October 12, 2007
AL AND OSAMA....National Review, classy as always:
Who Else Should Al Gore Share the Prize With? [Iain Murray]
How about that well known peace campaigner Osama Bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance and that of the Nobel committee in his September rant from the cave.
—Kevin Drum 1:24 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (51)
There is only one thing to say to the wingnuts -- get over it!
Posted by: David Lowery on October 12, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK
I love the sound of thousands of tiny hamsters tripping off the wheel of their Wingnut's brain. It's been a tough week to be a Wingnut, first the public outcry over beating up a 12-yr old and now Gore.
Posted by: ckelly on October 12, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK
whiskey tango foxtrot?
Posted by: Jimbo2K7 on October 12, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
Think I'll amble over to The Corner and see if their heads are exploding.....
I guess that would be a yes.
Posted by: ckelly on October 12, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
Cronyn and Mitch McConnell have just introduced a Senate resolution to condemn the National Review for this despicable post.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi say that sending a strongly worded letter to WFB's corpse in Greenwich will be enough.
Posted by: gregor on October 12, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
What a great week for the right wing. First, they Swift Boat a twelve year-old, then equate a great American patriot (who actuall served in uniform - what a concept!) with the mass murderer who is still scott-free. The desperation has never been more palpable. But we can bet it will get even more surreal, as they continue to lose their grip on power.
Posted by: MaxGowan on October 12, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK
I recall some neo-conservative Democrats used bin Laden's image to derail Dean and the best chance of beating W. Bush in 2004 in order to keep their entrenched power in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Brojo on October 12, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK
I just figured it out! Al is a concern ROBOT. Just regurgitate the same things over and over again as certain words trip his synapses.
Posted by: Emma on October 12, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK
When I first heard about the Nobel this morning, I literally started to laugh, knowing full well that the right would lose what little mind it has.
Oh, and I see Al is one of the many wingers who don't grasp the concept of carbon offsets. Granted, they're not the end-all, be-all solution, but they're a start.
What are you doing to better the future of humanity, Al? I suggest you recycle, use CFLs, drive only when necessary, and get a vasectomy.
For the greater good of all mankind, naturally.
Posted by: Mark D on October 12, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
Bush and ObL should win the World Destruction Prize -- both has made the other far far more than they would have been otherwise.
Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on October 12, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK
Gore's like Osama! Cause he's filthy rich! And only poor folk can discuss global warming, which is a hoax!
Kevin, what's it like to have your own pet troll responding to your every whim? Can you stick it on the end of a pencil and twirl it around?
Posted by: HeavyJ on October 12, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK
Stamp your little feet some more, Al. It is ADORABLE!
Posted by: TR on October 12, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK
Or George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Gen Tommy Franks saving us from Osama bin Ladin's terrorism - Tora Bora was just a mountain too far, ala Market Garden.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 12, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK
Is Osama any less deserving than Arafat?
Posted by: Frank J. on October 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK
So if Osama Bin Laden says that the sky is blue, a patriotic American ought to say that the sky is green? Is this the logic now?
Posted by: troglodyte on October 12, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK
Predictably, the conservative chattering class and its amen corner in the right-wing blogosphere are apoplectic about the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore. But their rage and angst about the Nobel Committee's "politicized awards" for "mass exaggerators" and "deceptive rhetoric" isn't merely a function of the inconvenient truth of the success of Gore's global warming campaign. No, the rugged individualists of the right are just hopping mad that they never win prizes designed to recognize contributions to, well, the rest of humanity.
To remedy this perpetual slight, then, here are:
"Conservative Nobel Prizes We'd Like to See."
Posted by: Furious on October 12, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK
Time magazine named Hitler "Man of the Year". Ergo, they must be Nazis and should be invaded and overthrown promptly.
Come to think of it, writing for National Review must be awfully fun. The illogical possibilities are simply endless.
A.J.
Posted by: AJB on October 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK
From the hubristically named National Review: "How about that well known peace campaigner Osama Bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance — and that of the Nobel committee — in his September rant from the cave."
This is what irrelevancy sounds like.
Posted by: Boolaboola on October 12, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
Stop brushing your teeth! After all, Hitler thought it was a good idea.
Posted by: Virginia on October 12, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
Is Osama any less deserving than Arafat?
Arafat was co-winner with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for the work the three did together toward a resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden has been part of similar efforts to resolve a long-standing conflict, sitting down and negotiating with the opposing side?
Posted by: cmdicely on October 12, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK
Alfred Nobel's will specifies that the peace prize would go "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."
Could someone, anyone, please explain to me how the award to Mr. Gore and the intergovernmental committee satisfies Mr. Nobel's criteria? Thanks.
