Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize -- Now Please Earn it!
Friday, October 9th, 2009
Dear President Obama,
How outstanding that you've been recognized today as a man of peace. Your swift, early pronouncements -- you will close Guantanamo, you will bring the troops home from Iraq, you want a nuclear weapon-free world, you admitted to the Iranians that we overthrew their democratically-elected president in 1953, you made that great speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, you've eliminated that useless term "The War on Terror," you've put an end to torture -- these have all made us and the rest of the world feel a bit more safe considering the disaster of the past eight years. In eight months you have done an about face and taken this country in a much more sane direction.
But...
The irony that you have been awarded this prize on the 2nd day of the ninth year of our War in Afghanistan is not lost on anyone. You are truly at a crossroads now. You can listen to the generals and expand the war (only to result in a far-too-predictable defeat) or you can declare Bush's Wars over, and bring all the troops home. Now. That's what a true man of peace would do.
There is nothing wrong with you doing what the last guy failed to do -- capture the man or men responsible for the mass murder of 3,000 people on 9/11. BUT YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH TANKS AND TROOPS. You are pursuing a criminal, not an army. You do not use a stick of dynamite to get rid of a mouse.
The Taliban is another matter. That is a problem for the people of Afghanistan to resolve -- just as we did in 1776, the French did in 1789, the Cubans did in 1959, the Nicaraguans did in 1979 and the people of East Berlin did in 1989. One thing is certain through all revolutions by people who wish to be free -- they ultimately have to bring about that freedom themselves. Others can be supportive, but freedom can not be delivered from the front seat of someone else's Humvee.
You have to end our involvement in Afghanistan now. If you don't, you'll have no choice but to return the prize to Oslo.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
137 Comments so far
Show AllConsider this "prize" nothing more than a dumb "scooby snack". Oh Mr President will you bring peace to ... for this peace prize? But there are clever tricks to pretending "peace" you know.
Well said, Moore!
However, it seems, in reading many comments in numerous articles, that it's not just Sarah Palin who's forgotten the 'Bush doctrine': that America will attack anyone, anywhere, pre-existing treaty or not, sans diplomacy, whenever we want and whenever we feel 'threatened' by them.
Those missile defense batteries Bush deployed on Russia's borders? Those were a first strike weapon, designed to allow the American President to think of a nuclear exchange with Russia as something America could survive. And once, in place, given the Bush doctrine and Bush's behavior toward Iraq, who better to touch off WWIII than Bush himself? So Russia invades Georgia, and threatens an invasion of Ukraine if we don't remove the batteries, and the nuclear extinction clock moves that much closer to Armageddon.
For eight years, America was led by a group of people who could look at the annihilation of Russia and, through nuclear fallout, much of China, Japan, and the Koreas, and think of this as a 'positive thing'. Quite frankly, the election of ANYONE BUT BUSH was cause for a Peace Prize NOMINATION, at the very least. Now that Obama has engaged Russia, ramped down the fear and rhetoric, and promised to remove those first-strike missile 'defense' batteries, he may well DESERVE the Peace Prize.
I agree that the change in tone is somewhat important, but I personally think he's far from deserving it at this point, and I hope that we can all continue to push him (as opposed to giving up and complaining) to promote policies that genuinely deserve the award. He's certainly better than Bush in many important ways but in regards to use of military combat troops he's pretty much just continued Bush policy.
I give the Nobel committee some latitude for understanding the concept of Peace in all its permutations. Stepping away from nuclear armageddon may no longer seem sufficiently deserving to modern society, not 'sexy' enough. But to Peace Scholars the deep problems that inflict mankind are what they have always been. And since its invention, nuclear war has been chief among the problems they have grappled with.
I agree that Obama doesn't deserve this prize, except in the sense that he is 'not Bush'. Bush was THAT scary, especially to the rest of the world. And as regards Bush's willingness to provoke Russia, it wasn't the least bit funny. That kind of lackadaisical disrespect of a major nuclear power (that takes itself too seriously in the best of times) would have gotten the attention of your typical Norwegian, you can be sure of that. Bush looked into Putin's eyes, saw a man he could trust, and then, through his placement of missile defense batteries, proceeded to 'moon' him. You bet the Russians were livid.
Not just livid, but escalated their nuclear "response" capabilities. Put themselves back on hair-trigger launch alert- scary stuff. I agree that it's no small thing to pull nukes back from Russia's borders, certainly one of the ways Obama policies are substantively better than Bush's. Not "better enough" across the board but better. And I also agree that it wasn't a "sexy" enough move to earn praise from those of us who care about such things, unfortunately.
In regards to the nuclear issue- perhaps Helen Caldicott would have been a nice choice? For that matter, how about Chomsky and Zinn? Gandhi never won it, and Kissinger did... what else needs to be said?
