Greenwald digs in, defends his criticism of Obama and the DNC

[ProSense]

Saturday Oct. 10, 2009

Accusing Obama critics of "standing with the terrorists"

Yesterday, I noted that the DNC accused the GOP of having "thrown in its lot with the terrorists" and putting "politics above patriotism" because -- just like the Taliban and Hamas -- some Republicans objected to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. Salon's Alex Koppleman described how some progressive groups, including Media Matters and some blogs, embraced the same theme, even producing videos "suggesting that the right has aligned itself with terrorists." Media Matters' Chris Harris wrote a piece entitled "RNC agrees with the Taliban," and actually labelled the mere act of questioning whether Obama's Prize was warranted to be "unseemly and downright unpatriotic."

I'm all in favor of applying disgusting political rhetoric and twisted political arguments to the purveyors of such tactics in order to demonstrate their hypocrisy and/or to neutralize those tactics. If that's all that were going on here -- if it were made clear that these tactics are unacceptable and dumb but that the Rovians on the Right who have spent the last eight years wielding them should be hoisted on their own petard -- I wouldn't have any objections to it. But, plainly, that's not all that is going on. Instead, the DNC and these groups are clearly arguing that it's improper and unpatriotic to object to or even question Obama's award. After comparing the Taliban's statements to the RNC's statement (which was actually quite innocuous and tame), this is what Harris argued:

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.

Leave aside the fact that the "global community" didn't honor the American President; five Norwegians did. Also leave aside the fact that many people from many different parts of the world -- not just scary Terrorists and Arab Enemies -- questioned whether Obama's Prize was appropriate; the "global community" happens to encompass more than "Western Europeans," and many parts of the world beyond Europe don't swoon for Obama. Also leave aside the painfully simplistic and Fox-News-mimicking characterization of the Taliban as "one of our nation's fiercest enemies"; a central prong of our current strategy in Afghanistan happens to be grounded in the recognition that the Taliban are quite diverse, with many factions of it nothing more than nationalists defending their homeland -- far from "terrorists." And finally leave aside the fact that Fidel Castro yesterday praised Obama's Prize; by the prevailing Democratic "logic," this means that Obama supporters yesterday were casting their lot with Communist dictators.

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.

more

Castro = Taliban? Never mind that the DNC criticism was aimed at the Republicans, and based on their actually sentiments.

Yeah, screw the five Norwegians (what the hell do they have to do with the award anyway), and the rest of the world, including Russia and all the people who are basing their opinions on facts.

Also, it's not like Obama is an inspiration around the world.

[seminal]

1. If we use DNC logic, we'll have to admit we sided with Bin Laden in our opposition to the Iraq War

And with Hamas' call for the end of settlements in Israel.

Thus, the other side would be waiting for the next oppostunity to accuse Democrats of siding with terrorists simply because our opinions coincide with the taliban, Al Qaeda, etc. And that's not good.

[ProSense]

4. Oh, the DNC logic to call out Republicans for what they said

is the same as making shit up to fear monger?

[seminal]

5. Only that's not what the DNC did

It did not originally call them out for what they did.

[ProSense]

7. Who cares? Calling out Republicans for their bullshit is a good thing. n/t

[seminal]

9. Right, but did the DNC call them out? Or did they use the same tactics?

Which one?

[ProSense]

11. They called them out.

You don't seem to understand that I applaud the DNC for calling out the Republicans, The sentiments expressed by Limbaugh and the RW attacks yesterday made the DNC ad sweeter. Greenwald is a hypocrite, and he proved it yesterday by dragging out a bunch of photos of the wounded children to make his point that Obama doesn't deserve this award. His hypocrisy goes back to defending Move On for their Betrayus ad. He is an asshole.

[seminal]

26. what you call hypocrisy is actually consistency

If he criticized those who said MoveOn was siding with terrorists, then he's being consistent by criticizing those who criticize people who disagree with the award being granted to Obama. Don't you think?

