Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize -- what next?

Filed By Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore | October 10, 2009 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Media, Politics, Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Blackwater, Blue Angel Vodka, Brangelina, David Hasselhoff, Guantanamo Bay, Oscar winners, Patriot Act, Sean Penn, Shimon Peres

Is this a joke? I mean -- seriously -- at first I thought it was April Fools, or something, but then I realized it's October, but maybe in Norway they have October Fools?

Let's review Obama's peacemaking record... Okay, expanding the war in Afghanistan, more drone attacks in Pakistan, continuing to support the Israeli war machine, engineering the Wall Street billionaires bail-out, rolling out the health care industry giveaway, supporting extension of the PATRIOT act, delaying the closure of Guantánamo -- what's next? Oh, a Nobel Peace Prize and $1.4 million -- that should push him in the right direction.

What about Blackwater founder Erik Prince -- wasn't he on the short list? I mean, he did just recently say, "I will be taking on new challenges that I have not yet had the chance to tackle." Just to make sure he doesn't kill any more employees, or engineer the mass murder of thousands, I really really wish the illustrious Nobel committee had given him the medallion -- it's a medallion, isn't it -- you do get a medallion, along with the $1.4 million, don't you? That prize pressure worked so well with Shimon Peres -- shalom aleichem.

What about the Blue Angels? I mean, they're flying over San Francisco this weekend, and everyone stops in the street to stare at "America's number one pasttime" -- nope, sorry darling, not baseball! You see, if they give the Nobel Peace Prize to the Blue Angels, then everyone will have more time to stare, and that means more time for peace, right? And, more time for Blue Angel Vodka. That's right -- how about a Blue Angel Martini -- BAM!!!

But can vodka win a Nobel Peace Prize, I mean has vodka ever one before? What about Sean Penn, for playing a gay... a gay... a gay... person. Dammit -- he already won an Oscar! Can you win an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize in the same year? And what about Brangelina, for saving all those kids? David Hasselhoff? Oh, I know -- Mary Cheney's second baby -- that'll be a winner, for sure!

Mattilda also blogs at

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I would be partial to someone I didn't already know about existing. The prize could be used to, you know, give publicity to someone who wouldn't otherwise get attention. Working for peace doesn't get you on the cable news.

But I do think this is silly. Obama has done a few things that could be interpreted as pro-peace, but he's a hawk just like every president since at least before WWII. He's escalating one conflict and continuing another.

And the way it's being interpreted, as "world opinion," when it was just five unelected people on a committee in Norway, is just silly. It's kind of a disappointment, but, whatever, it's their prize and I guess they'll give to whoever they want to.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 11, 2009 4:05 AM

He's a hawk you fought to get elected. What he does is yours.

I did not fight to elect President O'Bummer. He will not be doing anything for any of us. The only choice we have is to vote him out next election. Let's see it at the very basic of levels. He authorized your monies to prop up corrupt capitalistic multinational corporations so they could continue practicing capitalistic corrupt policy. oh great. O'Bummer. Give him a prize. Let's call it peace.

What a waste of a post. I hope that the editor uses some discretion in the future about rejecting something so poorly written.

Oops -- how did I miss this lovely supportive comment? You must be talking about the Nobel Prize "editor," correct?

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 11, 2009 2:30 AM

Pete, Alex above is the editor. Draw your own conclusions. The tag team of Blaze, Craffey and Nair will silence anyone who believes that someone successful is not evil as well. They believe that every successful person is evil without exception and the only logical cure for this is to ensure that no one becomes particularly successful. Unless, of course, it is one of the three of them. :)

The good news is that the far right wing agrees with the poster that this is an awful award to give Obama. If you have condemnations from the lunatic right and lunatic left you are probably governing well. They have cynically lost all hope in anyone having a good intention. This award is a reflection of the gravitas Obama has added to the important peace initiatives of nuclear disarmament, de emphasis of divisions based upon religion wherever they occur and the palpable sea change in engagement with other countries rather than pressure upon them.

