly just be mildly pleased that their President won the award. One of the strongest effects, however, will probably be to give the "Obama as Antichrist" fringe more ammunition.
Nobel
Forget about intellect. This award was given for the precise reason you brought up, as relief that we don't have one of the most ignorant assholes in history governing the world's only superpower and, I would add, a big part of the world's future hope. I've seen some strange choices for this award in the past decade or two, but WTF. This one makes sense on an emotional level, as well as on a level which measures in which direction the world is likely to be steered in the immediate future. So it's true: he ain't Bush the asshole, and europe is breathing a huge sigh of relief.
kmellis is right-on
I think you are so right, kmellis. The puzzle of Obama getting the Nobel Prize so early-on is all about progressive spirit and world relief. Let's hope that half measures by the President become fuller.
Returning the U.S. to sane statecraft is a HUGE deal
Sometimes statecraft means making war, and sometimes it means diplomacy. The very fact that it now means we use both, is a HUGE deal.
The last 8 years of cowboy statecraft -- shoot first, ask questions, well, never -- had the world on edge. It was a big problem and a large part of the reason that the U.S. was so disliked at all levels of the world community -- from the man on the street to the heads of state.
Obama by showing real international leadership, has turned back the doomsday clock. And that's a big, big deal. Unfortunately, so, but the alternate -- McCain, another international cowboy -- would have only made the world less secure.
It seems a little thing, but Obama has by taking a direction that includes diplomacy, has made the world more secure.
And let's not forget what our newer saner approaches to terrorism threats has done as well. By reintroducing police and judicial procedure into the practice -- we've also shown leadership. Again, playing to our strength and showing a levelheadedness that benefits the world.
christopher // inaudiblenonsense.com
It's not the Nobel Statecraft Prize
or the Nobel Making War Intelligently Prize. The NPP is not ordinarily supposed to be given to somebody just because they're a nice guy.
I'm with Kevin. When does Bono get a prize?
Except, the notion that
Except, the notion that there was no diplomacy and it was a shoot first operation does not add up. Hussein violated resolutions and sanctions for 12 years. The narrative is popular... but false. Diplomacy failed, except insofar as it lined the pockets of the Euro-business operations complicit in things like food-for-scandal, the same sanctimonious ones that wagged their fingers at us. The "saner" approach to terrorism threats involves treating our enemies as if they were our friends, and our friends as if they were our enemies. No sale. One hopes Obama will succeed, and indeed I pray for it daily, even though I know, as a male Christian, I imagine I must be a hateful racist and my IQ is below that of a monkey. And, I know that my dissent is bad, so it must be suppressed and reported to the White House, now that the WH is respecting all things constitutional. But somehow, the narrative does not add up.
Right...
But invading Iraq was still a blindingly stupid strategic blunder. Despite corruption, he sanctions kept Saddam in check. The UN Inspectors who were forced out so we could commence the "Shock and Awe" bombing said there were no WMD, and it turns out THERE WERE NO WMD, in case you've forgotten.
And you're full of crap in the way you describe the Obama approach to counterterrorism. Read http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/10/cheney-and-co-all-quiet-coun... Money quote below.
The Long War Journal, a website that chronicles the struggle against al Qaeda and other terrorist movements, tracks the high-value targets killed by CIA drones in Pakistan. Here's its recent list:
* June 23: Khwaz Ali Mehsud, a senior deputy to Baitullah Mehsud, the top leader of the Taliban in Pakistan.
* July 3: Mufti Noor Wali, a suicide bomber trainer for the Taliban and al Qaeda.
* July 7: Kifayatullah Anikhel, a Taliban commander under Baitullah Mehsud.
* August 5: Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban chief in Pakistan.
* September 7: Mustafa al Jaziri, a senior military commander for al Qaeda.
* September 8: Maulvi Ismail Khan, a military commander in the Haqqani Network, a terrorist group responsible for major attacks in Afghanistan.
* September 14: Najmuddin Jalolov, the leader of the Islamic Jihad Group, a breakaway faction of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. He was allied with al Qaeda.
