Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Something missing in Obama's Nobel speech

I agree with Ruth Marcus: President Obama’s Nobel speech was eloquent, stirring, high-minded. While accepting the peace prize, he offered one of the best defenses of war ever delivered by a modern political leader.

Addressing the Western European audience whose adulation, more than his performance thus far, explains the judges’ choice, he made the case that “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace,” and he implicitly rebuked those who fail to support “just wars.”
“In many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public,” he said. “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 requires sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries.”

Considering the occasion, it was a gutsy message for Obama to deliver. Maybe it will help European governments who are making commitments of more troops for Afghanistan in spite of public resistance and nudge those who are still holding out -- such as Germany and France.

There was, however, something missing from the speech -- something that reflected a continuing failure of nerve or judgment by the president and his staff.

That was Neda Agha-Soltan, the young Iranian protester who was murdered by security forces last June and who became a symbol of the “green movement” that with tremendous courage continues to struggle against the country’s extremist regime. As Obama graciously acknowledged both at the time of the award and today, the Nobel committee could have found a more deserving winner. Neda and the green movement were first among them.

Obama could have used the speech to make clear to Iranians that the United States supports the cause of change in their country. Instead he settled, as he has before, for a passive construction: “We will bear witness,” he said, “to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran.” But will the Obama administration support them? Iranians are not sure. During student demonstrations in Tehran this week, one instance of graffiti read: “Obama -- are you with them or with us?” The president’s speech could have clearly answered that question; too bad it didn’t.

By Jackson Diehl  | December 10, 2009; 12:14 PM ET
Categories:  Diehl  | Tags:  Jackson Diehl  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama shows maturity in Nobel speech
Next: Big-government Republican

Comments

This reads like someone straining for an objection. In a speech covering a broad array of topics, Obama did make a point of including the people protesting in Iran.

He did not mention Neda, but she is frankly a silly candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. The only thing that differentiates her from the mass of other protesters is that she got killed on camera. That makes for a good political symbol. But it does not make her a standout activist.

In general he did not pick any one world conflict to make the focus of his speech. And in this context that was a positive. It made his points more general and so more universal.

Posted by: beckerl | December 10, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"He did not mention Neda, but she is frankly a silly candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize."

No. It's silly to give it to unheroic figure like Al Gore. Neda didn't mean to die, neither do our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but she gave her life courageously for a better world.

I suppose, though, it is the case that she falls short of being a "standout activist" in the way some look at the world.

Posted by: Roytex | December 10, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The worst thing -- the WORST thing -- that could happen to the Iranian opposition is for the United States of America to give the impression that it is on their side.

That we may empathize with their goals of a less theocratic, more democratic, more liberal society is beside the point. Any hint of American or British support would be used as a potent weapon against the Iranian opposition. Thus, it would be stupid and counterproductive for the Obama administration to speak loudly on the Iranian movement.

Posted by: Rocket88 | December 10, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Diehl says that it's too bad that President Obama didn't take the opportunity to make it clear to Iranians that the U.S. stands in full support of those resisters who "continue to struggle against the country's extremist regime." Mr. Obama did call attention to the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, but he was correct in not giving any signal that the U.S. was prepared to offer concrete assistance.

Before any American president gives such a strong signal, he needs to be certain that the U.S. is in fact ready to intercede if necessary. After the first Gulf War, the senior President Bush signaled to the Iraqi Shiites that the U.S. supported their aspirations against Saddam Hussein, but then failed to act as the Shiites rose up and were slaughtered. If the U.S. is not prepared to give concrete assistance to the Iranian resistance now (and it clearly is not), then the president is correct in not giving misleading signals.

Posted by: jangchub | December 10, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Boy you WaPo columnist are never satisfied. Pres. Obama was accepting the award given to him. He graciously acknowledged that others have and continue to do peaceful work some known and some unknown. Why should he name one person who was murdered - there are many people in many countries murdered for their beliefs? It would have taken him hours and hours to name them all.