The leftovers of the Bush years have to be cleaned up because a great nation lives up to her commitments. We could just leave and allow old problems to build all over again, but I suspect we will not do that.

Obama is giving the 1.4 mill to charity Mattilda. Sorry, I don't think you are on his list. ;)

Oh Robert, we can always count on you to write something particularly wacky.

"The tag team of Blaze, Craffey and Nair will silence anyone...." Love it! Are we Bloods or Crips? Or have we formed our own small army of jack-booted thugs?

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 11, 2009 6:48 AM

This comment was deleted for violating the Terms of Service. Play nice!


We want to know your opinion on this issue! All comments from unregistered users are held for moderation. While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

If you would like to let the editorial team know about a possible policy violation, please use the Contact Us link at the top of the page.

Um, Alex, could you call me at some point? I think I forgot the secret code. I tried communicating a message of Great Import to you and Brynn here but signalled a pizza order instead. And now I'm stuck with piles of pepperoni pizza. I hate pepperoni. *pout*

And how is it that we silence people when they clearly and incessantly show up on our posts whining constantly? Clearly, my blood brother, we are failing in our task. The Lords back at the Order will not be pleased.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 12, 2009 11:05 AM

You are not that impressive. Let's call you the lavender gang with a delete button.

Our policy is to take on bloggers, as people, and put up what they submit (though there have been a few, exceedingly rare exceptions). Robert Ganshorn, for all he writes below, used to be a contributor as well, and we never rejected any of his posts. He should understand that our standards aren't based on the quality of writing of each individual post.

Judging by the conversation started with this post, it was well-written enough for people to know what Mattilda was saying and to have an opinion and response. I personally don't see why you'd say this is poorly-written. Short and sweet, yes, but people don't have to write thousands of words all the time to be understood.

Mattilda has written many thought-provoking posts on Bilerico and is an accomplished writer, and this post is part of her larger body of work, as every post on this site is meant to be a part of a larger body of work.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 11, 2009 7:01 AM

Anyone who cares to read my last posting it is available in archives. It is understandable why I left posting on this site.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 11, 2009 7:07 AM

That would actually be October 16 2008 rather than my last posting which Bil kindly allowed when I had been falsely accused of being a pederast.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 11, 2009 10:39 AM

As a result of having posted on this site...People are silenced when their comments are deemed abusive

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 11, 2009 11:12 AM

Calling me wacky is not abusive of course.

The White House has already announced that the $1.4 million will be donated to charity. (And I think that that money is not tax-free, by the way!) Let's watch closely to see where that money goes --- that will say a lot about his personal priorities.

Perhaps it will go to international charities, such as UNICEF, WHO, International Red Cross, and such.

I think the Nobel committee did a good thing. Obama has built diplomatic bridges to the Muslim world, has brought back the primacy of the UN in foreign policy, and has diplomatically isolated Iran with the help of allies rather than decide to start a third war, which is the path America was headed. Nobel wants to make a statement and support the path this new U.S. direction.

People are hypercritical of Obama. The right is going to attack him whatever he does, and the there's a petulant thread of leftism, which Matilda represents, that will also attack him no matter what... and if not that, will withdraw support if he doesn't do everything that they want right now.

I think Obama getting the Nobel at this time is avery positive development.

"A petulant thread in leftism" -- I love that -- I know, it's so... wait, let me check the dictionary... petulant... when people actually hold ideals.

But what about the United Colors of Benetton? They have gotten so little attention since the '80s -- I hereby nominate the United colors of Benetton!

'petulant'... does not mean 'holding ideas'. I was using that word and thinking more about how a child will stage a tantrum if they don't get ice cream before dinner, or if they just don't get their way.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 10, 2009 8:00 PM

Just curious: what word would you use to describe an analogy comparing a tantrum over ice-cream to disenchantment that a Democrat with an electoral mandate to end two wars responsible for possibly more than a million civilian deaths, decides instead to continue the wars?