No question: its one of the great unreported stories of the last year, and for good reason. BushCo calculated that missile defense would docile the Russian bear, and the Russian bear responded with some unpredictable war-mongering. But, the most predictable thing about Russia IS its unpredictability, so WHAT WAS BUSH THINKING?
But, potentially you're right, and Obama was just a 'politically correct' choice. I think the Nobel committee has some 'splaining to do.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
The Bush-Cheney Junta suspected that the missiles would intimidate the Russians into leaving alone the U.S./NATO Central Asian Great Game to control all the pipelines through the region, but the Russians have contiguous borders with too many of those countries and if they wanted to disrupt or halt the flow through any of those lines--and even make it look like it was done by terrorist elements or other loose cannons--it would be child's work. No Western power has ever accomplished anything with the Great Game except to waste lives, time, money and equipment. It was a fool's errand when Britain tried it and it still is now under the aegis of the U.S. oil companies and the Pentagon: Too far-flung, too expensive, too exposed to maintain for any length of time. The attempt to do it is bleeding the Amurkan empire to death.
Russia's "war mongering" response was highly predictable Soviet type saber rattling from a former Soviet KGB officer named Vladimir Putin who has been quietly reassembling many of the former Soviet satellite countries in the region into a new Russian confederation. He reportedly wants to be president again after Medvedev and is behaving more and more like a dictator regularly milking his personal herd of oligarchs while slowly but methodically moving to crush all real economic, journalistic and political opposition. Mother Russia extends six time zones across Central and East Asia, rich in oil, natural gas, strategic minerals and timber. Time is on her side.
China is cutting its own oil deals with Iran, Venezuela and Sudan, but it has strategic joint military exercises with Russia, not the U.S. Russia and China together are pushing hard for the end of the U.S. dollar as the world's key reserve currency used for oil transactions. Our banks make hundreds of billions of dollars by financing those transactions. The U.S. has bitten off far more than it can chew in Iraq and the "AfPak" to try to throw its weight around in Central Asia as well. Our "leadership" is so glaringly incompetent now that no one takes us seriously in terms of believing that we will fully mobilize to take, hold and "reeducate" the nations we attack. If the "surge worked" in Iraq, then why do we still have 120,000 troops there with no end in sight?
If these were remotely normal economic times, then running side-by-side Vietnams would still be seriously fiscally unhealthy, but to continue both of these half-assed, undermanned, open ended misadventures at this point is fiscal suicide. And the Bush wartime tax cuts for the super rich are still in place to put a pointy dunce cap on all the madness.
The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet.
There it is again, the American spirit of doing it alone. The world doesn't depend on the US and Obama can not and will not save the planet. What hybris! When will you learn that you, the USA, are just one of many and what we need is the sense of doing it together. But you learned the wrong lesson, for yes, you can destroy alone, but peace - no, you can not create peace alone. We don't need a saviour or king. Remember the Internationale?
No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear ...
I share Michael Moore,s pride in you for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The world will cheer you on as you lead us in the reduction and abolition of nuclear weapons as promised.
Michael Moore:
Get off your knees!!
Stop begging this man who is supposed to be working for you!
The role of President is a public servant doing the work of the people!
And how dare you insult those of us opposing Obama's assaults on all people of the world with your remark!?
"Your opposition has spent the morning attacking you for bringing such good will to this country. Why do they hate America so much?"
Obama's opposition is no longer limited to Republicans.
And what "GOOD WILL" has Obama brought to this country?? or to this world?
He even bombed the moon today!!!
"hate America so much"? This is a line straight from the right's playbook.
Snap out of it!!!
Get some balls and get out there and start supporting Dennis Kucinich.
You will not need to get on your knees for Dennis to get the job done!
I love Moore for what he does, but this -- this pandering and begging Obama. Maher asked him about this in his own way two weeks ago. Speaking of which it will be interesting to hear what Maher has to say tonight about this.
WELL SAID, SUE1403!!! Moore should have been behind Dennis in the last election. Hell, they shared more than one podium in the name of single-payer. What's done is done: D.K. was railroaded right out of legitimacy by the media and all the other Progressives(?) who said, "I LOVE this guy...BUT HE CAN'T WIN." As Dennis said, "I CAN win but you have to vote for me!"
How about a little more help from the alleged "Left" next time?! I have to wonder if D.K. would have gotten the Nobel after ending the Middle East Murdering, killing NAFTA, opening a "Department of Peace", letting the banks fail, investigating the Fed, and putting an end to bribery...er, I mean, lobbying?
Folks, I hate a long pre-election season just like everyone else but Dennis K. has a long way to get his name recognizable and I do work to make that happen every day.