His lecture was great and had the right tone. The speech by the Nobel Peace Prize Chairman was also great - especially for those naysayers who keep saying "he hasn't done anything". If people want to know about the Nobel Peace Prize that is the speech to be heard.

Posted by: rlj1 | December 10, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how
Barack Obama won the
Heisman Trophy?

Does Harvard even have
a football team?

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 10, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I agree with many that their is a tone of straining for gnats in criticism of our president lately. I get it, you guys were probably afraid to speak out under the Bush administration. Where was the pithy Bush didn't say enough comments then? Where was the deep dive into nuance then? Where was investigative reporting of the "weapons of mass destruction" claims or the linkage to the 911 terrorists and Iran coincident with our build up for war?

Each of the things the current president is criticized for now are problems that the Bushies made and had on idea how to clean up. Now you chide our current president for creating a thriving economy and world peace in one year.

I'm really starting to lose my stomach for reading this slop.

Posted by: RepuNoLonger | December 10, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Death, was the pseudonym in XIX c. press of Mr. Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and chemical explosives that made him extremely wealthy in the prussian and I World War. His only rival was Mr. Krupp, who made grease with nazi prisoners for his cannons. But Nobel was smarter. He set companies in all countries to sell weapons to each contender. Uncle Fred also said about the Nobel Peace he instituted not to loose his very young activist lover: 'my factories will make peace earlier than all those congresses by inventing weapons that annihilate entire nations in a second'. Right now all the wannabe Nobels assembled at CERN have switched a quark cannon that will shoot black holes to this planet, a Damocles Machine that menaces our very own survival, called in the peaceful newspeak of the new era, an instrument of research. You live in an Orwellian era in which all words are the anti-truth of what they really mean. i suggest the next for CERN if we are still here LOL Rhetoric can cheat every human on Earth. What we CANNOT CHEAT are the laws of the Universe.
If Obama really wants to stop nuclear proliferation I suggest he stops the future of those bombs, the creation of mass bombs (M=E/c2) and the 'peaceful evolution' of black holes, here on Earth. That would be a 'change we believe in' ... see why earth is at danger at www.lhcdefence.org

Posted by: luisancho | December 10, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I would suspect that the primary reason Obama did not directly take on the Iranian government is that we are in the last stage of critical negotiations with Iran about its nuclear weapons policy. Obama is wisely avoiding acrimony at this moment, particularly as Iran mistrusts our offer to assist Iran develop economically and to cease our hostility, once they have agreed to remove our suspicions.

Instead, more usefully, he devoted part of his speech implicitly to China and Russia, which are reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran, when he argued, "[T]he words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one." He cited Iran as an "urgent example."

We lead by our moral example, Obama said, and his speech, fundamentally, was about the moral reasons we continue the war. Imho, it could not have been more apt to the occasion.


Posted by: DavidSalmon | December 10, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Good Grief.

When you win the Nobel, you can stuff the speech with anything you want.

That's just the ticket - let Diehl journey to Tehran to stare down the Basij and stand up before the rifles of the Revolutionary Guard. Let him show how committed he is to the cause and memory of Neda, let him put some skin in the game. Then he can win his own Nobel and gain the pulpit he so clearly wants.

Posted by: j2hess | December 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse


Does anyone else find it funny...
more like infuriating, perhaps, that the three small time hacks who write columnist for the Post,
three Israel firsters, not incidently,

each took a tone of superiority, of being the final arbitraturs, the great judges of what the US president said,

Gerson said he should have editred the speech! Cohen said, well the President is nothing at all. Diehl (always with Israel's interests first, too)
says he should've castigated IRAN!

(Toan international crowd that hates Israeli's apartheid more than anything Iran or any other state has done? Like the rest of the world?)

May the WaPo fail and take it's frustrated, idiot columnists with it.

