What if President O actually implemented the foreign policy that the Nobel Committee voted for?

Jeff Golden

The news from Oslo this morning is almost too rich to swallow in one sitting.  It's the kind of event you'd put at the center of your novel, if you had the imagination to think of it, because of all the twists you could spin off of it.  Here's the first one that came to me:  what went on inside Bill Clinton's head when he heard the news?

But I see this simple bedrock beneath all the layers: the contention between two opposing strategies for national security.  The one you'll recognize says we threaten and intimidate the world, and if needed, slap it around to get what we want.  The other one, which we've dabbled with now and then (the Marshall Plan, the Alliance for Progress, a couple of Carter's awkward initiatives), says we can be secure only if most other people on the planet feel relatively secure, and have a solid stake in the way things are.

The Nobel Committee just voted for the second.  That's what this award was about.  But what would happen if Obama actually moved decisively in that direction with more than appealing speeches?  How would it play out  if an American president ignored the saber-rattlers, and the media owned by larger corporations that are also  big Pentagon contractors?  Well, there's an app for that.  A book, actually.  It's called UNAFRAID: A Novel of the Possible.  It veers away from real history at the point that the bullets fired in Dallas stray off their mark;  JFK goes on to serve two full terms and, transformed by his brush with death, decides to see how far he can nudge America's walk towards its talk.   This chapter is about his (fictional) shift of American foreign policy away from coercion and towards generosity. 

Picture 3
(Full disclosure, as Kari likes to say: I wrote UNAFRAID.  While the self-promotional element might slow you down from going to the chapter, it shouldn't affect what happens if you get there.  It's either a good read for you or it's not).

There are a few other short excerpts here.

Comments

  • Roy McAvoy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This award is a rebuke to the Bush administration. It is a message to start behaving the way others would like us to, and not how we have behaved in the past. Mr. Obama was not at any fault in being selected, in fact he seemed somewhat embarrassed.

    This is an awkward attempt by others to steer the US toward a certain direction with respect to our international policy. You may or may not agree with that direction, but it is manipulation at it's finest.

    Luckily, I believe Mr. Obama is smart enough to consider it yet another distraction to the issues at hand, and he will deal with it responsibly.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    what went on inside Bill Clinton's head when he heard the news?

    And why are we asking this?

    Meander around in those parts of Left Blogistan populated by die-hard supporters of Hillary Clinton's nomination--and I don't know any of that set who aren't also big admirers of Bill Clinton--and you will find that the award for Mr. Obama has set off yet one more round of sneering and jeering.

    Here's some news: This ain't the presidential nomination. Mr. Obama did not seek this award. He said in his remarks on Friday morning that "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace."

    But go ahead, PUMAs and Obama-haters of all stripes, attack him again.

    And as for the actual topic of this thread, yes, I would sure like to see the president implement the policies that the Nobel committee seems to be urging upon him. He's got a long way to go.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The October 9th postings at counterpunch.org, commondreams.org and truthdig.com have interesting takes on the Obama Peace Prize. Personally, I believe he will have earned it if he resolves the Israel-Palestine crisis, but that is not likely to occur given the fact that Bibi Netanyahu outpointed him in the first round and may very well do so in the second.

  • Boats (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can someone, anyone, actually remind me which one of Hussein's myriad accomplishments is being celebrated?

    The Empty Suit was nominated for that booby prize in February. How ridiculous is that?

    Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize merely undercuts what little remaining legitimacy the award ever had.

    At least Rigoberta Menchu is no longer the only fabulist autobiographer with the prize.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The left and right haters simply marginalize themselves. The Nobel prize is a vote for the possibility of a new direction for American leadership, but what is clear is that speeches do matter. It matters that the goals set are universal disarmament, universal peace between civilizations and religions, universal respect for human rights. The right has contempt for the goals, the left has contempt for the process of getting there in the realm of real politics. Both throw rocks at anyone that dares to speak them as the authentic aspirations of the American people and the peoples of the world. Aspirational leadership matters and faithfulness to the rocky road of getting there also matters, regardless of the cynicism, hate, and despair encountered along the way.

  • Boats (unverified)
    (Show?)

    At least to my contempt for universal disarmament, universal peace between civilizations and religions, and universal respect for human rights I can now add a double barreled blast of utter ridicule for The One.