Posted by: DBL on October 12, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK
They're just annoyed because Kissinger didn't win again.
Posted by: craigie on October 12, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK
Could someone please tell the National Review that even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while?
Here's what I'd really like to see happen.
I'd really like to see a tape from some terrorist endorsing Rudy Giuliani, or John McCain, or Mitt Romney (because that REALLY who they want so their "war" can continue to draw recruits) and then I'd like to sit back with a bowl of popcorn and a root beer to watch the wingnuts' heads explode.
Posted by: Cal Gal on October 12, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK
"Alfred Nobel's will specifies that the peace prize would go "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."
Could someone, anyone, please explain to me how the award to Mr. Gore and the intergovernmental committee satisfies Mr. Nobel's criteria? Thanks."
How many governments are currently refuting global warming as a looming threat for humanity?
Which individual has become the leading world spokesperson in bringing forward the problem of global warming?
Answer question one, and then question two. Hopefully that helps you.
A.J.
Posted by: AJB on October 12, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK
Could someone, anyone, please explain to me how the award to Mr. Gore and the intergovernmental committee satisfies Mr. Nobel's criteria?
Simple: the IPCC and Gore have been instrumental in building a broad international consensus for the need for mutual cooperation in common interest on this issue, which is pretty much a textbook example of advancing "fraternity between nations".
Posted by: cmdicely on October 12, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK
Didn't he also say the Bush Presidency was the best thing that ever happened to him?
Seeing as we're taking what the man says seriously and all...
Posted by: Memekiller on October 12, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK
Could someone, anyone, please explain to me how the award to Mr. Gore and the intergovernmental committee satisfies Mr. Nobel's criteria? Thanks.
cmdicely has presented a pretty good example.
I'd chime in to suggest that taking steps to prevent climate change-driven resource conflicts would go a long way toward reducing or abolishing standing armies, especially those that haven't been formed yet. 'Cuz if you think the bloodshed over oil has been ugly, just wait until the fighting is over potable water.
Posted by: kenga on October 12, 2007 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK
"Could someone, anyone, please explain to me how the award to Mr. Gore and the intergovernmental committee satisfies Mr. Nobel's criteria?"
Assuming, for the moment, that global warming is a real threat, the failure to do anything about global warming will likely result in significant and quite deadly international conflicts over water, food sources, farmable and habitable land and mass migrations of peoples. If Gore's actions and message help to raise awareness of the likely problems that will be associated with global warming, and if those actions and that message get ordinary people and national leaders to start taking action to reduce/eliminate the causes of global warming, then those actions can easily be deemed to be in the furtherance of fraternity between nations, reduction of armies, and the overall promotion of peace on earth.
Posted by: bubba on October 12, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin and the rest of you misunderstand the NRO post. They're not criticizing Gore for having an opinion in common with OBL, they're praising OBL for having an opinion in common with Gore. That's why they think it unjust that OBL didn't share the prize.
Suprised? Don't be. For all the heated rhetoric, the wingnuts share OBL's fondness for authoritarianism and intolerance. Nobody likes to see injustice done to a fellow traveler.
Posted by: alex on October 12, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK
Scientists have done more than Al Gore
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/12/eanobel212.xml
Posted by: Luther on October 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK
True, they may have, but as the Telegraph commentary concludes:
"I'm not sure we expect politicians to get the details right. It's the big picture that matters.
Al Gore got the big picture just about right.
In doing so has saved his country's reputation in the eyes of the world, from being a backward-looking empire wallowing selfishly in its use of fossil fuels into a country that attempting to deal with a common future in which even his former opponent, George Bush, admits climate change is real."
Sounds like that very well might be relevant grounds for a Nobel prize.
Posted by: bubba on October 12, 2007 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK
Thanks to mcdicely and the rest for explaining the prize for Gore. I gather the prize is for his promotion of international cooperation to try to do something about the weather.
I take it that any effort to promote international cooperation would meet that standard. Why not a Nobel peace prize, say, for promoting a trade agreement like NAFTA or CAFTA? Maybe President Clinton ought to get one for NAFTA, I could support that.
I guess I'm disappointed that the monks in Burma didn't get it.
Posted by: DBL on October 12, 2007 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin -- How about some outrage over NRO (Geraghty & Hemingway) along with Mickey Kaus trying to sell this ridiculous rumour of John Edwards having an affair. And blaming Hillary for pushing the stupid story. Based on zero evidence of course.
Can you do a story about how Rudy is cheating on Judy or ... so you hear...? Assholes.
Posted by: Teresa on October 12, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, I read that comment and was reminded that dumbassitude is alive and thriving even on a Friday.