* September 14: Ilyas Kashmiri, the operations commander of the Harakat-ul-Jihad-Islami, a paramilitary organization active in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, and the operations chief of Brigade 313, a coalition of several terrorist outfits.
(And according to the Long War Journal, Predator attacks in Pakistan in 2008 caused 286 al Qaeda and Taliban casualties; this year, through September, the number is 404.)
Heads exploding = peace
Well, making wingnut heads explode does contribute immeasurably to world peace.
Hope takes the day
The Nobel Committee gave the Peace Prize to hope. They found the right human frame to hang the placard on. Well done, all.
Total bullshit. I don't
Total bullshit.
I don't think there was any obvious candidate this year, so the prize should of have been awarded to a person or group that has worked in relative obscurity.
I actually feel sorry for Obama who has to go out and accept it.
surprised
I was as surprised as anybody when I literally woke to the news this morning, however I do think it's funny that the main groups criticizing the choice include Hamas, the Taliban and the right wing of American politics. What bedfellows!!! As for Obama...it kind of puts international pressure on him to get things done on the World stage, i.e. middle east peace process, Iranian cooperation etc etc etc.
It is surprising Brezhnev
It is surprising Brezhnev did not win the Peace Prize in 1980.
I never saw the movie, just
I never saw the movie, just some clips and trailers, but I sorta have the feeling I'm just an extra in the Forrest Gump movie that is Obama's life. First term Senator from Ill. (who beat a Md Republican antiabortion activist) sails into the White House on vague nuances of HOPE, then wins peace prize for not being as bad as the worst president in history. I guess if empty suits like GWB and empty rhetoric like Obama's can win the White House, we shouldn't quibble about things like silly prizes for Miss Congeniality.
Nice analogy, except for the
Nice analogy, except for the fact that Forrest Gump was, as a plot device, a passive actor and an idiot while President Obama has consciously chosen his direction and actively made it happen, and, by the way, he is a strategic thinker AND a hell of a lot smarter than you are.
That makes 3 peace prizes in
That makes 3 peace prizes in a row for the achievement of not being George Bush.
What?
Finland's Martti Ahtisaari was awarded the prize for not being George Bush? I think not. Check yourself.
Geez, Kevin, did you read
Geez, Kevin, did you read the committee's citation before posting? Did you stop and think for one second about what the foundational purpose of the Peace Prize is?
Of course they gave it to Obama. He's speaking for and pushing for everything that the Peace Prize is intended to further.
Why in the world wouldn't they get behind him now, in hopes of swaying others toward the common goal that he and the Peace Prize itself strive for?
Well said.
Well said.
Right, why not? I think it
Right, why not? I think it is a shame that they never gave the prize to Neville Chamberlain. I mean, he was for peace, and the world got behind him. They made up for it by giving it to Jimmy Carter, America's version of Neville Chamberlain forty years later, only to be superceded by an ever more urbane model thirty years later. But not to worry. Let's keep pretending. Fortunately, the French leadership will point out our amateur in the WH.
Carter is America's Gandhi.
Carter is America's Gandhi. Iran was no threat to the US in 1979 or in 2009, except to cowards who want to nuke underdeveloped countries just because they have a different religion.
I found a nice piece of
I found a nice piece of companion commentary for Mr. Drum. It expresses his opinions a tad more fully and eloquently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."
Michael Steele---RNC head
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Steele was smart, which
If Steele was smart, which he isn't, he would have issued a gracious congratulatory note. Because the absurdity of the Nobel Committee's decision is self-evident to most observers.
Somebody like Denis Mukwege should have won the prize.
stop the madness
Next: A motion in Congress to deny President Obama permission to travel to Oslo to accept the award. Followed by millions nodding gravely and agreeing something must be done to stop this injustice. Reading (and linking to) various talking heads in the blogosphere solidifies public opinion. You know, lines like this: "I just want to say that this is ridiculous."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I didn't get a harumph from that guy." "Give the govenor a harumph."