Posted by: whistling | December 10, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama, on receiving the Nobel "Peace" Prize, gave a defense of war and himself. It was a little depressing. There is nothing "idle" about people who actively work for peace. Working for peace, to see yourself in another, to regard their humanity as you do your own, is the bravest most courageous thing to do. And before and after war, the commitment to and consciousness of "peace" is what holds us all together.

Posted by: kmbd | December 10, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama used the name of Martin Luther King's
memory like a shoe shine boy to polish his war-ridden Nobel Piece (this spelling is deserved) prize. And that was really a shameless usage of Martin Luther King's vision and peace achievements.

Baraq Obama doesn't represent Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi. That honor goes to Zimbabwe's prime minister Morgan
Tsvangirai who was the world's undisputed candidate for the Nobel Peace prize. Most people in the world believe that the
Nobel peace prize was stolen from him by unscrupulous Norwegian politicians, and passed over to Obama in order to compensate the U.S. for the lack of any Norwegian military participation in the Afghan war. It was like: "Sorry, we cannot send our troops to Afghanistan to fight your war, but we will stick a Nobel prize in your lapel to make it look like a "peace mission by you!" And Obama had no qualms to accept the prize, despite the global public scorn and ridicule. And that really proves the level of his hypocrisy, and the lack of any ethical and moral standards - all swept under the rug during the ceremony.

What was really missing from Obama's acceptance speech was actually this statement - if he were an honest person: "I feel good to expand the war in Afghanistan, and also get a peace prize for it. And that proves that our Norwegian friends are really friends like no others! Thank you, and God bless Norway." Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Posted by: Nikos_Retsos | December 10, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama sounded a lot like Bush in his speech, reinforcing a policy of getting out ahead of threats from evil-doers to ensure peace and safety for most.

So why not give the award to Bush?

Posted by: dnara | December 10, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Lets tell the Iranians, we support their trying to go against the mullahs and they will suffer the same fate as Georgians that went up on the bear with our "support". Reality trumps ideology, so you do what is possible, not what you want to. We want to beat the false jihad terrorists whom are strong in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and the largest following by % of support Saudi Arabia. A takeover of Saudi Arabia by non-muslims would have us fight a billion believers worldwide since their word of God, the Koran say that Arabia will be wholly Islamic.

Posted by: jameschirico | December 10, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Accept a Peace Prize + preach about just war = New Speak ?

Posted by: clankie | December 10, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I do not think we should send any signals of any kind to the Iranian opposition, unless we are in a position to put teeth to what we say. We sent signals of support to Iraqi opposition in the early 90's and it only resulted in their genocide, as they misinterpreted it as a sign of possible U.S. intervention on their behalf. I want to see the New Iranian revolution succeed, but we must not mislead them into thinking that we can help them at this stage. They are on their own.

Posted by: RadicalGlove | December 10, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Diehl obviously did not listen to the entire speech. If he had he would have heard Pres. Obama close with, "Somewhere today a young protester awaits the brutality of her government but has the courage to march on."
There is a reason this once great newspaper is on the verge of financial death.

Posted by: BBear1 | December 10, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I find Obama's decision to attempt to justify the war in Afghanistan in a speech accepting the Peace Prize depressing, and the entire speech permeated with a kind of American self-righteousness that I thought we were getting away from. Obama's snubbing of most of the Peace Prize activities is inexcusable. All in all, I'm extremely disappointed with his use of the occasion to pander to the usual sectors of the American political establishment, which is probably why the pundits liked his speech so much.

Posted by: nazcalito | December 10, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

So far, Obama has only made promises and has done nothing to contribute to world peace. He is promoting war in Afghanistan as he expands the Global War on Terror. He still has a long way to go and lots of work to do before he can deserve such a reward. The only obvious reason he won the Nobel Peace Prize is because he is black.


Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | December 10, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Tehranian students: Obama is with Obama. You're on your own. Good luck.

Posted by: toshiro1 | December 10, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

What was missing from this speech was a complete speech in the name of peace.

It's like giving a speech to say, "Just say no to drugs", but then saying, "well...shooting heroin every once in a while is a necessary thing."

