is she incapable of outrage towards the person responsible for lying and deceiving the american people into an unnecessary war? perhaps she's not on speaking terms with her pappy anymore... maybe nadine can go have a conversation with him for her, lol...

Steve, I am one of those who saw your interview on
Countdown and I am just blown away by how eloquent
you were. You just spoke so beautifully and on point
-- especially what you said about the portfolio
Obama has inherited from the former administration
and having to reinvent our leverage in the world.
Just perfect.

Thank you for speaking truth so powerfully to these
jingoistic xenophobes.

Gee, meanwhile on the upside down planet Wurfuked, where peace means war, the Obama Administration has seen fit to loan Al Gore 529 million dollars to build a hybrid high end sports car that will sell for $89,000 dollars.

And where will this gem be manufactured? Why, in Finland of course. Need you ask?? I mean gee golly, everyone knows Finland needs jobs, right?

If this doesn't piss you off, you've got a screw loose.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html

I had to change the channel, listening to your rhetoric was too much. Bush as Borg, get over it. Why don't you like America?

So did the computer malfunction or did you remove my comment about Obama's Nobel being so obviously given for attitudinizing instead of merit that Eleanor Clift - about as far removed from a Cheney conservative as anyone can imagine - is worrying about killer rabbit stories come again to do damage to a beloved Democrat? How about George Stephanopolous laughing at Donna Brazile when she said the award was deserved? How about Bob Schieffer of CBS News, who says,

"For the record, I generally agree with the President's approach on foreign policy, but the Nobel Committee did him no favors by giving him the award before he had anything to show for his efforts."

The Nobel Peace prize jury has turned what was once an award for great achievement into a an "attaboy" for politicians they like. This undeserved accolade is being met with dismay and ridicule across the political spectrum, and trying to pretend it's only Republicans who are criticizing just won't fly.

If the only thing that Obama and those of us who elected him are able to do is put a lid on Dick Cheney's idea of American Dominance (American Exceptionalism), we've earned a Nobel already. It was Cheney's crusade from the 1992 Defense Guidance, the 1997 Project for the New American Century, into his jury-rigged Invasion of Iraq. It didn't get him a Nobel or a slot as Emperor of the Holy American Empire. Now he's sticking his daughter out there to keep trying to act as if it's an American policy. It isn't. It's just an old megalomaniacal delusion of his that he can't seem to let go of. Thanks to Steve for saying that more gently on Countdown...

Liz (who?) Chaney ... let the old devil speak for himself ... why is he hiding behind his daughter? Shame? ... Shame!

And the Clinton 'logic' for the peace prize ... a medal to the bully for stopping the beating??? Next they be rewarding the thief for not stealing. Still Kissenger got one as well, ... hmmm? Not exactly the right company for a man of peace to keep. But it makes more sense if one listens to Michael Hudson's views on Barrak Obama and his modis operandi in Chicago.

The US returning to some degree of foreign policy sanity in a pluralistic world is hardly a peace prize justification ... who do we send the bill to for the damage done during the latest drunken power orgy?

Excellent appearance, Steve! Your ability to place these ideas and events in a longer timeframe and global context is terrific. So simple and basic, but the fundamentals of "waging peace" are foreign to much of our contemporary dialog. Your work *is* peace-making, what you cover on a daily basis. Just excellent.

In today's New York Times, Roger Cohen belittles the Nobel Prize for Peace given to President Obama. I don't use the terms "belittle" lightly. Cohen didn't criticize the award, he ridiculed it.

So my question to Steve is does he think Roger Cohen is a "pugnacious" conservative?

Did Cohen develop his political philosophy at the knee of Jesse Helms?

John Nardo above starts to get to the real issues with his list of neocon milestones.

This isn't about what Roger Cohen, Tom Friedman, or any other columnist writes about the Nobel Prize. All of them will write their 800 words about it. So, WigWag, I'm not sure why you are asking Steve to comment on the origin of Roger Cohen's political philosophy.