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 11, 2009 4:23 AM

Disenchantment? You voted for him and presumable for other Democrat Party hustlers and whatever they do is your political responsibility.

• The vast escalation of murders of civilians in Gaza, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
• The continued murders in Iraq.
• The increased number of coffins of GIs coming back to the US.
• "Gawd's in the mix."
• Warren.
• DADT and DOMA.
• Union busting.
• Welfare for the rich.
• Etc, etc, etc.

The disenchantment is not with Obama who pretty much lied to everyone, because that’s what Democrats and Republicans do, but to those who deliberately chose to suspend rationality and principle and advocate his election for him. The Republicans had a rapid decline when they screwed up the country and now it’s the Democrats turn.

As Malcolm X remarked on a different sort of occasion “this is a case of the chickens coming home to roost.”

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 11, 2009 11:07 AM

Great attitude, Bill. "You Dems and liberals voted for him, so now you own everything he does. No right to be disenchanted, angry, nor organize any sort of protest."

The fact that Right Wingers, Republicans, and far Lefties (which is, I presume, where you'd fall?) didn't vote for him, absolves you now of ALL responsibility? Nice.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 11, 2009 5:34 PM

Brynn, you're missing the point.

You and other right wing Obama supporters voted for the politics that enabled Democrats and Republicans to implement their pro-war, union busting and anti-GLBT bigotry. If you vote for political swine don’t get upset if the stench of the political sty attaches to that support.

As far as most of us on the Left are concerned liberals like yourself are welcome at demonstrations to protest the very politics of war, union busting and bigotry that you fiercely advocated. We urge your participation even if you campaigned for Obama. But don't ever imagine that anyone is going to forget what Democrats really are.

Please don’t pretend that your support for Obama is not as right wing as Republican support for the virtually identical policies of McCain. It’s the same.

A Democrat is a Republican in drag.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 11, 2009 8:13 PM

Ah, yes, Bill. The tired, old "no difference between Democrats and Republicans" argument.

Allow me to present one difference. Gore, a Democrat, may well have not ignored intelligence detailing terrorists' intention to fly airplanes into buildings in the US, as Bush so infamously did. If he had ignored it, however, and 9/11 had gone forward as it did, it's entirely possible Gore would have invaded Afghanistan. But I strongly doubt--although we can never prove it--that he would have invaded Iraq. He didn't have the family history there; he was not in thrall to the NeoCon machine; his direct ties to the defense industry were less than Bush/Cheney; and he is much, much smarter than Bush, and thus able to project consequences into the future.

Now, you may deem "not invading Iraq" to be an irrelevant difference; I doubt the million dead and 4 million plus displaced Iraqis, not to mention the thousands of dead and wounded Americans from Iraq, would agree.

That's one example. There are many, many differences between the two parties. Not enough differences for my liking, but THEY EXIST. And for individuals, they can absolutely make the difference between life and death. As a realist, I'd rather contribute even a little toward a better direction than do something, like not voting, that will likely tip the outcome in a worse direction.

Your all or nothing thinking actually bears more resemblance to the fanatics of the right-wing you so strongly abhor, than it does to even the liberals you despise.

As well, if you live in America, you're just as responsible for the path this country is on as me. One cannot live here without directly benefiting from its imperialistic policies. Did you abstain from voting? That's your choice, but people not voting may have tipped the election one way or the other, but certainly did nothing to create a revolutionary outcome. So, climb down off your high, "I'm such a revolutionary" horse.

Finally, to set the record straight, I am not a "liberal," no matter how much you'd like to tar me with that brush. If my politics were considered liberal on the political scale here, this country would look one hell of a lot different. Nor am I an "Obama fan." I voted Democrat because the system gave me no more radical, left alternative that had half a chance of winning; I did not want to contribute to putting the disastrous McCain/Palin ticket into office by voting for a party that had no chance to win; and I haven't reached the point yet of washing my hands entirely and abstaining from voting.

