Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: An uncertainty about Afghanistan

1. A new New York Times/CBS poll provides a series of fascinating data points regarding the American public's view about the war in Afghanistan and President Obama's recent decision to put more 30,000 more U.S. troops into the country. Writes Timesman Adam Nagourney: "A bare majority of Americans support President Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but many are skeptical that the United States can count on Afghanistan as a partner in the fight or that the escalation would reduce the chances of a domestic terrorist attack." A few other pieces of data from the poll: 1) Forty-nine percent said America is doing the "right thing" by fighting the war in Afghanistan while 39 percent said the country should not be involved in the conflict. 2) Six in ten respondents said the war in Afghanistan is going "somewhat" (43 percent) or "very" (17 percent) badly. 3) Fifty-five percent said Obama's decision to announce that troops will begin to come home in 2011 was "not a good idea." 4) Sixty-one percent said America cannot count on the Afghan government to help stabilize the country.

2. Just hours after Washington Rep. Brian Baird (D) announced his retirement on Wednesday, the field to replace him were already taking shape. National Republicans are touting the candidacy of state Rep. Jamie Herrera, a former staffer for Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, but it's not clear whether the youthful state legislator (she is in her early 30s) can clear out the GOP primary. Two names were mentioned prominently by Democrats in the know: state Rep. Deb Wallace and state Sen. Craig Pridemore. Expect both sides to recruit hard in the 3rd district seat which, according to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index (an attempt to measure the partisanship of all 435 districts in relation to one another) is dead even. MAKE SURE TO READ: Washington State Associated Press reporter Matthew Daly's coverage of the race. (Daly is the brother of Speaker Nancy Pelosi senior adviser Brendan Daly.)

3. Vice President Biden will be in Connecticut on Friday to raise money for embattled Sen. Chris Dodd (D), the fourth time either Biden or President Obama has appeared with or raised cash for the Connecticut Democrat over the past two months. Biden was in Connecticut for Dodd as recently as early October when the two men did an event touting the economic stimulus act together. Later that month, President Obama and Dodd toured a small business in Connecticut and then headlined a fundraiser for the incumbent. In addition to the stops in the Nutmeg State, Dodd has been front and center at a number of high profile events at the White House including the signing of a bill that tightened rules on credit card companies. The White House's extraordinary commitment to Dodd may be an attempt to boost his weak poll numbers before 2010 comes. If Dodd's numbers don't improve, however, it's hard to imagine that the White House won't make clear to the incumbent that he should step aside. Waiting in the wings (presumably) is state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D), the most popular politician in the state and someone who has long coveted a Senate seat.

4. The decision by a South Carolina state House panel not to pursue impeachment charges against Gov. Mark Sanford (R) effectively ends talk that the embattled chief executive will be ousted from office before his term ends in early 2011. The result was expected by smart South Carolina Republicans for two reasons: 1) No one wanted Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer to ascend to the top job 2) the South Carolina voting public was sick of hearing about the entire Sanford scandal and there was a fear among politicians of both parties that the sort of boomerang effect that hurt congressional Republicans in the wake of the impeachment of former president Bill Clinton might be visited upon them. And so, Sanford will get what he wants -- a chance to stay in office until he is term limited out. Of course, the day he leaves the South Carolina governor's mansion, his political career is over.

5. Nevada Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, who was cleared earlier this week of any wrongdoing in connection with his handling of a college savings program, is interested in running for the Senate, according to a source familiar with his thinking. Krolicki, who was elected governor in 2006 , served two previous terms as state Treasurer. He had long been eyeing a potential run against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) but had been sidetracked from moving forward due to the ongoing court case. Krolicki had long insisted that the charges were political in nature, noting that they were brought by state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, a Reid protege. Cortez Masto's sterling image has taken a hit as a result of the dismissal with the Las Vegas Review Journal headlining one story on the affair: "Cortez Masto's shining star dims after Krolicki decision." It's not clear how badly the negative press surrounding Krolicki over the past year would impact a race against Reid but the GOP field, which is led by former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden and businessman Danny Tarkanian, is not exactly stellar.

6. Hazleton (Pa.) Mayor Lou Barletta announced Wednesday that he is seeking a rematch against 11th district Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D), giving Republicans a viable challenger against an ethically-challenged incumbent. Barletta made it official in a web video that borrows heavily from his concession speech last November and in which he declares: "our elected officials in Washington, D.C. have not just forgotten about us, they are ignoring us." Barletta was a coveted Republican recruit in 2008 but came up short against Kanjorski by less than 9,000 votes out of nearly 300,000 cast. Republicans argue that were it not for President Obama carrying the northeastern Pennsylvania district by 15 points, Kanjorski would never have gotten over the line and, without Obama at the top of the ticket, Barletta has a good shot at beating the 13-term incumbent. Much depends on whether there are lingering effects for Kanjorski from a slew of bad press he received after his work to earmark millions for a company controlled by his relatives. There is, however, no pending Ethics Committee investigation into his actions, which may mean ethics will fade as an issue in 2010.

7. Kristy Campbell, an aide to former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), has signed on as communications director for state Attorney General Bill McCollum's (R) 2010 gubernatorial candidacy. Prior to her work for Bush's non-profit policy outlets -- the focus of his time since leaving office in 2006 -- Campbell served as Florida communications director for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's (R) presidential bid. McCollum, the choice of Bush and much of the party establishment, is being challenged for the GOP nod by state Sen. Paula Dockery. Democrats have rallied behind state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink. ALSO WATCH: Jeb Bush lauding praise on Rob Simmons' Senate bid in Connecticut.

8. David Plouffe, the man who rose to fame in 2008 when he managed President Obama's campaign, is wading into the Ohio Senate race, throwing his support being Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher. In an email sent to Fisher supporters, Plouffe emphasizes the critical importance of the race and the adds: "We need Lee Fisher in the Senate to move Ohio forward on jobs, health care, and energy -- and can't let Republicans bring back George Bush economics." Although Fisher faces a nominal primary opponent in the form of Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, he is widely seen as the likely nominee and has won a series of establishment endorsement (including from former president Bill Clinton) in recent weeks. It's a testament to Plouffe's raised profile in Democratic politics that his endorsement, which, given that his media consulting firm is working for Fisher, was expected is still such a big news story.

9. Love political trivia? Missed "Politics and Pints" -- the Fix's inaugural trivia night in D.C. earlier this week? Don't let it happen again! Send an email with "Politics and Pints" in the subject to chris.cillizza@wpost.com and we will make sure you know the who, what, when, where and why of the next "Politics and Pints" event.

10. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), channeling Adam Sandler, has written a Hannukah song. The video is priceless with Hatch even joining in for a few "la la la's" in the chorus. This isn't Hatch's first foray into songwriting; earlier this year he wrote a tune to honor the death of his friend and former colleague Ted Kennedy.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 10, 2009; 6:29 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Baird Retires in Washington State
Next: The Rising: Jack Markell, Risk-Taker

Comments

"that request was directed toward others"

cluck cluck cluck braaaaaak.