Posted by: sara on October 12, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK
DBL: Maybe President Clinton ought to get one for NAFTA
It might be opposed by annoying vested interests like the American industrial workers that got canned because of it, or the Mexican industrial workers whose average wage has gone down since its passage, or the small Mexican farmers that are now up the creek because of it.
But hey, to a "free trader", all that matters is that the theory is right. Like in wingnut world, hard empirical data need not apply.
Posted by: alex on October 12, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK
Since Alfred Nobel stated that his prize should be awarded to one who did the most to abolish or reduce "standing armies," I vote it should be awarded to George W. Bush for his destruction and demoralization of the U.S. military by requiring it to wage an indefinitely, ill-defined war "on the cheap" in Iraq.
Of course, Bush has certainly helped jihadists, insurgents, and mercenaries around the world, but the prize was for the destruction of "standing armies," OK? On a literal reading of his will, Nobel had nothing, but nothing, against terrorism....
Posted by: Diana on October 12, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK
Diana: On a literal reading of his will, Nobel had nothing, but nothing, against terrorism....
In fact terrorists were some of his best customers for dynamite. Of course back then the fashionable terrorist cause was anarchy rather than so-called Islamic fundamentalism, but such details are unimportant.
Posted by: alex on October 12, 2007 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK
Just for once, could Americans join together and be proud that an American won a Nobel Prize? Would it be that difficult?
I am beginning to lose hope for us - we are so polarized and how do we stand a chance of ever coming together on anything?
Posted by: mattsmom on October 12, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK
Guess I missed Osama's disquisition on fluorocarbons. But these guys spend a lot more time with religious fanatics than I do.
Posted by: Kenji on October 12, 2007 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK
OMG! So Osama publicly agrees with Al Gore, now Gore gets money from a secretive group founded by an explosives maker from Sweden, a country with a fast-growing Muslim population! Someone notify JihadWatch!
Posted by: C.L. on October 12, 2007 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK
Wait until th wingnuts learn that Gore is giving away his prize money... I'm predicting huge aftershocks of heads asploding.
Posted by: Disputo on October 12, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK
Just for once, could Americans join together and be proud that an American won a Nobel Prize?
Not this time. You see, to win the Nobel Peace Prize in a way that pleases the wingers, you first have to wage war before you end it. See "Kissinger, H." All that fag Gore did was to, as bubba said at 3:15, reduce the possibility of some potential wars in the future. Where's the fun and profit in that?
Posted by: thersites on October 12, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK
Hey, you Reich Wing loosers - you can all kiss my silly white Liberal ass. And when you've finish, I'll turn around...
Posted by: Reich Wingers NightMare on October 12, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK
I guess it just proves that
a murderous religious zealot in a cave who wishes for a return to the 7th century still can trip over a rational thought now and then
but a complete idiot can't.
Posted by: paulo on October 12, 2007 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK
What's particularly piquant in this is that Murray also runs a blog called "The Edge of England's Sword", which apparently isn't all that sharp. (I have to admit, though, that I also got a kick out of Virginia pointing out that, since Bin Laden also brushes his teeth, if you either believe in global warming or brush your teeth the terrorists will have won.)
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 12, 2007 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK
I see. So I guess if Osama "endorsed" the notion that 2 + 2 = 4 I should reflexively oppose that, as well.
That's about how much sense he's making here.
Posted by: chuck on October 12, 2007 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK
HeavyJ: "Kevin, what's it like to have your own pet troll responding to your every whim?"
I think they're really cute, but training them to use the litter box is often problematic.
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 13, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK
Bruce Moomaw,
Iain Murray certainly used to run a blog of that name, but SFAIK he discontinued it long ago. Perhaps he has resurrected it. I wouldn't know, as I lost interest a long time ago in anything he might have to say.
Thing is, Murray used to be one of those conservatives whom one could read with profit. He was usually wrong, I thought; but wrong for interesting reasons. Over time, though, he degenerated into a bog-standard hack. Not much mystery as to why. He has a family to feed, after all; and the wingnut-welfare trough offers nourishment for those willing to sup from it.
That Murray has found a berth at The Corner tells us all we need to know about him. The really sad thing is, he probably thinks this is an achievement to be proud of.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton on October 13, 2007 at 6:28 AM | PERMALINK
That Murray has found a berth at The Corner tells us all we need to know about him.
Not quite. That he now takes an 'Competitive Enterprise Institute' sinecure does, though. He's a wingnut welfare case in the pay of Big Oil, and is thus a high-class whore for climate change denialism.
(CEI was the stink tank behind the laughable 'Carbon Dioxide: They Call It Pollution, We Call It Life!' ads.)
Posted by: ahem on October 13, 2007 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK