t r u t h o u t | Nobel Prize for Promises?

Nobel Prize for Promises?

Saturday 10 October 2009

by: Howard Zinn, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

I was dismayed when I heard Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on wars in two countries and launching military action in a third country (Pakistan), would be given a peace prize. But then I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel Peace Prizes. The Nobel Committee is famous for its superficial estimates and for its susceptibility to rhetoric and empty gestures, while ignoring blatant violations of world peace.

Yes, Wilson gets credit for the League of Nations - that ineffectual body which did nothing to prevent war. But he also bombarded the Mexican coast, sent troops to occupy Haiti and the Dominican Republic and brought the US into the slaughterhouse of Europe in the first World War - surely, among stupid and deadly wars, at the top of the list.

Sure, Theodore Roosevelt brokered a peace between Japan and Russia. But he was a lover of war, who participated in the US conquest of Cuba, pretending to liberate it from Spain while fastening US chains around that tiny island. And as president he presided over the bloody war to subjugate the Filipinos, even congratulating a US general who had just massacred 600 helpless villagers in the Phillipines. The Committee did not give the Nobel Prize to Mark Twain, who denounced Roosevelt and criticized the war, nor to William James, leader of the anti-imperialist league.

Oh yes, the Committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, was given a peace prize!

People should not be given a peace prize on the basis of promises they have made (as with Obama, an eloquent maker of promises) but on the basis of actual accomplishments towards ending war. Obama has continued deadly, inhuman military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Nobel Peace Committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history.

--------

Howard Zinn is a historian, playwright and social activist, and has received the Thomas Merton Award, the Eugene V. Debs Award, the Upton Sinclair Award and the Lannan Literary Award. He is perhaps best known for "A People's History of the United States."

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

Yasser Arafat won the prize,

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:04 — Anonymous (not verified)

Yasser Arafat won the prize, too. Funny how Mr. Zinn the social activist forgot to mention it.

In all of the other

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:04 — mysterioso (not verified)

In all of the other categories, the Nobel Prize is given for a completed work. In literature a book must be finished, in chemistry a reaction must be re-tested and proven beyond doubt, in science a discovery or theory must be proven to hold true again and again. Why has a prize been given for just thinking about a conclusion. The one thing that sums up how people feel about this award is the sound of those gasping and sucking in their breath in the video of the official announcement. It says it all.

Many out there agree with

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:12 — Anonymous (not verified)

Many out there agree with the decision to award president Obama the Nobel Prize based on his changing of the outlook of America and the world. They couldn't be more wrong. When candidate Obama made his speeches and traveled around the US he wasn't changing peoples minds or consciousness. There minds were already there and had been for eight years. He simply stepped into the road where they were already marching. Nothing changed except that they now had a national voice. For his supporters to give him credit for change is mistaken. There has been no change so far. Although he got my vote I'm still waiting for candidate Obama to fill the suit that president Obams is wearing.

Give it back.

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:14 — Anonymous (not verified)

Give it back.

Alfred Nobel Didn't

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:26 — Anonymous (not verified)

Alfred Nobel Didn't Alfred Nobel invent dynamite?

Obama has continued

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 16:19 — kiwi davy, from Germany (not verified)

Obama has continued rendition and torture, particularly at Bagram , which is getting expanded. And yet he represents hope and change. Oslo hopes to encourage him., or .....

I'm an Obama supporter, yet

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 16:21 — sharonsj (not verified)

I'm an Obama supporter, yet I was surprised at the announcement. What has he done to deserve it? We still have two wars, an imploding economy, foreclosures and bankruptcies, and the Patriot Act. So what if our image in other countries has improved. We're still toast.

Howard Zinn is right,the

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 16:51 — Anonymous (not verified)

Howard Zinn is right,the road to hell is paved with promises and good intentions, he did`t mentioned the setting up of 7 military bases in Colombia intensifying the Pentagon intervention in the Civil war fought in that country for the last 45 years. Not impressed by President Obama`s credentials as a Peace Nobel Prize.

It's interesting to see the

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:03 — Anonymous (not verified)

It's interesting to see the alliance between the Far Left (Zinn, etc.) and the Far Right (Limbaugh, etc.) on this issue. I'd say neither extreme at all "gets" what's obvious to the rest of us: that Obama has changed the course of the most powerful nation on the planet, away from the unilateralism and torture/invasion policies of the Cheney/Bush admin and toward diplomacy, outreach (esp. to the Muslim world), a call for nuclear disarmament, and support for environmentally sound policies. Nothing could be more crucial for world peace. Does he still have a lot to prove? Yes. Should we get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible? Yes. Could he be doing better/more? We all could. E.g., all Zinn and Limbaugh and their ilk are doing is throwing tomatoes from the sidelines. By contrast, Mr. Obama has to get up each morning and make decisions that impact the course of the entire world.

Howard Zinn, one of my

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:17 — Anonymous (not verified)

Howard Zinn, one of my heroes, is off the mark here: the Nobel Committee did not make a "wrong" choice. They made it precisely because they knew the peace prize winners' warlike propensities. Sarte understood the nature of the Nobel committees - whether for "peace" or literature - they're an extension of imperialism, no more, no less.

Obama has shown for the last

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:28 — Anonymous (not verified)

Obama has shown for the last three years his amazing capacity to rise to the level of statesmanlike leadership through the powerful use of language moving toward change. Others become encouraged to action based on ideals promulgated. The world is recognizing his potential to truly promote action in the right direction to carry all nations toward right human relationship. This is no small task considering the mess left by past administrations. No one president can cover all the bases at once, and diplomacy does not move as quickly as rash action. Give the man some time and stop acting out of brash impatience. Americans want a quick fix for everything. We have to grow up as a people.

http://www.splicd.com/GMJuEOa

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:38 — Anonymous (not verified)

http://www.splicd.com/GMJuEOaF84o/152/660

Howard Zinn deserves a Nobel

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:41 — Tom Cahill (not verified)

Howard Zinn deserves a Nobel Peace prize simply for what he just wrote about Obama receiving it.

When I first heard about

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:44 — Arden Kirkman (not verified)

When I first heard about Obama's peace prize, I thought "that's preposterous - it must be a lie". Then I remembered that is the very word Obama used about the 9/11 inside job allegations - "presposterous". If Obama seriously wants to end war, he should investigate 9/11 and hold the responsible parties accountable.

Mr. Zinn's historical

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:53 — anyfreeman (not verified)

Mr. Zinn's historical perspective is illuminating. Factor in the political hay to be harvested from Castro's endorsement last night, and it has to be concluded this is yet another burden for Obama. Remember Kissinger received it. And the source of the money for the prize came from munitions manufacturing. Is there a Krupp peace prize? How about a Blackwater Ribbon?

The mind blowing hypocrisy

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:53 — tioche (not verified)

The mind blowing hypocrisy of rewarding a WAR CRIMINAL a Peace prize... truth- Obama has continued fascist amerikas slaughter in 3 illegally occupied nations that did NOTHING to fascist amerika ! tioche, Mexico

Thank you for the article, I

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:53 — Maria Spiritonova (not verified)

Thank you for the article, I share the same concern.

I was proud that a US

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:54 — Rowland Scherman (not verified)

I was proud that a US president was awarded the prize. Then I read Howard Zinn's piece. Now I am proud that Obama won, but only if he lives up to his lofty rhetoric and doesn't cave to the powers of war, as those chosen others have done. Perhaps Obama was awarded the prize solely because he is not George W Bush--a vacant suit cheerleader who petrified the world with love of power and his lack of intelligence.

Thank you Mr. Zinn. I was

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 17:56 — Anonymous (not verified)

Thank you Mr. Zinn. I was dismayed that Bernie Sanders seemed congratulatory as well.

You are far to quick to be

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:04 — Anonymous (not verified)

You are far to quick to be judgmental. If as you argue the Nobel Peace Committee is too quick to applaud, you are too quick to condemn. I hope history is on Obama's side.

Yes! Howard Zinn says it

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:04 — Elizabeth Diggs (not verified)

Yes! Howard Zinn says it perfectly. It's a tribute to hypocrisy to give a "peace" prize to a person who is making war and raining death and destruction on civilian populations. The message to the world: practice what you preach is for suckers.

I wonder how many people

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:07 — Anonymous (not verified)

I wonder how many people would die if Obama just pulled out of Iraq and Iran. Don't be a fool. These things take time and Obama didn't start these wars.

