Community | December 11, 2009 | 62 comments

Left and right, pundits applaud Obama Nobel Peace Prize speech

source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1210/left-and-right-pundits-applaud-obama-nobel-p...

Image
neocongo
...more noteworthy is the largely positive, or at least hopeful, tone of reaction across the political spectrum. From conservative former House speaker Newt Gingrich to writers at the liberal Nation magazine, the insta-analyses found hope in Obama’s words, either in his justification for the war in Afghanistan or in his ultimate aspiration: to replace war with peace.

“I thought the speech was actually very good,” Mr. Gingrich said on the WNYC radio’s The Takeaway. “And he clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said, that there is evil in the world.”



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1210/left-and-right-pundits-applaud-o...
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics
  2. tags:
    President Obama,  Conservatives,  Liberals,  Nobel Peace Prize,  2 more
  3.     
    |

62 comments // Left and right, pundits applaud Obama Nobel Peace Prize speech

  • J_Jammer
  • Sugarfree1
  • Jenny_Sanderlin
    • 0
      Jenny_Sanderlin  

    • Speeches are one thing, but I would like to see some positive change. Rhetoric and charisma are not going to hold up like they did on the campaign trail. Even Obama supporters are disappointed that he accomplished almost nothing in this first year. His delay on the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan cost American lives and allowed the terrorists time to regroup Even he stated that the war there is a "necessary battle." He needs to quit holding hands with those who want to destroy us and come to grips with the fact that our very way of life is at stake. It is serious business, not a lecture on a college campus.

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
    • 0
      02  

    • Think of it this way: You are asked to help steer, to do the right thing, etc. So you suit up and jump onto the raging raft as it careens down the rapids.
      Now you have to make choices based on what is happening, right now.
      Remember, the raft is only afloat based on what we've already done, one wrong sneeze and a part of the craft you aren't thinking about starts destabilizing everything, for everyone.

      It's a rough ride and needs a steady hand.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • SamuraiDave
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  

    • People forget that George Marshall, Woodrow Wilson, and a host of other Peace Prize recipients weren't pacifists. Pacifism can't achieve peace in all instances. Obama articulated that well in his speech. But it shouldn't take a Nobel Laureate to understand that concept. All one must do is look at the flow of history and realize that it is complicated, that war can be a means to achieve peace and that pacifism, in and of itself does not create peace.

      Also, I think F. Scott Fitzgerald summed up intelligence well, and his quote can be applied to President Obama.

      "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

      Lastly, the Nobel Committee decides who receives this prize. They gave it to President Obama. So, no matter what your opinion is, it doesn't mean squat. Because I'm guessing nobody here is on the Nobel Committee

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • DRudeBoy
    • 0
      DRudeBoy  
    • current89:

      Obama didn't start either of these awards and I believe his policy aims will do more to ensure peace and stability than simply pulling out and forgetting the messes we've made. The Iraq War was a mistake, but leaving right away would only amplify that mistake. I believe the War in Afghanistan was justified, but severely mismanaged. We have done a lot of good and still can. Leaving the people of Afghanistan to a strengthened Taliban (partly due to our mismanagement) would hurt our interests (especially that of an out-of-control central Asia) a lot more than attempting to promote a stable government.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  

    • A truly amazing thread. We have elected one of the finest Presidents in the history of the United States...and half the commenters will settle for nothing less than President Harry Potter and his magic wand. "Zing" -- Afghanistan can provide for its own security. "Zap" -- the most dangerous collection of terrorist organizations in the world is suddenly contained. "Zowie" -- the infrastructure and security forces annihilated by the Bush/Cheney thugocracy are suddenly reconstructed. Well Hell, count me in for the Potter 2012 bandwagon!....

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • cztheday:

      "one of the finest Presidents in the history of the United States"

      Opinion only. What do you base this on? One year in office? A comment like that reveals either a party true believer, a lack of knowledge about the presidents, or an unfounded exaggeration.