    That the most unworthy man to ever become president now has the most unearned Nobel Prize in the history of the award is rather delicious.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Boats, in addition to your other achievements as Contemptuous Jerk of the Year, you're also doing a good job of showing contempt for the readers of Blue Oregon. Congratulations, you deserve another award.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Boats, in addition to your other achievements as Contemptuous Jerk of the Year, you're also doing a good job of showing contempt for the readers of Blue Oregon. Congratulations, you deserve another award.

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Boats, here's a lil something for ya to brighten your day: ain't she swell

  • Adam503 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Peace Prize was awarded to Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. The Peace Prize was given to Obama for winning by such a huge margin the neo-cons couldn't steal the 2008 election like they had the 2000 and 2004 elections.

    The rest of the world still believes all those US exit polls the corporate media in the US has convinced your standard idiot Americans like Markos Moulitsas don't work in the US like they do EVERY OTHER place in the world. The rest of the world understands Jeb Bush set up Florida for Dubya in 2000, and Ohio was stolen from Kerry live on CNN in 2004.

  • alcatross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Adam503 wrote: The rest of the world understands Jeb Bush set up Florida for Dubya in 2000, and Ohio was stolen from Kerry live on CNN in 2004.

    Lord, are you folks ever going to let this go... pathetic-

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This award is one last way to take a swipe at George Bush. By accepting the award which he has not earned, BHO is feeding the growing perception that he is weak, ineffective, and can be used by others by appealing to his outsized ego.

    Best thing he could have done was to turn the award down or put it on hold for 3 1/2 years when it would be clear if he was worthy of accepting it. Now it hurts him much more than helps him.

  • Bill McDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alcatross, No, we're never going to let this go because it's part of American History. Reality is under constant attack from the right wing so it's even more necessary than ever to remind everyone of the truth. For example, a FOX reporter floated the notion that President Obama was delaying his decision on Afghanistan until after he had secured the Nobel Peace Prize. If we let you folks run your mouths unchallenged, within weeks 30% of Americans will believe that, and Sarah Palin will base her next campaign on it. Your side has had a 10-year love affair with stupid where anything they try to sell you has been lapped up like a cat drinking milk. That is why we can never let this stuff go. If we did, it wouldn't be long before George W Bush was being sold to us as the greatest President in history this side of Ronald Reagan. By the way, you folks have been repeating myths about Ronald Reagan for 25 years. It's been less than a year since Georgie got on his bicycle and went home. I know, I know....Mistakes were made and it's time to look to the future. A talking point for every occasion. Well, bringing up the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004 IS about the future. More needs to be done to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.

  • BluecollarLibertarian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Be great if the troops in Iraq and Afganistan came home. Be even better if those stationed in England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea and some of the 100 other countries around the world came home as well.

    Might be nice just to get a regular costs estimate of what we spend to keep them there. Afterall we are defending those we compete against in the international marketplace. We're just screwing the American workers and helping their competitors.

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As engineer Scot liked to observe, "and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon".

    Like they have/had a choice. Eisenhower sounded the alarm when the military industrial complex was poised to take over, and everyone yawned. 50 years later, it's not an aberration, it's who we are. You might as well ask what would have happened if an asteroid had hit Washington in 1963. One could make suppositions, but the fact of the matter is that our world is nothing like that. Carter told us that a malaise had set in, and we needed to get our heads straight. The electorate fell all over themselves to vote for "Morning in America", vapid, empty...pure spin.

    At this point it would take radical action, and a life's dedication to make a dent. Anyone here calling for that? So we allow pleasant rhetoric to suffice. Much more pleasant to dream than to face the fact that JFK would have caved in, or been killed another way. You don't get to choose your government's policies. That's why personality has become so important. It's the only say you have. It makes no difference in the end. We have a rude, crude, ignorant foreign policy because we're a rude, crude, ignorant nation.

    Besides these "what if" histories irritate me. They're way too selective. Sure it might point up some interesting factors, but they have absolutely nothing to do with history or our future. If Adolf Hitler had been assassinated in 1937 he would be regarded as a great politician. So what? Does that mean he wasn't so bad? Of course not. While it's the likely outcome, it means nothing. You could stand on the grassy knoll and yell "Duck!", all day, and you would not affect the timelines, almost 50 years later.