Zinn's observations are

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:12 — David Yennior (not verified)

Zinn's observations are true, but Hope and Promise is no small thing. That is what organized religion is based on. Humans thrive because of it. And, there are very few leaders who convey such positives. Obama's speeches in Berlin, Turkey, and Cairo were very uplifting. No other leader could have 1/4 million people turn out to hear him. In the past there was John Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Caroline Kennedy sees this in Barack Obama. 54% of the electorate in the United States did too. The Nobel nomination occurred 12 days after the inauguration. In addition, Obama's work toward nuclear disarmament, negotiations with Iran, between Israel and the Palestinians, and promise to close Guantanamo should be rewarded. The International Community evidenced by the Nobel Committee appreciate President Obama. He would have received the award sooner or later. * * * *

It's remarkable that Howard

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:13 — James Sumpter (not verified)

It's remarkable that Howard Zinn knows more about the qualifications of a Nobel honoree than the committee does. If he wants to impose his standards, he should start his own prize. I can imagine some were not pleased when Mr. Zinn won the Thomas Merton Award. Mr Zinn is entitled to his opinion, but it seems to me that his commentary reflects little more than sour grapes, envy, myopia and arrogance.

It seems that most have

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:15 — Anonymous (not verified)

It seems that most have forgotten that Jimmy Crater received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for all his efforts at world peace.

Given that Alfred Nobel was

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:15 — Anonymous (not verified)

Given that Alfred Nobel was the inventor of dynamite, it's only fitting that those mentioned in the article should be recipients. Ghandi probably never even played with firecrackers.

Excellent article! Your

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:18 — Anonymous (not verified)

Excellent article! Your honesty is simply a breath of fresh air in our polluted times.

A unique voice. It resonates

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:20 — Anonymous (not verified)

A unique voice. It resonates through the words on the page. Thank-you Howard Zinn for the perspective. I hope and believe in the promise of Obama although I feel we must be desperate indeed for the comfort of a rosy vision of the future.

Howard Zinn for the People's

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:20 — Jon Weissman (not verified)

Howard Zinn for the People's Peace Prize!

I love you, Truthout, and

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:24 — Beth Coffelt (not verified)

I love you, Truthout, and I'm happy to see you sometimes presenting many sides to an issue. But in this case of the Obama Nobel prize, your commentator, like virtually all of the naysayers, has missed the point. The Nobel committee gave Obama the prize for the same reason that United States voters elected him; he was making an effort toward something we all, at heart, want, and despite the hopelessness of that wish, as proven throughout history, he wasn't afraid to make it. That was a very powerful message and it upended the world, if only for a moment; it broke through, it suffused the heart with gladness. Also, guys, the Nobel committee awards the prize; it didn't have to go through committees of the US Congress. Neither do I condemn thee: go, and Zinn no more.”

There is much i agree with

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:26 — Andrew Wheeler (not verified)

There is much i agree with in this article and yet I feel this is an incomplete reading of the award at best. I am a true fan of Howard Zinn but feel that this critique is biased. Please watch the following clip from that gives examples of former winners of the prize who were awarded based on what they hoped to accomplish, not on what they had achieved. All human institutions are flawed and make mistakes in judgement. It is the role of historians to shed light on the mistakes as well as the successes. But is it truly the role of a historian to hold all institutions and bodies to standards of perfection?

Excellent column. I suspect

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:30 — Out West (not verified)

Excellent column. I suspect the reason Obama received the prize is that he has at least stated his intention of reversing the Bush legacy. That's a big step, but not enough. Obama is probably no worse than the other war criminals who have received the Nobel Peace Prize, thus bringing the relevance of the Prize into serious question. Zinn is right: the Nobel Committee should retire.

I don't think the committee

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:33 — Anonymous (not verified)

I don't think the committee record has been all that great. I think Obama should not be a recipient, not now. We'll have to wait and see if he deserves it.

Thank you, Prof. Zinn.

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:33 — cattivocomico (not verified)

Thank you, Prof. Zinn. You're absolutely right. some have pointed out that the Nobel Committee is being 'tactical' and attempting to give Obama's initiatives a boost. I hope they're right; but I'm not holding my breath. I read "People's History of the US" again about once every 2 years. I think it's time it was on every High school curriculum -- then perhaps politicians wouldn't be allowed to take unearned peace prizes -- maybe award it retroactively to Mark Twain for the "War Prayer.".

it doesn't matter if you are

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

it doesn't matter if you are a lover war, it needs at least to do something "right" and you can get your award! what a shame!

I think that the writer

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:39 — Alina M. Lopez Marin (not verified)

I think that the writer fails to take into consideration the efforts by President Obama to reach out to the Middle East and to the Muslim world which are unprecedented. Also, the writer fails to take into consideration that our president is well regarded by the international community which while not unprecedented, it had been a while since the world has taken us seriously rather than with fear and trepidation.

Pres. Obama has spoken out

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:39 — Dave Eastwood (not verified)

Pres. Obama has spoken out against torture and illegal detention and has spoken in favor of negotiations with those we disagree with. Perhaps it is the clear contrast between him and your beloved George W. Bush that has caught the attention of the Nobel Peace Prize committee? How quickly can any person clean up the terrible mess that Bush got our country (and the world) into? Go soak your head.

I have always believed that

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:44 — Dave Eastwood (not verified)

I have always believed that Thomas Merton, who was attending a conference against the Vietnam War when he was electocuted in his hotel room, was the victim of a CIA assassin. One more thing to pin on Henry Kissinger?

The Nobel committee members

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:45 — Paulpat (not verified)

The Nobel committee members aren't the only ones to be bamboozled by this smooth talking huckster. Obama, who has already joined the ranks of famous war criminals, helms the world's largest terrorist organization, the US government. Now, his murderous regime is legitimized. He will continue as long as the American people acquiesce. Don't expect any leadership from our elected officials, either.

It is just disgraceful the

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:59 — Marilyn (not verified)

It is just disgraceful the Obama started all these wars!

Barack Obama has, in the

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:00 — eightpix (not verified)

Barack Obama has, in the very least, addressed every major aspect of the human condition in the contemporary world as it relates to the establishment of peace. From climate change, to industrial-economic goals, to relations with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Israel, and Guantanamo Bay, and the nuclear question. His address of these issues, the engines of warfare today, are the reason for this award. He ought to decline, no doubt. He was nominated before a time in which he could show he is deserving of the honour. Yet, there is urgency in his action. I commend him for this. The Nobel prize is premature, but, his efforts deserve this level of recognition.

What is it with pinyhead

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:01 — Don Fin (not verified)

What is it with pinyhead liberals?????? You've got the diseased right wing pumping out ugliest lies written for them by the billionaires who won the media - but given the chance, the left jumps in with the nasty comments and the hate as well. What's the deal?? Is the left so in need of committing suicide? How about Congratulations to Obama and to our poor abused country??? How about that we are SO LUCKY that Li'l Bush and Cheney are gone now - next stop Federal Prison. How about, we are SO LUCKY to have Obama who is a person of vision. Why do we have Howard Zinn? Who is Howard Zinn anyway? But I have heard these stupid, nasty comments out of a lot of liberals over the years - look how the liberals abused Kerry - and Kerry was a good guy. My suggestion to you - liberals - is to get in line a little more - not quite so much whiny hate.

It seems that everybody,

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:04 — Fraancis Scalzi (not verified)

It seems that everybody, especially nearly every commentator in the media, is jumping all over Obama because he was chosen to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. What a commotion from a lot of Sunday evening quarter backers ! If anybody bothers to check it out, nearly everyone who has received the Peace Prize has been either criticized for not having "earned" it, or outright dismissed; just so much calumny. Well, he got it for very good reasons and will undoubtedly live up to the potential it presages as time goes on. And I'm sure that by now he's immune to criticism since, according to thousands of Republican "conservatives" and disappointed liberals, he can't do anything right. He is either trying to do too much or not enough. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Can't win no matter what he does or how well he does. But the rest of the western world evidently appreciates his work more than the fault- finders in the U.S.A. And he's giving the $1.5 million to charity. Does that satisfy anyone ? Probably not. Griping and moaning is the order of the day. Civil behavior is passe. So get off his back - - - and get over it.

The greatest shock for me

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:14 — Anonymous (not verified)

The greatest shock for me was when Nelson Mandela, whose fight against the violent abuses of apartheid condemned him to 27 years isolated in Robin Island Prison had to share his Nobel Prize with Frederik DeKlerk, the South African Prime Minister who held onto Apartheid until the global pressure from an international boycott of everything South African forced his hand. Indeed there are greater insults to the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama. And while I admire and respect Howard Zinn I am personally very happy for this President and believe that the Nobel Peace prize to him at this time is a reason to be hopeful.