Sounds like Steve's got a
Sounds like Steve's got a case of the Mondays.... Boohoo.
i think the committee is
i think the committee is awarding the prize to the american people for not electing mccain/palin to the white house and giving the prize to obama as our proxy. on that basis, i graciously accept the prize.
the other hand...
My first reaction was the same as Kevin's, this is kind of silly. But on reflection, the world really does feel much safer to most of its inhabitants than it did a year ago. People reasonably feel that the chance of a new major war has dropped significantly. That's undoubtedly a major step forward for peace, and thus reasonably deserving of a Peace Prize.
So, what does the committee do in this case. I think everybody rightly sees this award as belonging to the American voters in general rather than to Obama himself, and frankly, I think we deserve it.
Right, I feel a lot safer.
Right, I feel a lot safer. Because Obama is afraid to do the one thing he needs to do in Afghanistan (a surge might make it look like Iraq's relative stability is due to Bush's decision to surge, and that would just be too impossibly honest to countenance), and so he is going to do a Vietnam and "maintain" or else just walk away. And I feel so much safer knowing about Iran and being excited the President has known about it, and wants to keep giving more deadlines to Iran, because sticking to a deadline would just be too, you know, courageous and honest. Why do that when you can give Iran the one thing they want, time? And I am glad that he can give such comfort and support to Chavez, because after all, Chavez's thuggery is appropriate. Those Veneuzualans don't deserve better. And no worries about that economic stability. We got fear-mongered into an 800 billion dollar stimulus no one read so Jack Murtha and Charles Rangel and other criminals could buy more votes with our money. Peace in our lifetimes. Thank you Mr Obama.
you are the person Chamberlain was trying to appease
Of course you are afraid. People with a different religion and brown skin strike terror into your little heart. Despite having no army, navy or air force with which to threaten you, Afghans and Iranians and Venezuelans need to be wiped out. Look in the mirror, you are the person Chamberlain was trying to appease. A racist little corporal with a Napoleonic complex.
Did you get inside Mr.
Did you get inside Mr. Obama's head in the Second-and-a-half-floor? It seems more likely you landed in John Malkovich's head instead. Fortunately, this President's strategy is founded on something deeper than how Luke Liberty feels. I'm sure the invasion of Iraq FELT right to you, didn't it?
You embarrass yourself when you pretend to parse out the President's strategic rethinking of Afghanistan as being purely based on not validating George W Bush's post-2006 Iraq strategy, because he's clearly not afraid to embrace parts of Bush's National Security Strategy. (You did know there is such a document as the National Security Strategy, yes? Ever read one? I thought not.)
You have no idea what you're talking about because you have no idea what or how he's thinking. And trust me, he's a lot better at thinking than you are.
I do defend it
I mean, maybe it wouldn't have been my decision, but that's the same for any prize, nobel or not. The committee for the Peace prize made their decision, and motivated it. You don't like it? Fine, but saying: he's done nothing! means close to nothing. The prize has been awarded, as Kevin himself reports: "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." So here you have what he did: he made " extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." We may disagree forever on this, but here is their point: Obama is pushing for international diplomacy instead of war as a tool for resolution of conflicts. He is the new President, and he's pushed for international diplomacy for the whole of the campaign, and since he's been elected. That's what he did that matters for the committee. And I agree that it is important. I would also like to see the end of the wars etc etc, but this change is meaningful, and for them was enough to give him the prize.
I often like your comments Kevin, even when I disagree with you, but this one seems to have been written before your morning coffee.
Jimmy Carter didn't get the
Jimmy Carter didn't get the award until 2002, more than 20 years after Camp David!
Carter certainly deserved the award, but he had dozens of concrete accomplishments under his belt.
And your point is?
That Nobel Peace prizes are awarded in a completely subjective way? That one is different than the other? I'm completely with you. Some people well deserving never got it, while others did. As somebody wrote above, the fact is that Obama is, even if for many only in words, pushing for ideals of world peace, international diplomacy, attention to the world climate, all those things that the peace prize stands for. The rational behind the award is not hard to see, and yes, it is also political and partisan, but it has always been. And yes, Obama is not Bush, was it really that easy? Then why was that stressful last year during the campaign? Someone wrote that the prize is also to the American people, and I agree, it is indeed a prize for all those who stand for the same values of the Nobel prize. Only, it would have probably been seen as too political to give the prize to "the electors of Barack Obama", and it would have been a problem if all of them had to fly to Europe to get the prize and the, reduced, check.
stefano, you just made my day!