    Frankly, you can make a better case that the Kennedy's weren't too bright. Their constant hubris tinged naive thinking would likely have led to equally tragic ends. If you want to flesh out history with pseudo-fiction, how about laying out the quite reasonable scenario that JFK and RFK were scared that their plots to kill Castro would lead to WWIII. Having put a contingency plan in place to cover it up, all rogue CIA elements and mafiosi had to do was get someone to kill him that would look Castro sympathetic and Bobby would take care of the rest. Explains Oswald's being whitewashed in New Orleans. And what else explains why Ethel had the missing casket, from Dallas? Or why Teddy deep-sixed it the day after she died. If anybody really gave a crap, the "magic bullet" wouldn't be buried with Connelly. Does your rethink of history factor in everything Gerald Ford and Arlen Specter did? They wouldn't exist, politically, if not for the Warren commission. How 'bout the fact the LBJ actually turned JFK's ideas into legislation, a task JFK seems to have been incapable of?

    Along the Hitler lines, perhaps his dieing when he did is the scenario that maximizes his historical legacy. He wasn't that great. Events in Dallas caused him to be regarded that way.

    Besides, Americans don't learn from history. The Bush family has been knocking over S&Ls since 1965, and that didn't prevent Shrub from getting a second term and sinking the economy. Dems still don't make the accusation that it was their intention to ruin the economy. The fact that every Bush from Prescott forward has longed for a totalitarian state never entered into it.

  • Boats (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The troofer barking is pretty loud today.

  • alcatross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Exhibit #2: Bill McDonald's screed above...

    But we're off-topic.

  • Bill McDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'll plug a book I didn't even write: JFK and the Unspeakable. I'm not that far into it, but it shows what Presidents are up against. It claims the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to do a preemptive strike on the Soviet Union. Sure, President Obama has been disappointing in some ways. But you have to remember, he's only the president. The real power doesn't change every 4 years. Since you mentioned Eisenhower's warning, his granddaughter was on the Bill Maher show and she says the original draft had "congressional" as in "military-industrial-congressional complex." It looks like Dwight had that dialed in too.

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Boats | Oct 10, 2009 9:07:37 AM

    The troofer barking is pretty loud today.

    troofer

    Noun- Term of abuse used by Bush supporters against anyone who is openly disbelieving of the Bush Administration's heavily propagandised 9/11 fairytale. The term is used most often in a derogatory way as an ad hominem by neocon trolls in order to avoid dealing with the facts, commonsense, and supporting links presented by 9/11 sceptics Neocon troll: Often you will find a troofer wearing tin foil on their head.

    Sceptic: I've noticed that the only people talking about tinfoil all the time are nutters like you. What's this obsession of you crazies with tinfoil hats?

    They're talking about 'ya, Boats!

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "... but what is clear is that speeches do matter."

    True. When Obama was running for the Democratic nomination I said that he had the potential to be a great president because of his rhetorical skills. Unfortunately, if fine words and phrases do not lead to the promises they make and imply, then Obama's presidency has the prospect of becoming a disaster. His fine words since Obama became president set a new tone overseas and that is commendable, but if he reneges on them as he has on domestic issues then we are likely to be no better off at the end of his first (and perhaps only) term than we were in January 2009.

    In the meantime, while Obama is flying all over the place making speeches, who is back at the White House manipulating the levers of power?

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bodden: do you know that little rubric about recovery from a relationship? It will require roughly one full month per every year of being together to recover from the breakup? So: how long was Mr. Bush in office? And how many agencies are traumatized by the incumbency so thankfully now ended? AND: how deeply-cut is the rift in our nation's lawmakers' chambers?

    I guess angry folks like you make the very best to lecture upon the making of peace, eh? I look at the words of the great buddhist monk Thanh, and of those African leaders we so extoll... and the difference between their radical speech and yours is that it is truly radical: uncompromising, but sweet.

    Great leaders inspire. Great speech moves the heart to action.

    I'd love to see a huge movement on the part of America's deeply angry LEFT to speak sweetly and in the tones of belief, passion, and love. Not the dark rage that lashes at any and all, in the end.

    I can only imagine the knife in the back in the dark that Nader will suffer from his own should he ever have hte misfortune of being elected.

    He will fail too, you know. And then where will you be?

    I am listening more deeply to the ones who inspire me - and I find that there is fire and stone in their hearts, and yet they practice a deep truth - to dehumanize or batter another is only to continue the rage forward. Their own rage must be sent thru the filters of compassion. While losing the poison, never losign the holy anger of mercy.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I read into this prize a finger pointed at AMerica. They are not really rewarding Obama for what he has done. It is for his throwness, the very fact of himself. They are speaking to America thru the person of Obama.