Zinn's article is a disgrace

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:16 — Don (not verified)

Zinn's article is a disgrace but the reader comments border on positively lunatic. This is all BS not worthy of TruthOut. I've never seen such ugly comments --- except by the likes of Limbaugh, et al. No wonder liberals never get anywhere because you start pecking at each other like rabid dogs. You should be ashamed. When you try to tear Obama down by calling him nasty names, you're just showing that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on nut cases.

Well now we can complain

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:16 — Dudley Evenson (not verified)

Well now we can complain forever but Obama is the best we've got so we'd better get behind him and help make his dreams (and ours) a reality.

While I can see the validity

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:17 — Louisa (not verified)

While I can see the validity of the points made by Mr. Zinn, I must also point out what others have already: Obama has been in office for less than a year and these brutal and disgusting wars were not something started by his administration. While most of us wish it could be that easy to leave the mess behind, it simply is not, thanks to the previous administration's lack of reason, logic, and intelligence. We have to have faith that Obama will live up to his promises of ending these wars in due time, and continue to push him to do it sooner rather than later.

President Obama has said a

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:17 — Anonymous (not verified)

President Obama has said a lot of wonderful things but I'm not seeing the follow up I had hoped for. He would deserve the prize if he stood up and DID something, like allowing the prosecution of officials for torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib..... Saying is one thing. Let's see some doing!

I really don't understand

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:22 — Larry Taub (not verified)

I really don't understand Mr. Zinn's simplistic attitudes toward war and peace. Why should a person be denied the peace prize just because they engage in war? Would he have opposed Lincoln's getting the award, or George Washington, were it available at those times? The wrong kind of peace is much worse than the right kind of war. The wrong kind of peace, like that at Versailles, can be a peace to end all peace, and led to the right kind of war, unfortunately. Why does he criticize Mr. Obama's award based on the fact that he/the US is waging war in Iraq and AfPak? He's trying to end the former as quickly and correctly as he can, and not pursuing the second will surely lead to worse war later on. Mr. Zinn should be berating arch promoters of wrong war, like Osama, not Obama. Or would he prefer awarding the peace prize to the former rather than the latter? A little nuance, please.

Mr. Zinn? I adore you.

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:50 — Anonymous (not verified)

Mr. Zinn? I adore you. President Obama? Every morning I breathe a sigh of relief that it didn't go the other way last November. I, too, was a bit perplexed by the win yesterday, but not to the extent of tossing stones. Mr. Zinn, you must be careful of your own glass house as I watch the trailers for your (much needed) star struck documentaries and name dropping promo pieces. Can't we all just get along and play nice? Give the guy a break. If you paid attention yesterday, he was as baffled as we were.

A much better piece about

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:56 — Stardust (not verified)

A much better piece about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is this by history professor Joseph A. Palermo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/reaction-to-president-oba_b_316385.html

Wilson was certainly one of

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:58 — Robert (not verified)

Wilson was certainly one of the worst presidents, worse than Bush. Many historians rate him dead last, as he can be blamed for causing World War II. Yet he was later spun into a hero. As this article points out, Bush will become a great president too. http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1392 You'll love the part there about Wilson segregating federal offices.

I cast an aspiration vote

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:03 — Red Herring (not verified)

I cast an aspiration vote for Obama and already am thoroughly disappointed. It will be fortuitious indeed if this aspirational Peace Prize proves to be more prescient than the choice I made on November 4, 2008. The worst thing about giving Obama the Nobel Prize is that it has become a distraction from the Obama Administration's critical deviations from government of the people, by the people and for the people. Obama capitulated to Wall Street on the financial crisis, he allied with Orwellians on domestic surveillance and government secrecy, he employes unConstitutional signing statements, he hires lobbyists and other minions of wealth as high officials, he defers to the military/industrial complex, and he is about to enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical companies with one of the largest corporate subsidies in history. Obama's biggest sin is that he is continuing the political disenfranchisement and economic impoverishment of average Americans. These continuations of the most egregious Bush/Cheney domestic policies have little to do with the current wars, but they bod ill for domestic and international peace in the future.

Obama has already

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:04 — Michael Goldhaber (not verified)

Obama has already de-escalated tensions with Russia by changing plans for the "missile shield" in Eastern Europe; he has started more direct negotiations with Iran; he is obviously engaged in diplomacy with North Korea; plus his Cairo speech, his efforts towards curbing global warming, etc. He is by no means as peaceful as I would like, but has anyone in the world done more in the last year (or two years, including his campaign) for changing the atmosphere re the possibility of peace. Howard Zinn sadly shows his ideological blinders in this piece.

I just heard that Obama'

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:05 — Charlie McCarthy (not verified)

I just heard that Obama' handlers have convinced and/or strong armed the Pope into naming him the Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity, which henceforth will be called the Holy Quadrinity. Charlie McCarthy

Maybe those critical of Mr.

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:14 — Anonymous (not verified)

Maybe those critical of Mr. O's Noble prize are missing the red/orange days, god and terror machine of the fanatics let loose all over the world, Tom De Lay's honest politics, GW and tricky Dicky's power of the dark side, and trampling and pissing over our constitution. Just to redirect our attention from negatives to positives, from destructive unilateralism of cosmic cowboy-hood to multi-lateral engagement is worth many prizes. Mr. O is not perfect, but heck, he is a lot better than Dicky and his side-kick GW.

I wonder how many people

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:23 — jahf (not verified)

I wonder how many people would die if Obama just pulled out of Iraq and Iran. Don't be a fool.

The one who holds this position is the fool. Deaths that now occur in these places are a direct consequence of the U.S. breaking of the peace in the first place. Whether U.S. troops are pulled out now or later does not change that fact.

The only difference is that, if U.S. troops are withdrawn from the region, the U.S. will at long last no longer be active in a deliberate campaign of brutality against the people there.

Howard Zinn was covering the

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:24 — edmc (not verified)

Howard Zinn was covering the Americans who have won... Arafat is not American nor are his sins greater thank Kissingers! He can be included Along with Sharon however among the one's who prove the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer to be taken Seriously. Shame on the Nobel committee...and shame on Obama for accepting it. Time to deliver on those promises don't you think, Uncle Tom Obama-Bush!

The Nobel Committee should

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:47 — Anonymous (not verified)

The Nobel Committee should be committed. And I thought it was bad when they gave it to Al Gore. At least he put together a slide presentation to propagate his fraud - Obama hasn't even done that.

Give it to Michael Moore!

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:24 — marilyn cooper (not verified)

Give it to Michael Moore! Obama also has Monsanto people in his agri-admin. and wall street people in the econ-admin. The capacity for hypocrisy in government never ceases to amaze. Thanks to the Englishman for telling Blair he had blood on his hand when he tried to shake the hand of the father of his dead soldier/son killed in Iraq. Why doesn't Obama have his people investigate Halliburton's profiteering from this self-centered invasion?! If you don't learn from and correct what went on, you perpetuate it. He looks good, sounds good, and is doing the same things as GWB. No policy changes yet at all. Name one. Please. Even a speeding train heading for a wreck tries to slam on the brakes! Change is ugly at first and seems to be abrupt. A critical mass groundswell initiates it. Keep pushing, folks!!! Don't leave your foreclosed homes, and don't pay taxes for war. And how about giving the peace prize $ for after-school, peace programs in Chicago?

I didn't know the peace

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:28 — j-man (not verified)

I didn't know the peace prize was awarded for rhetoric and acting. I did know it was given for science fraud and fear-mongering to promote an agenda(Al Gore). The submission deadline for the peace prize nomination was 2 weeks after cousin Barry was elected, and only past winners of the prize are able to nominate people. What did he do in the first 2 weeks, or his whole presidency for that matter? This award is a total joke.

Mr. Zinn has both eyes

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:36 — Martin Polanco (not verified)

Mr. Zinn has both eyes pointing forward.....rare these days. President Obama was elected, in part, as a reaction to the horrible, malicious Bush presidency. While Obama may be marching up the same road (see earlier comment) he is marching to a different tune, and I don't believe he has the malice of heart that his predecesor had.

Nobody's noticed that the

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:49 — Chris Wood (not verified)

Nobody's noticed that the Peace Prizes are intentionally ironic?

I'm with Zinn; he's rarely

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:49 — dr wu (not verified)

I'm with Zinn; he's rarely wrong when it comes to our imperial empire and the destructiveness it entails. The best that can be said for Obama's getting the Nobel peace prize, yes, named after the guy who invented TNT and made a fortune from it, is, that it's a strategic move-- it will inspire Obama to think peace. But he has a heavy load on his plate, the empire comes with a lot of baggage: fighting resource wars in the middle east and elsewhere, keeping the Chinese, Russians and Muslims at bay, supporting Israel and its nuclear arsenal and attacking Iran for trying to achieve the same. And on and on. Empire ,it turns out , isn't easy, the Pentagon and Wall Street are voracious and Nobel must be laughing in his grave, the bomb man, who passes his baton to Obama , the empire man.

