Did Obama Snub the Nobel Prize Committee?

[Razgovory]

This is what happens when you guys drink to much of your own kool aid.  You build up some bizarre picture of your opponents and then are genuinely confused when reality doesn't match up.

You may well be right, but wouldn't it make sense to know what my expectations and the reactions are before concluding that?

Shelf: essentially.

Actually I was refering more to Derspeiss.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm a little disappointed with what I've heard so far

Disappointed how?  Not enough gnashing of teeth and rending of garments for your taste?

This is what happens when you guys drink to much of your own kool aid.  You build up some bizarre picture of your opponents and then are genuinely confused when reality doesn't match up.

If Bush had made the exact same speech (not that he'd ever get the Nobel prize) then the left would be baying for blood and you know it. The only reason they're not is because it's Obama who said it, and even then there a quite a few on the left who are upset by it.

[Razgovory]

Nope I don't know it.

[jimmy olsen]

Nope I don't know it.

If you seriously believe that than you're delusional.

That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.

[Admiral Yi]

I skimmed though the NYT Week in Review and AFAICS they're ducking it.

[jimmy olsen]

I skimmed though the NYT Week in Review and AFAICS they're ducking it.

If you really want to know what lefties think about it go to Huffington Post, The Nation, The New Republic, Salon.com, etc.

[Razgovory]

Nope I don't know it.

If you seriously believe that than you're delusional.

That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.

Because Bush got no support from the Democrats in his first two years of office.  Take a trip down memory lane and notice the lack of blood baying Bush got.

[Sheilbh]

That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.

Yes it is.  It's Blairite liberal internationalism with that Blairite emphasis on multi-lateralism and on the 'international community'.  That stuff didn't matter to the neo-cons.  It's different in quite important and fundamental ways.  I'd align myself with Blair but I'm not a neo-con.

Because Bush got no support from the Democrats in his first two years of office.  Take a trip down memory lane and notice the lack of blood baying Bush got.

I'd say 4 years.

Also the New Republic may be lefty on domestic issues but it's fundamentally quite hawkish (especially on the Middle East and anything to do with Israel).

[Admiral Yi]

If you really want to know what lefties think about it go to Huffington Post, The Nation, The New Republic, Salon.com, etc.

My dad gets Mother Jones and The Progressive, I'll check those.

What I was really looking forward to is how the stalwarts of Democratic spin like Frank Rich, Joe Klein et al were going to twist themsleves into rhetorical pretzels.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes it is.  It's Blairite liberal internationalism with that Blairite emphasis on multi-lateralism and on the 'international community'.  That stuff didn't matter to the neo-cons.  It's different in quite important and fundamental ways.  I'd align myself with Blair but I'm not a neo-con.

Where does Obama emphasize multilateralism?  He talks about the number of countries in Afghanistan, but Bush and Rumsfeld talked all the time about the coalition of the willing.

[Razgovory]

If you really want to know what lefties think about it go to Huffington Post, The Nation, The New Republic, Salon.com, etc.

My dad gets Mother Jones and The Progressive, I'll check those.

What I was really looking forward to is how the stalwarts of Democratic spin like Frank Rich, Joe Klein et al were going to twist themsleves into rhetorical pretzels.

Did you look forward to how stalwarts of Republican spin twisted themselves into rhetorical pretzels as they jumped from their heavy criticism of Clinton's military actions in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia and Afghanistan to Bush's similar actions.  What about the rhetorical pretzels of those who a few years ago bellowed loudly for "up or down votes" against obstructionism and now hold dear those important principles of killing a bill in committee, filibustering and importance of "Giving Obama his Waterloo" over all else?

[Fate]

Nope I don't know it.

That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.

Incorrect. Neocons couldn't give a foreign policy speech and be taken seriously. Obama can. That in and of itself is sufficient difference.

[Admiral Yi]

Did you look forward to how stalwarts of Republican spin twisted themselves into rhetorical pretzels as they jumped from their heavy criticism of Clinton's military actions in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia and Afghanistan to Bush's similar actions.  What about the rhetorical pretzels of those who a few years ago bellowed loudly for "up or down votes" against obstructionism and now hold dear those important principles of killing a bill in committee, filibustering and importance of "Giving Obama his Waterloo" over all else?