    I hope his words were true ones: he knows he does not "deserve" to stand in the echelons of those who have put life and liberty on the line for peace. And yet, he is the symbol of what must be. And of America, with will and focus, throwing off one more stifling blanket of hypocrisy. Yes, he is a politician. And politicos are what they are. But he is a fantastically well-spoken mixed race politician with skin of colour; who at least held verbally the ideals we long for.

    For now, given what we are, that is what we have.

    Take responsibility for it.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I guess angry folks like you make the very best to lecture upon the making of peace, eh? "

    Wrong, Rebecca. I'm not angry. I was skeptical of Obama right from the beginning but for a time was open to the possibility that he might bring some change. Skepticism obviates betrayal. No sense of betrayal precludes against anger. Anger is for the naive and trusting who allowed themselves to be deceived and have to face the reality of their own shortcomings. As you say, "Take responsibility for it."

    Now the question is, after all those promises of change, where is it? Here and there in minuscule proportions but not in the real arenas where change is so desperately needed.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

    Shall have done...not shall have proposed, not shall have appealed, not shall have encouraged.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Official web site for the Nobel Peace Prize

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Juan Cole at Informed Comment has interesting comments on Obama's Peace Prize in his October 10 commentary.

  • Emmit Goldman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Legal Case Filed Against Four US Presidents And Four UK Prime Ministers For War Crimes: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23671.htm

    "The intended destruction — or genocide — of Iraq as a state and nation has been ongoing for 19 years, combining the imposition of the most draconian sanctions regime ever designed and that led to 1.5 million Iraqi deaths, including 500,000 children, with a war of aggression that led to the violent deaths of over one million more."

    Support for war criminals like the Bushes, Clinton, and, yes, even the sainted Dear Leader, is what makes Oregon progressivism so marvelous.

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Support for war criminals like the Bushes, Clinton, and, yes, even the sainted Dear Leader, is what makes Oregon progressivism so marvelous.

    Rather than be cynical about it, you could do as a handful do and constantly raise your hand and say, "Excuse me, but that isn't progressive".

    Perhaps I'm completely delusional, but banging away every time the spectre raises its ugly head seems to have made a perceptible dent in local Dems' positions, over the last 10 years. Granted, it's not enough to be of any consequence, but it suggests that something may be possible.

  • (Show?)
    I'd love to see a huge movement on the part of America's deeply angry LEFT...

    Why shouldn't we be angry? Moderates (and I'm assuming that's where you are since you're self-excluding from the "LEFT") have been colluding with the right to delay things like universal health care coverage for half a century. Moderates and the right have gone hand in hand into places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, South & Central America and elsewhere, some whole-heartedly, some acquiescently, and some because they thought the "LEFT" was against it so it must be the right thing to do.

    Moderates keep screwing things up and then blame other people for it. Why wouldn't those other people be pissed off?

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can someone drop a few lines about other people, like Obama, who did not labor at risk of life and limb, unseen and all-but-unprotected, on behalf of peace? Surely there were other symbolic awards at some time? Elie Wiesel was very careful and adroit in his comments. I heard what he said, truly said, as well as between the lines in a few directions. He chose the strong message over that which drains away the energy. No matter what ALL he sees in this besides the symbolic good.

    It seems to me that it's the nasty-nasty spirit of the times that such acrimony is erupting around this award. We've had all the [dis]advantageous comparisons we can handle, now I'd be interested to know if he is, indeed, in likely company at all. Have awards ever been made before this to others similarly?

    Never one to be exceedingly well-mannered up here, I'm beginning to look upon the nastiness as a little churlish, poorly-bred. And indicative of just how deep is the damage that Bush I, Bush II and Reagan have done to us as a nation. We are well and truly hated, feared, despised and envied, it seems.

    Gosh. I'm also thinking, in our nation, the Eastern Cherokee, we have posthumous awards of National Treasure that is given to those crossed who have not received recognition for their language, crafting, scholarship, culturalism. It's always sad when only posterity know that they were Recognized. I can see how many would be angry at a symbolic award when there are so many in this schismed world who are at risk of life and limb as we speak... yet, at the same time, we as a nation should celebrate that we finally put a spider crack in a barrier that is shameful and still stands. This award should be launched at it with mighty shouts, like the shouting at the walls of Jericho they talk about.