Maybe he'll get an EARNED Nobel in 2012.
I agree, kucinich2012, I am holding my ground for Dennis.
Unlike the "democrat" party, Dennis is true to his word and acts democratically. He needs our support.
Remember that book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?". I hope we are getting closer to realizing that continuing to vote against our best interests or for the lesser of two evils is not working.
taking the PEACE PRIZE -- if obama has his mabrles right -- OUGHT TO KEEP HIM AWAKE at nights:
for knowing he has a HUGE PROBLEM on hand:
being TRAPPED by his own rhetoric of "change" "peace", blah blah, and THEN its recognition by the NOBEL PRIZE
that SETS HIM UP to DELIVER......
if he wasn't president of the USA - one would feel PITY for him in his predicament of having to show the world he DESERVES it because EVERY TIME he BOMBS - he is only making a mockery of the CHOICE of President Obama -- PEACE MAKER!
It was 10 steps back with Bush. Obama brings us 5 steps forward (barely). But that's still going backwards.
-10 +5 = -5
The "Nobel Hope Prize"
The "Nobel Derivative Prize"
The "Nobel Political Prize"
Just don't call it "Peace".
This prize is meant to garner support for Obama. We know the scoop by now and are not fooled. However, some who barely know what's going on may have been feeling somewhat ignored by the Obama regime and needed an official statement - The Nobel! - that he is really a man of peace.
Just watch, his plummeting approval ratings will go up now that his name is included - along with Henry WarCriminal Kissinger.
Just a thought - what if we developed really high standards? Do you think we might accomplish more or less? What if the American people demanded rather than begged, would that make a difference?
Yes, rvrwalker, it works in France where the public makes demands on their government and as a result, enjoy universal, single-payer healthcare, adequate vacation time, nanny assistance for new moms. Other countries are less into TV and consumerism, I think. Maybe that's the answer.
The entire country goes to the streets when their government does something they don't like. Maybe it's too late for us now that Obama et.al. have all the latest torture and crowd-control methods at their disposal?
If more Americans would step out of their little insular existence,got passports and travelled to said other countries, they just might become aware of what quality of life is possible when you aren't feeding the militarist-consumerist machine.
linden
After writing that Obama has to earn his Peace Prize, he then wonders why there are some people who opine that Obama has "done nothing yet to deserve this award." Moore also is appreciative of the fact that Obama has [allegedly] tried "to undo the irreparable damage the last president did." How Obama has done that is not exactly clear since the Peace Prize recipient has been just as militant as his predecessor.
Moore also advises Obama "not to let them [i.e., the world] down." Here is a news flash to Mr. Moore. Obama has already let down the people of Afghanistan when he let loose 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs on the Afghan people, he has let down the people of Pakistan when he ordered drone missiles into Pakistan resulting in the death of scores of innocent Pakistanis, he has let down millions of Iraqis by keeping American soldiers and mercenaries in their country, while also letting down the people of Iran for continuing the drumbeat of war because the Iranian government has decided to pursue a nuclear energy program which is not the same, as Obama claims, as building a nuclear weapon [while ignoring the fact that Israel already has approximately 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal].
Unlike Antony and how he viewed Caesar, Michael Moore apparently is [no pun intended] more intent upon praising Obama than in burying him. But while Antony was facetious in his oration, Moore wishes to have it both ways, by criticizing him on the one hand while holding out hope that Obama will somehow do the right thing. What Michael Moore opines must be so as Mr. Moore is, to recall Shakespeare's words, an honorable man. That certainly seems to be how Moore thinks of Obama-as an honorable man. Most people in the Middle East, one suspects, would take strong exception to that view, especially the families of those who have died falling victim to Obama's bombs and drone missiles. They understand that Obama's actions are not that of an honorable man intent upon doing the right thing.
excellent post Erroll!
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
While I agree with Errol about Iraq, he dances over some things about Afghanistan that need to be considered. If the official Team Bush/George Tenet Party Line is to be believed, and I do not trust it, on 9/11/2001 the U.S. was attacked by Osama bin Laden & his fellow planners who were training terrorists in Afghanistan before the attacks, were there after the attacks, and were sometimes there cohabiting and intermarrying with the Taliban. If that is true, the U.S. had a right to seek out and attack those elements that planned the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban who supported the presence of those planners and knew their general intentions. Any nation would claim such a right if they were attacked in such a manner. Moreover, Afghanistan's Taliban were not an elected coherent government, but former radicalized seminary students running a failed State as a religious reeducation camp. Where there wasn't medieval Sharia there was lawlessness and warlords.