President Obama has already

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:23 — Anonymous (not verified)

President Obama has already changed the way the countries of the World relate to each other. Now, if the Republicans would just stop being so obstinate. There is a lot of evil in trying to stop all the good that President Obama is doing.

What is wrong with you

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:29 — Anonymous (not verified)

What is wrong with you people? Our President is leading the whole world back to sanity and you guys say he hasn't done anything! You're a bunch of miserable anti-American idiots!

Why? Sheer relief. The

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:30 — Interested Observer (not verified)

Why? Sheer relief. The prize was probably given in sheer relief that the neo-conservative "with us or against us" war mongers (for the benefit of their war profiteering cronies in industry) are no longer in office. The right (at least the Fox News type of right) will surely jump on this as proof that the nation has already been betrayed to any number of enemies foreign and domestic. I really makes no sense to me. Nothing substantial to pin it on, no Camp David agreement, nothing at all but the sudden vacuum left by the departure of reflexive bellicosity and paranoia from the White House. Being without substance it will be of no benefit and might bring additional difficulty to whatever Obama intends to do.

Are there any patriots out

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

Are there any patriots out there? Support our President. He is doing great things!

This Nobel Prize was an

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:37 — Anonymous (not verified)

This Nobel Prize was an accolade for the American people, as much as for President Obama. Howard Zinn and some of those commenting are trying to prove that we (the American people) don't deserve it.

Bishop Desmond Tutu got one

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:54 — captain pneumo (not verified)

Bishop Desmond Tutu got one for his efforts to end apartheid in South Africa....ten years before this monumental task was completed. The Nobel, however, provided a healthy dose of legitimacy to his efforts, and it inspired him and his followers to "go the distance". That could well be the case for its current recipient...with our support, and without all this needless nit-picking.

Does anyone else think we

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:05 — Blue Collar (not verified)

Does anyone else think we are a country of absolutists? Obama is a relativist (think adaptable,) thank your higher power. Things are finally moving forward not backward. Patience, America. Nothing is more irksome than when we become our own judge, jury, and executioner!

Obama didn't campaign for

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:14 — Betsy Toll (not verified)

Obama didn't campaign for the award, didn't promote himself for it, and is intelligent enough to know himself that at very best it is way premature. But the hour is freaking late. Why are we even talking about this? Aren't there any more urgent concerns than than prize-winners? No bigger fish to fry?

Well Howard was being

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:32 — DBW (not verified)

Well Howard was being generous if he omitted Arafat, he also omitted the kripto Nazi DeKlerk, the terrorist zionist settler Begin, as well as the imperialist patsy Ralph Bunch. And I might add most of these heinous choices were a "two-for" - Mandellalh alongside DeKlerk, Sadat alongside Begin, and comrade Van Dong tied at the hip to Henry, not to mention a racist career cop Daryl Gates. Each choice represented a geopolitical shift that threaten or challenged European global supremacy,or western hegemonic finance capitalism - so lets not pretend Obama's laureate choice is any different - we are indeed in a historical moment...

the world is a stage and I

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:46 — Anonymous (not verified)

the world is a stage and I believe the Nobel committee is rightfully raising the bar for Obama. It is up to Obama to prove himself able to walk the walk. I for one feel he has been co-opted by the elitist thugs who have run this country into the ground. Congress's approval rating is below 20% - he is president, they must stand for re-election in 2010. He should make a stand.

The Prize committee is

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:05 — Anonymous (not verified)

The Prize committee is placing a bet and a hope, just like many of us did, that this man Obama would help us, all of us, all over the world, move in a more positive direction. They have more guts than Zinn.

Roosevelt's daughter and his

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:16 — Anonymous (not verified)

Roosevelt's daughter and his VP gave Korea to Japan and took charge of the Philippines in exchange.

If destroying the economy,

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:19 — disgusted Independent (not verified)

If destroying the economy, security, strength, and trustworthiness of the United States is considered an "accomplishment", then Obama's award is well-deserved.

Jimmy Carter won the prize,

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:23 — David (not verified)

Jimmy Carter won the prize, having had the guts to tell the truth about Israel, work tirelessly building houses for poor people, and when he was in office he warned the American people about worshiping money and possessions. He asked them to stop consuming so much oil. So the Americans voted him out of office, to replace him with a movie actor. Al Gore won the Nobel after telling people that their internal combustion engines are poisoning the atmosphere. Zinn forgot to mention these two men, and indeed, this piece is too bitter and mean to be indicative of Howard's usual accuracy. On the other hand, don't lie to yourselves. Obama is clearly a tool of the military-corporate-congressional elite, as is Pelosi and Reid. A true peace president worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize would have been Dennis Kucinich. I guarantee you that if Americans had elected him instead of Obama, that with or without the help of the oligarch Congress, he would have done everything in his executive power to end all our wars and global military imperialism IMMEDIATELY. One last thing. Truthout comments section is more and more seeing posts from conservative infiltraitors who try to talk about what "liberals" should and should not do. "Liberals" are advised to "stop whining" and "fall in line," etc. I for one don't accept any labels at all, but people who are "liberal" and "progressive" don't stop criticizing people like Obama just because he's better than Bush. That's one thing you'll find if you read the comments section on Truthout. The people who want peace, a healthy environment, an end to corporate rule, restoration of civil liberties, the truth about 9-11, those people will say what's true, regardless of who "their man in the White House" is. Honesty, even if it hurts. Unlike the lies that conservatives told themselves and the world about war criminals Dick and George!

Howard Zinn basically is

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:35 — Samuel Freeman (not verified)

Howard Zinn basically is correct in his analysis. Yet, it is true the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded the other Nobel prizes on a body of work, but also on the potential to facilitate peace. Obama has great potential; however, it is one thing to “talk the talk” and something else entirely to “walk the walk”. In his time in office, Obama has been great at talking the talk and extremely reluctant to walk the walk. While Obama has “spoken out against torture and illegal detention”, he knowing and deliberately has continued both. That is not just hypocritical but intellectually dishonest and highly immoral. Time will tell whether the Committee was prescient or duped. We should hope he will live up to the potential and to the faith the Committee placed in him. We should commend and encourage him, but also criticize him when his deeds fall short of his words. I suspect Zinn did not mention Arafat, or Perez, or Rubin because he was focusing on Americans of dubious deservingness who had won the prize.

Mr. Zinn does not seem to

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:45 — Alfred Dunham (not verified)

Mr. Zinn does not seem to understand the difference between the glass half full and the glass half empty. Perhaps he thinks the prize should have gone to Bush--or maybe nobody--ever. It has been my observation that few people are ever happy with the peace prizes, at least at the time given. So within that context, what's your point, Mr. Zinn? Let's not even try? That certainly seems to what he is saying.

Oh, come on. Didn't

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:56 — Anonymous (not verified)

Oh, come on. Didn't President Obama inherit these wars from George W.? Isn't his goal to end these wars in as sane a way as possible? You can't just walk away. That's as inhumane as staying, indefinitely. As Colin Powell once said, "You break it, you bought it." The U.S. is learning the terrible lesson of waltzing in to a country, only to be stuck like glue, and not finding any easy way out. That's why other nations are a bit more cautious. GWB was not very bright to invade a country that had not done us any harm. We are all paying the price for that folly. Our children, and our children's children will have to pay for it.

Even Mr. Obama's ardent

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:59 — Anonymous (not verified)

Even Mr. Obama's ardent supporters recognize the fragility of arguments in support of the Committee's decision. But Zinn's article exemplifies the whiny rhetoric of a pseudo-idealist. Obama has in fact changed the international discourse on terrorism, arms control, global warming, and, irrespective of outcome, his election has singularly demonstrated the resilience and promise of American democracy. The Nobel Committee did not only honor Barack Obama by their decision ... they honored every American for our persistence in trying to do "right things" for the rest of the world. Let's not reject the rest of the world when they try to say "thanks."

Isn't it possible that the

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 01:01 — Ryan (not verified)

Isn't it possible that the committee is using -- or deploying -- this award as a kind of pre-emptive weapon against war, a measure to tug at Obama's heart strings while he sits in the war room? It seems like the decision to give Obama a prize that he surely does not "deserve" might be purely tactical: hitting him up with a massive guilt trip in the hopes of pointing his policy towards a direction worthy of the laurels he has so awkwardly stumbled upon.

the difference in comments

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 01:20 — Fred belt (not verified)

the difference in comments to my wife and I from people in other countries about our government has changed dramatically in the last 2 years. Under bush, the comments were very anti-American. since Obama was elected comments are becoming pro-american and friendly. Obama has obviously calmed the hatred of our government and most of the world trusts him. He deserves the peace prize.