      He may end up as you believe, but he certainly hasn't gotten there yet.

    • 2 years ago
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  

    • As usual: A current comment board full of simplistic, exaggerated and heavily biased posts. Obama's speech was essentially about about how complex and conflicting the issues surrounding war and peace are and how important it is to consider those complexities with honesty, reason and humility. In light of that, most of these comments seem petty and downright stupid. That's not a new or unexpected thing on this site, but it is still disappointing.

      I'm still not sure how I feel about Afghanistan. But I'm thrilled to have a leader with the stature to grapple with these issues with such intelligence and clarity. I couldn't be more proud of that speech.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • bombastinator
  • cztheday
  • samthesixth
  • bombastinator
  • shanklinmike
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • shanklinmike:

      iirc there was an announcement with a time table and some limited description of level reductions a few days ago. It's still kind of vague, but the area is still not totally peaceful and actual plans may be a lot more concrete than those officially announced. It was on TV news though iirc so I have no link. It's probably available though. that sort of thing usually is.

      That's mostly a tentative prediction on when they hope to be finished though. As for when is it going to start I know it's already in process. The last article I read on the subject was about how we are leaving so fast all kinds of things are being left behind like vehicles generators and temporary buildings.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • JanforGore:

      They love hating Obama more though. If this was anything they could do to smear the guy they would have done it.

      Sorry if you feel the man isn't sufficiently fanatically peace mongering for you. Face it: Teddy Ruxpin is never going to be president. Obama is an order of magnitude better than anything we've seen in a long time and basically every professional seems to agree.

      I guess if you feel sufficiently put out about it you could create your own Purity test to try to force various politicians agree with you like the religious right has recently.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • bombastinator
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • samthesixth:

      Simulacra is a term used by the French philosopher Baudrilliard meaning essentially false realities.

      False realities are for people that can't handle reality.

      Most of the simulacra are not "reality tested" once accepted. Examples "marijuana is the gateway drug," "the military can't deal with the harsh Afghan winters," "Republicans and Democrats represent the people," "Republicans are for laissez-faire government."

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • unimatrix0:

      The office of the Presidency of the United States is not a fucking action propriety meritocracy. You don't reward the President for some shit that he "might" do.

      He was given an award he didn't deserve, then instead of refusing it, he accepts it and then gives a speech about how he didn't deserve it, and you're all blowing a load in your pants because Newt fucking Gingrich said it was a good speech. Absolutely incredible.

    • 2 years ago
  • SamuraiDave
    • 0
      SamuraiDave  
    • unimatrix0:

      ares, the Nobel Prize Committee can award whoever they they feel deserves including world leaders. This may come as a shock to you but much of the rest of the world breathed a sigh of relief when Obama was elected President. I wonder why that was?

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
  • SamuraiDave
  • bombastinator
  • bombastinator
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  

    • Of course the right is applauding Obama's speech, because Obama is simply continuing the right-ring ideology on foreign policy. He might as well give the Nobel Prize to Dick Cheney.

      Obama only talked about evil that came allegedly came from Muslims; ie the attacks of September 11, but he completely overlooked the fact that "his country" is responsible for slaughtering Muslims indiscriminately in Iraq, Aghanistan and Pakistan.

      When he said the relations between Jews and Palestinians had "hardened" he neglected to mention the religious hatred that was spewed by rabbis who said the the IDF should kill men, woman and children, even innocent ones, should the rocket attacks continue.

      Total hypocrisy from this clown, and I'm sure some other clown wrote this speech so I don't even place the blame completely on him.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • maasanova:

      >"He completely overlooked the fact that "his country" is responsible for slaughtering Muslims indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."<
      that's because we don't. We have had some really gruesome friendly fire accidents but they have never been intentional or the result of a lack of caring. IMHO your statement is pure 'have you stopped beating your wife' style slander.