I don't quite follow the "Moveon" argument.

[CJCRANE]

31. "criticizing those who criticize people who disagree"...

how many clauses do you need in that sentence...what does that mean in Plain English?

[joeycola]

8. The DNC sounded just like like the RW--. They

are becoming like those who they abhore=with the use of such language.

[ProSense]

10. Oooh, the DNC smacked down the RW, time to defend the poor RW

Get a clue.

[joeycola]

15. My clue is that you are defending the DNC behaving like the RW who

use such language.

[ProSense]

18. Oh BS. You are defending Greenwald because he

is stretching his point to attack Obama. He is full of shit. Look at the over the top bullshit logic he is employing to prove that Obama didn't deserve the award. Ezra Klein conceded that it wasn't that big a deal. Naomi Klein doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

Greenwald is full of shit.

[joeycola]

28. You only think you know what I think, Read my posts and you

will see the reason why I am defending Greenwald (instead of making up shit and posting lies about me.).

[ProSense]

32. You haven't made a single logical point in defense of Greenwald.

Claiming that the DNC is using RW tatics is absurd, they are simply calling out the Republicans for their attacks.

[joeycola]

36. LOL. You still can not read. bye now. I have

had enough of your illogic for one day.

[ProSense]

37. Can't defend your position, huh?

You have no point except to parrot a lame cliche.

[Flaneur]

83. Hmmm, Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Klein or anonymous poster ProSense...

Hmmm, whose opinion should I value more?

[Cha]

13. I think you should whine a little bit

LOUDER when you're defending the rwankers.

Poor Wankers ..just can't catch a break.

[joeycola]

14. Learn to read. I am not defending the RNC. I am being critical

of the DNC and their language. get it now??

[ProSense]

17. Maybe Greenwald is the one who needs to learn to read.

He took a DNC ad aimed at Republicans and claimed that the DNC was equating all criticism to the smack down of the Republicans.

Why is that?

[seminal]

21. How can it be aimed at RNC only?

If one accuses the RNC as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the award, then one is also saying that GReenwald and Democracy Now and every Democrat or independent or anyone in the world who also disagrees with it is unpatriotic too.

It's not logical to say: A and B disagree with Y, but only A is unpatriotic.

[ProSense]

24. So when the DNC call the Republicans out for saying the

Democrats aren't doing the right thing on health care, they are criticizing everyone who shares those sentiments? Is Greenwald equating his criticism with the Republicans?

Ludicrous.

[CJCRANE]

25. Limbaugh said he's on the side of the Taliban nt

[seminal]

29. How about the Republicans who say the opposite?

And do you think that the Democrats were wrong in protesting Republican talking points saying we're siding with Bin Laden because he opposed the Iraq war? Or do you think the Democrats did the right thing back then.

[CJCRANE]

35. The ones who say the opposite can be applauded. But the ones who speak

for the Republican party should rightly be denigrated.

[Cha]

34. Like I said..Whine

Louder.

[joeycola]

47. like your broken record said........over and over.

[bvar22]

74. They just did it to you.

You agreed with Greenwald, so NOW you are "defending the Right Wing".

Irony (and hypocrisy) is LOST on some.

[Binka]

80. ABHORE? Are you fucking kidding me?

Speaking of language, maybe you should take some time and learn to spell. ABHORE? Fucking ridiculous.

[CJCRANE]

23. Um...Bin Laden liked the Bush policies. Go and find the full transcript

of his October surprise 2004 speech.

[seminal]

45. Bin Laden bashed Halliburton for profiting from the war, and so did we

From the Greenwald post, linking to a news report of a Bin Laden tape:

The voice believed to be Osama bin Laden's went through a list of familiar enemies in the audiotape released to Arab television this week: President George W. Bush, Spain, Israel. But though bin Laden decried the fact that 'this is a war that is benefiting major companies with billions of dollars,' he only mentioned one company by name: Halliburton

And guess what. Bin Laden was right on particular case. But it doesn't make us Democrats similar to him. Every once in a while the comments of anyone will coincide with the comments of terrorists.