Instead of coming to terms

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 01:55 — Anonymous (not verified)

Instead of coming to terms with Obama, Zinn disingenuously uses the Nobel Peace Committee as his punching bag, attacking them for decisions made as recently as almost 40 years ago and going backward. Unfortunately for Zinn's position, indistinguishable in its attack on Obama as some sort of affirmative action Nobel laureate from Karl Rove, is what would his alternative be?? Almost done in Iraq and what now? In Afghanistan, the policies of the last seven years have created two Talibans in place of one so what would the sage of Wellfleet do now? Well, we are left with his sneer at Obama and that is about it. See, it is not enough that Obama is dealing with half a dozen crises simultaneously, that he unabashedly not a leftist like Zinn and that he at least is returning the US to adherence to law, that it is not gone rogue. Zinn sneers and equates Obama to Wilson, Roosevelt and Kissinger (sic). How vapid is that?

Well now...that's a

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 02:10 — Anonymous (not verified)

Well now...that's a 'change'. 2 wars or is it 3? other presidents only had one.. 20 Bilderbergs on his staff. Face it we are a warrior nation.

Barack Obama has been dealt

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 02:15 — Anonymous (not verified)

Barack Obama has been dealt a tough dirty hand by our previous Administration. Anyone else would cash in his chips and give up. Obama, despite the odds, has been plowing ahead on numerous tough issues and thus far has prevented our country from going belly up, financially and in other areas. It is much simper for the critics, NegHeads, naysayers and the like to always criticize rather than come up with plausible and worthwhile solutions. The United States is now winning friends and allies worldwide. Also worthwhile mentioning, are the initial discussions occurring with so called Adversary Nations. It is difficult to surmise, since the year 2000, what sort of civilized humans, could have achieved so much death, destruction and financial ruin,to our Nation and Worldwide For whatever reason, there are many citizens, who resent someone who is intelligent, resourceful and diplomatic to boot. Talk is easier, much cheaper and less dangerous, than moving ahead, to do the Right Thing. As an Army Veteran of WW 11 in the South Pacific I Salute you, President Obama, Stand Fast! Give this man a chance to prove his exceptional capabilities and vision.

All the furor, for heavens

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 02:29 — KMCM (not verified)

All the furor, for heavens sake. How to stop a 9 year war in 9 months, that is the question. How to restore the economy which has been bartered away for years, in 9 months, another good question. I imagine the decision makers gave the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for his intention to work for peace and have the nation do so as well. Some cooperation from the stuck-in-a-groove nay-sayers would be a great cooperative step forward.

I am totally baffled by

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 02:41 — Anonymous (not verified)

I am totally baffled by Howard Zinn. He lives and vacations in one of the most expensive and intellectually snobbish areas on Cape Cod. He may be an intellectual, but he is clearly dishonest about his own motives. Obama has accomplished a lot and I can understand why he won. During his campaign, there was ample opportunity for him to incite violence and anger, but he chose the non-violent road. During the Gates episode, he chose to unite instead of divide. He has brought the same, to the world stage. Zinn is intellectually dishonest and has the same intellectual depth as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. It is a shame because he is a good historian.

iI think it is deserved,

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 03:10 — flo chapgier (not verified)

iI think it is deserved, because Obama inherited a situation where military corporations were holding the reins. Yet he brought in Middle East the two sides together,and tried to ease the Palestinian desperate humanitarian situation. He addressed with respect other nations. He has tried to create compromise and understanding in his own country and outside. And anyway the Peace Nobel Prize wouldn't exist if there were no more wars, strangely. We have at last a president who tries, despite a corrupted and weak Congress, to walk his talk. You don't like it ? Get on with grass-root work and help.

I hate to wade into this

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 03:12 — Roger Brindle (not verified)

I hate to wade into this kind of controversy. I love Howard Zinn for getting a lot of perspective (left wing perspective) into the public debate in America that is almost completely drowned out by the Republican hot air machine these days. But in this case, he has completely gone off the rails. Emerson is supposed to have given literary respectability to the old saw "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Professor Zinn has given us the most succinct statement of that truism that it is possible to give. Everything he says is "true" (especially wading into Henry Kissenger), but, as one commentator put it: "where are the nuances?" Zinn is correct about the "warmongering" of TR and Woodrow Wilson. He is wrong about the long lasting impact of the ideals that Wilson was fighting for in the League of Nations. Yes, we had to fight WWII because Wilson "failed" at Versaille. But can anyone imagine that we would have the United Nations if all the history from 1919 to 1945 hadn't happened? Human beings are slow learners (especially collectively!), but we eventually get some approximation of right. And the articulation of ideals is a BIG part of learning to get it right. Symbolism counts. Unfortunately power politics and war are still part of the nationalist game. But the wars are getting smaller and farther out on the fringes of power. If we avoid WWWIII (jury still out), it will be in large part because of all the "ineffectual" ideals that peacemakers have promoted for the last century and a half or more. The left should indeed learn some tolerance and patience. Cut Obama the slack he needs and get off our asses and help him achieve the goals he has so eloquently set forth. Just asking (and praying)

I seems insulting to assume

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 03:17 — Really? (not verified)

I seems insulting to assume that any pageant prize has meaning beyond a pat on the back. If it did anything it continued to discount the Nobel Prize and its prestige as a statement. It's like the difference between an earned degree and a honorary degree. Remember that it's not an earned prize.

I actually think that

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 03:30 — Tom Germain (not verified)

I actually think that Professor Zinn is correct in his criticism of the awarding of the Nobel Prize to our President. Obviously, Howard Zinn is famous for his unconventional, but rigorous approach to history. If you are unfamiliar with his People's History of the United States, among other works, this opinion piece is a good excuse to start reading and understand where he's coming from. Even if you disagree with his point of view, I think you'll find his critical perspective to be thought provoking to say the least, and very likely both refreshing and inspiring. So many comments that have been triggered by today's opinion piece seem to contain so much anger - we have so much hope riding on Obama... perhaps that is our mistake in the first place. Having said that, I do hope that President Obama can use this honor - that has been thrust so surprisingly upon him - to help buoy his most positive efforts.

Maybe they are trying to

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 03:40 — maybez (not verified)

Maybe they are trying to stop him, or at least make it harder for him, to start up world war three?

Such critics above have

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 04:13 — Anonymous Pat B (not verified)

Such critics above have forgotten, or choose to ignore, President Obama's positive change in tenor from the last White House denizen's undiplomatic and uneducated treatment of other nations in the world. The Nobel Prize was given to Obama because the rest of the world applauds this change and appreciates his reaching out and including them in international dialogue of important decisions. They appreciate his emphasis on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, his seriousness on protecting the environment and prioritizing education. The Republicans are responding with their usual cheat sheet of sour grapes. If you had watched the McLaughlin group on Friday the ninth you would have seen a rabid Monica Crowley spitting venom in anger and jealousy. The best demonstration of Republican animosity yet. She wins the drama award. pb

A genuine and convincing

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 04:27 — uday prakash (not verified)

A genuine and convincing voice of dissent. This is true that on the face level Obama differs with G.W.Bush and talks against war, torture camps, unlawful detentions, nuclear weapons and hopes and optimism do matter a lot, in my opinion Nobel committe would have waited a couple of years to honor Obama with this prize. But are we really ignorant about Nobel committee?

A friend who lives here now

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 05:09 — Jade Queen (not verified)

A friend who lives here now mostly but who grew up in Pakistan just got back from working there to build schools in a valley near Swat. I asked him what would happen if the U.S. came home to deal with its own issues. He said the warlords now running drugs would duke it out with the Taliban. And if we stay? It's the same answer, only the whole thing will probably take longer. So, why do we leave our people in the crossfire? Maybe the prize will tip Obama into bringing our people home. Pakistan has language and culture in the game and a profound interest in getting a neighbor to stability. Other neighbors also have a stake in bringing peace there. To say this to the world would be to speak the truth, which coming from a POTUS would be refreshing.

Did you forget Menachem

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 06:38 — Anonymous (not verified)

Did you forget Menachem Begin

Mr. Zinn was as much

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 07:12 — Carol Adamson (not verified)

Mr. Zinn was as much perplexed about the award of the Nobel Peace Prize as I was, but for different reasons. As an American expatriate, I no longer have to tone down my American identity, now that President Obama has led the nation back to international dialog and cooperation. He has done this in the face of loud political disruption at home as he has taken on ruined economy and the mess of three wars--Iraq, Afghanistan and the so called "War on Terrorism". Norwegians are avid practitioners of diplomacy and peacemaking, but have little real power to back up their efforts. I think it was very clever of them to award President Obama the prize as an effort to bolster his potential to find solutions and lead the way out of the truly dangerous conflicts in South and Central Asia and the Middle East. President Obama will need all the support and good will we can muster to help him bear the hope and expectations piled on him by the Norwegian Peace Prize Committee.