If the above scenario is true, then where the Afghanistan invasion mutated into the ongoing crime it is now is when Bush made grandiose speeches about securing and rebuilding Afghanistan and its economy and making it a "beacon of democracy" to the Middle East, and then suddenly dropped all those aims in pure 1984 style to pursue the Great Oil Game in Iraq. He left behind an undermanned affliction force to flail mercilessly away without a plan--just basically screw over, maim and kill uncounted unarmed Afghan citizens and a tiny percentage of actual Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda sympathizers. Most of the Al Quaeda leadership fled over the mountains to Pakistan in the first few weeks after the invasion. But we've been there for eight years now making the situation for the Afghan civilian population ten thousand times worse.
There is another story line goes that Unocal wanted to build a pipeline through the region and in June 2001 Team Bush sent a CIA man in there to negotiate with Taliban leaders the handing over of Bin Laden (for previous terrorist attacks), the restoration of a weak U.S.-managed king on the Afghan throne, and a percentage of the profits from the pipeline. The Taliban leader, whose family had already intermarried with Obama's kin (and consider the offer to betray their kinsmen a vendetta offense) basically told the CIA man to go eff himself. So the U.S. allegedly went over and tried to threat-bribe the hornet's nest. If it worked, then, hurrah, pipeline profits for the well-connected! If it didn't, then all they had to do was sit back and wait for some very politically useful Pearl Harbor-like attack to be launched against the U.S. and open the air space to let it in. They didn't even have to know specifically what type of attack it would be, just so long as it would scare enough people into accepting their extremist agenda. Three weeks after 9/11 Karl Rove was at a GOP fund raiser in Virginia telling the crowd, "We have to milk this thing for all we can get out of it politically." Then again, that would be his natural instinct regardless of whether he knew about it in advance or not. There was also the bogus statement by Condileeza Rice that "they had no way of knowing that the towers would be struck by aircraft." The U.S. had previously intercepted threats of such an attack.
The third story line goes that Obama has always been a protected CIA asset since the Russo-Afghan War and remains a highly useful and protected CIA client/boogey man to provide the domestic U.S. psychological motivation to maintain the "war on terror" which is really another Central Asian Great Game being run by our oil majors and the Pentagon to control all the pipelines in the region. The fact is that the most sophisticated military and surveillance machine in the history of the world has failed repeatedly under suspiciously half-assed circumstances to capture or kill this man for well over 15 years of documented attacks.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I used to believe more in the second scenario. As time has progressed I believe more and more in the third one. This is because of the perfectly professional looking implosions of both World Trade Center towers, the physical characteristics of the buildings, their steel core supports, the burn temperature and burn rate of the jet fuel that went up when the jets hit the buildings, the perfectly professional implosion of Building Seven--and the threat that one of the attackers made shortly after the first attempt to bomb one of the World Trade Center buildings back in the early 1990s. He said they were going to "come back and finish the job."
The Clinton administration knew the World Trade Center towers remained a target. My theory is that, in order to prevent another bombing attack from causing the towers to fall into other buildings compounding massive loss of life, the towers were pre-rigged with professional demolition charges sometime after the first attack in the 1990s. This would allow the building engineers or the FBI (who had offices in one of the towers) to order a controlled implosion before a terrorist bombed tower could fall at an angle into another building or buildings.
A controlled implosion would cause the buildings to fall straight down along their central core support lines--as both of them did. Nearby Building Seven repeated this feat even though it was of a different design and wasn't struck by an aircraft. The physical structural odds against that happening to all three buildings without controlled demolitions taking place are too great for me to believe the government's myth about these implosions. The government removed all physical evidence from the scene as fast as it possibly could on the flimsiest pretext and stonewalled any investigation for over two years until a non-independent "bi-partisan" commission--run by Bush II's hand-picked operator--could tart up a report gaping with critical omissions.
What I suspect happened was that when a certain tail from the crypt of the Team Bush sanctum sanctorum was viewing the video of the burning upper floors in the towers after the planes struck, the footage didn't seem to that person to be horrific enough to traumatize the public enough into blindly supporting their extremist neo-conservative agenda. So someone gave the order to compound the horror and trauma by igniting the old pre-set controlled demolition devices--effectively ordering the mass murder of over 3,000 people. That "someone" could have been a member of Team Bush, neo-con stooges in the FBI or CIA, or some combination of Pentagon and CIA black ops specialists. Big {insert oligarch name here] Money might have been bankrolling an op this size behind the scenes. Or whomever they were they could have just been taking advantage of the plane strikes that may have been serendipitous terrorist attacks by remembering the old pre-set charges and jumping on the chance to create a really Pearl Harbor-like event.