[CJCRANE]

49. The full transcript tells a different story...

"Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States".

http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

[seminal]

64. It's still criticism of war profiteering

And he also criticized Bush for not listening to the majority of the American people.

[CJCRANE]

67. How can it be criticism if Bin Laden was happy about it? He praised Bush's policies

because they achieved his aims. Also remember last year about the report that al-Qaeda endorsed McCain in the election.

[seminal]

73. You're stretching it. Bin Laden said the Iraq war was "unjust"

According to this 2003 tape: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2751019.stm

Amid this unjust war, the war of infidels and debauchees led by America along with its allies and agents, we would like to stress a number of important values:

First, showing good intentions. This means fighting should be for the sake of the one God.

It should not be for championing ethnic groups, or for championing the non-Islamic regimes in all Arab countries, including Iraq.

God Almighty says: "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil."

What do you have to say with those who saw the war as unjust in 2003, just like Bin Laden?


He never said he was happy. He noted that opposition to Iraq had strengthened Al Qaeda because of duh, muslims didn't want Americans in Iraq. Their goal was to drive Americans out.

[seminal]

2. OP bolded a statement that was false

This was marked in bold: "The global community honoring the American President with one of the world's top awards should be a cause for national celebration"

But Greenwald proved this false, and this was not highlighted: "Leave aside the fact that the "global community" didn't honor the American President; five Norwegians did. Also leave aside the fact that many people from many different parts of the world -- not just scary Terrorists and Arab Enemies -- questioned whether Obama's Prize was appropriate"

[ProSense]

6. What? You're a little busy aren't you? n/t

[Cha]

12. It's not false. greenwald has his little jealous

vulture feathers all ruffled..makes him look petty.

[seminal]

16. Are you saying that the "global community" gave him the award?

Wasn't it granted by five people of the same country? That's not my idea of "global."

It's like calling a civil war a 'global war'.

[ProSense]

20. Are you saying that it has been awarded by the "global community" in the past?

Greenwald is full of shit. The Nobel committee gave Obama the award, and he is going to have to learn to live with that reality.

[seminal]

27. Greenwald didn't deny that the "Nobel committee" gave Obama the award

What he said, accurately, is that five Norwegians don't a "global community" make. Much like a civil war isn't a "global war".

[Cha]

39. greenwald is nitpicking like a little

jealous bully. Really cements what he's about.

[BlooInBloo]

3. lol! Poor Greenwald, on this one....

I have a feeling he might go off the deep end with this.

[otohara]

22. Some...Many Should Have Waited

with their ugly statements until POTUS had his chance to make his. And...hearing the reasons from the committee was important -

But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. I have a feeling you're right. But hey, it might be more lucrative ($$$) to be an Obama foe...

from the left. We've seen people become instant darlings of the right, simply for taking potshots at this president. Perhaps Glen has found a way to finally cash in? :shrug:

[vaberella]

40. I have to agree with you on this one. n/t

[Flaneur]

84. That's fucking low.

[Cha]

19. The Presidential Historian, Douglas Brinkley says it's

an "Inspired Choice" and I agree.. Cross post in GDP.

BeyondGeography (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-10-09 07:48 AM
Original message

"Douglas Brinkley: Obama has already confirmed his place of greatness
Well-Deserved Prize"

I was shocked by the sudden announcement that President Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. I just didn’t see it coming. But, after a half-day of reflection, I now firmly believe it’s an inspired choice.