Hey, Howard; If you put so

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 07:36 — Anonymous (not verified)

Hey, Howard; If you put so little legitimacy in the "superficial" nature of the Nobel Organization, why be concerned with who gets it and why? Maybe they should have given the prize to John "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain?

Through my own experience, I

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 07:49 — jeffrey (not verified)

Through my own experience, I must disagree with Dr. Zinn; a rare circumstance. In so many American reactions, both 'progressive' and 'conservative,' there seems to be a profound lack of empathy for the thoughts and opinions of the rest of the world, the other 98% of the human population. Traveling through Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim countries since 2006, I can tell you that yes, Obama has changed the the world for the better. In Delhi this July, Muslims were so happy to speak with me, an American, and the word they most frequently mentioned was "Obama." A few years ago, there was only cynicism. Watching President Obama give his speech in Cairo last May, I was reminded of George W. Bush's words not even a month of after 9/11. "This war, this crusade..." was the way in which he described his foreign policy vision." That one speech, those few words, concretely damaged the world. Obama has begun to repair it. Let us cast aside our cynicism and a work with a man who is willing to listen.

The most dangerous job in

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 10:28 — Anonymous (not verified)

The most dangerous job in the US is the presidency. Perhaps Obama's biggest contribution to peace under the present circumstances (corporate dominance) has been to show that the American people do not want eternal war.

At least it has prompted

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 11:49 — Anonymous (not verified)

At least it has prompted lots of comments to show that there are readers out there. Having lived in Europe for the last 30 years, I applaud the Nobel committee for recognizing that we have a president with a world view. He has already changed the way the rest of the world views the US. I hope WE can live up to that promise.

I'd like to report to you

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 12:22 — bookmanjb (not verified)

I'd like to report to you the overwhelming German reaction to the news of Obama's Peace Prize: people are astonished at the reporting in the US media, which is nearly as big a story here as the prize-winning itself. This idea that Obama hasn't done enough yet to deserve the prize they find jaw-droppingly amazing. The German point of view and Europe's in general, I think it's fair to say, is not whether or not "he's done enough" but that, as a result of his foreign policy philosophy, there is a sense that the US is willing and anxious to negotiate instead of to dictate. This represents a full and rapid sea change from what had gone on for a long 8 years. It's hard for we Americans to grasp the relief from fear, and optimism for peace, that flows from this.

Peace prize or war prize to

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 13:16 — Nasir Khan (not verified)

Peace prize or war prize to Obama? According to the normal practice the Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded to someone who has contributed to the cause of peace. In President Obama’s case, we see no such evidence. On the contrary, since taking office he has escalated and extended the war of aggression in Afghanistan which his predecessor Bush had started. American pilotless drones target Pakistani territory and kill people there with impunity. The ever-increasing death-toll of Afghans and Pakistanis) at the hands of US-led occupation forces shows the reality of this president’s policies. Obama is following the criminal war policies of his immediate predecessor. From Gitmo to Iraq and to the Occupied Territories of the Palestinians his promises have been futile; he has backed down on each of his policy statements he had tossed around. Except for his empty rhetoric, Obama has produced no concrete results nor shown any consistent and steadfast line of action to pursue the goals for which people around the world had hoped for. His nuclear disarmament thinking is praiseworthy, but his warmongering does not entitle him to the peace prize. I suggest that this award should be called War Prize to President Obama. Those in the Nobel Committee who have chosen him for the award have made a joke of the term ‘peace’.

Oh come on, I've been just

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 13:36 — DavidR Velasquez (not verified)

Oh come on,
I've been just as skeptical.. about the NPP should be intended for accomplishments. But Obama HAS been sufficiently humbled in recognizing this as well.
If be an NPP laureate encourages him to seek peaceful solutions, end the war, meet with the Dalai Lhama, etc., and gives weight to his negotiations with Israel on insisting on peaceful coexistence with the palestians... then fine.
Wish him well and hope it gives him added incentive towards wise governance.

The president received an

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 13:43 — waldo (not verified)

The president received an award that every thinking person in the world WANTS him to deserve. TheNobel committee demonstrated that world supports his stated goals; peace, equality and a better environment for everyone.

Mr. Zinn, your stunning lack

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 13:43 — Anonymous (not verified)

Mr. Zinn, your stunning lack of understanding of the true meaning of the prize reveals your equally stunning lack of wisdom in the real world application of principles you purportedly believe in. Had you read the committee's reasoning for this year's award, and understood it properly, you would be commending them and Mr. Obama. But then, I think you're far too interested in playing the role of spoiler, and much too enamored of the attention it brings you. And Truthout, you should apologize for allowing Mr. Zinn the forum to express his egocentric, poorly reasoned and misquided views. Your site has been and should be a place for sincere and accomplished thinkers to air their contribution to the public dialogue, and you should make it a point to reject those who add little to that high calling.

No one has mentioned nuclear

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 14:08 — Anonymous (not verified)

No one has mentioned nuclear proliferation and the need for global disarmament. That was the focus of the Noble Committee as I understand, from listening to the interview with the Chairman. I can understand Mr. Zinn's difficulty with some of the other American figures who received the award -- for example, Woodrow Wilson and Henry Kissinger. But I think Obama is different, and the award lends a of of support towards peace efforts, and at a time when Obma is a crossroads of power himself ... whether he's going to plow forward in the face of the great obstacles presented by the military industrial complex and its many supporters in the right, or bend to "dark side" instead. Knowing some Mr. Zinn's views generally, I can respect his opinion although I don't agree with, and I think he finds himself, at this point, in company with the same kind of people who'd love to see us embroiled in ever greater military conflicts, including nuclear disaster. I'm glad Obama won the award and I respect the brave and even activist decision by the Noble Committee. Peace starts with ourselves.

Wow! Lots of really great

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 14:38 — HG (not verified)

Wow! Lots of really great comments! For my part, I believe in Obama's intention to do the right thing. The Noble committee is responsibly giving the prize to a powerful person who has demonstrated a trajectory of world peace, but needs a lot of support in the face of the true Axis of Evil which resides among us. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Where do you want the country to go? What have you done lately to earn your part of our President's recognition?... By the way, I'm also an ex-pat living in a leftist-leaning 3rd world country and I feel much relief with Obama in the Whitehouse. There is a moral law and with Bush the world was crumbling into organized anarchy and becoming MORE dangerous for Americans abroad. Now, the trend is reversing itself. It would be so easy to have peace if we just tried to help other countries instead of trying to dominate them (take note: agro inputs, good; bombing, bad). But the change has to start at home (that's why universal healthcare is such a defining issue). The US has to choose if it will go ahead as a free country (major wealth distribution paradigm shift needed), or continue to degenerate into a de-facto debtor-serf economy with only mythic memories of greater times.

Yes, Obama talks a good

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 16:22 — Sallyport (not verified)

Yes, Obama talks a good line. We'd all like to believe that he can provide the leadership needed to bring about the changes he has championed in speech. So far, leadership has been not merely lacking, but has been pulling back on his own promises. His continued support for 90% of the Bush legacy is widely acknowledged and deplored. The most dismaying aspect of the Nobel award is the probable effect on the antiwar effort, which had begun to recover its momentum after a too-long honeymoon/hiatus. Now those who said "wait; give him a chance" will feel justified in giving up their protests & demos. Don't let it happen. Yesterday I carried a sign that said "Peace Prize? What Peace?" in our small town weekly demo. We need thousands of such protests to occur all over the country.

To anonymous at 15:04 -- So

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 16:41 — Anonymous (not verified)

To anonymous at 15:04 -- So did Menachim Begin, who authorized the slaughter of the Palestinian men, women, and children and Deir Yassin. Don't forget that came first.

I always thought the Nobel

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 17:05 — Anonymous (not verified)

I always thought the Nobel prize was earned and not handed on a silver platter as I have witnessed in the last few days.... Thank you for the article... I do hope Mr Obama utilises that bestowed honour to actually do something that is worthy of the honour itself...

