Taibbi: On the Nobel Prize for Occasional Peace

[Miss Authoritiva]

On the Nobel Prize for Occasional Peace

Matt Taibbi

<SNIP>

The Nobel Peace Prize long ago ceased to be an award given to people who really spend their whole careers agitating for peace. Like most awards the Prize has evolved into a kind of maraschino cherry for hardcore careerists to place atop their resumes, a reward not for dissidence but on the contrary for gamely upholding the values of Western society as it perceives itself, for putting a good face on things (in Obama’s place, literally so).

Even when the award is given to a genuine dissident, it tends to be a dissident hailing from a country we consider outside the fold of Western civilization, a rogue state, “not one of us” — South Africa from the apartheid days, for instance, or the regime occupying East Timor.

<SNIP>

We’re a society that believes powerfully in the divine right of force, but that doesn’t mean we don’t like to think of ourselves as being peaceful. And indeed, there are times when we actually do turn to peace and diplomacy to solve our problems. Usually this is because all other avenues of action have been exhausted first, or because it just happens to be the right logistical move at that particular moment.

Like for instance, we invade Iraq for whatever asinine reason was actually behind that decision, we stay there for, oh, seven years or whatever, and eventually it starts to occur to us that this is an extraordinarily expensive activity, pisses off everyone involved, destabilizes a whole region, and to boot puts the lives of countless innocent Iraqis and young Americans at risk, though of course this is the last consideration. Moreover the plan to gain permanent access to Iraqi oil reserves through the establishment of a friendly “democratic” regime with (let’s say) a “flexible” attitude toward foreign investment is turning out to be problematic at best.

So eventually someone will make the decision that this whole Iraq war thing is stupid, benefits no one, not even politically in the short term, and moves will be made to wrap up this idiotic business and bring everyone home. At which point someone making this dreary logistical decision will get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and that someone will probably win it, allowing us all to bask in the glow of our “peace-loving” values which prevailed in the end over hate and violence.

That’s how this thing works....

Continued at True Slant

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Ouch!!! And so accurate.

[jgraz]

3. Too accurate for some.

I expect Matt will be another good progressive burned on the altar of St. Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I found that he was inaccurate about as often as he was accurate.....

Is there a prize for that in Journalism?

[Igel]

5. Absolutely.

It's called retirement, and they all get it eventually.

[jgraz]

6. Your findings of inaccuracy are less than accurate

"someone will make the decision that this whole Iraq war thing is stupid"

Yes, Mr. Taibbi....that someone was Barack Obama, back in 2002, before that war started. He called it just that; a stupid war.

Except there's little evidence outside of Obama's campaign rhetoric to show that he actually believes those words.

"moves will be made to wrap up this idiotic business and bring everyone home. At which point someone making this dreary logistical decision will get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and that someone will probably win it.."

Yes, Mr. Taibbi....that someone was Barack Obama, and yes, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize.

So, by your own definition, Taibbi was accurate here. However, no decision has been made to really end the war, unless someone has announced plans to withdraw all troops and contractors while I've been typing this reply.

"He was, after all, elected in part because his party, the Democratic Party, which had supported the idiotic invasion at the start, had lately decided to abandon the idea and present itself as being against this particular war.

No, Mr. Taibbi.....the Democratic Party DID NOT SUPPORT the invasion of Iraq at the start....

House Democrats voted AGAINST the invasion, 126 to 81....that's 61% against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Senate Democrats voted for the invasion, 29 to 23.....that's 55% support.....which means, if you bothered with math as much as you do snark.....that a majority of congressional Democratic Party DID NOT support the Iraq War resolution....which means, again, you are incorrect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

A semantic quibble. Key Democrats certainly did support the war -- more than enough to pass the authorization. And the party leadership certainly did nothing to organize opposition.

Also, a count of Senate + House votes is a silly way to gauge support from party as a whole. As often happens, votes were calculated and traded based on the desired outcome in each state and congressional district. If Bush had needed more votes from the Democrats, I have no doubt that he would have gotten them.

"He is a good-looking black law professor with an obvious bent for dialogue and discussion and inclusion. "

No, Mr. Taibbi, Barack Obama is not a Law Professor any longer, he is now the President of the United States and Noble Laureate. Although true, he is still Black, I don't remember that being cited by the Nobel panel as the reason he won (so I'm not sure why you need to mention his skin color)....although based on the prejudice, hatred and the double standard that he has had to face in this country, I suggest to you that this would have been another very good reason.