I can think of very few stalwarts of Republican spin who are accorded the same status as their Democrat counterparts.  Maybe George Will and Charles Krauthammer.  If your point is that the Democrat cheerleaders are no worse than Rush and Whatshisname on Fox, then we agree.

Also, I don't recall heavy criticism from anyone really on Clinton's actions in Iraq and Sudan.

[Razgovory]

Did you look forward to how stalwarts of Republican spin twisted themselves into rhetorical pretzels as they jumped from their heavy criticism of Clinton's military actions in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia and Afghanistan to Bush's similar actions.  What about the rhetorical pretzels of those who a few years ago bellowed loudly for "up or down votes" against obstructionism and now hold dear those important principles of killing a bill in committee, filibustering and importance of "Giving Obama his Waterloo" over all else?

I can think of very few stalwarts of Republican spin who are accorded the same status as their Democrat counterparts.  Maybe George Will and Charles Krauthammer.  If your point is that the Democrat cheerleaders are no worse than Rush and Whatshisname on Fox, then we agree.

Also, I don't recall heavy criticism from anyone really on Clinton's actions in Iraq and Sudan.

What kind of status are we talking about?

You don't recall the heavy criticism?  The problem lies with you then.

A quick google finds this. 

http://conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

Some of this shit is really funny.

There are at least ten reasons why America should not now make war on Iraq, even if it were certain that such an effort would be "successful":

        1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.

        2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.

        3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

        4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.

        5) Wars of defense are morally appropriate. Foreign wars for purposes other than national defense are not.

        6) In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.

        7) The Federal government's ability to provide for the common defense (of the United States) is substantially diminished in consequence of resources expended during President Bush's "Operation Desert Storm". Not only have America's arsenal and battle-ready personnel resources not been fully restored, they have, in fact, been radically depleted since Desert Storm, in consequence of massive reductions in Congressionally authorized spending for the defense of the United States (even as expenditures for U.N. intervention operations and other "social policy objective" activities have risen). Defense analyst Peter Schweizer, now at the Hoover Institution, who favors air strikes, nonetheless observes that "[t]hanks to military cutbacks, we don't have anything close to the force that won Desert Storm. In 1991, the U.S. Air Force had 24 fighter wings to draw from. Today it only has 13. That means fewer planes and (even more importantly) pilots. Desert Storm was fought with two Marine divisions, seven active Army divisions, and combat brigades of two additional divisions. Now, that commitment alone would exhaust all of the Army's 10 active divisions." (Source: USA Today, 2/18/98, p. 15A)

        8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.

        9) If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?

        10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?

Ten years is an age in politics.

[Sheilbh]

Where does Obama emphasize multilateralism?  He talks about the number of countries in Afghanistan, but Bush and Rumsfeld talked all the time about the coalition of the willing.

Rumsfeld said that it didn't matter if Britain joined the coalition - on the very day Parliament was voting on whether to authorise military action or not.  He was right but it was tactless and a snub to your closest ally in that war.

This strikes me as the sort of thing Blair, as opposed to Bush, would say:

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force.  I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense.  Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.  For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor.  More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war.  Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.  That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver.  But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone.  America alone cannot secure the peace.  This is true in Afghanistan.  This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering.  And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan.  But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public.  I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this:  The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.  Peace requires responsibility.  Peace entails sacrifice.  That's why NATO continues to be indispensable.  That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries.  That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Remember that after 9/11 Blair talked a lot more about the international community and tried to segue from the issue of terrorism to a larger, wider sort-of moral perspective.  The 'Africa is a scar on the conscience of humanity' speech was in 2002.

I think large parts of the speech are Blairite not neo-con:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

Frank Rich has already written two columns about Obama's Afghanistan politics, he doesn't approve.  The MoveOn wing aren't happy either.  I think Tony Benn's observation about British politics is true in the US too: the left elect a leader and then start moaning about them and arguing with them straight away while the right elect a leader and it's all applause until the knife's in the back or they're out the door.