The fourth scenario is that the 9/11 attacks from the open air space to the plane strikes to the controlled demolitions were ALL planned from the git-go with malice and forethought. A few ancient Romans might have admired such perfidy only for the sake of the power of a few self-aggrandizing elites:
Cataline (BC 108-62) sought to overthrow the Roman Republic and replace it with aristocratic tyranny.
Emperor Caligula (AD 37-41) revived the treason show trials of his predecessor, Tiberius, was the first to open a brothel in the palace, raped whomever he wished, reported on the woman's performance to her husband, made a pet horse a member of the Roman Senate, committed incest, killed for greed, and thought he should be treated as a god.
Emperor Nero (AD 54-68) murdered his mother and wife. He confiscated senators' property and severely taxed the people to build his own palatial home. He blamed Christians for the burning of Rome and thereby had many of them killed for sport in the Colosseum.
Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96) made a hobby of developing new forms of torture. He executed officials who opposed his policies and confiscated their property. He loved to harass Jews and philosophers. He had vestal virgins executed or buried alive on charges of immorality. After he impregnated his niece, he insisted she have an abortion and then, when she died as a result, he deified her.
Emperor Elagabalus (218-224) was a transvestite religious polyextremist who pursued study and membership in bizarre cults and nearly castrated himself following one of their rituals. He routinely imprisoned and executed those who criticized him.
Great posts Metal and others,
I used to fly for a living. I feel there must be a connection between CIA and Pentagon that allowed ATC to be running a simulated hijack attack exercise run by Cheney in the bunker on the morning of 911. Controllers in NY Mahattan sector have filed sworn affidavits that they were unable to detect which primary radar targets were real and unreal in the known scope simulation war game that was underway that morning. These war games are common all across the US and the world, so, by themselves are not unusual. What is unusual is that hijackers would know in advance what day the simulation by DOD was to take place. What is also unusual, is it turns out that the 767 simulators used by the Florida flight school to train the 19 hijackers were reportedly funded by the ISI funds (Heckmar) which originated from CIA to train counter revolutionaries against the Soviets and later, possibly, select muhudeen survivor groups which battled for control of Afghanistan when we pulled the plug. The Pakistan ISI (their CIA) received more that a Billion dollars from us in that period, and no one seems to know what happened to it. The fact that Pentagon itself was targeted in a wing that was unoccupied was remarkable. Strong funding motive during peacetime exists at Pentagon to get hit, unfortunately. The fact that GWB's father was previously head of CIA and had decades of experience in covert ops such as Panama and Iran-Contra make me wonder if his old contacts were not somehow involved.
Cold War Warriors never fully retire. They all get recycled over at the pentagon pushing paper and being subcontracted as consultants for a web of operations all over the world. The ability of CIA to orchestrate election results and grassroot uprisings and wars overseas is legend. All big wars this century were carried out in concert with the big banking houses who also rule wall street and now rule our Capitol. Putting taxpayers on the hook for bank speculation, seems to me to be no different than manipulating the soviet rubel trying to make the USSR fall. Conspiracy is the wrong word for what happened on 911 imho. MIC/CIA/Bank Mafia Racketeering is the phrase you're looking for here. Perpetrated by Executive Organized Crime. It appears to me, from the 911 Commission Report, that not only did the white house know it was going to happen, but that we intentionally or unintentionally funded 911 as well.
The Federal Government is too big. It has nothing to do all day but dream up boogiemen and holy wars. Rather than a Global band of terrorists, a simpler answer exists for what happened on 911. Government investigative documents bear out that Salem Bin Laden (Osama's brother) was a financial partner with GWB's Abusto Oil Company (later Harken Energy). GHWB (GWB's dad) was a director/chairman on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group had hundreds of transactions with the "Bin Laden Brothers Contracting for Industry" (Later the Bin Laden Group). The Bin Laden Group's website claimed it had the (no-bid) contract to rebuild the city of Lebanon after GWB allowed it to be knocked down.
Are these all just huge coincidences? Or possible motive for letting 911 happen? I see a repeat pattern of behavior with the Bush Crime Family. We need to re-investigate 911 starting with the PNAC think tank and it's stated goals and contributors. Either we are a nation of laws which will endure, or a collection of war lords which has no prospect of lasting.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Metal
If I may be allowed to say, one should be wary of making assumptions. You claim that I was "danc[ing] over some things about Afghanistan". I am not sure how I could have been "dancing" around the issue of Afghanistan as the main thrust of my argument involved Michael Moore's abiding faith in Obama. Because of Moore's continued [to use one of the president's favorite words] hope in Obama, I then attempted to point out, because of Obama's misguided militant policies in the Middle East, that Moore's faith in Obama is misplaced. As an example I attempted to state that many Afghans are being slaughtered under Obama's orders. As I stated in my other comment, the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan should be considered war crimes. In neither of my comments did I ever discuss the reason why the US decided to invade Afghanistan. Therefore, I fail to comprehend how I was, in your view, "dancing over some things in Afghanistan" since I never addressed the issue in the first place.
