President Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize

[Park Life 71]

Chomsky and Pilger are good lads.

[ChezGiven 0]

Obama has already done more than either of them.

[Park Life 71]

Obama has already done more than either of them.

 

I'm not going to crack down on him till the end of the first term.

[ChezGiven 0]

Obama has already done more than either of them.

 

I'm not going to crack down on him till the end of the first term.

 

He'll be relieved to hear that.

[Park Life 71]

Obama has already done more than either of them.

 

I'm not going to crack down on him till the end of the first term.

 

He'll be relieved to hear that.

 

[Happy Face 29]

No i'm not diluting my points, Pilger's article was full of shit, calling the nobel committee reverse racists, blithely mis-representing the facts on Guantanamo, blaming Obama for centuries of US involvement in Latin America and generally demonstrating zero understanding of the US political process.

 

I don't think he blames Obama for the Latin American problems going back centuries. He's spot on to call him out on the Colombia thing though. South American countries are freeing theselves from IMF shackles and gaining independence like they've never had...and Obama's working with the largest dope peddler in the world and South America's worst human rights violator to increase their military presence over the entire continent.

 

Obama wants to build a consensus across parties on the main issues and to be inclusive in the deliberation process, this is a direct reaction and change to the previous regime. This does mean he will not unilaterally change US policy on key issues, so lots of the status quo will be retained.

 

The problem with America is that the political landscape is already too narrow. The last thing it needs is the democratic party moving even further to the right. The majority they have is across the board. They don't need cross party consensus, they just need it within their own party.

 

As for that Chomsky quote, what the fuck would he know of how Obama treats other world leaders in private? I dont care if he's clever, thats just utter bollocks, no one in the right mind could think that mainstream political aides are briefing Chomsky on Obama's personal style behind closed doors. If these commentators dont want empty rhetoric, perhaps they should think about publishing less of it themselves.

 

It's pretty clear from what's said publicly that Obama is a lot more talkative than "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". Behind closed doors, Obama has made concessions. So perhaps Chomsky shouldn't make a blanket claim about them being his lieutenants. But I think the way Gordon Brown has commited 500 more troops if Obama decides it's needed is demonstrative that Obama still has the lead on such matters. Naive to think it would be any other way.

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

 

 

PoliticsHome interviewed 1430 adults in the US, and 1303 adults in the UK, by email between 9-11 October 2009. Results are weighted by party ID to reflect the both countries at large.

 

http://page.politicshome.com/usa/transatla...obel_prize.html

 

fwiw their chairman also founded and chairs Conservativehome.com So I'd be curious as to the reliability and bias of the site.

 

That one's supposed to be a non-partisan site though. He also founded yougov which is impartial and predicted Labour’s ten-point general election victory in 2001 within one percentage point.

 

The numbers don't seem controversial to me, I can see your point though.

 

 

Another poll has it higher with 61% disagreeing with the award in the US...

 

Most Americans do not believe President Obama should have won the Nobel Peace Prize, and are divided on whether the award is a good thing, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

 

Sixty-one percent of respondents said Obama did not deserve to win the prize announced on Oct. 9, according to the poll; 34% said he did deserve the honor.

 

When asked if they were personally glad that Obama won the award, 46% said they were and 47% said they were not glad.

 

USA TODAY/Gallup conducted the poll Oct. 16-19, surveying 1,521 adults. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/th.../10/620000171/1

[Guest alex]

51% of the those who voted in 2004 thought Bush should be President so I wouldn't read too much into polls carried out in the US

[Happy Face 29]

The New York Times have been one of Obama's staunchest supporters, but they've done him up like a right kipper with their editorial today...

 

The Cover-Up Continues

October 25, 2009

 

The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up.

 

We have had recent reminders of this dismaying retreat from Mr. Obama’s passionate campaign promises to make a break with Mr. Bush’s abuses of power, a shift that denies justice to the victims of wayward government policies and shields officials from accountability.

 

In Britain earlier this month, a two-judge High Court panel rejected arguments made first by the Bush team and now by the Obama team and decided to make public seven redacted paragraphs in American intelligence documents relating to torture allegations by a former prisoner at Guantánamo Bay. The prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British national, says he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco and at a C.I.A.-run prison outside Kabul before being transferred to Guantánamo. He was freed in February.