There is nothing that makes sense about talking about "just war" when it's a Peace Prize.

Pay attention young Johnny, you can spill blood and still get the big prize for peace.

Posted by: camasca | December 10, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Ummm....Neda Agha-Soltan is ineligible for a Nobel, seeing as it can only be given to living people.

This entire Neda Agha-Soltan/Nobel thing is a particularly tiresome bit of right wing agitprop.

Posted by: syfgaryizzqm | December 10, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Something is missing in Diehl's brain.

Posted by: imback | December 10, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I thought the speech was fine. However, seeing the objections to the author by the bastard Whistling, Wahabi firster, could give me pause.

The US with the Brits has been agitating in my country, IRan, just as they did the first time around. IMHO, regime change begins at home. So, I'd suggest Obama stop playing footsies with the Saudi pigs, purge the Congress of Saudi agents, get the Saudis out of Pakistan, and then worry about Iran.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 10, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

After 8 years of being embarrassed by Bush mangle English while being drunk and on drugs it good to see real representation of America. President Obama showed he is intelligent and educated while George W. Bush couldn't finish the book My Pet Goat. Now many columist who are racist hate the fact we have an intelligent President. Obama showed the World America knows History and is a strong supporter of PEACE.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | December 10, 2009 9:43 PM | Report abuse

The media wants us to believe that with Obama as President, the Global War on Terror is a "just war" and a "smart war," unlike when Bush was President and it was an "unjust war" and a "dumb war."

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | December 10, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

I am glad BBear1 cited the relevant passage. I thought of Nada immediately when he spoke those words -- and I suspect many others did too, so the whole premise of the article is on a false foundation. Too overt a reference and Obama might endanger her family for being praised by the West.

Posted by: LeeTaylorEMT | December 10, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that's the ticket. Forget the high-minded universal message, Diehl wants some specific, belligerent attacks on one specific country to add red meat to the whole affair.

Republicans aren't comfortable if there isn't some direct verbal attack, full of the most hypocritical saber-rattling possible. After all, it's not like with our wire-tapping, torture, and indefinite imprisonment without any due process that we could possibly be seen as absurd hypocrites by lecturing the world about human rights.

Posted by: BillEPilgrim | December 10, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

I agree.

Obama seemed to suggest that there is a time to turn the plow share into a sword.

Well, the time was right to lend a voice of support to the downtrodden in Iran. And he was silent. The time was right to lend a voice of support to the downtrodden in Afghanistan. And he was silent. And the time was right to lend a voice of support to the downtrodden in Honduras. And he was silent.

If he was going to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, he at least should have done so in silence.

Posted by: drossi2 | December 10, 2009 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that would really be a great use of the acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize -- pushing the WaPo's fetish for ignoring the rules of the prize for the chance to make an inartful dig at Iran.

As BBear pointed out, Mr. Diehl missed the relevant piece in Pres. Obama's speech --I'm guessing because he's so used to the sad state of much of the writing at the Post's editorial page that he's lost his ear for nuances in language.

Posted by: sembtex | December 10, 2009 11:47 PM | Report abuse

What was missing in Obama's speech was an apology for increasing our occupation forces in Afghanistan. What was missing was an immediate withdrawal of all NATO forces.

What we got was an eloquent rationale for fighting a mythical "just war." All we need to do is find another Hitler or Tojo.

The world is full of "bad guys" - where do we begin? Somalia? Iran? North Korea? Venezuela? Myanmar?

Posted by: alance | December 11, 2009 12:25 AM | Report abuse

"Nobel prize"...."Neda of Iran"...Now where have I read about combining those two entities before??...Wait! I remember...Neda was the Nobel Prize candidate recommended by the Washington Post Editorial staff. There was an article titled: "Our Laureate: Neda of Iran" (Oct 10)...Gee, I wonder who's idea THAT was? C'mon Diehl, maybe you should have just executed that "write in" campaign...Either that, or start dating someone in the "Nobel" family.