Ah, the cowardice strategy. What a surprise.

Posted by: nodebris | December 12, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

The award has never before been granted to the head of state of a nation currently in an active state of war.

He just fails to grasp it, because he cannot admit to himself that this is a huge affirmation of America and what it stands for.

As a Democracy, this award to our President expresses the opinion of the international community towards the American electorate.

Never before has the international community stood up and said to any country, "you are at war, and yet we still believe you are the most important force for *peace* in the world today." Never.

This is a clear statement of respect and admiration for the fundamental decency and morality of the American people, despite all, and an affirmation that our goals are broadly shared. It's saying, "Welcome back! We missed you!"

Obama's speech clearly recognizes and takes pride in this fact. Yes, we have often been at war, because we have shouldered the lion's share of responsibility for world order for decades now, at the cost of treasure and blood. We have gone and done where and what others would not or could not. We have done what had to be done. Yes we have made mistakes. We did not have the luxury of waiting to be perfect. But in total we are a force for good, and we make no apology for that.

That is what the world acknowledged with this unprecedented award. This is what Obama clearly stated with his speech. For the first time, the world has admitted this thing all Americans know.

I know that's hard for some to swallow. And it's sad to watch you choking on it.

==

One of the very best posts I've ever read here.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 11, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I liked it better when you "ignored" me. What I requested is "if anyone wants to discuss these points in a civil manner, please let me know." Since you and GoldAndTanzanite have made it abundantly clear we cannot discuss anything in a civil manner, that request was directed toward others such as "Aprogressiveindependent" whose post originally had prompted my actual question.

==

But you have raised no "points," Jake, you've jumped on what you think is a contradiction in the Peace Prize going to a president you don't like leading a nation at war, and you've chased your tail for a few dozen posts harping on this simpleminded non-issue.

Nodebris ripped you a new one, deconstructing all your assertions and never breaking into incivility while doing so. Still you whine.

There is no contradiction, there is no point, you just wasted a lot of time. At least you did some reading (or so you claim) of Nobel speeches.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 11, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I do note the following from a different thread:

"Those who think Obama earned this "peace" prize should agree all modern presidents should have received a nobel too.

Now, let's start with Nixon, he ended the Vietnam war, forget the hundreds of thousands killed, he brought "peace" to Vietnam.

Then there's Carter, who should have received his nobel for not being Nixon.

Reagan should have received a nobel for stimulating the economy with a huge military arms race.

Bush I, for winning a war to make the world safe for gas guzzling cars.

Clinton for, well there must be a reason somewhere.

Bush II and Cheney, for toppling the Taliban and Hussein.

Obama is entitled to his nobel, if we agree the others are too."

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | December 10, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 11, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I liked it better when you "ignored" me. What I requested is "if anyone wants to discuss these points in a civil manner, please let me know." Since you and GoldAndTanzanite have made it abundantly clear we cannot discuss anything in a civil manner, that request was directed toward others such as "Aprogressiveindependent" whose post originally had prompted my actual question. I do appreciate your heartfelt concern for how I spend my time, but my "wasted" three hours was indeed a learning experience, reading all of those Lectures (even Al Gore and Jimmy Carter's), so I do not consider it a "waste" at all. I hope I can learn something today as well : )

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | December 11, 2009 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Yes, but you *asked* for a reply, and no one *asked* for you to exhaustively post on your cursory reading of all the lectures. That's the difference, you see.

So, do you have anything more than snark?

I'm expecting something along the lines of how you didn't really mean that what you previously said was significant, because you really meant something else you didn't say. That would be typical for you. Either that, or you'll find a trivial and irrelevant inaccuracy, and beat it to death. You have a few other tired tricks as well, but I think you'll go for one of those.

So come on. I'm dying to find out which canard you make quack for us this time.

Posted by: nodebris | December 11, 2009 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Now who has the OCD?

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

To conclude:

I will grant that jaked has sufficient mental resources to detect that this award is utterly unprecedented.

The award has never before been granted to the head of state of a nation currently in an active state of war.

He just fails to grasp it, because he cannot admit to himself that this is a huge affirmation of America and what it stands for.

As a Democracy, this award to our President expresses the opinion of the international community towards the American electorate.

Never before has the international community stood up and said to any country, "you are at war, and yet we still believe you are the most important force for *peace* in the world today." Never.

This is a clear statement of respect and admiration for the fundamental decency and morality of the American people, despite all, and an affirmation that our goals are broadly shared. It's saying, "Welcome back! We missed you!"

Obama's speech clearly recognizes and takes pride in this fact. Yes, we have often been at war, because we have shouldered the lion's share of responsibility for world order for decades now, at the cost of treasure and blood. We have gone and done where and what others would not or could not. We have done what had to be done. Yes we have made mistakes. We did not have the luxury of waiting to be perfect. But in total we are a force for good, and we make no apology for that.

That is what the world acknowledged with this unprecedented award. This is what Obama clearly stated with his speech. For the first time, the world has admitted this thing all Americans know.

I know that's hard for some to swallow. And it's sad to watch you choking on it. Consider this a Heimlich. Spit you hate out, before it kills you.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 11:56 PM | Report abuse

You are unable or unwilling to articulate it, but the only "point" you might possibly be attempting with your obsessive and poorly executed little adventure would be:

1) No Peace Prize recipient before has believed in the necessity of war; or

2) No Peace Prize recipient before has ever considered that issue in an acceptance [speech, telegram, or lecture].

The first point might be damning, but it is so demonstrably untrue that you contort yourself trying to imply it without explicitly stating it.

As to the second possible point, I suppose that an exceptionally obtuse reader could walk away with the belief that, for instance, none of the 1994 recipients believes in the occasional necessity of armed conflict.

But even assuming that no other recipient ever explicitly addressed the issue of war's necessity despite the admitted desirability of peace --

Even though everyone knows for a fact that Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Marshall, Kissinger, Tho, Begin, Sadat, Rabin, and Arafat entirely did indeed believe in and practice war as necessary --

Even assuming those two observations are accurate: the only real point you have then is that Barak Obama is far more honest than any previous recipient who serves or has served as head of state.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

"1) Obama should have turned down the Nobel Peace Prize;"

Better characterized as an unsupported opinion. There's nothing pointy about that.

"2) Since he didn’t, the Nobel gold medal / cash prize legally belong to the U.S. Treasury;"

That's not a point. That's a false conclusion based on a willful misinterpretation of facts.

"3) I don't "hate" Barack Obama;"

Demonstrably untrue.

"4) After spending three hours reading every Nobel Peace Prize "Lecture" / acceptance speech ever given, no other recipient argued the merits of war"

Neither did Obama; he noted the inevitability and occasional necessity of war. Are you characterizing his speech as "Pro-war?". Contrarian? Outside the mainstream of Western or American thought? Unheld by any previous recipient? Untrue. Absurd. And irrelevant.

Few people *brag* about wasting their time on tangential points that don't support their argument: Negative points towards credibility and judgment.

"5) Obama said today that every human being has a "divine spark" within them."

That's a fact. Your point remains elusive.