The standard of a prize for

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 17:27 — ToNYC (not verified)

The standard of a prize for a "completed body of work" is not useful in the case of the Peace prize. Human nature will not allow Peace to be attained while a dominant military power depends for its lifeblood upon foreign sources of energy. All bloody wars are for vital resource access and control. If Obama cares to deserve the Nobel Peace prize he will immediately declare a National Emergency and begin an Anti-War or Peace focus to produce the several hundred year supply of Domestic natural gas that exists on the North American continent by, between, and among friendly neighbors. We currently obtain 92% of our natural gas from within the U.S. and the balance from Canada and Mexico. A simple conversion will power every existing unleaded gas engine today. Water reclamation involved in drilling issues pale in significance to the elimination of foreign war and the daily cost in blood and treasure. Currently there is a 153 Billion USD payday (7 million barrels per day directly to OPEC (EIA web site) times $70 per barrel times 365 days) to interested parties that have other priorities than Peace. Deal with it.

President Obama has changed

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 18:08 — Cathy (not verified)

President Obama has changed the atmosphere, he's giving America a new attitude towards itself and the world. This is like taking apart, cleaning and oiling a giant rusted-up machine. I suspect the peace prize was in recognition of this, on the presumption that he wouldn't put in that effort unless he intended to get the machine going. Give him time.

I'm for giving Obama a

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 18:10 — radline9 (not verified)

I'm for giving Obama a break, a big break and I'm proud that he got the award and that he is my president.

An historian's job is to

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 18:50 — Chuck Carlson (not verified)

An historian's job is to illuminate history, not simply to record "the facts." Because of the imperfect accessibility to facts - the holes in the record - any more than the most basic of facts cannot even be determined. All history is analysis from the very organization of what is selected to be included to the writing about it. Mark Twain once said, "The ink of history is simply fluid prejudice," and that's how we should approach reading it. In spirit, the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to reflect a body of work and accomplishments toward bringing peace. In fact, it's about as untainted by politics as the Heisman Award. Zinn is right.

WHAT A JOKE...a prize for

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 19:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

WHAT A JOKE...a prize for doing and accomplishing NOTHING...This stinks of foul play...dishonesty or dumb blindness

Thanks for publishing every

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 19:45 — Lice-Christ (not verified)

Thanks for publishing every comment but mine! There's some pretty nasty & repressive stuff going on in back rooms at TruthOut. Please - Publish everyone's comments and control your personal reactions. If it's clearly written and expressed, it should be posted.Period.

I agree with Howard Zinn. I

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 21:00 — Elizabeth Block (not verified)

I agree with Howard Zinn. I myself was disappointed not to win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday as I too have a vision of peace. And I know quite a few others with the same vision. When will the peace prize go to those of us who have marched against war? Make that wars. Or to organisations like Stop the War in Britain? Or numerous other peace organisations...? (Yes, I remember the land mine award - that was great. But too long ago.)

It has taken several years

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 21:21 — Mwansa (not verified)

It has taken several years for the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan/ to develop. The Obama administration inherited these conditions, including a falling economy, a health care system that needs reform, generations of racial divide, etc, etc,. To expect these wars to end as soon as President Obama took office is, in my humble opinion, unrealistic, and borders on silliness, impatience, and immaturity. President Obama and his team have begun talks to end these wars. I imagine there are layers of people and guidelines involved in ending a war. There are several different factions involved, not to mention the language and cultural barriers that will have to be negotiated through.---it will certainly take longer than 9 or 10 months to get through this process. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for choosing "talks" over "wars" is a major step towards saving lives, rather than promoting more death. I commend President Obama, and congratulate him again on winning the Presidency of the United States of America and also for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Mwansa Mandela-Seward

The old expression comes to

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 21:30 — Anonymous (not verified)

The old expression comes to mind: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face." Demonstrating with signs that say, "Peace Prize? What Peace?" An article entitled, "Nobel Prize For Promises?" You might as well have been sent into the streets by the far right. Watch out for the company you keep, my friends, for you become that company by virtue of the objectives you wind up serving. Excellent point by a poster who mentions universal health care, and how it all starts at home. The strength of countries abroad that have accomplished so much in social programs is that they are no so self-deluded as some in the American left to think that they can "entertain truth" by cutting into their own (and thereby serving the interests of the chuckling right-wing); (b) they are not apologetic about the ruthless pursuit of their own interests and that of their fellow citizens because (c) they understand that the roots of the conversation has never been civil or honest to begin with.

Remember the funny, short

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 21:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

Remember the funny, short bishop from South Africa, Bishop Tutu? He received the Nobel Peace Prize in the mid-1980s for his work against the apartheid regime in his home country. He did not receive it after apartheid was abolished, but as a kind of encouragement and for the world to see what is going on in South Africa at that time. So let's be patient with Mr Obama.

Maybe the Committee had

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 22:03 — Barton Kunstler (not verified)

Maybe the Committee had something up its sleeve - figuring that it would be harder for the President to attack Iran or send 40,000 new troops to Afghanistan right after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If so, it would be a brilliant use of the prize - a pre-emptive strike for peace, so to speak.

Should our government be

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 22:04 — Anonymous (not verified)

Should our government be trusted, or rather, do you think it's any different under Obama? I see great possibility of direction under this administration and tentative steps, which is why I think it was awarded...but the structure of this new america looks a lot like the old one, just leaner, meaner, and with more eyes. Like the poster in the X-Files, 'I want to believe', but now every progressive needs to support this man? Every conservative should question him? These 2-party labels have got to go, much like the dominator rhetoric that backs them up. We should expect more of President Obama than Candidate Obama, and I haven't liked what I'm not seeing.

Not "promises," but

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 22:04 — Anonymous (not verified)

Not "promises," but "promise". Hope.

My blog post on the subject:

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 22:06 — The Griot Poet (not verified)

My blog post on the subject: http://outsourcedamerican.blogspot.com/2009/10/dear-president-obama.html. I am a big fan of Howard Zinn as well, and a critic of President Obama. For democracy to work at its optimum, we have to both congratulate our leaders for achievements - even when couched as promises - and be deliberate in pointing out flaws in character and commitment. Such discourse was not encouraged or allowed the previous 8 years. We are fortunate now we can do just that. Hold the President accountable to the promise the Nobel symbolizes.

It seems to me that most

Sun, 10/11/2009 - 23:52 — Pat Taylor (not verified)

It seems to me that most people don't understand the intent of rewarding the Nobel Peace Prize. Some conservatives think he shouldn't accept it. Why shouldn't he? Obama has given the people of the world a message of hope, that we can live together peacefully under the banner of the brotherhood of man. he.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 01:12 — neofitte (not verified)

The Nobel Peace Prize is a political award. According to Wikipedia, the current Chairman is Thorbjørn Jagland, a Norwegian politician for the Labour Party, and the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. He was Norway Prime Minister. He is in favour of Norwegian membership in the European Union. He published the book Min europeiske drøm He has also proposed the European Union be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Jagland is also one of several vice presidents of the Socialist International. From 2000 to 2006, he chaired the Socialist International Committee on the Middle East, and he has outspokenly opposed the perceived presence of islamophobia in Western societies. At the same time, he wants to send more Norwegian troops in Afghanistan. He now faces harsh criticism for his role in the Nobel committee that awarded Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Prize. I personally find that this committee made the best choice. It is a Stateman choice. Obama is more of a stateman than most politicians. Hopefully, like Mr. Zinn, he will work for the general interest of the many, instead of the few!

Fulfill The Promise! Stop

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 02:26 — Realist (not verified)

Fulfill The Promise! Stop acting like a footstool for corporatist fascists, Barack, and show the world that your words aren't empty shells. It is past time to act like the leader the Nobel Committee thinks you can be.

Maybe we need to check up

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 02:55 — Anonymous (not verified)

Maybe we need to check up with the Nobel Committee for the reason for awarding the Nobel. It could be that they are trying to impress upon Pres. Obama that Peace is important and he should channelise all his energies for the same. Maybe because he holds the Nobel a guilt conscience could propel him to really work for PEACE and honestly try to deliver the same.

Zinn is the man. He isn't

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 03:19 — Anonymous (not verified)

Zinn is the man. He isn't scared to tell the truth despite the fact that it won't sit well with his base audience. I read you people write that zinn is your hero when you clearly still don't grasp the perspective of history zinn paints. Obama carrys on the democrats version of the bush administration. You fall victim to the same blind ideological rhetoric that brainwashes a McCain/palin ticket. I voted Obama because I was scared of president McCain. In retrospect, I'm more scared of Obama because he's charismatic and has Americans unwavering adoration. This isn't a guy who's going to have a beer with you. This a guy who's going to do everything he can to advance the reach of power for the elite groups he answers to. The scariest thing in the world to me is how little people grasp that.

Peace Prize nuance please

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 03:41 — robert langdon (not verified) (not verified)

Peace Prize nuance please ... Noetic Science suggests if enough of us think "peace" ...E pluribus unum

dear howard, it all starts

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 03:51 — K.S. (not verified) (not verified)

dear howard, it all starts in Washington,D.C.