...the Norwegian Nobel Committee never claimed they were giving President Obama the award for his nine-month old presidency. Barack Obama, it seems, deserved the Nobel for his audacious ability to navigate the curse of racism with unparalleled integrity and high-mindedness...Plus, let’s face it, Obama has become the world ambassador of hope — quite a burden to carry. Millions of mothers in the world, whether in a remote village or a forgotten corner of urban sprawl, often tell their sons and daughters: “Yes, you can grow up to be like Barack Obama. Oh, yes you can!” As the Nobel Committee knows, there is a huge battle being waged between the forces of light and darkness in the world.

President Obama is one of the brightest flames the human rights movement has seen since Mahatma Gandhi (who never won the prize) took up his loom and marched to the sea...No matter how his presidency develops or the planet evolves, he has already confirmed his place of greatness. For he didn’t just write “The Audacity of Hope,” he actualized it on the campaign trail of 2008. We spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to win over hearts-and-minds to the American Way. President Obama has done the same service on the cheap.

From Cairo to Johannesburg and beyond, he has inspired scores of marginalized teenagers to believe they have a chance at the Main Game, that ballot-box democracy does produce free-and-fair elections. Having our president win the Nobel should be a cause for national honor and civic pride. President Obama represents for the world the cornerstone of our heroic American tradition, where Horatio Alger-like personal biography intersects with our future dreams. Let’s be frank: without hope there is no peace...

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/what-...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694906

As well do these people who understand why our president has received the NNP.

<snip>

October 9, 2009

By Steven Leser

As a supporter of President Obama, I knew that this day would come, I just didn't think it would come so soon. I believe the President deserves an enormous amount of credit for changing the tone of American diplomacy in his first 8-9 months in office. This tone change is responsible for a dramatic improvement in the way Americans are perceived abroad. In a recent poll reported in Time Magazine (see http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/07/barack-obama... / ), America is now the most admired country in the world, up from seventh only a year ago.

For all of that, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama at this time was a bit surprising to me, to say the least. I read through some of the articles and reports to see if I could gain some insight into the thinking of the Nobel committee as to what brought this about. Sure, there are the jokesters and one liners about the President not being George Bush and all of that, but how did this all come about and why.

The eureka moment came to me after reading two separate AP reports. In the first, the AP reporters interviewed a member of the Nobel Committee who articulated the reason for the nomination. Conspicuously mentioned was the Presidents commitment to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace :

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.

"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us.".

grantcart (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-09-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message

"4. If I might add a little to your analysis."

I don't think it is so much that ElBaradei authored this sentiment but he represents what is a growing and pervasive understanding of what the President is doing outside the US.

When you live outside the US for extended periods of time you become aware that perceptions of what is important in the US and what is important outside the US are so different.

For example, establishing the defensive missle shield in Eastern Europe was seen as a very devisive, stupid and dangerous move and a real threat to peace.

1) It was perceived as devisive because it not only generated a totally needless hostility between Europe and Russia but it also divided Eastern and Western Europe (and that may have been one of the main reasons that Bush pursued it - hoping to increase American hegemony in Europe.

2) It was universally thought of as a modern Maginot Line because high tech defensive measures are (as the terrorists on 9/11 proved) easily defeated if there is a strong will to do so.

3) It was understood as a threat to peace because it took Russia out of world peace equation. As long as the US was ignoring their concerns then Russia was not going to help with Iran or any other issue that didn't impact directly on their immediate self interest. That would also give cover for China to obstruct the Security Council.

So by agreeing not to go ahead with an expensive, ineffective and divisive defensive missle shield in Eastern Europe a lot of things have changed. This was big big news in Europe but didn't raise a wrinkle here.

BTW Mohamed ElBaradei is one of the greatest unsung International Civil Servants."

<more>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8692775

Michael Moore's take on PO being given the NPP.

