NY Daily News:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is managing to take a more negative spin on President Obama’s Nobel Prize than Hamas.
Says Steele:
“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.”
Says Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh (via the wires):
“We are in need of actions, not sayings. If there is no fundamental and true change in American policies toward the acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people, I think this prize won’t move us forward or backward.”
The DNC response warms the cockles of my little heart:
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.
"The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said.
About damn time the DNC got some hair on its balls and gave back some of the “objectively pro-terrorist” crap they’ve been quietly eating from the Republicans for years. I got royally sick during the Bush years of every single criticism of the Administration being answered with: "That sounds like something Hamas/Hezbollah/Osama bin Ladin would say!" Now the shoe's on the other foot, and they really ARE saying exactly the same things (or worse) than Hamas.
I cannot WAIT for the outraged demands for apologies from the exact same crowd of wingnuts who used to toss that accusation around with such abandon. I just hope the DNC sticks to its guns and tells the whiners to go screw themselves.
17 comments:
DNC: "award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride"
Ah, I'm not so sure about that.
It's a bit hypocritical (the award itself going to Obama now) and while it isn't going to change the value of my metro card when I take the subway tonight, I'm not going to feel any sense of pride whatsoever that my President was granted an award I think is absurd.
The one good thing (and right thing) the DNC noted was he didn't seek it.
Well, I hope he didn't.
I do have to wonder why Ralph Nader wasn't given it since he said his future actions would've included "immediate" withdrawals of American troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Makes one wonder about what's going on ...
The one good thing (and right thing) the DNC noted was he didn't seek it.
Form what I've read, seeking it is the one sure way to make sure you DON'T get it.
"An award I think is absurd."
I think the Peace Prize is extremely prestigious.
It "might've" been before they gave it to Obama but I don't know the history of it and suspect there were equally hypocritical awards given out in the past.
I mean, the man is the leader of a nation involved in two wars right now. I don't see how he gets a "peace" award. To me that's pretty absurd.
From CNN: President Obama today joined an elite group of U.S. presidents when he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Unlike his predecessors, Obama was chosen not for substantive accomplishments, but for inspiring "hope" at the start of his term.
Then call it the Nobel Hope Award.
I agree that the selection of Obama is downright odd. But, Obama inherited the two wars and I don't think one odd selection by the Swedes tarnishes the award.
After all, the Bills still aspire to the Lombardi Trophy after the "Cheaters" won it.
A lot of the Novel Peace prizes have been optimistic, to say the least, often given out for the first tentative steps of long journeys, probably in the hopes that the prize will keep what little momentum there is going.
In Canada we're still proud of Mackenzie King's Nobel for coming with the idea of international peace keeping troops and it's not like their existence has eliminated war. Wasn't the Irish Nobel given out at the very beginning of the peace process? How many different people have won the award for brokering peace deals in the Middle East? How many more will there be before there's peace there?
Gerard:
Yes, he did inherit the wars, but if you remember, he campaigned that Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place". So how come we're hanging out there until 2011? Somebody say 2012 is an election year?
As for the "After all, the Bills still aspire to the Lombardi Trophy after the "Cheaters" won it."
Here you're very wrong. First of all, my beloved new york state buffalo bills aspire to mediocrity and some day, with a good coach, we'll get there. Right now we're sub division B high school.
And it's the Cheaterfaces, not the Cheaters ... and until they can win one without the taint of spygate (you'll remember the only one they played post spygate, they lost to the Moonachie Giants), they have zero super bowl wins.
Gerard Saylor: I don't think one odd selection by the Swedes tarnishes the award.
Umm... the Peace Prize is given by the Norwegians, not the Swedes.
That won't be the last time I forget the Norwegians select that one.
Damn Norwegians.
Okay, I get it; some of you aren't going to be happy until The Jolly Green Giant grabs hold of all government, all domestic policy and all foreign policy, turns it upside down and shakes it until the nation is in a heap on the ground and we have to build over from scratch.
Problem is, that way lies madness and social collapse.
Maybe that doesn't speak to you. So go sailing this weekend, and try to turn a Hobie Cat hard left into the wind RIGHT NOW. See what you get.
Obama is a moderate. He's an incrementalist, but he's done some pretty damn sharp things, like going to Egypt to say, "We are not at war with Islam."
He cancelled the dumb damn plan to install ABMs in Poland, got Moscow to stand down from its bellicose position, and then got them to join in the plan to encapsulate Iran.
That's called diplomacy, and from that comes peace-making.