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

Oh yeah:

6) I am posting this from my iPhone.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Here are my points again (for anyone else to address):

1) Obama should have turned down the Nobel Peace Prize;

2) Since he didn’t, the Nobel gold medal / cash prize legally belong to the U.S. Treasury;

3) I don't "hate" Barack Obama;

4) After spending three hours reading every Nobel Peace Prize "Lecture" / acceptance speech ever given, no other recipient argued the merits of war; and (I didn't bring this up before because I knew that GoldAndTanzanite would flip out)

5) Obama said today that every human being has a "divine spark" within them.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

You have raised no points. You've feigned to see a simpleminded contradiction that nobody else agrees with or sees any point in arguing.

It's the same message as all of your posts that aren't about yourself: JakeD hates Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

We get it, and we don't care.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else want to even try addressing the points I raised?

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

OCD is something best kept private, jaked.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

there's no debate to continue

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

To continue the debate . . .

1) Why Obama should have turned down the Nobel Peace Prize:

I was reviewing what I posted here when this award was first announced, but instead of copying large sections from that, I will simply provide the links for anyone who wants to review my position.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/obama-keeps-his-eye-on-the-pri.html

2) Since he didn’t, whether the Nobel gold medal / cash prize legally belong to the U.S. Treasury:

First, let me say that the IRS is, obviously, never going to audit Michelle and Barack Obama, so I realize this is simply an academic exercise. Second, the following assumes arguendo that Obama IS legally President of the United States. As many of you are aware, I am not fully convinced that is, in fact, the case. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, then the Nobel Peace Prize and cash award are his personal property, free and clear, and the following legal analysis does not apply.

If, however, he is President of the United States, the PEOPLE own the Peace Prize and cash award. As the highest representative of the people and government, the President accepts gifts on behalf of the United States of America. There’s no doubt that outright cash payments from foreign governments to federal employees have been banned ever since the adoption of the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 8). All "presents" therefore in excess of a minimal value must be reported and catalogued. As long as the President does not "solicit or coerce" the offering of gifts from such sources, nor accept a gift in return for an official act, the President may accept a gift on his own behalf or on behalf of any family member, provided that such acceptance does not violate § 2635.202(c)(1) or (2), 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) or 201(c)(3). Presidents can also PAY the Treasury for any gifts they choose to keep once they leave office.

What's more, I was surprised to read in Teddy Roosevelt's telegram (below) that he indeed wanted to take personal possession of the Nobel Peace Prize and hand it down as an heirloom to his children. Obviously that did not happen, because the actual Peace Prize gold medal is in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. I wonder if his heirs donated that back to the government at some point. Nonetheless, Obama should do the same, as the Prize (and money) belongs to the American people in the first place.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

One last note: I do not make the arguments above because I "hate" Obama or (as someone suggested earlier "You're going to oppose whatever Obama does") nor did I think that I would ever have really been nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court -- I simply used that as one of many examples of actions that Obama could do that I would not oppose –- the task of the Devil’s Advocate is not an easy one, but one that I take seriously enough so as to not allow my personal feelings to interfere. If Obama turns the Nobel Peace Prize / cash award over, as just another example, I would not oppose that.

BTW: I could just as easily play the Devil’s Advocate for the Bush Administration actions, which I personally agreed with more often than not.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

With all that being said, I believe that I have devoted more time and effort advancing my side of this debate than anyone has in rebutting it thus far. As I said, if anyone wants to discuss these points in a civil manner, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

And if the great surge works, and if we "succeed" in Afghanistan, what then? How are we any better off, and what will we have gained?

The Afghan people have no trust in Karzai, nor should they, and no matter how well we succeed in putting down the Taliban there won't be a government people trust in to take its place .. it's only the fact that the government is so untrusted that the Taliban is gaining ground in the first place.

We'll be billions poorer, there'll be more dead and maimed soldiers, and movements like the Taliban will still draw support.

It really sounds like we're throwing good money after bad because giving up would "look bad," and that isn't what we had in mind when we elected someone to replace George Bush.

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

O.K., I made it through all of them back to 1901, quite a few different perspectives, but not a single Nobel PEACE Prize acceptance speech which made the argument as to the merits of WAR -- yes, I realize that is only a "tiny little slice of reality" (especially since Gen. Marshall personally waged war himself) but that was exactly the tiny slice included in my question to Aprogressiveindependent way back at 3:31 PM -- if he/she had any issue about the parameters of said question, none was proffered. I have also noted that TODAY was Obama's Nobel Lecture, which did make the argument FOR war. That's the only question I asked about. I look forward to the return of “Aprogressiveindependent” or anyone else who is willing to debate the issue in a civil manner.

In the meantime:

Why I think that Obama should have turned down this award . . . and, since he didn’t, whether the cash prize legally belongs to the U.S. Treasury.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Well, this is the closest that Teddy Roosevelt got to the line (but even he did not cross it like Barack Obama did today):

"Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality."

Interestingly, TR did not, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, feel at liberty to keep the cash prize:

"I think it eminently just and proper that in most cases the recipient of the prize should keep for his own use the prize in its entirety. But in this case, while I did not act officially as President of the United States, it was nevertheless only because I was President that I was enabled to act at all; and I felt that the money must be considered as having been given me in trust for the United States."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1906/roosevelt-lecture.html

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Just finished Wilson's telegram, including your excerpt. No argument on the merits of WAR in any PEACE Prize speech so far -- and, no, I am not saying that Obama made a "mistake" to justify a WAR he is escalating whilst receiving a PEACE Prize -- I was asking whether anyone has ever done that before.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

In English, please?

==

That's really easy German, Jake

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that was just a joke, but,

are you actually arguing Obama was making a mistake trying to justify a war he was escalating whilst receiving a peace prize?

Just say so.

If so, everyone has to agree, it is mighty peculiar, no doubt about it. The other part of today's oddity is that most liberals and conservatives seem to agree, we have no choice but to do this thing, it is like, our cross to bear.

Can't figure it out, but as I said before...

The worst thing pundits on the right can say about Obama's war policy & Peace Prize speech is that he is growing up, sounds like Bush, etc. A Kumbaya moment? The end of partisan warfare? Nah. It just means Obama is a well constructed moderate. He is displeasing only the far left (I am, for example, displeased, though not outraged; plus, I hope, sincerely hope to be wrong and that Obama is right) and of course, the surrealists, the far right.

The next interesting POTUS election will be in 2016. I guess we can keep barking at each other until then.

gotta run

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Here's the CLOSEST I've found so far. In 1953, George C. Marshall described the brutal invasion of South Korea by the Communists and his subsequent:

". . . duty, my responsibility, to rebuild our national military strength in the very face of the gravest emergencies.

These opening remarks may lead you to assume that my suggestions for the advancement of world peace will rest largely on military strength. For the moment the maintenance of peace in the present hazardous world situation does depend in very large measure on military power, together with Allied cohesion."