Only, it would have probably been seen as too political to give the prize to "the electors of Barack Obama", ..........
Considering the current nutwing response to Obama receiving the NPP, I can juist imagine how over the top they would be if the electors got the prize. God, the frothing!
"And your point is?"
Pretty obvious, it seems. The award is -- what's the most generous way to put this? -- premature. At best, chalk it up to wishful thinking. At worst, to an outrageously inflated sense of importance on the part of the Nobel committee, in thinking that they can influence the decision-making of a sitting US president.
In other news, I see where Harvard has named little Timmy Johnson the valedictory speaker at their '26 commencement ceremony. Not only does he color inside the lines & play well with others; he knows his prime numbers up to 50, too.
I find the rationalizations
I find the rationalizations some are making to justify this award to be just amazing.
It was a dumb decision that will damage the credibility of the committee. I can't think of a single example of a diplomatic decision that Obama has made that has had tangible results. Not a knock on him, it's just way too early.
I'm glad to amaze you, we
I'm glad to amaze you, we all need some amazement in life. What surprises me is some of the anger in the responses, something like "how can they do that!" Did it really hurt you? It may have been the wrong choice, but, and maybe I'm rationalizing (very bad thing to use your reason apparently), I see where it comes from. I think there are much dumber things in the world that could have happened (if they had given it to Italian prime minister Berlusconi for instance).
As for the "outrageous sense of the importance of the committee"... what can I say, they get to pick the person who gets the Nobel Peace prize, I'm sure their sense of importance is pretty outrageous in any case. junebug thinks that the awarding is, at best, wishful thinking, but why? Their point, and I'm sorry I'm repeating myself, was probably to encourage diplomacy and a proactive attitude towards climate change issues, and they felt that right now was the moment. What is so dumb about it?
Again, maybe I'm rationalizing, and I apologize, but wouldn't it be possible that some of the negative reactions are simply gut reactions, lacking some rationalizing? It does happen when you're amazed.
It's very simple: Once Obama
It's very simple:
Once Obama closes Gitmo, he deserves the award. Not before.
Actions, not words.
Very clear. Very good. Good
Very clear. Very good. Good for you. Simple and direct. Right or wrong.
Pity that sometimes things are not all clear cut as we'd like, and they take longer than in our dreams. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on Guantanamo, and I wish they will close it yesterday, a month ago, on January 20th 2009. On the other hand, the order of closing Guantanamo has been given, we have a deadline (even if I read Holder is saying it will be hard to abide by it), and the people who are now arrested on terrorism charges are immediately brought in front of a judge. For you this may be nothing, for me are actions, and the change in tone is real.
You see, I read what you write and even understand you, even if I respectfully disagree on some of the issues (ie, the timing of the NPP). You probably glance at my messages, and since you disagree with what I write your reaction is to be amazed that someone can be that dumb. And we're on the same side of the fence! That's what really amazes me.
I never said you were dumb,
I never said you were dumb, verbose maybe, but not dumb. I think if you have to write that much to justify the award, then you're rationalizing.
Ok, verbose I am. But if you
Ok, verbose I am. But if you say that this is a dumb choice, and I think it isn't, how on earth can I try to clarify my thoughts with anything other than words? Your point is easy to make: the NPP for Obama is premature, we need to see more. My point is simple too, but needs more words, and I'm sorry if there were a few too many of them. But my disagreement is with your larger point that I'm rationalizing when I'm in fact just trying to explain my thoughts in a clear way. Sometimes things are not too clear cut, and I do think there is value in exchanging thoughts and ideas that are more than 20 words. I am sure it won't come to you as a surprise to learn that I hate tweeter, I find it useless and stultifying, and I'll never use it :-)