    Let's make 'em fall down. STop grumbling! Choose the strong message!

  • (Show?)

    So, this post by TA Barnhart is the best discussion I've seen yet on Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Why shouldn't we be angry?"

    Because anger is an emotion that adds heat to a debate and puts reason at risk of being consumed by the flames.

    Try candor. The more blunt the better. People will confuse it with anger, but reason will be at less risk.

  • Emmit Goldman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lord Beaverbrook: You're conflating cynicism with sarcasm. What makes you think that I haven't been one of those who have consistently raised their hands and said, "Excuse me, but that isn't progressive"? (Well, not the "excuse me".)

    I agree with darrelplant. Like the Mad As Hell Docs, I'm pissed off, and you should be too. This is America, and emotion is what carries the message. Ignore that at your political peril.

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think we're in violent agreement Emmit. I can't argue your political pragmatism. I still cringe at Tsongas' trying to be unemotional when asked about how he'd feel if a felon raped his wife, or even the manufactured kind, like Dukakis in the tank.

    That said, I think Bill is right, too, that all disagreement tends to get labeled as disgruntled and relegated to the pissed off category. Keeps 'em from having to deal with the facts.

    It also depends on what you think is worth getting emotional for. But even those that promote professionalism uber alles seldom describe the role of their SO in their relationships as "very professional".

    That was a well reasoned piece by T.A, imho, even if it does make the Nobel Prize sound like Time's "Person of the Year". A little cynical on Carter. Here I always thought he got if for Camp David. At least it stopped short of accusing him of "just wanting to inherit the earth". Or is that the meek? Maybe the cheesemakers . Maybe that's what they meant. The Nobel Prize for Cheese.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A historical perspective: Nobel committee bets 'Obama can'

  • Adam503 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    alcatross "are you folks ever going to let this go."

    Nope.

    No statute of limitations on treason in the US. There's no rush.

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Today, it is evident from the British press, that we don't even define having done something in the same way. The US press is reporting what Obama "did" on GLBT rights this week-end. The British press are reporting that he reiterated a campaign promise.

    Posted by: Adam503 | Oct 11, 2009 1:38:33 AM

    alcatross "are you folks ever going to let this go."

    Nope. Indentured to Rush for life. Teabagging. Sean. Dreams.

    No statute of limitations on treason in the US. There's no rush. Can't say a sentence without "Rush". Yet another alias from WunderBluder and more spam that puts the blogs editorial policy in question. Told ya Wonder, twitter. #bringbackdueling if you want to rant, but you are too cowardly to look someone in the eye as you shout, aren't you?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama's Peace Prize: A view from Israel. Change? What change?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Obama opts for more war in Afghanistan, will he return his peace prize to Norway? It's decision time.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill Bodden, you will do anything to make anyone who thinks other than you to be insular, not at all a cosmopolitan in touch with the wide old world.

    On the other hand, I appreciate that you are bringing in interpretive threads from elsewhere; irrespective of the fact that just as "Muuuuurrrica" is not just one monolithic thing, neither are these countries you present as your proof, your pudding! :)

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: rw | Oct 12, 2009 9:46:47 AM

    Bill Bodden, you will do anything to make anyone who thinks other than you to be insular, not at all a cosmopolitan in touch with the wide old world.

    Which is what you have to do in an old fashioned, non-parliamentary democracy! "If you're not a part of the solution you're a part of the problem". Sound better? That's pretty "insular".

    And then there's the fact that I'm sure he's over simplified some, for the sake of brevity. Have to disagree with you on this one. It's like his critiquing you with "why do you have to go into so much detail, every shade of gray". Personally, I value both.

    It's also more and more unPC to infer personality from behavior. Surely you're not suborning THAT! There is nothing wrong with calling and ass an ass. Refuse to accept that injury is done if one doesn't phrase it as the "undoubtedly well intentioned equine that is acting quite stubborn". Not saying...you just seemed to be taking a peek down that road.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "... not at all a cosmopolitan in touch with the wide old world."

    For your information, Rebecca, I have spent somewhere around three quarters of my life outside the United States, mostly in Europe and the Far East.

  • geoffludt (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Today, President Barack Obama authorized the deployment of 15,000 additional troops to Afghanistan -- on top of the 21,000 authorized in March.