The irony is that I in all likelihood agree with you about the specious reasons why the US attacked Afghanistan and that the terrorists' attacks of 9/11/01 may very well have been either a cover-up and/or an inside job [as Barrie Zwicker and David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs and Webster Tarpley demonstrate in their books]. A couple of grammatical points. Al Qaeda is not spelled with a u. My name is spelled with two ls, not one l.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I concur with your condemnation of the situation in Afghanistan, it just seemed to condemn every aspect of it with an "assumed sale" (in sales parlance) of the condemnation of the reasons for the invasion. But even that depends on whether or not our own neo-con nut-jobs planned the 9/11 attacks with Bin Laden as a CIA client. Something I think is one of the 2 top possibilities. If they did, then we had no business invading Afghanistan in the first place. So the beginnings of this debacle are important and you sort of sailed right over them. Thanks for correcting the spelling of Al Qaeda. I was rather tired when I wrote early this AM.
Metal
At the risk of belaboring this subject even more than it has already been discussed, allow me to once again state that my comment was not a specific critique of US policy in Afghanistan. As I tried to say in my earlier comment to you, I was simply commenting concerning Moore's conflicting statements about Obama. My comment then had to do with Obama's militant actions so far in his early tenure in office which includes, as I had mentioned, not only Afghanistan but also his belligerent actions in Pakistan and Iraq. So again, the reasons that I, as you put it, "sailed" over the "debacle" in Afghanistan, is because I was not referring only to Afghanistan but to ALL of Obama's actions overseas which, I might add, would also include his continued war-like rhetoric towards Iran and his lack of condemnation against Israeli aggression towards the inhabitants of Gaza. I cannot be accused of "sailing" over this issue as I had never addressed the issue at all in my comments because, again, that was not my intention to do so. My intent was to simply give an overview of what Obama has so far done in his militant way during his brief time in office.
I do not know how I can explain this any more than I have already done.
Erroll --- You are really good, --- at piling on--- the one thing that I dislike about many of the posts on this site. This prize was given, I believe, with the hope that international recognition of the better things he has done are such a change from the past 8 years that it signals a change I can believe in. While he is indeed the commander in chief of the armed forces, even he cannot simply bring them home tomorrow. There are always other consequences to be considered, for which I see an appalling lack of consideration in the comments of many here. One might even wonder what he is being told some of the time. Military organizations always want war. It is what they exist for. It is certainly not just that simple, but watch the pressure being exerted on the man by those with an axe to grind, or money to be made by continuing war. The prize also could be leverage to help him to resist those pressures. Those awarding it have a different perspective on the world than that of even a worldly poster on CD.
Donkey Hote
This Peace Prize should have been given to Obama, in your belief, because of some vague "hope" that things will somehow get better. On the contrary, it should have been awarded to someone like a Kathy Kelley who has made numerous trips to the Middle East because she, unlike the warmonger Barack Obama, is now, in the present, fervently working toward peace in that region, not by dropping bombs on grandmothers and children, but by talking with the indigenous population in the region in an attempt to understand what their lives have been like after having been uprooted by the American invasion and occupation of their homelands.
You claim that even though Obama is "the commander-in-chief, even he cannot simply bring them home tomorrow." One must look at awe at the complete nonsense of that statement as Obama, with one order to his generals, can indeed start bringing those soldiers home immediately. You think that there are "other consequences to be considered." The word which first comes to mind to describe those words is one that you yourself used and that would be the word appalling. The only consideration that should be given is what you have conveniently managed to avoid mentioning and that is the suffering and misery that the Afghans and the Iraqis and the Pakistanis have endured at the hands of the Americans. As usual with so many Americans, the word empathy seems to be nonexistent in your vocabulary.
You seem to be unable to grasp a very simple concept. The invasion of those two countries was a crime. The occupations of those two countries still is a crime. The presence of armed soldiers and mercenaries in Afghanistan and Iraq is a crime. Dropping 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs on Afghans is a crime. Keeping soldiers and civilian contractors in Iraq is a crime. Ordering drone missiles into Pakistan, which has killed hundreds of Pakistanis, is a crime. I saw this happening, first with Johnson and then with Nixon [who also attempted to bomb Cambodia back into the stone age], in a place called Vietnam, with both presidents attempting to justify the carpet bombing of that third world country. We now have another Democratic president attempting to justify more military interventions into more third world countries for the most specious of reasons.