Posted by: TruthHurts2 | December 11, 2009 2:52 AM | Report abuse

A speech that tries to do too much will often times do nothing at all. Let the President speak to Iran on other occasions. Just pay attention to what he DID say. If only President Bush had said the same. He thought we could do the right thing without saying why.

We always need to say why.

Posted by: gary4books | December 11, 2009 5:28 AM | Report abuse

You want to know the reason he sounded strained to find an objection? Because WAPO has to both uniformly support Obamas pro war policy while at the same time trying to make it seem like there is diversity of opinion so they can call this section PostPartisan. I agree with one of the poster, I can't wait to see this paper massively fail. It's funny that you people have the audacity to think you can lie so blatantly to your audience. If you had any integrity you would quit you job here and now. What a joke!

Posted by: novealphtang | December 11, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Iran's Green Party needs to change its slogan from "Allah Hu Akbar!" to something that doesn't remind the civilized world of death and destruction. Choosing the preferred battle cry of terrorists is not a winning strategy.

Posted by: iphony | December 11, 2009 9:51 AM | Report abuse

You are certainly looking hard for something to criticize and you are wrong.

There is war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan (a nuclear power and Islamic country) is close to chaos, there is still genocide in Darfur, Iran and North Korea threaten nuclear power, Israel still lives under constant threat of annihilation, the world is warming due to man made pollutants (despite Palin's pathetic attempt to suggest otherwise), and the world may, just may, NOT go into a deep depression.

There is much that is wrong in the world. Someone, somewhere, will find a reason to criticize the speech because something they favor was not mentioned.

Is student unrest in Iran important? Yes. But, other than a diplomatic protest over Irani abuse of power in a virtual police state, what can we do? That and continued world-wide press coverage are valuable aids. The LAST THING WE SHOULD DO is for the United States government to become overtly involved in supporting student protests other than through condemnation of police action against unarmed students.

Our focus with Iran right now is their possession of nuclear materials. They will find overt interference with the "domestic" problem of student protests another reason to ignore national and international pressure to stop their movement to nuclear arms.

The most important thing President Obama did convey in his speech is that for too long the world has left defense of liberty to the United States. Let’s see if what he said in his speech, his plans for war and withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and on-going diplomatic efforts with the formidable Mrs. Clinton at the helm, don't produce a world more willing to defend their own peace.

Posted by: amelia45 | December 11, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Diehl,

You write: 'Instead he settled, as he has before, for a passive construction: “We will bear witness,” he said, “to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran.”'

Exactly where is the passive construction in that quote from the President?

Posted by: burtrozema | December 11, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Neda was a lovely young woman - and she was coming home from a music lesson when she was shot. It is a terrible tragedy.

That said, there is something about this article that bothers me. I think I could call it the tendency to political expediency.

My best friend was a refugee from Iran in the 1980s. He will be the first to tell you that his refugee application was made easier by the fact that he was a politically expedient refugee. If he had been from Saudi Arabia or Egypt (two equally brutal - I would say more brutal regimes) or from Sudan today, he would probably have been turned back. No one wants Sudanese refugees and Egypt and Saudi Arabia have regimes that are heavily backed by the US government. Had my friend been a refugee under the Shah, who knows how he would have fared?

Iran is terrible, but it is far from being the worst place on earth. Why do we single out Iran for attention and ignore the Congo where millions of people have died? Is it because the young rape-victims who have survived the massacres aren't as telegenic? Is it because their skin is darker?

In the same week Neda died, hundreds of Uighers were massacred in China - why did they receive no attention?

I don't have an answer. I myself think about Iran far more than the Congo (or China) - so I am in fact guilty as charged. But I want to resist making one group of victims a symbol because their authoritarian regime is run by people who aren't "our" SOBs and because they protest on camera while the world ignores, for example, the Congo, the Sudan, and China.