    Peace.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hmmmm, what will happen? Well, the Taliban will go back to executing females in soccer stadiums (and elsewhere) for committing crimes such as listening to CDs of Springsteen or Fats Waller; learning income-generating skills in a clandestine school in someone's back room; showing more than their eyes; etc etc. And we won't be allowed to criticize them or call for an embargo because that would be showing intolerance towards another culture. That's for starters.

    What a waste of a Nobel Prize. And the fact that many people approve of this because of its value as a slap to G W Bush is insulting and trivializes most others given this prize, and those who should have gotten them for doing far more than this Twinkle-Toes ever will.

    Just when progressives get a chance to show some integrity, they whiff.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • AEF (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob,

    Well you've almost stumbled onto the truth but you need to think one step futher. Progressives really don't like women, gays and minorities because they all are a constant drain on their political power. All of those special ballot measures to fight and all those court cases and such. So the overall plan is that progressives want us to pull out so that the Taliban can become strong again. Once the Taliban has killed all of the gays and repressed all of the women over there, then they want to import some of them here. Then the Taliban can murder all of the gays in America and repress women and minorities here. It will be a progressive version of the KKK. By using the Taliban to eliminate all of the distractions, progressives will be able to focus their political energy on more important tasks.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    AEF:

    Well you've almost stumbled onto the truth but you need to think one step futher....So the overall plan is that progressives want us to pull out so that the Taliban can become strong again.

    Bob T:

    That's really lame, no matter what it was (humor, sarcasm, satire, etc).

    Point is that while people like that will murder citizens for such things, there will be no sanctions out of respect for "diversity" and "multi-culturalism" (unless that nation has a US air base), as if watching a Taliban elder slit the throat of young woman for showing her face would be like watching a lion bring down a zebra on Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom ("That's what they do here"), and such people will be considered qualified for being on the United Nations Human Rights Committee, all while continuing a pretense at caring by calling Israel a Nazi state using Gestapo and SS methods to deal with non-Jews. Get real.

    Bob Tiernan Portland

  • Andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob,

    You don't really understand the progressive mind set. Progressives above all only care about what is easy for them. Kill an unborn baby becuase otherwise life will require hard choices, of course! Let the Taliban kill gays or spray acid in the eyes of girls who go to school rather than fight for justice, of course!

    Now a good progressive will take a bold stand against Christmas or Columbus day, and they certainly take a case involving a cross in a national park all the way to the Supreme Court but those issues don't require any actual courage. If it involves sacrifice, dedication or work then you aren't going to find a progressive around. They are what is left of the free love, free drugs, no work hippies in the 60's. They were lazy and worthless then and they're still lazy and worthless. Not to mention wimps when anything regarding real sacrifice comes around. If you can't solve it with a group hug and a concert then you aren't going to find progressives signing up for it. Actually going to war to stamp out evil just isn't on the progressive dance card. Too wimpy, too conflicted and too lazy to do something like that. Couldn't we just send Bono over there to talk with teh Taliban and have them stop killing the gays? If that doesn't work then I guess we'll just have to let them win because, golly, we really tried. I mean wow, it was Bono and still those Taliban guys didn't stop. Bummer man.

  • Lord Beaverbrook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, the Taliban will go back to executing women in soccer stadiums

    You know, anymore, that's just less people. Good. Let's go back to pre-19th century justice. You're innocent or subject to execution. Get rid of 99% of these BLANKS!!!

    Only thing that'll make Americans think twice about criminalizing everything. At least they know what to do with their soccer stadiums. Rent Piggy Park for ritualized honor killings? Duels? Tweet #bringbackdueling !

  • Friends of the Aggadors (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Andy, among the progressives I know, one is a 60 year old man that has given his car away and makes do with a bike, one that makes 6 figures and limits monthly living expenses to $1000, and a number of reluctant vegetarians, only so because they insist on growing everything they eat. Which of those choices were easy? Which of them could you do? No, the laziness is in the mainstream that will immediately tell you why those things are unnecessary. Think how much harder that makes it, yet they do it anyway. And real progressives are zero/neg population growth adherents, so if there's free love, it's protected, so why do you care (besides your adolescent paranoia that someone's getting a lot more than you)?

    At least you didn't claim to be a progressive. High water mark that, for this blog.

connect with blueoregon