Yep, that's it!!! BUT then he dashed it all with the very next sentence:

". . . the maintenance of large armies for an indefinite period is not a practical or a promising basis for policy. We must stand together strongly for these present years, that is, in this present situation; but we must, I repeat, we must find another solution, and that is what I wish to discuss this evening.

There has been considerable comment over the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a soldier. I am afraid this does not seem as remarkable to me as it quite evidently appears to others. I know a great deal of the horrors and tragedies of war. Today, as chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission, it is my duty to supervise the construction and maintenance of military cemeteries in many countries overseas, particularly in Western Europe. The cost of war in human lives is constantly spread before me, written neatly in many ledgers whose columns are gravestones. I am deeply moved to find some means or method of avoiding another calamity of war. Almost daily I hear from the wives, or mothers, or families of the fallen. The tragedy of the aftermath is almost constantly before me."

Gen. Marshall went on to outline Three Essentials of Peace. No where in his speech did he JUSTIFY war like Obama did today.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1953/marshall-lecture.html

I'll let you know if Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt did.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

In English, please?

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Wenn meine Erinnerung noch dicht bleibt, man sagt, "eine ewige, vollkommende Scheibe."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Even Dr. Henry Kissinger, who certainly advocated for WAR, did not take the occasion of accepting* the Nobel PEACE Prize in 1973 to argue their merits.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/kissinger-acceptance.html

*As the Laureate was unable to be present on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1973, the acceptance speech was read by Thomas R. Byrne, Ambassador of the United States to Norway.

P.S. to shrink2 -- I will review the entirety of Wilson's acceptance in due course, but you are not claiming that he was arguing FOR war in that excerpt, are you?

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

No one is interested in a moment to moment update on your poor reading comprehension skills, jaked. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

==

The part that makes the head spin is that he seems to believe he's actually making a point.

After all it's called the PEACE prize, so it must be a contradiction to accept it when your nation is in a WAR.

Simply unfathomably dense. I don't want to think too much about living with such a shabby and inadequate mind.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"May I not take this occasion to express my respect for the far-sighted wisdom of the founder in arranging for a continuing system of awards? If there were but one such prize, or if this were to be the last, I could not of course accept it. For mankind has not yet been rid of the unspeakable horror of war. I am convinced that our generation has, despite its wounds, made notable progress. But it is the better part of wisdom to consider our work as one begun. It will be a continuing labor. In the indefinite course of [the] years before us there will be abundant opportunity for others to distinguish themselves in the crusade against hate and fear and war."

Woodrow Wilson.

(he was too sick to attend so he sent a letter)

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind."

There are so many examples it's embarrassing to contemplate how willfully blind he is to make the assertion. Of course, he'll weasel and claim that he meant "in their Nobel lecture." And even in that tiny little slice of reality he's chosen to obsess over, he's still wrong.

It's just sad, actually. And yes, I know you don't care what I think jaked. I should think you'd have a modicum of concern for your own dignity, however.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

It's not "moment to moment" and I am not the one with poor reading comprehension. I'm just giving highlights. From 1977:

"We are gratified for this acknowledgement that the concern for peace and the promotion of human rights are inseparable. Peace is not to be measured by the absence of conventional war, but constructed upon foundations of justice. Where there is injustice, there is the seed of conflict. Where human rights are violated, there are threats to peace.

This conviction has been central to the evolution of the contemporary philosophy of international human rights. The two World Wars in the first half of this century unleashed a wave of previously unthinkable destruction. The toll of human life and the shadow of human extermination by thermonuclear war led inevitably to the search for a new order in which armed conflict would never rise again.

Thus it was when the newly formed United Nations turned to consideration of the tap roots of war and the construction of a peaceful society, it began to work on an International Bill of Rights. The first step was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in the belief that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1977/amnesty-lecture.html

P.S. to bsimon, I'll let you know when I get to Teddy's Lecture.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"Has there ever been another Nobel PEACE Prize recipient who argued the merits of WAR?"


Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 10, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

No one is interested in a moment to moment update on your poor reading comprehension skills, jaked. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

1984, still nothing. It did remind me of Ronald Reagan, when asked how his meeting went with Desmond Tutu, replying: "So so."

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Just got an email from Congressman Jim McDermott looking for donations to fund congressional opposition to funding the escalation.

"I don't buy it," he says, and I agree. Afghanistan isn't a threat to the USA and nothing important pivots on whether or not we achieve anything we can call "victory," whether it's with a straight face or not. It'll still be a desolate failed state with no central authority and with strong fundamentalist movements .. the only difference is that we'll be a few hundred billion dollars poorer and there will be a lot of fresh headstones at Arlington and maimed soldiers in Walter Reed.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm back to 1989, and still no arguments on the merits of (or justification for) WAR. I am not a pacifist, but that's irrelvant to my point. I did find this from the Dali Lama to contrast with today's speech:

". . . violence can only breed more violence and suffering, our struggle must remain nonviolent and free of hatred. We are trying to end the suffering of our people, not to inflict suffering upon others.

It is with this in mind that I proposed negotiations between Tibet and China on numerous occasions. In 1987, I made specific proposals in a five-point plan for the restoration of peace and human rights in Tibet. This included the conversion of the entire Tibetan plateau into a Zone of Ahimsa, a sanctuary of peace and nonviolence where human beings and nature can live in peace and harmony."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1989/lama-acceptance.html

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

I guess he's taking a break from counting the angels dancing on the head of his pin.

==

No he's waiting until he's recharged so he can spank it to Palin's legs again.

What a stupid point ... JakeD the pacifist, yeah like anyone buys that.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

From the CBS link provided below:

"As President Obama wrapped up his remarks at the acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize Thursday, it's easy to imagine the members of the Nobel Committee saying to themselves, "wait –- we gave it to that guy?"

After all, the general consensus among commentators was that Mr. Obama had won the prize because he represented such a change from his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose rhetoric and foreign policy were anathema to most Europeans.

And yet while Mr. Obama offered a nuanced speech laying out what some have already started to call an Obama Doctrine, he also made an unmistakable argument for the legitimacy of war – sometimes using the sort of phrases that called to mind the very words of the man he replaced.

"Evil does exist in the world," Mr. Obama said as part of a long argument in favor of the concept of a "just war."

That line brought to mind Mr. Bush's repeated invocation of evil –- including his argument in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that "our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."

President Obama said there are times when "the use of force [is] not only necessary but morally justified"; he argued that he "cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people."

Cue Mr. Bush on the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 2003: "Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups or seeks to possess weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted."

Mr. Obama also made the case for American exceptionalism, an attitude associated more with his predecessor.

. . . [I]t was also a speech in defense of war –- and an argument that America alone should not shoulder the burden for waging it.

"I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it," he said. "Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries."

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Or is it the pin of his head? One or the other.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I guess he's taking a break from counting the angels dancing on the head of his pin.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

You're not bright enough to argue a small claims case, Jake, you must live in fantasy to think you're eligible for any presidential appointment, much less a high one.

A bright red balloon loaded with hot emotional air, floating off into an azure sky sparkly with Unreal Things.