You apparently wish me to have pity on Obama because there is "pressure being exerted on the man." But like all liberal interventionists, you make absolutely no mention of those people who have been ripped to pieces by Obama's bombs and drone missiles. Not even the great Obama can raise those people from the dead and return them to their families. Where is the concern for those people? The irony is that we have a half black president who apparently does not give a damn that American bombs are slaughtering people of color in third world countries.
The sorrow and the pity that I employ is for the victims of American imperialism and not for Barack Obama. And I will keep on, to use your words, piling on as long as US troops are illegally and immorally occupying troops in third world countries and as long as Obama [or any other US president] continues to order drone missiles and bombs to be rained down upon civilians in third world countries. Those killings and murders of those people [and those people who have been maimed and crippled and grievously wounded under Obama's orders] were entirely unjustified as none of those people were ever a threat to anyone in these United States.
Again, what about those victims of American imperialism? What about their families? What about those people?
Sioux Rose
ERROLL: Excellent post. Thank you for trying to extend a larger concept of humanitarianism to those who are still stuck in A team/B team thought processes.
Great posts also: JAREILLY, METCHART, ACTION JACKSON, & NOSTRA-CHRONUS
Erroll, you are now in the pantheon of 'must reads' on this site. Keep up the good work. A moral intervention at a high level.
Not even the "God of Dark Laughter" can find words to describe how obscene awarding a 'peace' prize to Barack Obama is. And even the dark god has trouble laughing on this one.
When I first heard it, I assumed that it had to be a joke, but then quickly remembering I was back in America, I knew it really could be no other way. It is as totally consistent, as it is grotesque.
Trembling briefly from a wave of nausea and dread, I felt dizzy but I recovered my equanimity. No one should ever be surprised at things like this: State terror and serial mass murder is now synonymous with peace? No contradiction at all in America.
They might as well call it something. At least Dick Cheney didn't get it.
America IS state terror and serial mass murder incarnate and has been for a long time. It now subsumes everything and defines everything about America as a summary judgement–a pure totalization.
When one encounters a posting that is not informed by that reality one knows one has encountered palaver and it is best to skip on to the next one: It is a convenient litmus test.
Next will come the "Predator Drone Commemorative Postage Stamp!" Damn straight.
Fight the Terror, that is now called 'Peace!' –(Jill Bains)
Does anyone remember asking their parents about Nazi Germany, "Mom, Dad, weren't there any "good" Germans? And did you wonder how it feels to be inside of the beast? Well, if you live in the U.S., look around. Fear, confusion, disinformation. Thank you, Erroll, for clarity.
right on! this is not for the last six months. this is a prize to prod him to do good deeds. he is the most powerful man on earth. this is about helping him not to forget that the next 8 years could truly change the world.
from day one, rahm, summers, and hillary have been force-feeding obama that supporting thugs, thieves, usurers, and usurpers --both domestic and foreign-- is the only way, as well as reminding him relentlessly that the "contributions" of such people mean death or life for any presidency.
the rest of the world --us-- we have only our fading voices. the nobel committee has seen that and decided to add its little, highly symbolic prodding. let's raise our voices to denounce and harass obama's team of venal sell-outs and satraps and let's prod obama and the few decent democrats with power to side more and more with the non-predatory common people of the usa and of the world.
You make it sound like Obama's mentally deficient.
I hate to break it to you, but Obama is responsible for the advisors he choose. As a scholar, he surely is aware of and a full participant in the consequences of listening to his advisors. And as a politican, he seems not to care to listen to anyone at all but his, as you imply, criminal advisors--witness the groups he decides to have an audience with at the White House (like pharma/insurance) and those he won't even listen to, like single-payer advocates.
I do, however, think your idea that perhaps the prize is to (and perhaps will) prod him into 'doing good deeds' is somewhat promising; I sure hope you're right.
Michael gets a little fuzzy on those points of contradiction.
To give the NBPP to the commander in chief of the rapacious US Armed Forces and overseer of the CIA sounds right to me. Huxley, Orwell, HELL-OH!
Yes, By Ford,
War is Peace
Big Brother is watching. You must support the wars in Oceania and Eurasia or you need to be waterboarded. - (updated version of George Orwell's "1984"). In fact after this year, I'm not sure those books are fiction anymore......