Another quibble. Taibbi's description of Obama is equivalent to calling Bush "a cowboy" or Reagan "an actor". He's talking about style, not current profession. Anyone who thinks this was somehow an attempt to mislead or that Taibbi just forgot Obama's current position is really reaching for criticism.



This is the kind of snarky, hard-left criticism that Taibbi has delivered for years. You may not like it, you may not agree with his opinions, but it's kind of a stretch to say he's not being accurate.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I think that it is you stretching that Taibbi is accurate.....

because he simply wasn't.

Fact #1: As Obama wasn't in National Office at the time of the Iraq war Vote, so the only thing he could do was speak out against it...which he did! He called it a dumb war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUV69LZbCNQ

Fact #2: 126+21= 147 Congressional Democrats who voted against Iraq VS. 81+29= 110 Democrats who voted for the Iraq War. Sorry, but the Nays have it, period.

Fact #3: We are in the process of getting out of Iraq, period. Obama gave a timeline, and to date, he is on schedule.

Fact #4: If you think disparaging Obama and Gore for winning something that they did not ask to win merits ridicule, than you have a problem as does Taibbi...whether you will admit it or not. period.

I counter that it is you giving Taibbi quite a stretch in calling his "facts" accurate. They simply were not, and I stand by my critique of this opinion piece based on fabrication. If the journalists who pushed us into the Iraq war, by shading the truth and twisting the facts, were wrong, then it holds true that Taibbi is wrong here too. period.

Facts are not negotiable.

[FrenchieCat]

2. "someone will make the decision that this whole Iraq war thing is stupid"

Yes, Mr. Taibbi....that someone was Barack Obama, back in 2002, before that war started. He called it just that; a stupid war.


"moves will be made to wrap up this idiotic business and bring everyone home. At which point someone making this dreary logistical decision will get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and that someone will probably win it.."

Yes, Mr. Taibbi....that someone was Barack Obama, and yes, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize.


"He was, after all, elected in part because his party, the Democratic Party, which had supported the idiotic invasion at the start, had lately decided to abandon the idea and present itself as being against this particular war.

No, Mr. Taibbi.....the Democratic Party DID NOT SUPPORT the invasion of Iraq at the start....

House Democrats voted AGAINST the invasion, 126 to 81....that's 61% against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Senate Democrats voted for the invasion, 29 to 23.....that's 55% support.....which means, if you bothered with math as much as you do snark.....that a majority of congressional Democratic Party DID NOT support the Iraq War resolution....which means, again, you are incorrect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4326183



"He is a good-looking black law professor with an obvious bent for dialogue and discussion and inclusion. "

No, Mr. Taibbi, Barack Obama is not a Law Professor any longer, he is now the President of the United States and Noble Laureate. Although true, he is still Black, I don't remember that being cited by the Nobel panel as the reason he won (so I'm not sure why you need to mention his skin color)....although based on the prejudice, hatred and the double standard that he has had to face in this country, I suggest to you that this would have been another very good reason.



"Even Gore, during the Kosovo war, boned up on his war cred before he got a prize for losing an election, growing a beard, and making a freaking movie."

Fuck you too, Mr. Taibbi!


First I must ask if there is a prize in Journalism given to one who includes multiple inaccurate data and pretends to be writing a fact filled based opinion piece? If so, then I nominate you.

In addition, I can only hope that one day, you can employ your ability at snark, and turn your gaze to your fraternity of media members and ridicule them as much as you have the sitting President as well as Vice President Gore (who both won a prize that they did not "choose" to have bestowed upon them).....and start criticizing your co-horts' lack of due diligence in their absolute assistance in marching us off to war, using information that was almost as inaccurate as the facts you used in your opinion piece. Till then, you are part of the problem, not because of the fact that you dared criticize this President....but because you did so with writing devoided of facts or/and context.

In other words, Mr. Taibbi, your smugness in making false pronouncements earns you my "get your dumb goofy ass grin down under my Bus till you start employing facts more than mere fiction into your lame ass political analysis" Award.