You must be a teenager.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm back to Kofi Annon's speech (they call them "Lectures") in 2001. Still no argument as to the merits for -- or even the "justification" of -- WAR. It is a PEACE Prize after all ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama had nominated me to the Supreme Court rather than Sonia Sotomayor, I would not have opposed that."

And yet a third example of your poor judgment.

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

Replace the words "merit" with "necessity" and you would not be misrepresenting the speech.

How many laureates can you name who were heads of state of a nation currently at war? It's rather difficult to avoid the topic of war when you lead a nation that is actually at war. That you find this of sinister significance is yet another testament to the low value of your judgment.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

If Obama had nominated me to the Supreme Court rather than Sonia Sotomayor, I would not have opposed that.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

And if Obama had decided to withdraw troops without escalating you uh people would be against that too. You're going to oppose whatever Obama does, so your opinion is of no concern. Your views are perfectly predictable and reflexive, it's not as though you're a thinking person or something.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Everyone else can compare past Nobel PEACE Prize speeches to today's for themselves:

"Obama Nobel Peace Prize Speech Channels George W. Bush"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5962550.shtml

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama didn't "argue the merits of WAR."

He made a decision about how to wind down our existing involvement in a war that another president got us into.

I know it's hard when you're so busy defending Sarah Palin but please, try to keep up, at least with the basic facts.

And oh, there are no "lurkers," and nobody who reads these blogs takes you seriously. You've been caught lying too many times and you don't write coherently to start with.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

nodebris (I couldn't care less about your opinion of me, but for the lurkers who don't post):

As to the question I posed, I've been reading through the past Nobel PEACE Prize recipients' acceptance speeches and, so far, none have argued the merits of WAR. You can start reading for yourself with last year's recipient, Martti Ahtisaari . . .

http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/21358/32/

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"Has there ever been another Nobel PEACE Prize recipient who argued the merits of WAR?"

Leaving aside your intentionally misleading formulation "argued the merits," the answer is obviously, yes, several times. Frequent displays of ignorance like that are why your opinion is so severely discounted here.

Posted by: nodebris | December 10, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

No bsimon, he said "We have no choice in the matter." That is not hyperbole, that is false (and sadly similar to the rallying cries made by all commanders before all military adventures). Then reason5 made bizarre statements in support of this falsehood. Then you said nice post.

I disagree, there are in fact good reasons to support the President, but casting the conduct of the AfPak war and the surge-and-leave policy as something about which we have no choice is wrong.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

reason5's larger point that we should stand behind the President's decision whether we agree with him ideologically or not is a good one. Picking apart his rhetoric supporting that point is to miss it.

==

uh, wow.

Execrable reasoning to support an incidentally sound position is still execrable reasoning.

My view is opposite yours. Whether one agrees with the escalation or not (and I disagree with it), to base one's position on a steaming heap of teabagger anger at liberals and eye-rolling about an imaginary holy war with Islam is no better than basing the opposite position on the same thing.

The fact that people who base their reasoning on such irrelevant paranoia should give you pause.

William Kristol likes the escalation too and when has he been right about anything?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Aprogressiveindependent:

Has there ever been another Nobel PEACE Prize recipient who argued the merits of WAR? I still think he should have turned down this award.

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

"Whenever I am presented with an either we do this thing that looks pretty bad or we have to do that absurd other option argument, I smell red herring."

Those of us who have never hyperbolized to make a point should cast the first aspersion. I am not eligible to criticize on that score. I don't think drindl or shrink2 are either.

reason5's larger point that we should stand behind the President's decision whether we agree with him ideologically or not is a good one. Picking apart his rhetoric supporting that point is to miss it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 10, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, many human beings seem to like war. In nearly every country that has gone to war in history, seldom for true humanitarian reasons, a majority support the war as long as their country has relatively low causalities. Most people north and south supported war in 1861, most Europeans supported war in 1914, most Americans supported the Vietnam war in 1965, most supported the Iraq invasion, occupation in 2004, etc.

A majority support Obama's military escalation in another nation's civil war. Seems as if many people will never learn from the mistakes of the past.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | December 10, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK is right re. drindl, who is the most vile poster on this blog.
No one is more hatefull, viceous, dishonest, and uses gutter-like name-calling than her.

==

This from the guy who refers to black Americans as "ghetto trash" and American-born Latinos as "illegal aliens" and gay Americans as "homos."

You're not even a stale joke, just another lousy bigot who missed the bus.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Those folks, the 39%, that believe American shouldn't be involved in the Afghan conflict are either liberal's who hate America or are dillussional and don't understand the nature of the conflict between Middle Eastern Muslim countries and the rest of the world. To be clear, no matter if we want to be at war with these groups or not, we are.

==

Until this morning I regarded bsimon1 as an exemplary poster. After he praised this drivel my opinion dropped pretty sharply.

Reason's post is garbage, polemical assertions without support. To refer to principled opposition to an expensive war as "America hating" isn't even worth discussing, much less praising.

You READ it, bsimon?

Israel's "right to exist?" A nonsense phrase. How much marriage urges a windmill to pinch infinity? And why should the US bleed good men into the rocks of Afghanistan to support a lousy apartheid Middle Eastern country? Let Joe Lieberman look after Israel and let's work to turn him out to pasture. It's not a US problem.

Anyway, back to the war .. we "win," we "lose," what's the difference? It's still going to be the same failed state, it's still going to be home to the Taliban or some successor just like them, it's not going to be a secular democracy no matter how much we bleed.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 10, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Something intelligent to counter the stooges:

The second reason why the recovery has nothing to do with Obamanomics is that the economy naturally recovers on its own. We don't even remember the business cycle anymore, because Reaganomics was so successful in eliminating it, with 25 years of almost uninterrupted economic growth. But the term business cycle, means the economy naturally goes up as well as down. Every morning people get up and try to figure out how to make their business prosper again, or find a new job. Over time, this process will naturally lead to recovery. That is why the average recession since World War II has ended in 10 months. Barack Obama's Keynesian economics has nothing to do with it. The economy was always naturally going to recover on its own, and should have long before now, if Obama's neo-socialism hadn't gotten in the way.

In sharp contrast, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich held his own job summits last week, in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Jackson, Mississippi. Based on what he has heard from small business leaders there and across America, Gingrich has proposed his own jobs plan. While Gingrich was Speaker of the House, federal spending growth was at its lowest level since the 1920s. Gingrich says, "We can apply the same principles that worked then to create jobs and four straight balanced budgets through smaller government, less spending, lower interest rates, and less debt."

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

we now have stereo idiocy.

flush the thread.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

You mean "civil" like attacking the Washington Post as having been duped, bullied, or dumbed down into printing a "disgracefully dishonest editorial by the scientifically ignorant Sarah Palin"? Talk about ad hominem personal attacks. Why not discuss the MERITS of her points instead?

==

There is no merit in her "op-ed."

Sarah Palin is not only ignorant, she is a champion of ignorance and she equates education with spinelessness.

She's also, like you, a revealed liar.