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
On other postings today on the Nobel Peace Prize, kivals and I reached an agreement on the very kind of left-handed "congratulations" to Obama that is demonstrated in a rather extreme form by Moore's cloying "letter" to the President. Moore and others (including, apparently, the awards committee itself) put a lot of stock in their hope that awarding of the prize will motivate Obama to ACT in a way that will deserve the award. Nice sentiment, but the giving of undeserved awards to under-achievers may have the opposite effect of removing their motivation to act in the way for which they have already been undeservedly rewarded. As kivals put it so well, with the Peace Prize on his vita, the President may find it easier to ignore those who are "demanding" more peace action (I'm the "peace president," why question my actions?) leaving him more free to respond to the demands of the nail-eating militarists of the right. I think we've already seen this dynamic in operation, as the mere "hope" that Obama would be a peace president has pulled the claws of the anti-war movement, so that his escalations in Afghanistan and his drone bombings in Pakistan satisfy (somewhat) the demands of the Bomb Bomb Right without losing any support from the Pussy Cat Left. If Obama is as shrewd a political manipulator as he seems to be, he may be laughing all the way to his military/industrial sponsors by pointing at statements of "we love you Barry, just try to do a little better" as expressed by Moore, Robert Naiman and numerous others of the "Progressives for Obama ilk" (the same folks in Congress who just voted for the peace President's huge military appropriations bill.)
Man, the caresses for Leos never ends.
Anyhow, we are on that last leg.
The world is about to turn rabide on them.
We are, in an arconym, FUBARred.
I have given Obama a chance, and I still think he has a way of swinging things to what he wants done.
But by golly, every indication is that he is going the wrong way.
Geithner?
Summers?
Healthcare Bill?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Never Mind.
Warren-Nader 2012.
Love
Zero
FYI, it's not racist to criticize a president who has continued to support the same imperialistic policies as his predecessor; it appears like the Israeli approach of labeling anyone who criticizes their oppression of palestinians as anti-semitic has crossed over to American civil rights as well. Obama has been a complete and utter failure, he's preyed on people's hopes and dreams, and I could not think of anyone less deserving.
Agree totally with ya!!!!
If anyone wants to listen or watch a total giant suck up to Barack Obama, one only needs to tune in to the idiot Rachel Maddow on her awful MSNBC program.
Rachel Maddow has certainly descended into a pathetic individual. Ms. Maddow is a disgrace to all Rhodes Scholars, but, then again Cecil Rhodes was an imperialist of the worst kind. On her Friday show, Maddow salivated all over Obama in supporting his dubious award, while, comparing and criticizing past winners as to their viability in winning their Nobel Peace Prizes.
Rachel Maddow is disgusting and she even quoted neoconservative Charles Krauthammer saying people who would criticize Obama suffer from "Obama derangement syndrome."
ActionJackson62
Good point. Basically the same thing occurred last night on Countdown when substitute host Lawrence O'Donnell's guests were in full support of Obama having won the Peace Prize while ignoring the fact that Obama's actions are indicative of war not peace. Thankfully Democracy Now! on Friday had on Naomi Klein and Tariq Ali who were able to offer a more truthful and critical view of that charade called a Peace Prize which was won by the militant Obama. It is almost as if the Nobel Committee had made their decision after having ventured forth into Orwell's 1984 or Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland.
PS, if the award is nothing but a prompt to do good deeds, why not award it to the Taliban in the hopes that international recognition will sway their beliefs? Hogwash, pure hogwash; progressives are scared to be labeled racists for criticizing the president. Pathetic.
Yes Obama, let's not let them down like you let down the poor in this country. I hesitate to say this because you have still the opportunity to become the greatest leader the world has yet seen.
We ain't seen it yet.
You smile. You preach. You piss on our heads and call it rain. I can't figure why they gave it to you.
LMAO ! Sorry Moore ! Obama's got it and he don't care how to earn it !
Noble peace. Ignobel prize.
We get no bloody peace from the drive for endless war,
because a Nobel committee ignores the devils growing score.
While lying about in Heavens pampered peace with totally fraudulent grace.
Obama will help many reach an early peace, including those of Afghani race.
Bits of dead matter, before life starts or does cease,
In the non-existence of empty lies, of hope their only peace.
Its obvious that the leader of the latest empire on earth,
Will take his piece of silver for betrayal of worth.
Well done
Moore has hope that I feel is evaporating slowly every day.
I had some hope when he got in.
Now I have less.
Let's start solving these problems now on our own.
We are our only hope !
we can choose hope in our every action and thought. thanks for your post sevenpointman. Let us on the progressive side take to heart Obamas acceptance this morning, one thing you got to say about the brother he can really use words to inspire us to
A
CTION!
"Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
-he was referring here to the biggest challenges -nuclear disarmament and global warming. I would add-campaign finance reform.
Thank you Michael, as brother from Middle America who knows the pulse of "These un-United States." This brother from the south Bronx thinks you got your shit together and says what's on your mind and films our folly with deadly humor. Like Thomas Paine words, few were reading and less are now understanding that the “White mans power games are over.”
Mr. Obama will have to act on his words or we will have another revolution soon...Mr Jefferson welcome to the new America...Si se puede.