      >"When he said the relations between Jews and Palestinians had "hardened" he neglected to mention the religious hatred that was spewed by rabbis who said the the IDF should kill men, woman and children, even innocent ones, should the rocket attacks continue."<
      So he is bad because he didn't bring up your favorite instance of said hardening? That's like being mad because he thanked his mom but not your mom. The egotism is overwhelming.

      >"Total hypocrisy from this clown, and I'm sure some other clown wrote this speech so I don't even place the blame completely on him."<
      A) the speech writing system Obama used for this speech was gone over in detail in an interview with the writer on NPR yesterday. Obama is unusually tightly involved with his speech writing.
      B) There is zero evidence of hypocrisy here from Obama. I defy you to find actual instances. Good god even Newt Gingrich liked the speech.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • maasanova:

      @shanklinmike those are some pretty useless references. None of them seem to refute the statement i made and one is just a full page column of the letter "o" repeated over and over.

      I'm afraid my comment above no longer correctly reflects what was said, because the poster edited it. I would edit my comment above to react to the original posters partially redacted comment, but for some reason the editor won't list the whole comment in the edit window. I have no idea what is up there. My apologies.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA  

    • What a joke. So all you have to do to get a Nobel Peace Prize is not be George Bush, no matter how many of his policies you keep in place.

    • 2 years ago
  • Thhines
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • Good to see him win praise from both sides of the aisle. I'm glad both sides didn't respond in their knee-jerk usual fashion of immediately criticizing Obama no matter what.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  

    • but it was the right thing to do when bush sent our effing entire military overseas to fight and die in iraq? you haters make me sick. typical right wing hypocrisy.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • samthesixth
  • shanklinmike
  • AlbyFlugzeug
    • 0
      AlbyFlugzeug  

    • Evil is created in the world! Our oil biz with its CIA have created a lot of evil taking oil, treating workers badly, making dictators rich and using divide and conquer techniques to stir up trouble amongst the natives so they are no match! This is the pattern, and these details and our govt's actions to create evil are what Obama leaves out!

    • 2 years ago
  • DRudeBoy
    • 0
      DRudeBoy  
    • AlbyFlugzeug:

      I like your sentiment, but it's not as black and white as that. Each country has its own history and non-US related problems to deal with. The CIA has done some terrible things, but its not a bunch of scheming capitalists working for the big bad oil business, bent on world domination.

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
    • 0
      02  

    • I put this up earlier, of course nobody looked it. The main reason I put it up was the picture.
      There they are, the at the very pinnacle of their lives. It's a beautiful picture.

    • 2 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  

    • If Newt Gingrich and "The Nation" can agree on an issue, then that truly is something. But of course, you're more informed than either right unclecharlie? lmao

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
  • samthesixth
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  
    • neocongo:

      Newt Gingrich is highly respected among conservatives, and The Nation is as credible a periodical among liberals as there is. This is the content of the article you didn't read, and is what is important; not your playground spin.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • neocongo:

      Neo,

      I know who Newt is and I don't read the Nation as much as I did in grad school where it was free. Katrina has some interesting points, and she is a good editor. Given your dislike of Repubs and conservatives, how does it make you feel that you and Newt are on the same page over anything?

      Newt and Neo in 2012!

    • 2 years ago
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  
    • neocongo:

      Well, to be fair, people at The Nation liked it because it was reasonable and balanced and he said things like: war never solves problems, we must reach out to repressive regimes, etc

      While Newt liked it because it mentioned the word evil.

    • 2 years ago
  • unclecharlie
  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  

    • So, blowing hot air out of one's ass qualifies one to recieve a Nobel Peace Prize? Mother Theresa didn't send 30,000 troops to get killed overseas.....so they "applaud" his speech. Big deal. He's known for his smooth talking, and use of flowery language- so was Adolf Hitler.........

    • 2 years ago
  • SamuraiDave
  • majorbscaller
  • vans1170
  • unimatrix0
  • shanklinmike
  • Thhines
  • ENDIF
more from Community:
from the community

top videos