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

crawling on his fat belly to rush's fat belly:

Hate radio talker Rush Limbaugh is “criticizing” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for allowing Democrats “to debate and vote on amendments” during the health care debate. He has “questioned McConnell’s strategy a few times” this week, “joining a chorus of growing critics.” McConnell aides called Limbaugh’s show to explain, but he “did not seem to buy it.”

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

incoherent:

A constant whine of congressional Republicans about health care reform is that the legislation is just too long and too complicated. “All you need to know is there are 1,990 pages,” griped House Minority Leader John Boehner about the House bill. “It is longer than War and Peace and not near as funny,” said Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX). As the Washington Times has noted, Republican senators have “rotated three other copies of the bill among their desks so a giant stack is never more than a desk or two away from any senator who wants to thump it, poke it or heft it for viewers to see.” But today, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) opened the 11th day of Senate debate by arguing that the bill is not long enough:

And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The average recession since World War II, which is 65 years ago by now, has been 10 months. The longest previously was 16 months. We have now suffered through almost 24 months since this recession started. The recession may ultimately be officially scored as ending a couple of months ago. But it will still be the longest recession since World War II by far. Keynesian Obamanomics has already failed to end the recession in a timely manner.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Please ask Dr. Landsea about the "alarm bells" about the connection between climate change and hurricanes.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Interesting piece on America's global warming politics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8405108.stm

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who don't know, the reference to "AR4" is the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with AR5 expected out in 2014 -- assuming we all survive past 2012, of course ; )

In January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who was already an author on the previous 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in AR4 claiming that the portion of the IPCC to which he contributed had indeed become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns with no explanation. He therefore published an open letter explaining why he was resigning and to "bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process". That specific conflict centered around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Dr. Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". Dr. Landsea has stated that the process of producing the Fourth Assessment Report was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound" noting that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author."

Would you have believed this same OpEd had it been written Dr. Landsea instead? (what a name for someone who studies hurricanes ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK is right re. drindl, who is the most vile poster on this blog.
No one is more hatefull, viceous, dishonest, and uses gutter-like name-calling than her. Yet she'll cry crocodile tears of outrage whenever others do the same to her. Her Sarah Palin cheap-shots and hatefull name calling is so over the top of all human decency, that she shouldn't be allowed out of the cellar of the outhouse she probably lives in.

Posted by: armpeg | December 10, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"he's making the point that our two options of neutralizing the threat from obl / aq are: neutralize them, or change our behavior to remove their incentive"

Agree with drindl.

Whenever I am presented with an either we do this thing that looks pretty bad or we have to do that absurd other option argument, I smell red herring. It is ok to think there were other better options, I and many others have explicated them in detail (no, not cut and run).

But we are not going to do anything else, we are going to surge and leave, the issue is moot. I support the President.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Cherry pick.

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

I think it's a straw man, that's all. First, suggesting that anyone who is against any war 'hates America' is revolting. Some people actually care that our young soldiers are dying -- is that 'hating America,' or is that caring about Americans?

"neutralizing them' etc -- fine. There are different ways of doing this, and that is where the reasonable discussion lies, not in a hysterical denounciation of people with principled arguements again war.

Third, no one has ever suggested that we denounce Israel, et al That simply is not in the equation and is out of nowhere. To say that there are only two ways to deal with the situation -- endless war or rolling over to play dead -- is so simplistic as to be meaningless.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

Smoking gun or cherry-picked, you decide.

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

drindl writes
"[reason writes]
'We have no choice in the matter. America's only options: do we denounce Israel's right to exist, denounce Democracy & take up Islamic law & become like them?"

Nice, bsimon? Did you actually read it?"

I did. If you have a rebuttal for him, please post it. While the construct is a touch on the hyperbolic side, he's making the point that our two options of neutralizing the threat from obl / aq are: neutralize them, or change our behavior to remove their incentive to attack. The latter would include denouncing Israel, at a minimum. Implementing Sharia would earn us a guaranteed free pass. If you see an alternative he missed, an interesting discussion might ensue. The floor is yours.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 10, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.......
Here is a timeline of how this phony 'scandal' was concocted and spread:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climate-gate-timeline/


Posted by: drindl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

the signature does not match the author of this post. Please remove it and seek to block this person from violating the rules of this blog further.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"In mid-November, thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit webmail server — a top climate research center in the United Kingdom — were hacked and dumped on a Russian web server. Polluter-funded climate skeptics, along with their allies in conservative media and the Republican Party, sifted through the e-mails, and quickly cherry picked quotes to falsely accuse climate scientists of concocting climate change science out of whole cloth.

The skeptics also propelled the story, dubbed “Climategate,” to the cover of the New York Times and newspapers across the globe. According to a Nexis news search, the Climategate story has been reported at least 325 times in the American press alone.

While the hacked e-mails may reveal that scientists might not have nice things to say about climate change deniers at times, they do nothing to change the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use are raising temperatures and making oceans more acidic.

As the right attempts to use the Climategate story to derail the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference this week, arctic sea ice is still at historically low levels, Australia is still on fire, the northern United Kingdom is still underwater, the world’s glaciers are still disappearing and today NOAA confirmed that not only is it the hottest decade in history, but 2009 was one of the hottest years in history. But how did the right-wing noise machine hijack the debate?

The methods for the right-wing political hit machine were honed during the Clinton years. Columnist and language-guru William Safire, a former aide to actual Watergate crook President Nixon, attached “-gate” to any minor post-Nixon incident as a “rhetorical legerdemain” intended “to establish moral equivalence.” (See phony manufactured scandals “Travelgate,” “Whitewatergate,” etc.)

A right-wing echo chamber — including the Rev. Moon-funded Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, talk radio, and the constellation of various conservative front groups and think tanks — would then blare the scandal incessantly, regardless of the truth. But the more troubling aspect of this gimmick is the increasing willingness for traditional media outlets, from the Evening News to the Washington Post, to largely reprint unfounded right-wing smears without context or critical reporting."

Here is a timeline of how this phony 'scandal' was concocted and spread:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climate-gate-timeline/

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Snippets from the East Anglia leak . . .

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from the Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded date for independent examination."

Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the CRU director.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Global-warming-consensus_-garbage-in_-garbage-out-8595100-76438787.html

Why should we trust these people?

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

So, no one from CRU or NASA has manipulated temperature data?

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

". Why not discuss the MERITS of her points instead?
"

There are no merits, just lies.

Posted by: tru-indy | December 10, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Coo coo

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Coo coo

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

DO YOU HAVE RULES OR NOT?

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

*******************CHRIS CILLIZZA*******************************

I have already spoken to the ombudsman about the personal attacks and stalking. This person has stepped over legal lines and I ask you to do something about this before someone else does.


"drivl accusing others of personal attacks. the loon is still having the we/they issue. the voices, the voices.

there is no more vile creature day after day, hour after hour, in fact, minute by minute.
Posted by: ZOUK

*****************************************************************

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

Someone ought to tell the Trees that CO2 is poisonous. someone should tell al gore that crops grow in warm weather and there are a lot of starving people. while they are at it, someone ought to tell him that science is not a loud and insisting sort of thing, it is fact and proof. that would ruin this con man's income though. someone should tell him things are now cooling and he needs a new name for his rip off.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

drivl accusing others of personal attacks. the loon is still having the we/they issue. the voices, the voices.

there is no more vile creature day after day, hour after hour, in fact, minute by minute. the mountain of evidence is clear.