If and when I do reach that point, I plan to leave. Unlike many who threaten to do so, I actually did leave once; I only came back to be there for a loved one who needed me. That sort of concern will always override politics for me.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 12, 2009 3:06 AM

Brynn, you’re still missing the point. Honestly, I don’t despise liberals and reformists. I just give them no slack. If they support rightists they are rightists.

You say “ Now, you may deem "not invading Iraq" to be an irrelevant difference ". Does your use of quotation marks mean you claim I actually said that? Would you please be so kind as find any statement I ever made at any time in any context to the effect that the invasions and occupations of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant. On the contrary, unlike some I not only oppose them but go on to exercise the principle of refusing to promote rancid Democrats and Republicans who order imperial wars of conquest.

Regarding Gore, he’s as rightwing as the rest of them, and really provides a poor smokescreen.

• Gore was a US military officer during the invasion and genocide in Vietnam. Like many children of the rich his daddy pulled a few strings and he managed to avoid the dangerous stuff as a “correspondent’. Bush’s daddy did pretty much the same.
• Gore was a firm supporter of the Clinton embargo policies of food, medicine and sanitary supplies that murdered roughly half a million children according to UN and international food aid groups. He said as much on many occasions. There is no reason at all to assume he would have done anything differently than Bush or Clinton. Voting for him was a vote for war just as much as voting for Palin would be.
• Gore supports the bankrupt plan for trading carbon usages and promotes global warming.

Gore is as much a right winger as the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama.

The politics of liberals in a right centrist party are defined by their support for right wingers like Gore and Obama who have very few real differences with Republicans, including the supreme bogeywoman Palin. She’s not Hitler in a brassiere and she’s certainly not very smart. However, both she and Obama support the wars, austerity for working people, and welfare for the rich. They both oppose socialized medicine and same sex marriage. They both promote dependence on petroleum and therefore support global warming. They both support racist policies towards immigrant and imported workers and attacks on the Bill of Rights.

They probably do differ on whether or not to openly support a theocracy, stem cell research and a few other issues. But they agree on the main points. Huckabee, Romney and the others are similar to Palin and McCain.

Republicans hustle for a different party and have a few differences but that’s it. Supporting either party defines people as right wingers and all the denials and scurrying about to find this or that minor difference does nothing to change that.

The time when the debate was framed by liberal or conservative right centrists is coming to an end. Increasingly the debate will be defined as one between various flavors of rightwingers on one side and socialists, revolutionists and hardened unionists on the other. As the fury of Obama’s wars increases, along with his economic failure and continuous betrayals of the various equality struggles we’ll see an escalation of the already profound radicalization and polarization of US society.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 12, 2009 11:59 AM

First, to set the record straight, I in no way meant to imply that you ever said "not invading Iraq” was an irrelevant difference .” I was, in essence, quoting myself. And asking you a question. You seem to agree with me that it is a significant difference, but to disagree in my contention that Gore would not have invaded Iraq after 9/11.

Second, left and right are relative terms. While it’s true that much of the world will view Obama’s politics as rightist, within the context of American politics, he is in no way a rightist. So I see your statement, “If they support rightists they are rightists,” is an absolutist statement being applied to a relative situation. And need I point out that merely stating it does not make it true? It’s opinion; and we disagree.

I think the real difference between you and me is not left/right nor liberal/radical, but rather absolutist/relativist. Like Bush and many other historic figures, you seem to ascribe to a Manichaean worldview, seeing issues and people as good or evil, black or white, with us or against us. I tend to see gray, and don’t believe that people or issues are wholly one way or the other. I’m willing to work within the American system, and do not believe that tearing it down and starting from scratch would be a better move, especially given the track record of such endeavors in recent history.

Black and white thinking, while it can come from an idealistic, good place, has resulted in some of the worst acts of evil we’ve seen in the 20th century, including (but not limited to) purges in Maoist China, the depopulation of Cambodian cities followed by resultant genocide, and the Vietnam War.