 

To block the release of those paragraphs, the Bush administration threatened to cut its intelligence-sharing with Britain, an inappropriate threat that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeated. But the court concluded that the actual risk of harm to intelligence-sharing was minimal, given the close relationship between the two countries. The court also found a “compelling public interest” in disclosure, and said that nothing in the disputed seven paragraphs — a summary of evidence relating to the involvement of the British security services in Mr. Mohamed’s ordeal — had anything to do with “secret intelligence.”

 

The Obama administration has expressed unhappiness with the ruling, and the British government plans to appeal. But the court was clearly right in recognizing the importance of disclosure “for reasons of democratic accountability and the rule of law.”

 

In the United States, the Obama administration is in the process of appealing a sound federal appellate court ruling last April in a civil lawsuit by Mr. Mohamed and four others. All were victims of the government’s extraordinary rendition program, under which foreigners were kidnapped and flown to other countries for interrogation and torture.

 

In that case, the Obama administration has repeated a disreputable Bush-era argument that the executive branch is entitled to have lawsuits shut down whenever it makes a blanket claim of national security. The ruling rejected that argument and noted that the government’s theory would “effectively cordon off all secret actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the C.I.A. and its partners from the demands and limits of the law.”

 

The Obama administration has aggressively pursued such immunity in numerous other cases beyond the ones involving Mr. Mohamed. We do not take seriously the government’s claim that it is trying to protect intelligence or avoid harm to national security.

 

Victims of the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including Mr. Mohamed, have already spoken in harrowing detail about their mistreatment. The objective is to avoid official confirmation of wrongdoing that might be used in lawsuits against government officials and contractors, and might help create a public clamor for prosecuting those responsible. President Obama calls that a distracting exercise in “looking back.” What it really is justice.

 

In a similar vein, Mr. Obama did a flip-flop last May and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release photographs of soldiers abusing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, just in time to avoid possible Supreme Court review of the matter, Congress created an exception to the Freedom of Information Act that gave Secretary of Defense Robert Gates authority to withhold the photos.

 

We share concerns about inflaming anti-American feelings and jeopardizing soldiers, but the best way to truly avoid that is to demonstrate that this nation has turned the page on Mr. Bush’s shameful policies. Withholding the painful truth shows the opposite.

 

Like the insistence on overly broad claims of secrecy, it also avoids an important step toward accountability, which is the only way to ensure that the abuses of the Bush years are never repeated. We urge Mr. Gates to use his discretion under the new law to release the photos, sparing Americans more cover-up.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion

[NJS 4386]

I suppose the naivity is thinking any politician/government can be any different to its predecessor - New Labour's promise of an ethical foreign policy being a good example and now the Tories outrage at ID cards/freedom restrictions which you know they won't change one iota.

 

Having said that I expected Obama to at least make a stand on something - maybe he has and I've missed it but it seems cyniically disappointing so far.

[Park Life 71]

I suppose the naivity is thinking any politician/government can be any different to its predecessor - New Labour's promise of an ethical foreign policy being a good example and now the Tories outrage at ID cards/freedom restrictions which you know they won't change one iota.

 

Having said that I expected Obama to at least make a stand on something - maybe he has and I've missed it but it seems cyniically disappointing so far.

 

Think he made a bit of a stand on the healthcare stuff.

[Happy Face 29]

I suppose the naivity is thinking any politician/government can be any different to its predecessor - New Labour's promise of an ethical foreign policy being a good example and now the Tories outrage at ID cards/freedom restrictions which you know they won't change one iota.

 

Having said that I expected Obama to at least make a stand on something - maybe he has and I've missed it but it seems cyniically disappointing so far.

 

Think he made a bit of a stand on the healthcare stuff.

 

Where have you heard that?

 

Over the weekend, two of The Huffington Post's best reporters -- Sam Stein and Ryan Grim -- reported what has long been apparent (and echoed by other outlets such as TPM): namely, that while Obama repeatedly claims in public to support a "public option" for health care reform, the Obama White House, in private, has been actively opposing attempts to include that provision in the final health care bill, a priority of very high importance to many of his progressive supporters.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...bama/index.html

 

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/l...s_n_332844.html

 

When Rahm Emmanuel met with Billy Tauzin and Merck and Pfizer in the Roosevelt Room (how ironic!) of the White House earlier this summer to work out the details of exactly how much of a bite the new health bill was going to take out of the pharmaceutical industry — the answer turned out to be none, and all the insane subsidies of big Pharma are going to remain in the final bill — were you there? Was anyone representing you there?