If anyone dares to mimic her nastiness, she is always the first to cry to mommy.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse


*************CHRIS CILLIZZA**************************

THIS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT - CONSTANT PERSONAL ATTACKS. DO YOU HAVE RULES OR NOT?


" all drivl knows is insult and ignorance.
Posted by: ZOUK |

**************************************************************

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Why not discuss the MERITS of her points instead?

Posted by: JakeD


drivl discuss the merits. funny. all drivl knows is insult and ignorance. Yet she accuses others of stealing her schtick. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

but she has run everyone off so there is no one left to annoy except for CF8.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Wow the worst thing pundits on the right can say about Obama's war policy & Peace Prize speech is that he is growing up, sounds like Bush, etc. A Kumbaya moment? The end of partisan warfare? Nah. It just means Obama is a well constructed moderate. He is displeasing only the far left (I am, for example, displeased, though not outraged; plus, I hope sincerely hope to be wrong and that Obama is right) and of course, the surrealists, the far right.

The next interesting POTUS election will be in 2016. I guess we can keep barking at each other until then.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Since the Post has decided to give a science illiterate a megaphone, a message from someone with an actual functioning brain:

"GORE DOESN'T SUFFER FOOLS GLADLY.... John Dickerson chatted with Al Gore this week. The Nobel laureate and former vice president was apparently not in the mood to tolerate stupidity.

"[W]e're putting 90 million tons of it into the air today and we'll put a little more of that up there tomorrow. The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God's sakes. It's not some mystery. One hundred and fifty years ago this year, John Tyndall discovered CO2 traps heat, and that was the same year the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania. The oil industry has outpaced the building of a public consensus of the implications of climate science.

"But the basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they [global warming deniers] think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto! -- physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn't trap heat anymore? And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it? The scientists have long held that the evidence in their considered word is 'unequivocal,' which has been endorsed by every national academy of science in every major country in the entire world.

"If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now."

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"Those folks, the 39%, that believe American shouldn't be involved in the Afghan conflict are either liberal's who hate America or are dillussional'

'We have no choice in the matter. America's only options: do we denounce Israel's right to exist, denounce Democracy & take up Islamic law & become like them?"

Nice, bsimon? Did you actually read it?

'liberals who hate America' and then the red herring about denouncing Israel and democracy? I used to think this guy was rational. Should have known better.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse


URGENT TO: TEAM OBAMA, JOHN BRENNAN, DENNIS BLAIR, A.G. HOLDER, SEC. NAPOLITANO, SEC. GATES
cc: D. AXELROD / R. EMANUEL / V. JARRETT / R. GIBBS / JAY CARNEY

Your security/military/intel apparatus is committing atrocities and civil liberties infringements against unconstitutionally "targeted" American citizens -- many of whom were "put on a list" as "dissidents" or undesirables. When will you act to stop this?

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM TORTURES, IMPAIRS, PERSECUTES THOUSANDS OF U.S. CITIZENS WITH NATIONWIDE SILENT MICROWAVE / LASER CELL TOWER/SATELLITE ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS SYSTEMS, FED-ENABLED, POLICE-PROTECTED VIGILANTISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

• A Bush-Cheney spawned American Gestapo continues to commit serious civil and human rights violations under President Obama.

TEAM OBAMA, CONGRESS MUST ASK: What do they know -- and when did they know it?

• Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan
• FEMA Director Craig Fugate
• NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander
• Former JSOC Commander Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal
• DIA Director Maj. Gen. Michael Maples
• DOJ Asst. Atty. Gen./National Security David Kris
• CIA Deputy Director Stephen Kappes
• FBI Director Robert Mueller

http://nowpublic.com/world/obama-wrong-west-point-u-s-does-torture-its-own-citizens
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
nowpublic.com/world/govt-tortures-me-silent-microwave-weapons-ousted-s-prez OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" -- Also see, "GOV'T TORTURES ME WITH SILENT MICROWAVE WEAPONS, SAYS EX-HONNDURAS PREZ"


Posted by: scrivener50 | December 10, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

reason5-
nice post

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 10, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The MERITS of Palin's arguments? Too rich, really, too funny. This blog is now officially in the toilet. There are actually blogs with moderators who keep the discussion from becoming an infantile joke, as this has now become.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

You mean "civil" like attacking the Washington Post as having been duped, bullied, or dumbed down into printing a "disgracefully dishonest editorial by the scientifically ignorant Sarah Palin"? Talk about ad hominem personal attacks. Why not discuss the MERITS of her points instead?

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS CILLIZA ---

You said you wanted to do something about the tone in this this section. You will notice it was civil up to now oday -- and then this. I get this kind of nasty, infantile personal attack on here every single day, from the same two posters.

If you want civility, do something about this poster and his buddy Jaked, who are the worst offenders on this blog, who are here ONLY to attack regular posters and DISRUPT CONVERSATION. You have been told this by MANY posters.

If you want civility, ban these two:

"the loony leftist moonbat is not pleased and has some idea that anyone cares what she thinks."
Examine the evidence. the moonbat is not in the paper, she is on the blog.":
Posted by: ZOUK

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I commend President Obama for standing up for the war on terror. He believes 30,000 troops is enough after evaluation, so I say support the mission & support the President. Those folks, the 39%, that believe American shouldn't be involved in the Afghan conflict are either liberal's who hate America or are dillussional and don't understand the nature of the conflict between Middle Eastern Muslim countries and the rest of the world. To be clear, no matter if we want to be at war with these groups or not, we are. Were at war because they choose to be at war with us. We have no choice in the matter. America's only options: do we denounce Israel's right to exist, denounce Democracy & take up Islamic law & become like them? Do we stand on democratic principles and just allow them to militarily take this nation without fighting back? Do we defend our freedoms through war? I believe we defend our freedoms through war. To be clear, I'm a conservative Republican, but I'm an American first. President Obama sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to defend our freedom and I say support the mission, the troops & the President. President Obama says he has a goal to get us out in 2011, but that goal surely will depend on ground conditions. That's why I must say support this mission. I give my props to President Obama for standing up to the liberal base and supporting the security of the nation.