<snip>

P.S. Your opposition has spent the morning attacking you for bringing such good will to this country. Why do they hate America so much? I get the feeling that if you found the cure for cancer this afternoon they'd be denouncing you for destroying free enterprise because cancer centers would have to close. There are those who say you've done nothing yet to deserve this award. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that you've offered to walk into the minefield of hate and try to undo the irreparable damage the last president did is not only appreciated by me and millions of others, it is also an act of true bravery.That's why you got the prize. The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet. Let's not let them down.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/9/791561/-Congratulations-President-Obama-on-the-Nobel-Peace-PrizeNow-Please-Earn-it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8693353

'To think the US President is an undeserving Nobel winner misses the point' (UK Independent)

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694329

"Rachel Maddow: Obama Derangement Syndrome"

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694351

U.N. approves resolution to rid world of nukes
Security Council unanimously OKs initiative on nonproliferation, nuke terror"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33001551/ns/world_news-unit

[otohara]

30. Reflection

what a concept.

[BlooInBloo]

38. And a historian-historian...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8695019&mesg_id=8695019

[Cha]

48. Wonder if the NPP Committee ever had to defend

their choice this much?

"Alfred Nobel outlined in his will the grounds on which the Peace Prize was to be given, saying it should go annually to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The modern committee considers work toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals in the same light as the reduction of standing armies, hence its award to Linus Pauling."

I didn't think twice when I heard PO had been given the Nobel Peace Prize but, that may be just me and some others I've heard from.

[BlooInBloo]

50. self-delete - wrong fucking thread. Sheesh. Damn hangover.

[Cha]

53. Celebrating too much PO Peace

Prize?:party::popcorn::toast:}(

[Cha]

59. "Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland defends Barack Obama peace prize"

"Can someone tell me who did more than him this year? It is difficult to name a winner of the peace prize who is more in line with Alfred Nobel's will."

<read more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4098367

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Excellent post Cha. Wish I could rec it. (nt)

[Cha]

57. You just did, Tarheel Dem..

This is one heck of a developement..having to defend(real easy) PO's being given the NNP on DU!

Shock-ing!:o ;)

[vaberella]

41. Greenwald I think is a jerk on this.

It was Limbaugh and his fellow loons, but Limbaugh himself who shouted gleefully that he sides with the Taliban. Not only that, Limbaugh said "WE" ie him and his fellow supporters agree with the Taliban. Our enemies. He sides with them. Yet Greenwald is defending the fucking RNC against the DNC statement. When the RNC were upset Obama got this award. He can kiss my ass. I don't need to listen to that nonsense. The DNC was responding to Limbaugh (the defacto Republican leader that no one can Goddamned deny) and his fellow clowns for whining like bitches and siding with the Taliban. He needs to get a grip---his reaction just seems paranoid to me.

[Grinchie]

42. Nice "If You're Not With Us, Your're Against Us" Defense ProSense.

How nice of you to avoid the true controversy, which is that Obama did nothing to earn this award.

Is it Unpatriotic now to ask real questions of a prize that can't stand on its own merit?

The funny thing about this is that in my circle of well educated, highly informed friends, they feel the same way. When I mentioned it to others that had not received the news yet, they all would ask "What For?, the Two Ongoing Wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and the chest beating interference in the Sovereignity of Iran?

The forceful action on Honduras? Hah hah hah..

This is a distraction, and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Obama knows that his integration into the DLC Corporate Cabal is a big fat fail, and he needed something to take the heat off him for a few days.

It's pretty clear that this little scheme is high stakes Double Down in face of a losing hand, and the gullible sheeple will gobble it up, despite the fact that this is tainted food.