It’s striking how much your description of what you see as our future resembles, in spirit if not details, the apocalyptic scenarios of the Religious Right. Also, your fervent embrace of such a dark, devastating future rivals their impatience for End Times.

Given the underlying disagreement between our worldviews and the way we approach politics and issues, it’s clear that we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on most matters.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 12, 2009 2:26 PM

Wrong again, Brynn.

Socialists are the ultimate optimists. We want a better society free of the dog eat dog norms of imperial wars, periodic economic failure and ingrained bigotry. All that is the result of people falling for the lesser evil idiocy and giving Democrats and Republicans cover.

We know how to fight for a better society and don't think that the elimination of war, economic autocracy and bigotry as "dark" and 'devastating". It means the opposite of that for most of us. Comparing socialist optimism and our fighting spirit and skills to christer ender idiocies is perhaps the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.

You say that "… left and right are relative terms." Maybe, but there's nothing relative about supporting bigots like Obama and Biden, or voting for a megalomaniac who calmly orders the killing of Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghans and American and satellite military forces to make oil companies richer. In fact that’s unprincipled. You voted for their wars and for robbing the workers to enrich the rich so you must think there’s some wiggle room here but you're wrong. The fights against bigotry, imperial wars and economic autocracy are principles, before during and after elections. They’re lines in the sand. If you cross them you enter the other camp and it’s neither ok, relative or something people forget.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 12, 2009 4:29 PM

Bill, you've convinced me once and for all that there's really no reasonable discussions with you. Even when I actually agree with some of your positions--against the wars, for example--your responses are black and white, your tone is superior, not to mention condescending, and you insist on using loaded words ("bigots," "megalomaniac," "wrong,") designed not to further the discussion but to push people's buttons.

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You're never going to win me over to your black-and-white worldview, and I'm clearly not going to convince you that I didn't vote for Bush's wars. Let's drop it.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 13, 2009 5:01 PM

I don't think I can convince you to act in a principled way. You're too deep in the swamp of the Democratic Party.

But I will continue to point out the problems we have as a result of people being mired in the Democratic Party.

Wagnerian, ha ha it's "ideals," not "ideas"!!!

And Brynn, what an important question :)

Ohh! You found a typo! Latch on to that tiny mistake with everything you got!

Alex, exactly -- someone who doesn't get on the cable news -- hmmm...

AJ, yes probably charities that don't need more funding -- maybe the ballet?

You don't support the ballet. Matilda? What a lousy San Franciscan you make!

Since Obama has done nothing worthwhile for peace, maybe you can get a position as a messenger transporting Iranian enriched uranium from Iran to Russia and France, where it will be processed into medical isotopes that are unsuitable for weaponry. Obama helped get this arrangement put into place, and the Russians agreed to it after Obama found an alternative to building a new nuclear missile system in Eastern Europe --- in case you aren't up-to-date on reading the news --- and it's quite apparent that you aren't.

For those that wonder what he did or why he got it... You might find this interesting.,-the-Nobel-committees-dont-give-a-st.


After yesterday's announcement, I'm convinced that the Literature prize should have come to me. After all, the drafts in my computer and the piles around it attest to the great and dazzling promise of my work. Who does that Herta Müller think she is, with her multitude of poems, essays, and novels? Millions, okay, threes, have proclaimed that my incipient work is full of immense promise and, surely, as Obama's prize amply demonstrates, promise trumps experience.

The prize is mine, mine, MINE.

Now, I'm back to dreaming my book into existence as a staggering work of heartbreaking genius. If I just imagine it, I can make it so.


And yes to everything else you say, of course.

Yasmin, no no it's you yes you who deserve the Nobel Prize in Chemistry yes chemistry because of the chemistry with which you approach the world -- or, wait -- the chemistry with which the world approaches you -- no, no, the chemistry between you and the world, the potential chemistry, it's all there, so much so, in fact, that I do believe you deserve all six Nobel Prizes, or if not all six it once, then six in a row, yes yes six in a row for Yasmin Nair, at least that would show that they have some taste!