The history goes back way beyond 1992 to the end of WWII including Operation Paper Clip, Project Air Force and the founding of RAND, Oppenheimer v. Teller and then McCarthy, Korean War (undeclared by Congress and still only in a truce/ceasefire and never with a final peace agreement), Gaither Commmission and missile gap on which JFK ran, Eisenhower's atoms for peace and farewell military-industrail-complex speech, Albert Wohlstetter (who mentored and taught many of the neocons), Herman Kahn, Dr. Strangelove,
JFK's sending advisors to Vietnam, Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam War (also not declared by Congress), Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Rumsfeld and Cheney in Ford Administration, and other neocons who were there in Bush 41's DOD including Wolfowitz and Khalilzad.

That brings us pretty much to the Defense Policy Guidance of 1992 that Nardo noted. I honestly am not sure how often, but every few years, this basic policy document is revised. But early in 1992 in last year of Bush Administration, Wolfowitz and Khalilzad drafted a new policy to keep U.S. preeminent in the world. It included, for the first time ever in U.S. history, a policy of preemptive war. The draft was leaked to NYT. became public and was withdrawn.

All through the past 65 years there have been these threads of militarism and American exceptionalism as well as glimpses of the better side of U.S. in its international relations--Marshall plan, Peace Corps, and many more. One thing is clear that even with so many wars, U.S. has not invaded countries to oocupy and rule them.

I'd prefer that Nobel Prize be awarded for actual accomplishments and efforts. However, often it is given to someone most people never heard of for "efforts" that either were successful or still aren't (Burma, 1991), getting rid of landmines (1998) or nuclear weapons (1985).

Often the Committee merely sends an aspirational message of what they think, at that moment in time, is important.

For me personally five days of discussion of this year's choice is enough. What's more interesting to contemplate is decisions Obama will make about Afghanistan before December 10 and then what Obama will say in his acceptance speech.

So, WigWag, I'm not sure why you are asking Steve to comment on the origin of Roger Cohen's political philosophy. (Linda)

I made my comment because Steve went on Keith Olbermann's show last night (guest hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell)to discuss why conservative commentators were ridiculing the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama.

Steve explained that these conservatives were a "pugnacious" crowd schooled at the knee of Jesse Helms.

I am merely pointing out that progressive, liberal and neoliberal commentators have belittled giving the Peace Prize to Obama almost as much as those "pugnacious" conservatives have.

Now that Steve has explained to us why Rush Limbaugh thinks giving the Peace Prize to Obama ws a mistake, maybe he can explain to us why Roger Cohen agrees with Rush Limbaugh about this particular matter.

Or maybe Steve thinks Roger Cohen subscribes to "Jesse Helmsianism" too.

To WW and Nadine: We don't get our news and ideas from those you quote above.

To add to the praise for Steve, he was articulate without having to talk with his hands; a rarity these days.

"To WW and Nadine: We don't get our news and ideas from those you quote above." (Bart)

Is that the royal "we" Bart? Who exactly is "we?"

interesting take on liz cheney :

Where did Cheneys get the idea that ‘dominance’ is the goal of foreign policy?

"Americans think differently, she says. For us, nothing less than full belief in "dominance," and the display of dominance regardless of circumstance, can be counted an acceptable interpretation of America’s role by an American leader."

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/bromwich-where-did-cheneys-get-the-idea-that-dominance-is-the-goal-of-foreign-policy.html

Next time you see her ask her whether she would like to retract her off-stated charge that Obama "doesn't care about protecting the country" in light of the recent terrorist arrests here and the casualty figures from Aghanistan. That she still gets invited onto talk programs to spout this rubbish is beyond me.

Liz Cheney was made first director of Near East policy at State. When Bush v. Gore finally cleared the court the first item of agenda was establishing the Dept. of Near East policy at State.

Niger happens to be in the Near East sector of diplomatic ranks.

Liz Cheney was too busy getting John Bolton to fast track a war with Iraq and provide false grounds for invasion, than listen to any countries warning of a coming event.

Much like the entire Bush/Cheney White House.

Got Yellowcake?
Cheney isn't a dumb blonde, she's the Golden Grrrl of Yellowcake.

Liz Cheney's dad did more to harm the troops in Afghanistan than
anyone by going into Iraq for oil and profit thus putting the military
on a two-front war.
She now states that we have the right to rule the world!
What a twisted reality she lives in. A chip off the old megolomaniac
block.