[emulatorloo]

46. "Obama did nothing to earn this award" Good post on Obama's international accomplishments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8693095

TomCADem writes:

President Obama's administration has in only ten months:

1. Followed through on plans to gradually withdraw from Iraq contrary to candidate McCain's promises.
2. Reached out to Muslim nations offering to treat them with respect, rather than lecturing down to them about American values and democracy.
3. Improved relations with Russia by dropping plans for a missle defense on Russia's border, moved towards nuclear arms reduction talks, and got Russia's temtative cooperation on Iran.
4. Initiated face to face discussions with Iran as he promised.
5. Managed to reverse North Korea's escalation of rhetoric.
6. Chaired the U.N. Security counsel, and passed a resolution committing to reduce nuclear arms following up on an earlier speech in Europe on the issue.
7. Improved the standing and power of the United Nations by committing to multi-lateralism.
8. Put pressure on Isreal to halt expansion of settlements, rather than just blindly supporting them against the Palestinians.
9. Convinced Pakistan to take more aggresive action against jihadist militants that got within 60 miles of Pakistan's capital, which placed Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at severe risk.
10. Reversing eight years of climate change denial from the Bush administration, and has supported efforts to pass a cap and trade bill through Congress.
11. Ratcheted down the rhetoric on Iran, and tried to engage them early on in his Presidency, which signiciantly helped opposition elements in the Iran election, since the U.S. was not playing the traditional role of the Great Satan.

Conservatives have opposed all of the above moves and some so-called liberals have minimized each of them. Thus, here we sit, with most right wingers, and some "liberals" opposing the award of the Nobel Peace price to President Obama.

The fact of the matter is that the President has signicantly changed the arc of world diplomacy, and based on his actions this past year, I think the award is well deserved. The shock and surprise over the President's award says more about us and our media, then it says about President Obama, because other countries apparently have a much different perspective. Afterall, remember the world leader saying that he can't understand why President Obama is being compared to Hitler for trying to expand health care.

Can President Obama do more? Of course. But does that mean he has done nothing? The answer is no.

[ProSense]

51. Oh, don't try that cheap psychology. The DNC has every right to criticize the RNC for

the years of bullshit, fear mongering, teabaggers and the like. Yesterday, Limbaugh agreed with the Taliban.

Why the hell did Greenwald feel it necessary to drag the DNC's ad, aimed squarely at the RNC, into his bullshit argument against Obama's award?

He's a clown.

[Baltoman991]

54. Geez, when

I mentioned it to people who hadn't heard about it yet they said it was well deserved. Does that make us less educated then you and those you told? I don't think so.

He's done plenty. You're constant bleating that he's done nothing is pure bullshit.

This is no distraction for anything. It was a just award and the committees statement backs that up.

So continue on with your little hate parade. It appears you have many who agree with you. But there are many more who don't agree because hey, we're not haters of all things Obama.

[Grinchie]

77. Feel free to illustrate the merits.

If they can, I'm more than willing to listen to the reasons why they felt this way. If they don't have a reaosn, and just did it out of the need to belong to the group, then I guess you answered it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

55. So do you think that Obama rigged the voting for the Nobel Peace Prize or something?

"This is a distraction, and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Obama knows that his integration into the DLC Corporate Cabal is a big fat fail, and he needed something to take the heat off him for a few days.

It's pretty clear that this little scheme is high stakes Double Down in face of a losing hand, and the gullible sheeple will gobble it up, despite the fact that this is tainted food."

What are you trying to say here?

[Grinchie]

78. Read it again, and meditate on it.

I meant exactly what I wrote, and it's a desperate attempt to distract the world from the status quo, which is, full speed ahead off the edge of a cliff, while sitting on a barkalounger.

The truly surprising aspect about all of theis is that the defenders of this nonsense can give no reason whatsoever that would validate the award, other than "The Swedes" are the authorities on the subject.. Heh.

I was hoping to see at least some coherent explanation from the DLC crew here, but even they have a difficult time coming to terms with it.

Thank you all for proing it in no uncertain terms, that this is B.S. of the 3rd degree, and I'm happy to see you flail about like the trained typewriter monkeys that you are, trying to demean my message, while unable to illustrate why I am mistaken in any way, shape or form.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. Dupe.

[Cha]

75. Yes, President Obama has done a lot to earn the Peace Prize

but, you have to have been paying attention..