Posted by: reason5 | December 10, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Surprise, surprise, the far-left liberal Socialists commenting here trying to flim-flam and excuse the man-made global warming Climatgate scam, still believe the Al Gore fairy tale nonsense, and are sliming the messengers rather than the message. It figures though, since none have an IQ over their shoe size, and man-made Global Warming has become their religeous cults Bible to be believed no matter what.
Only a total moron would still believe that man-made global warming is going on, after the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia in Norwich, England--whose data on global temperatures has been the major source relied on by the aholes who believe this BS--has been outed as dishonest and distorted, by cult-like coverups and suppression of all conflicting data. To these Chicken Little's "the-sky-is-falling", "the-end-of-the-world-is-near" dopes, facts don't matter. The only thing that they care about is that their religious cult's bible of always blaming America and Western culture first for anything bad going on, is preserved. It doesn't matter to them that we've had no global warming since 1998; that we've had only a one degree temperature rise since 1878; that we've actually had global cooling since 2005, and that last year more than 31,000 scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D's, signed a petion sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine REJECTING claims of man-made global warming, and these aholes here still believe Al Gore's Bulls***. Unbelievable!
Sarah Palin who--unlike the knuckledragging lowbrows here that should be inside cages in zoo's for their own protection--is right on and one smart woman.

Posted by: armpeg | December 10, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Good point, ZOUK. Did you know that there is also "Global Warming" happening on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter . . .

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

No humans causing that though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 10, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Governor Palin is writing editorials and influencing policy.

the loony leftist moonbat is not pleased and has some idea that anyone cares what she thinks.

Examine the evidence. the moonbat is not in the paper, she is on the blog.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 10, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Gator ron writes
"The taliban have a strategic advantage in Afghanistan; they are hardly going to squander that advantage by hiding in the woodworks until we leave."

I too heard the story MiA refers to; I thought Gen McChrystal's point about the Taliban was interesting; to paraphrase: "The Taliban have a track record, and it is not one of accomplishment." He conceded that the Karzai gov't likewise has a negative track record with the average Afghani. However, that gives us an opening we might use to take advantage & recover some credibility squandered over the last several years.

And then get out.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 10, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse


Margaret, i just thought it was a sad day, and a depressing reflection on the Washington Post and political discourse in general. We allow the extraction industry lobbyists to write our laws, and we are now allowing their puppets to write our 'news' and opinions as well.

They own this country, lock, stock and oil barrel.

The Washington Post owes us all in apology for helping foist this fraud upon us, and for throwing a deliberate wrench into the works in Copenhagen.

For shame.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

mnt, my cheeks still have a rash from your post yesterday, what the Hell were we (not) thinking?

Too many football scrubs who didn't like all those rules anyway, who just wanted to smash little guys. My whole experience of a scrum was being trampled, curled in the fetal position, hoping the feet groping for the ball were my hookers' not theirs. But enough of that, I have to look at my nose every morning, talk about bending the curve...

drindl, the comically stupid Sarah Palin invokes the specter of "junk science" as if she were educated or even capable of understanding. Still Republicans welcome her Facebook (and of course, WaPo) position on global warming even as they attacked Al Gore's credentials to speak on the topic for years. Shameless, but thats not news.

Anyway, we need Sarah to force feed her opinions to all Bush/Cheney voters she can. That way, to mock Lou Barletta, we won't just have to ignore them, we can forget about them.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, drindl.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 10, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

CC:
Thanks for the political gossip/news. This is the stuff I come to read every day.

shrink2:
Thanks for the link. We've bandied about on this board including those types of clinics in the health care bill. It's good to know that the idea is getting more practice in the real world.

Posted by: mnteng | December 10, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Something I wanted to set straight, since the Washington Post has been duped, bullied, or dumbed down into printing a disgracefully dishonest editorial by the scientifically ignorant Sarah Palin.

"In mid-November, thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit webmail server — a top climate research center in the United Kingdom — were hacked and dumped on a Russian web server. Polluter-funded climate skeptics, along with their allies in conservative media and the Republican Party, sifted through the e-mails, and quickly cherry picked quotes to falsely accuse climate scientists of concocting climate change science out of whole cloth.

The skeptics also propelled the story, dubbed “Climategate,” to the cover of the New York Times and newspapers across the globe. According to a Nexis news search, the Climategate story has been reported at least 325 times in the American press alone.

While the hacked e-mails may reveal that scientists might not have nice things to say about climate change deniers at times, they do nothing to change the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use are raising temperatures and making oceans more acidic.

As the right attempts to use the Climategate story to derail the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference this week, arctic sea ice is still at historically low levels, Australia is still on fire, the northern United Kingdom is still underwater, the world’s glaciers are still disappearing and today NOAA confirmed that not only is it the hottest decade in history, but 2009 was one of the hottest years in history. But how did the right-wing noise machine hijack the debate?

The methods for the right-wing political hit machine were honed during the Clinton years. Columnist and language-guru William Safire, a former aide to actual Watergate crook President Nixon, attached “-gate” to any minor post-Nixon incident as a “rhetorical legerdemain” intended “to establish moral equivalence.” (See phony manufactured scandals “Travelgate,” “Whitewatergate,” etc.) A right-wing echo chamber — including the Rev. Moon-funded Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, talk radio, and the constellation of various conservative front groups and think tanks — would then blare the scandal incessantly, regardless of the truth. But the more troubling aspect of this gimmick is the increasing willingness for traditional media outlets, from the Evening News to the Washington Post, to largely reprint unfounded right-wing smears without context or critical reporting."

Here is a timeline of how this phony 'scandal' was concocted and spread:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climate-gate-timeline/

and make no mistake, the timing of this to coincide with, and consequently derail, any progress at Copenhagen, was quite deliberate.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Yes indeed, this is just the model we want. It is not an experiment or a pilot project, it is evidence based practice.

Reform reactionaries think there is some way to not pay for the health care of poor people. Truth is we either pay into this model and save lots of money (and lives!), or we pay as we are now and lose and lose and lose.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

shrink, thanx for the link. Do you know about the SF clinics? Public-private partnership that opened @45 clinics in SF and assigned everyone a "home" clinic. Sliding scale fees, indigent services, no one but true emergencies in the ER. It is saving significantly on aggregate costs and on consumer costs, as well.
-------------------------------------------
GatorRon, I think you made an apt comparison to the recovery program.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 10, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Here is an example of real health care reform. If you want to improve outcomes and cut costs, you want to keep indigent people healthy, or at least out of the ER.

This is how...

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/12/89_million_in_stimulus_money_g.html

Posted by: shrink2 | December 10, 2009 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Mark, that is well said. Similar comments could be made about the economic program for recovery.

The taliban have a strategic advantage in Afghanistan; they are hardly going to squander that advantage by hiding in the woodworks until we leave.

I have confidence in the decision making power of the president but more importantly that he will not ignore errors in his plan and correct them. Going forward we may need other operations similar to Afghanistan and the president has set a standard for transparency of action. The lack of transparency in Iraq allowed the former president to hold steadfastly to a failing plan for too long.

Posted by: Gator-ron | December 10, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

I'd say the White House is far more interested in domestic poll results than anything on Afghanistan.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | December 10, 2009 8:04 AM | Report abuse

I just listened to an interview with Gen. McCh on NPR. He projected an understanding of COIN and of Afg that was reassuring. But in doing so he also reflected the reservations of so many in the polls. Thus the duality of Am Op is merely a reflection of the complexity of the actual situation, and for once indicates a collective consciousness that is fact based, IMO.

That is more reassuring than polls about beliefs in guardian angels, to me.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 10, 2009 7:26 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company