We have someone who is engaged. After eight years of nothing but self-interest, rape and rapacity, you should be able to see how different this is to us at home and to the world at large.
"Obama is a moderate.
That's one way to put it. Real liberals call him Republican light.
He's an incrementalist, but he's done some pretty damn sharp things, like going to Egypt to say, "We are not at war with Islam."
And then he stepped upped the war in Afghanistan … strange way to show we're not at war with Islam.
"He cancelled the dumb damn plan to install ABMs in Poland, got Moscow to stand down from its bellicose position, and then got them to join in the plan to encapsulate Iran."
We shall see … every time there’s a nuclear treaty of any kind (i.e., Korea, Iran) we find out a few years later they didn’t play fair after all. I wouldn't get too excited too soon.
That's called diplomacy, and from that comes peace-making.
So what about Iraq? Is that peace making? Somebody say Guantanamo (another great way to say we're not at war with Islam, by the way).
We have someone who is engaged. After eight years of nothing but self-interest, rape and rapacity, you should be able to see how different this is to us at home and to the world at large
Yes, well, just so you stay informed of everything … remember Blackwater and Bush? Obama increased their (Blackwater's) budget … different? Me thinks you're practicing some serious blind faith.
Nader in 2012
Charlie, you are falling ever deeper into the well of false equivalencies.
Al Qaeda is a criminal enterprise, and must be pursued internationally, as criminals. It's going to get harder, not easier.
I understand you're unhappy and hard-pressed, but try blaming the right sources for your troubles. They don't stem from Barack Obama.
Al Qaeda is a criminal enterprise, and must be pursued internationally, as criminals. It's going to get harder, not easier.
Talk about false equivalencies ... if they're criminals, you send the army & marines to Afghanistan?
Nobody is blaming Obama for how the wars started, we're blaming him (those on the true left) for all the bullshit rhetoric in his campaign about ending 1) the wrong war and 2) cornering himself with the "necessary" war.
Al Qaeda is also in Pakistan and several other nations (international) ... are we supposed to send armies there to?
My issues are with the Democrats and Republicans, my man. Obama is just another front man for one of two useless parties. He may be a rock star elsewhere and to those living in denial here, but so far he's done jack shit for the American citizens who flocked to vote him into office. He can't get HIS party to do a thing in concert yet he's done nothing different than Bush in so many areas it seems pretty pointless to call him a Democrat anymore than calling the bluedog Senators who won't vote for a public option Democrats.
False equivalencies? Hopefully Obama will take that dopey award he was just gifted to use an excuse to get the hell out of both Iraq and Afghanistan sooner rather than later.
Yes, Charlie, false equivalencies. I understand you're angry. You've made that very clear. Now, refine your ability to aim.
Go read the Defense In The National Interest website. Look for commentary by Pierre Sprey and others. These are all people out of the Dept. of Defense, many of whom were students of John Boyd.
When it comes to counter-insurgency, they've got a very different take on what we should be doing with Al Qaeda. I don't know that Obama will listen, but he should.
Yes, Al Qaeda is a criminal enterprise. They're in the business of intimidation, blackmail and extortion (see Sprey). We should be using very different forces and tactics against them.
We used the Marines against the Barbary Pirates two hundred years ago (hence the Mameluke Sword in the Marine dress uniform). That was what we had to work with, back then. We need a different kind of solution now.
"Go read the Defense In The National Interest website. Look for commentary by Pierre Sprey and others. These are all people out of the Dept. of Defense, many of whom were students of John Boyd."
Was this what Clinton used in his brilliant efforts to thwart terrorism? You know, the first twin towers attack followed by several others (Mogadishu, the Cole, etc.)?
I'm not sure whether I agree or not with the tactics, but what Obama is doing is very contrary to what he said he'd be doing to get elected (that's my issue, Tom--not the strategy--except in Afghanistan--that became absurd several years ago).
I'm afraid Obama backed himself into a corner with campaign rhetoric (i.e., "necessary war") ... maybe this fugazy peace prize will get him to try and earn it now and he'll realize it's pointless (the war in Afghanistan), but I wouldn't count on it. While he looks like the weak link at home (can't get anything done), he may need to keep up appearances of strength somewhere and that will be to our detriment. LBJ took a similar path (maybe for different reasons) to no good end. Whatever strategy we ultimately use to combat crime (usually it's infiltrating the other side that defeats crime (or cutting deals)), these wars and his "peace" prize couldn't be more hypocritical. Right now, Afghanistan is all his (and no longer Bush's). So long as he claims it's the necessary war, brother, he can't blame anybody but himself.
Post a Comment