<snip>

October 9, 2009

By Steven Leser

As a supporter of President Obama, I knew that this day would come, I just didn't think it would come so soon. I believe the President deserves an enormous amount of credit for changing the tone of American diplomacy in his first 8-9 months in office. This tone change is responsible for a dramatic improvement in the way Americans are perceived abroad. In a recent poll reported in Time Magazine (see http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/07/barack-obama... / ), America is now the most admired country in the world, up from seventh only a year ago.

For all of that, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama at this time was a bit surprising to me, to say the least. I read through some of the articles and reports to see if I could gain some insight into the thinking of the Nobel committee as to what brought this about. Sure, there are the jokesters and one liners about the President not being George Bush and all of that, but how did this all come about and why.

The eureka moment came to me after reading two separate AP reports. In the first, the AP reporters interviewed a member of the Nobel Committee who articulated the reason for the nomination. Conspicuously mentioned was the Presidents commitment to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace :

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.

"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us.".

grantcart (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-09-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message

"4. If I might add a little to your analysis."

I don't think it is so much that ElBaradei authored this sentiment but he represents what is a growing and pervasive understanding of what the President is doing outside the US.

When you live outside the US for extended periods of time you become aware that perceptions of what is important in the US and what is important outside the US are so different.

For example, establishing the defensive missle shield in Eastern Europe was seen as a very devisive, stupid and dangerous move and a real threat to peace.

1) It was perceived as devisive because it not only generated a totally needless hostility between Europe and Russia but it also divided Eastern and Western Europe (and that may have been one of the main reasons that Bush pursued it - hoping to increase American hegemony in Europe.

2) It was universally thought of as a modern Maginot Line because high tech defensive measures are (as the terrorists on 9/11 proved) easily defeated if there is a strong will to do so.

3) It was understood as a threat to peace because it took Russia out of world peace equation. As long as the US was ignoring their concerns then Russia was not going to help with Iran or any other issue that didn't impact directly on their immediate self interest. That would also give cover for China to obstruct the Security Council.

So by agreeing not to go ahead with an expensive, ineffective and divisive defensive missle shield in Eastern Europe a lot of things have changed. This was big big news in Europe but didn't raise a wrinkle here.

BTW Mohamed ElBaradei is one of the greatest unsung International Civil Servants."

<more>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8692775

Michael Moore's take on PO being given the NPP.

<snip>

P.S. Your opposition has spent the morning attacking you for bringing such good will to this country. Why do they hate America so much? I get the feeling that if you found the cure for cancer this afternoon they'd be denouncing you for destroying free enterprise because cancer centers would have to close. There are those who say you've done nothing yet to deserve this award. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that you've offered to walk into the minefield of hate and try to undo the irreparable damage the last president did is not only appreciated by me and millions of others, it is also an act of true bravery.That's why you got the prize. The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet. Let's not let them down.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/9/791561/-Congratulations-President-Obama-on-the-Nobel-Peace-PrizeNow-Please-Earn-it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8693353

'To think the US President is an undeserving Nobel winner misses the point' (UK Independent)

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694329

"Rachel Maddow: Obama Derangement Syndrome"

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694351

U.N. approves resolution to rid world of nukes
Security Council unanimously OKs initiative on nonproliferation, nuke terror"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33001551/ns/world_news-unit

"Douglas Brinkley: Obama has already confirmed his place of greatness
Well-Deserved Prize"

<more>
ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694906

Michael Moore's Second Thoughts on President Obama winning the NPP..

"My prediction for the future? You become the first two-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize! Yeah!"

<much more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8695710

[Grinchie]

79. Nice try, but he has yet to earn anything.

You can ignore the FISA Immunity, andf that Bush and Cheney are still free men, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama is a DLC stooge.. But then again, so are you. Either that or you are so blinded by this thing called Party loyalty that you refuse to see the reality that the differences between the DLC and the Republicans are nominal at best.

Go ahead and sup at the teat of the Propaganda meisters, but don't expect the world to agree with you, despite how hard they try to force that message down our throats.

If Obama had perhaps invented Vitamin C, or maybe was smart enough to quit smoking... Two ongoing Wars, and a third one on the coals ready to be set in motion. You guys are too much if you beleve Americans are going to fall for this shit.

[Cha]

81. Yes, it is about "trying" for a Peaceful World..it's a

whole new attitude and a new ballgame. The Grinches of the world will just have to suck on their bitterness and get out of the way.

[Grinchie]

82. Analysis and Bitterness don't go together

In order to actually recognize something, the Ego must go away, and emotions removed from the equation. They are nothing more than distractions and are irrelevant.

Nice try on trying to label me as Bitter, but the reality is that I don't really give a damn about you or your headlong rush to remain part of a group that keeps abusing you. I am more concerned about the ramifications to the entire planet, rather than clinging to some belief that the Government manufactures for the gullible.

All that really matters is that you are happy with the reasons for Obama's Nobel peace prize. You are the one that ultimately has to judge whether it actually has any merit whatsoever, especially when half the world does not.

I however, don't see the merits, nor have any been presented that have any meaning, other than "He's not Bush". Sorry, but I thought we established that on election day in 2008, and it doesn't really need to be augmented by this award, which is nothing more than a Gold star for attendance.

whole new attitude and a new ballgame... That's laughable... This is the second term of the Clinton Corporate Hoedown, and you can take that to the bank.

[Vinnie From Indy]

43. Greenwald makes some discussion worthy points

I have no problem with this award being bestowed in part on the promise of a more peaceful and just world.

[WeDidIt]

52. I have long held Glenn Greenwald is a douchenozzle, I was wrong

I must now proclaim him High Lord Douchenozzle over all douchenozzles.

[vaberella]

58. ...

:rofl: High Lord Douchenozzle!!! :rofl: I love it. Oh Christ...I love it. I love it so much I laughed so hard I farted....:D :rofl:

[WeDidIt]

63. He is assisted in his douchenozzlery by the Lord Privy Douchenozzle, David Sirota. n/t

[Cha]

60. He has rather elevated himself to

the highest form of said Douchenozzlery.

What a tool.

[malletgirl02]

62. MoveOn

I read on another post that he called the DNC cowards for not backing MoveOn on the Petraeous ad if that is true than he is being Hypocritical. The next time a Democrat tells the truth about the Republicans and then backs down and apologize Glenwald has no room to talk.

[Uzybone]

61. One day sensible people will realize that bloggers are just like

any other idiots on the internet. Greenwald has been hacking it up for many years.

[seminal]

66. You must not know the definition of a "hack"

"A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. The term "hired gun" is often used in tandem to further describe the moral bankruptcy of the "hack".

Greenwald part of the political apparatus? Whose intentions are aligned with victory? "hired gun"? I think you have the wrong "hack".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hack

[CJCRANE]

68. A "hack" means a bad writer...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer

"Hack writer is a colloquial and usually pejorative term used to refer to a writer who is paid to write low-quality, rushed articles".

[seminal]

69. So bad that the White House reportedly reads his column every day?

According to Marc Ambinder:

whereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_rubicon_of_indefinite_detention.php

[CJCRANE]

70. I just gave you the definition of "hack". I didn't offer an opinion about Greenwald's writing nt

[seminal]

71. My bad. I confused you with the girl who called him a "hack" n/t

[CJCRANE]

72. That's OK. It was an interesting bit of information nt

[Vattel]

65. Now that is funny.

The idea that Greenwald was equating Castro and the Taliban is obviously ridiculous, but I agree with you that some people can misread anything, no matter how clear it is. You forgot the sarcasm indicator, though.

[Justitia]

76. Hey Glenn, just a suggestion: QUIT DIGGING -eom