The Third Reich, perhaps a

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 04:58 — cascadian (not verified)

The Third Reich, perhaps a little fresher in the memories of Europeans, members of the Nobel committee, set an example for the conversion of a modern parliamentary democracy to a police state, consumed with a hysteria of racism, fascism and militarism, plunging the world into a war that lives on in the on again/off again cold. Perhaps those committee members understood that the precursors, the omens that preceded the Third Reich have been in gestation and emergence over the past ten years -- the Bush years. Swept into power with the runt, were phalanxes of New World Order fanatics, Program for the New American Century psychopaths, Nixonian imperial presidency retreads, panting, giddy neocons, flame-headed theocrats, xenophobic, bigoted torturers, zionist armageddonites -- Halloween on steroids! Now, granted that Mr. Obama hasn't "done" enough (or to some, anything), but that's just it! The juggernaut of madness, methods and wetdreams of the past ten years aren't business as usual. Has Mr. Obama turned it all around? N0. But, perhaps in the minds of the Nobel committee that the groundwork prepared over the past ten years for a national policy of preemptive, unilateral shock and awe inflicted globaly, subversion of the Constitution, erection of a supreme executive, if merely coasting on into the succeeding Administration, would be (as it has been) the greatest existential threat to world peace in these times. Simply that the present US Administration isn't a rubber stamp for the trajectory of the previous one, and that it _hasn't_ continued to build on those trajectories (i.e. "hasn't done anything") I, for one, can understand the decision for awarding this year's Nobel Peace prize to Mr. Obama. [disclosure: I did not vote for Mr. Obama.]

There have been for too long

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 11:24 — Anonymous (not verified)

There have been for too long generations of Americans (and young people around the world) that did not know the doors to empowerment and success were already opened for them. Education as it exists could not teach them or reach them or move them. President Obama is the paradigm shift that was needed to awaken so very many souls we are losing. I have heard it said that he has changed the aesthetic of democracy itself. In addition it seems he may have changed the aesthetic of self-esteem for people of color everywhere by the extraordinary intellect and radiant "audacity of hope" that he brings to us. The journey he has taken us on - already- is simply extraordinary- and I for one believe that if anyone can and will move us toward peace from the 3 bombs we have created of global financial, climate, and nuclear meltdowns- it may just be President Obama. With all my heart- I wish him well. I wish this country would get on board and do the same. The world understands better than we do how important this moment and this man in time is.

Thank you to the anonymous

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 12:27 — Anonymous (not verified)

Thank you to the anonymous commentator who mentioned the increasing US military presence in Colombia (not to mention Honduras also). As a US citizen living in South America, I have often wondered why Truthout news reports only mention US military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and potential military relations concerning nuclear weapons in Iran. US military intervention in South America continues to increase, and seems to be continuously ignored by US press and perhaps by the majority of the US population.

I, citizen. Obama,

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 14:40 — Anonymous (not verified)

I, citizen. Obama, politician. We have our differences, but in this case I thank the Nobel Committee. The president is ready for a new spiritual growth spurt. This prize may do it. As a pol, he knows 2010 voters are watching. Let him cogitate. Does he want peace? Would be prefer the US to be as great as fools claim it is? I'll continue to ferret out hidden issues from popular rhetoric.

If it were not for Obama, we

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 15:14 — Anonymous (not verified)

If it were not for Obama, we would have John McCain and Sarah Palin as the front for the continued conduct of American diplomacy by clones of Dick Cheney. The European reaction to Obama's election was greater than the American reaction, in part because of all those here living in the dark and believing shock radio and foxie TV and Joe Sixpack and the agents provocateur stirring up tea parties and corporate health-care profiteer promotions. Get over it, Zinn; Obama did immediately.

I think Howard Zinn is way

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 15:22 — rupescissa (not verified)

I think Howard Zinn is way off the mark here. I was surprised too, but even more surprised at the willfully negative reactions in this country, from the so-called left and from the Right. The Nobel committee is not just “some guys in Norway” or “five lefties in Oslo.” Instead of looking at this through the narrow slit of U.S. politics, punditry and resentment, people should maybe just show a little humility and ask if maybe there’s something we're missing. According to the Nobel Prize web site, the prize is not a lifetime achievement award, which many media voices imply it is, nor is it a reward for enduring prison and privation---it’s given for given to the person who: "during the preceding year [...] 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." But of course no opinionater in this country is going to care about the actual criteria. Let’s see: speech in Cairo, canceling plans to place missiles in Europe, outreach to Iran and North Korea, phone call to Abbas first day in office, endorsement of nuclear disarmament . . . those things seem to match the criteria pretty damned well.

Mr. Zinn, Here Here! Very

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 15:43 — TommyO (not verified)

Mr. Zinn, Here Here! Very well said and much appreciated! Any of us who attempt to remain current on events and circumstances globally - are shaking our heads in disbelief at Obama's Nobel Peace Prize! For what is it worth - I Googled the Nobel Institute and emailed my protest. I encourage others to do like wise if they are so inclined.

That Obama and his

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 17:32 — Anonymous (not verified)

That Obama and his administration is far more preferable than the corporate war mongers who recently (far too recently) occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has been firmly established. That having been said, paying political lip service to peace does not merit global recognition. Nobel Committee members should disband and slither back into their respective lairs, dens, and caves. As for our domestic woes: Mr. Obama was for the middle class before he was against it.

Let's concede to the

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 18:12 — Tomo (not verified)

Let's concede to the defenders of Obama against Zinn that we are attempting to call a horse race that is still very much in its first quarter. For all that, I'm sympathetic to Zinn and welcome his article. Obama has stated a willingness to see some captives held indefinitely without ever being granted due process. Also, he has tended to treat the closing of Guantanamo as if the rights and wrongs of doing so involve delicate moral reasoning, whereas what is required is political courage. Finally, he has actively obstructed investigation of highly plausible evidence that American officials have ordered torture and have engaged in it. In all of this, the former head of the Harvard Law Review is turning his back on principles he understands with crystalline clarity. Let us hope that in the course of four or eight years, we may come to see the Nobel Committee has backed the right horse. In the meantime, I find the misgivings of Zinn rooted in an unassailable insight: that without law, there is no peace.

To me, the more salient

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 20:38 — Anonymous (not verified)

To me, the more salient message to glean from the Nobel peace prize being awarded President Obama, is how grateful Europeans are for an American leader that recognizes and welcomes their voices and how they regard the American President as a world leader who's decisions affect them directly. It is sad that the bar for the peace prize is so low, but the award should jolt Americans out of our myopia a bit.

i think every intellectual

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 15:37 — In the place of loud noises (not verified)

i think every intellectual thinker with a righteous mind would know not to give such a symbolic prize to any US president. There has been no promises, those are masks covering up the real truth of Obama being a puppet. At one point he was a well speaker and very fluid speaking from his intelligence, now he pauses and hesitates too much because he is being controlled by other vicious US policies. This country has never been a peaceable nation, I should know, i descend from the survivers of one of the biggest genocides in the history of this continent and in the world since 1492... Also, if some say give Obama a chance, but wait we are giving him a chance, and he has to demonstrate more than he can, he has to be better.

Perhaps he didn't mention

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 01:46 — Anonymous (not verified)

Perhaps he didn't mention Yasser Arafat, because he was citing examples of other American recipients.

for those who disagree with

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 12:59 — Anonymous (not verified)

for those who disagree with zinn, why? because obama is president do you stand behind him? oh you say he is better than bush, but you were right behind bush when his band was in power. i think it's so sad and i have sympathy for you that think this system will change to better...for whatever the reasons, nobel peace prize wanted to back obama, and influence us into thinking this guys different, it's been 3 years, if it ain't started by now, it won't be in the next 1.

I have been studying World

Fri, 10/16/2009 - 14:08 — Rachael Orbach (not verified)

I have been studying World War I. I think that if the USA had not gone and helped win the war, then the world would be a very different place. We might be all speaking German, there would be very few Jews left, Remember Anti Semitism was very prevelant in Germany way before WW2. I'm glad that Pres. Woodrow Wilson entered WW2 and started the League of Nations. At least he DID something!

In this corner Howard Zinn.

Mon, 10/19/2009 - 20:09 — Anonymous (not verified)

In this corner Howard Zinn. Zinn always comes out throwing heavy truth-filled hooks. A hook Joe Frazier would be impressed by. Go Zinn, go!

	Your name: *
	E-mail: * The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
	Comment: * Allowed HTML tags: <em></em><strong></strong><b></b> Lines and paragraphs break automatically. More information about formatting options

digg_url = 'http://www.truthout.org/101009A'; digg_skin = 'compact'; digg_window = 'new'; tweetmeme_style = 'compact';

Comments