 

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/10/22...-for-president/

[ChezGiven 0]

Are you just goading me?

[Happy Face 29]

[Happy Face 29]

The economists aren't sure why Obama is against the public option either....

 

A quick thought: now that Congress is getting close to actually passing health-care reform, the question is not so much whether to do anything, and more how to pay for whatever it is we do. As a result, sound-bites and slogans are mattering less, and CBO estimates are mattering more.

 

And this is pushing reform in a progressive direction.

 

Serious students of health care have known for a long time that the magic of the marketplace doesn’t work in health care; the United States has the most privatized health-care system in the advanced world, and also the least efficient. The pale reflection of this reality in the current discussion is that reform with a strong public option is cheaper than reform without — which means that as we get closer to really doing something, rhetoric about socialism fades out, and that $100 billion or so in projected savings starts to look awfully attractive.

 

It has also been clear from international evidence that universality is cheaper than leaving a few people expensively without care. That’s reflected now in the projected savings from a strong employer mandate.

 

The point is that reality is pushing for a more progressive reform than the Baucus bill. Truly, the facts have a liberal bias.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/2...alth-care-bias/

[ChezGiven 0]

Economists are also agreed that purely nationalised resource allocation mechanisms are inefficient too, a mix is required between public and private coverage.

 

Without the concessions to the interested parties, the two Houses would still be arguing over whether reform was needed. This process has failed before because of the strength of lobbying against reform.

 

I think tying the insurance industry into clear metrics which if not met, triggers further reform was a clever way round what has been until now an intractable problem.

[Happy Face 29]

Economists are also agreed that purely nationalised resource allocation mechanisms are inefficient too, a mix is required between public and private coverage.

 

Without the concessions to the interested parties, the two Houses would still be arguing over whether reform was needed. This process has failed before because of the strength of lobbying against reform.

 

I think tying the insurance industry into clear metrics which if not met, triggers further reform was a clever way round what has been until now an intractable problem.

 

A purely nationalised system is nowhere near the table though, let alone on it.

 

You agree a mix is required...then argue in favour of the insurance industry regulating themselves, just so something gets through. This would also serve to extend their profiteering and doesn't ensure the reform triggered down the line goes much further. That's not to say I don't see the logic in being certain that a diluted package goes through, but I don't see a better time for real reform that can stick. Any democrat voting against it is certain to lose a lot of votes at the next election.

 

The lobbyists this time around are inadvertantly doing more to push the public option than to stop it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/opinion/...OGLE5VTatypORiQ

 

Canny article in the Guardian yesterday too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ion-us-congress

 

Politico report Harry Reid has announced he'll be including a public option.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28761.html

[Happy Face 29]

You agree a mix is required...then argue in favour of the insurance industry regulating themselves, just so something gets through. This would also serve to extend their profiteering and doesn't ensure the reform triggered down the line goes much further.

 

 

A workable trigger would, at a minimum, need to achieve three goals: (1) establish a reasonable and measurable standard for private plan performance that sets out clear affordability and cost-containment goals for a specifically defined package of benefits, (2) assess this standard in a timely fashion with information available to policymakers after reform legislation passes, and (3) if this standard were met, quickly create a public health insurance plan that would effectively remedy the situation.

 

The modifier “quickly” in the third goal is crucial: Runaway health costs are a grave and growing threat to federal and state budgets and to the health security of workers, their families, and their employers. Waiting longer than absolutely necessary for affordable coverage is certain to cause great harm. Indeed, it might actually compound the current crisis. Without an imminent threat of public plan competition, private insurers are likely to raise premiums in anticipation of the implementation of reform—as suggested by AHIP’s recent prediction of big premium increases if reform passes. Delaying a public plan may also jeopardize the cause of reform itself, because requiring Americans to buy unaffordable coverage has the potential to provoke a political backlash. (Polls show that Americans are more supportive of a mandate when they know they will have the choice of a public plan.)

 

In short, we cannot wait for a public plan—and one of the biggest problems with a trigger is that it virtually guarantees we will have to.

 

More

[ChezGiven 0]

Progressive reform is a good idea, trying to change everything overnight in healthcare just creates chaos. Look at how badly NHS reforms have been implemented.

 

As for the bit about Snowe and him now apparently blocking the opt-out in the Senate package, isnt this just because 'the Senate-approved provision can be strengthened while it merges with the more robust House bill, creating a solid piece of legislation for the signing festivities.'

 

Plus, as i have said already, whether Obama backs Snowe's ideas or Reids is irrelevant. Its just political noise, all Obama does is sign the final bill. There may be a million reasons why he is so keen to maintain Snowe's support. Its possible that he knows the Senate bill needs to come through with a consensus to ensure that when it merges with the house bill he has big hitters in his pocket. Who knows, i would hate to second guess the complexity of the politics.

[Happy Face 29]

Progressive reform is a good idea, trying to change everything overnight in healthcare just creates chaos. Look at how badly NHS reforms have been implemented.

 

As for the bit about Snowe and him now apparently blocking the opt-out in the Senate package, isnt this just because 'the Senate-approved provision can be strengthened while it merges with the more robust House bill, creating a solid piece of legislation for the signing festivities.'

 

Plus, as i have said already, whether Obama backs Snowe's ideas or Reids is irrelevant. Its just political noise, all Obama does is sign the final bill. There may be a million reasons why he is so keen to maintain Snowe's support. Its possible that he knows the Senate bill needs to come through with a consensus to ensure that when it merges with the house bill he has big hitters in his pocket. Who knows, i would hate to second guess the complexity of the politics.

 

It wouldn't be changing everything overnight. It would be akin to a new insurer entering the market. Suggesting it'll create chaos is part and parcel of the scary language opponents/lobbyists use.

 

Telling existing insurers they need to reform themselves...or not...and we'll see how they get on in 2 years or whatever isn't reform. It's no change at all.

 

Anyway, the white house have said they'll support Reid though it's not what they had been pushing for.

[Happy Face 29]

War, Peace and Obama’s Nobel

 

The hopes and prospects for peace aren't well aligned -- not even close. The task is to bring them nearer. Presumably that was the intent of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in choosing President Barack Obama.

The prize "seemed a kind of prayer and encouragement by the Nobel committee for future endeavor and more consensual American leadership," Steven Erlanger and Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote in The New York Times.

 

The nature of the Bush-Obama transition bears directly on the likelihood that the prayers and encouragement might lead to progress.

 

The Nobel committee's concerns were valid. They singled out Obama's rhetoric on reducing nuclear weapons.

 

Right now Iran's nuclear ambitions dominate the headlines. The warnings are that Iran may be concealing something from the International Atomic Energy Agency and violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887, passed last month and hailed as a victory for Obama's efforts to contain Iran.

 

Meanwhile, a debate continues on whether Obama's recent decision to reconfigure missile-defense systems in Europe is a capitulation to the Russians or a pragmatic step to defend the West from Iranian nuclear attack.

 

Silence is often more eloquent than loud clamor, so let us attend to what is unspoken.

 

Amid the furor over Iranian duplicity, the IAEA passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and open its nuclear facilities to inspection.

 

The United States and Europe tried to block the IAEA resolution, but it passed anyway. The media virtually ignored the event.

 

The United States assured Israel that it would support Israel's rejection of the resolution -- reaffirming a secret understanding that has allowed Israel to maintain a nuclear arsenal closed to international inspections, according to officials familiar with the arrangements. Again, the media were silent.

 

Indian officials greeted U.N. Resolution 1887 by announcing that India "can now build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world's major nuclear powers," the Financial Times reported.

 

Both India and Pakistan are expanding their nuclear weapons programs. They have twice come dangerously close to nuclear war, and the problems that almost ignited this catastrophe are very much alive.

 

Obama greeted Resolution 1887 differently. The day before he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his inspiring commitment to peace, the Pentagon announced it was accelerating delivery of the most lethal non-nuclear weapons in the arsenal: 13-ton bombs for B-2 and B-52 stealth bombers, designed to destroy deeply hidden bunkers shielded by 10,000 pounds of reinforced concrete.

 

It's no secret the bunker busters could be deployed against Iran.

 

Planning for these "massive ordnance penetrators" began in the Bush years but languished until Obama called for developing them rapidly when he came into office.

 

Passed unanimously, Resolution 1887 calls for the end of threats of force and for all countries to join the NPT, as Iran did long ago. NPT non-signers are India, Israel and Pakistan, all of which developed nuclear weapons with U.S. help, in violation of the NPT.

 

Iran hasn't invaded another country for hundreds of years -- unlike the United States, Israel and India (which occupies Kashmir, brutally).

 

The threat from Iran is minuscule. If Iran had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and prepared to use them, the country would be vaporized.

 

To believe Iran would use nuclear weapons to attack Israel, or anyone, "amounts to assuming that Iran's leaders are insane" and that they look forward to being reduced to "radioactive dust," strategic analyst Leonard Weiss observes, adding that Israel's missile-carrying submarines are "virtually impervious to preemptive military attack," not to speak of the immense U.S. arsenal.

 

In naval maneuvers in July, Israel sent its Dolphin class subs, capable of carrying nuclear missiles, through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea, sometimes accompanied by warships, to a position from which they could attack Iran -- as they have a "sovereign right" to do, according to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

 

Not for the first time, what is veiled in silence would receive front-page headlines in societies that valued their freedom and were concerned with the fate of the world.

 

The Iranian regime is harsh and repressive, and no humane person wants Iran -- or anyone else -- to have nuclear weapons. But a little honesty would not hurt in addressing these problems.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize, of course, is not concerned solely with reducing the threat of terminal nuclear war, but rather with war generally, and the preparation for war. In this regard, the selection of Obama raised eyebrows, not least in Iran, surrounded by U.S. occupying armies.

 

On Iran's borders in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, Obama has escalated Bush's war and is likely to proceed on that course, perhaps sharply.

 

Obama has made clear that the United States intends to retain a long-term major presence in the region. That much is signaled by the huge city-within-a city called "the Baghdad Embassy," unlike any embassy in the world.

 

Obama has announced the construction of mega-embassies in Islamabad and Kabul, and huge consulates in Peshawar and elsewhere.

 

Nonpartisan budget and security monitors report in Government Executive that the "administration's request for $538 billion for the Defense Department in fiscal 2010 and its stated intention to maintain a high level of funding in the coming years put the president on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II. And that's not counting the additional $130 billion the administration is requesting to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, with even more war spending slated for future years."

 

The Nobel Peace Prize committee might well have made truly worthy choices, prominent among them the remarkable Afghan activist Malalai Joya.

 

This brave woman survived the Russians, and then the radical Islamists whose brutality was so extreme that the population welcomed the Taliban. Joya has withstood the Taliban and now the return of the warlords under the Karzai government.

 

Throughout, Joya worked effectively for human rights, particularly for women; she was elected to parliament and then expelled when she continued to denounce warlord atrocities. She now lives underground under heavy protection, but she continues the struggle, in word and deed. By such actions, repeated everywhere as best we can, the prospects for peace edge closer to hopes.

 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/5134/war_p...d_obamas_nobel/

[AgentAxeman 178]

even more ironic now

 

"Barack Obama is in Norway to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize, just nine days after announcing a troop surge in Afghanistan.

 

The US president will attend the prize-giving ceremony and banquet during which he is expected to talk about the responsibilities of conducting a war.

 

Peace activists in the city are planning a 5,000-strong protest to coincide with the acceptance of the honour, the awarding of which has been seen as controversial given the US-led conflict in Afghanistan and the relatively short tenure of Mr Obama's presidency.

 

White House aides said on Wednesday that the president had yet to finalise his speech. But it has been suggested that the incongruous nature of the timing of the award - little more than a week after Mr Obama ordered 30,000 more soldiers to war - will not be lost on its recipient.

 

White House officials said he would use the opportunity to explain what it means to wage war and the place and responsibility of US leadership.

 

President Obama has reportedly been reading the speeches of past laureates to prepare for his acceptance address."

[The Fish 10857]

You watch FOX don't you?

[Happy Face 29]

You watch FOX don't you?

 

If it was Obama bashing without thought or reason, it would be FOXesque. Clearly though, how farcical his award is has been highlighted by the timing of his war escalation.

[AgentAxeman 178]

You watch FOX don't you?

 

 

 

No