I suspect that the Nobel Peace prize was given to Obama to send a message... to whom and for what purpose, who knows

A message that if you bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- yes yes, peace is on the way...

OCT-17-2009: Author Mark Danner was interviewed by Bill Moyers on PBS last night. He gave about the best clear-and-concise answer about the motivation of the Nobel Prize Committee as I have heard:

BILL MOYERS: So, for a moment, I mean, you've got a marvelous chapter here on the imagination, as it applies to politics and war. Use your own imagination for the moment, and try to get in the mindset of that group of nice Norwegians, peace-loving people, who are giving their shiny prize for peace to a man who's only been in office nine months. Who has no real accomplishments to his credit yet. And that's understandable, only nine months. What were they -- what message were they sending? Why did they do it?

MARK DANNER: I think they're thinking his eloquence, the vision he sets forth is so beautiful, and its beauty now is especially striking because of the darkness that it follows. And the great risk is that those aspirations will remain only aspirations. And we must do what we can do to ensure that they're not only set forth, but in some way, that they're embodied by true action. And our way of doing that is to confer this honor on him.

I think they perhaps didn't anticipate that it might have a controversial reaction within the United States. But I do think it's a clear expression of this enormous crevasse between the way he is viewed domestically in the United States and the way he's viewed internationally.

After an administration that worked unnecessary war and torture, causing the peace-loving world to fear that it had lost its strongest champion of high principles and human rights, Europe views the contrast between GWB and Obama as even more striking than we can. To them, the snakes have been driven out of Ireland and the Devil has been chained to a rock in the depths of his own Hell. The fact that they welcome this sea change in international policy with such an award should not be that much of a surprise.

Also in the interview Danner explains how "George W. Bush was an enormous gift to the jihadists" while Obama is a terrifying threat to the global terrorists. Why? Because his open, respectful approach toward the Muslim world has the power to dry up and cut off their constant supply of new jihadists.

Read the entire transcript and/or watch the video [here] on the PBS website.

And, Mattilda, I suggest you bring pen and paper and take notes ... or at least bring crayons and draw a few pictures.

Mark Danner, a Democrat, holds the completely wrong headed, partisan view that Clinton and Obama are somehow not as bad as Bush. That’s a lie. It was Clinton’s year’s long embargo on food, medicine and sanitary supplies that condemned about 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children to death by starvation and succumbing to easily preventable and treatable diseases. Clintons Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted as much when she replied to Leslie Stahl’s question ”We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? ‘ saying ” I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it. “ 60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Clara Gutteridge writing in “The Guardian” on August 26th, 2009 has a more realistic and less toadying view of “The Great Peacemaker”.

“In the wake of newly released CIA memos providing further disturbing details on the CIA's overseas secret prisons programme for "terror suspects", the Obama administration is sneaking some far-reaching and dubious changes to US treatment of terror suspects through the back door.

Obama's people have also indicated that rendition – the forcible transfer of individuals to the custody of third-party states – will continue to be used by the US on terror suspects. Therefore, this new FBI unit could send people to regimes such as Morocco, Egypt and Syria and conduct interrogations…

If the prisoners are being held by captors who routinely engage in torture, the US agents themselves will have no need to engage in coercive techniques themselves – ipso facto, the torture is simply outsourced. This new move represents the dark side of an increasingly concretised two-tier legal system: one in which those designated as "terror suspects" are not entitled to the full set of rights enshrined in the US constitution.”