Posted by: jmarsano | December 11, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama made a fine speech while getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Meanwhile, the Ditherer-in-Chief sent a US missile into a sovereign country to deliberately deprive another human being of (all of) his civil rights. The poor man, and his buddies, had never even been read their Miranda rights, much less been indicted. Is that a war crime, or what? Maybe even murder.

Yet I see not one squeak from the liberals. Come on, guys. This is the ultimate torture. Give me a good waterboarding any day. Even a night with Nancy Pelosi would be (marginally) better... hmmm, have to think about that. Anyway, you guys need to speak up. Remember all that stuff you said about the Constitution and how the world will think of us. You know ... nation of laws ... can't act like our enemies. Stuff like that. Man up.

It does, however, give us another option for dealing with KSM. We could drop him on the Afgan-Pakistan border and play Predator hockey with him.

Posted by: neilwied | December 11, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Diehl is so boring and predictable: he is a He-man lover of War for its own sake.


I wish Diehl had the integrity to call for a draft and a Sparta-like culture to go with his absurd schoolgirl crush on killing, destruction, violence.

Nobody is fooled Diehl: you are a sad excuse for a human, a simpering lulu who loves war as long as other people do the fighting.

What a disgrace the Post is. Jackson Diehl,
Sarah Palin, Fred Hiatt, the totally bitter hater of life Charles Krauthammer. The Post needs to go out of business and be resurrected as it once was, a progressive, liberal newspaper.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | December 12, 2009 1:56 AM | Report abuse

The Post cannot die fast enough. Diehl the war lover, as many have pointed out, is not even correct on the facts. Read what bbear said:

"BBear1 | December 10, 2009 4:52 PM

"Mr. Diehl obviously did not listen to the entire speech. If he had he would have heard Pres. Obama close with, "Somewhere today a young protester awaits the brutality of her government but has the courage to march on."
There is a reason this once great newspaper is on the verge of financial death."

Thanks BBear1 and others. If the Post had an Ombudsman who wasn't a sell-out fool, Diehl would be held accountable for factual errors in his attempt to destroy Obama and promote War with Iran. But "Andy, the ombuds boy" makes Jimmy Olsen seem dignified.

I suppose staring at photos of Sarah Palin trying to make her clothes disappear while reading her Post published lies has made Diehl blind and stupid.

Nobody should believe it from this cabal of tools, but the Post when it was a liberal paper was a great newspaper with courage and a love of peace. Now all these fools want is war and more war fought by others, of course.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | December 12, 2009 2:05 AM | Report abuse

More of the usual from Israeli fifth columnist Diehl.

Posted by: misterjrthed | December 12, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Why is that you guys always find solace in repeating the talking points of the rightist regime in Tel Aviv?

Are you pro-American or simply pro-Israel?

Posted by: hariknaidu | December 12, 2009 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, he did say the movement in Iran, one of hope and history, "have us on their side."

I don't know how much more explicit you wanted him to get. That pretty much answers the "are you with us " question for me.

Posted by: caramel3 | December 12, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Diehl did not even get his facts correct in his desire to chomp on President Obama's leg and promote War with Iran and the senseless policy of America being seen as fomenting the revolution in Iran.

Jackson Diehl is a less intelligent Sean Hannity. The idea that people say the Washington Post is liberal is an outrage. Diehl, who wants the children of the poor and lower middle class to die for his fantasies of power, was the biggest cheerleader for our invasion of Iraq.


Now Diehl wants war with Iran. Nothing except asking Jackson Diehl to fight the war will change Diehl's he-man war loving ways. Unfortunately for him and the other Big Thinkers who love war here at the Post, Diehl's earlier policy recommendations have left the Armed Services over-spent and exhausted.

There are fools and then there are Dehl class Aircraft Carrier Fools, and like Creation Scientist Sarah Palin, the fools are all welcome to spout their lie-filled propagana on the Post.

cannotdiefastenough cannotdiefastenough I hope the next POst goes back to its non-War Loving liberal and progressive ways cannotdiefastenough....

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | December 12, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company