If the 2008 election happened in Africa or the Middle East it would seem obvious that an opposition leader who restored the rule of law and set about reintegrating his country into the family of nations would be racking up points towards a Nobel Peace Prize before he even took the oath of office.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Nobel Follow-Up
The video by Rachel Maddow (below) and a few other things I read have made me more receptive and understanding of Obama. Lindsay Beyerstein (now writing at ObWi) makes a very good point here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Except Obama hasn't restored the rule of law. We're still spying, detaining people without charge and causing the bloodshed of innocents.
I actually think the prize is correctly awarded to Obama; but, I don't think he's accomplished anything yet.
*This is Eric. I'm on my wife's system right now.
"The video by Rachel Maddow (below) and a few other things I read have made me more receptive and understanding of Obama."
That's cool. It's not often that bloggers change their minds. The anonymity of the web often tends to make people dig into their positions.
I like this point at ObWi:
“Most commentators implicitly assume Obama won just for what he's done as president or what he promises to do in office. In fact, Obama earned the prize for waging a successful campaign to unseat a ruling party that rejected the rule of law at home and abroad. Remember how hard that was?”
Saying ‘No’ to torturing ‘terrorists’ ain’t easy either. The public thinks everyone in GitMo is guilty and that torture is a good punishment for 9-11.
Another point to consider is that if you look at the list of past recipients, awarding someone to encourage future behavior has been done before. This isn't unprecedented by any means.
Saying ‘No’ to torturing ‘terrorists’ ain’t easy either. The public thinks everyone in GitMo is guilty and that torture is a good punishment for 9-11.
Most of the polls I could find said that the majority of Americans don't support torture, with one saying that 63% percent said it was never acceptable. Most past presidents have opposed torture. I don't think it should be that hard for this one to say no, either. Most also support closing Gitmo. Besides, he ran on platform opposing torture and closing Gitmo. This should be a no-brainer, IMO.
"Most of the polls I could find said that the majority of Americans don't support torture, with one saying that 63% percent said it was never acceptable."
Wow. Faith restored in my fellow Americans.
It just makes me ill to think that for a time, there were discussions abroad about what to do about America, much like we have conversations about what to do about a rogue country.
A dose of troll spray: no, I am not comparing the U.S. to a rogue Axis of Evil country.
But I am saying that, to some of our allies and former-admirers, we went off the deep end and they are happy to see us back where we rightfully reside.
Wow. Faith restored in my fellow Americans.
Whoa there. I don't know if I would go that far.
I'm with you, steves. I'm pretty sure the poll results on that would vary widely depending on exactly how the question was asked.
I think Bush/Cheney and the culture of Jack Bauer has moved the goalposts further over than that.
I think most torture fanboys have some Walter Mitty fantasy of getting some critical piece of intel from high level operative and have no real idea how bad torture is.
I do believe that most Americans would be happy if we gave up these practices and I doubt the President would have to expend all that much political capital.
Post a Comment