That aside Danner’s obsequious worship of Obama, his Obamacentric worship makes honest people cringe reading it. “I think they're thinking his eloquence, the vision he sets forth is so beautiful, and its beauty now is especially striking because of the darkness that it follows.” Where is the ‘beauty’ in kidnapping and torture? His vision includes creates a killing field of dead children and civilian adults from Palestine to Pakistan. And we’re supposed to think that’s ‘beautiful’. That garbage won’t sell and the clear proof is the increasing opposition to these wars in the US and its satellite nations like England and the ever faithful new-Nazi homohaters in the Polish government. It’s also on the rise in the military and but the clearest indications that no ones falling for it is increased levels of fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama has two choices. He can pull a Nixon and order the total, permanent and immediate US withdrawal from the region and cut the purse strings that pay for zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid in Palestine. Or he can get used to hearing this “Hey, Hey, O-ba-ma, and how many kids did you kill today?

We’ll know what choice he made if Hamid Karzi becomes the next Ngo Dinh Diem (puppet president of south Vietnam, arrested and assassinated in a CIA led coup in 1963 to end ‘corruption’). Watch your back Hamid and see to those Swiss bank accounts.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 11, 2009 4:01 AM

Hmmmm. The Nobel Peace Prize. This is truly bizarre. Think of what Charlie Chaplin could do with it. The Great Dictator becomes The Great Peacemaker. Except when Obama talks peace he means a piece of Pakistan, a piece of Iran and Iraq, and a piece of Afghanistan. And he means the peace of the dead in Gaza.

Part of the reason given is the recognition that the US is capable of terrible anti-civilian terrorism, as FDR and Truman proved at Dresden, Tokyo and Nagasaki and as LBJ and Nixon proved in Vietnam. It’s been going in Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, and Afghanistan under the Bushes, Clinton the baby killer and now Obama.

The absolute stupidity of the Norwegians was in their assumptions that Democrats behave differently than Republicans, although they at least have the excuse of not living here and seeing it close up. Americans have no such excuse. All during the campaign Obama promised to escalate the murders in Pakistan and Afghanistan and maintain troops in Iraq. Voting for Obama was a vote against world peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize is once again going to someone who ordered mass murder. Previous recipients in this category included zionist terrorist Menachem Begin, who led the ethnic cleansing raid on Deir Yassin that killed scores of Palestinian women and children.

Another was FW DeKlerk, former president of the racist South African regime and Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s equivalent of Von Ribbentrop, used terrorism and violence to try to force the force the Vietnamese to surrender.

The worst thing you can say is that giving it to Obama will help cover his ass as continues to order the deaths of civilians and invader military forces, which add up roughly 5,703 at an absolute minimum since his inaugural, and which equals about $2450.00 a head if you divide that into $1.4 million.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | October 12, 2009 11:10 AM

Be careful, don't criticize the Norwegians. Brynn thinks it is the perfect society. All socialist and content.

I think the Nobel Prize is an honor for the President, he was very gracious about accepting it.

I agree - I like how he said he doesn't deserve it yet. The committee said they were using the award to push him in the right direction. Maybe it'll work.

Yes, Alex, I agree --- and if only certain super-left contributors here at Bilerico could practice equal graciousness.

I saw a twenty something with his pants falling down give someone on the street a cigarette. Let's give him the award for potential too. OOPS, that would be sexist. Let's give it to the girl on the street that just asked me if i need a date. Ya never know. But for money she could be studying at Yale with some mice.

Maybe we don't find anything 'gracious' in the murder of civilians, the death of GIs and in kidnapping and torture.

Lisa, just because he was gracious doesn't mean he deserves it! I'm sure Sandra Bernhard would've been gracious too...

And Alex, it seems unlikely that if the people who elected Obama didn't push him in the right direction, the Nobel Prize committee will do the job...

Bill, where is Charlie Chaplin when we need him?!

And I appreciate this quote: "Except when Obama talks peace he means a piece of Pakistan, a piece of Iran and Iraq, and a piece of Afghanistan. And he means the peace of the dead in Gaza."

Hi Mattilda, Roger Moore's got my vote.

I hope you had a chance to go see capitalism. It's the first time I've ever seen a movie audience stand up and cheer. I was bowled over by that reaction.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 18, 2009 2:15 AM

Oops, Michael Moore.