Matt Taibbi's version of the truth , RE: The Nobel Peace Prize

[FrenchieCat]

Is there is a prize in Journalism for someone who includes multiple inaccurate data and pretends to be writing a fact filled based opinion piece? If so, then I nominate Mr. Taibbi.

On the Nobel Prize for Occasional Peace
Matt Taibbi
<SNIP>
The Nobel Peace Prize long ago ceased to be an award given to people who really spend their whole careers agitating for peace. Like most awards the Prize has evolved into a kind of maraschino cherry for hardcore careerists to place atop their resumes, a reward not for dissidence but on the contrary for gamely upholding the values of Western society as it perceives itself, for putting a good face on things (in Obama’s place, literally so).

<SNIP>
Like for instance, we invade Iraq for whatever asinine reason was actually behind that decision, we stay there for, oh, seven years or whatever, and eventually it starts to occur to us that this is an extraordinarily expensive activity, pisses off everyone involved, destabilizes a whole region, and to boot puts the lives of countless innocent Iraqis and young Americans at risk, though of course this is the last consideration.

<SNIP>
So eventually someone will make the decision that this whole Iraq war thing is stupid, benefits no one, not even politically in the short term, and moves will be made to wrap up this idiotic business and bring everyone home. At which point someone making this dreary logistical decision will get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and that someone will probably win it, allowing us all to bask in the glow of our “peace-loving” values which prevailed in the end over hate and violence.

<SNIP>
Who knows, maybe Barack Obama’s award is already tied to that particular Iraq plotline. He was, after all, elected in part because his party, the Democratic Party, which had supported the idiotic invasion at the start, had lately decided to abandon the idea and present itself as being against this particular war.

This is what Barack Obama did to “earn” the Nobel Prize. He put the benevolent face back on things. He is a good-looking black law professor with an obvious bent for dialogue and discussion and inclusion. That he hasn’t actually reversed any of Bush’s more notorious policies — hasn’t closed Guantanamo Bay, hasn’t ended secret detentions, hasn’t amped down Iraq or Afghanistan — is another matter. What he has done is remove the stink of unilateralism from those policies.

<SNIP>
The Al Gore award, I don’t even want to go there. I went years thinking that the Al Gore prize was a joke someone was playing on me. I still can’t believe it really happened.

.....Even Gore, during the Kosovo war, boned up on his war cred before he got a prize for losing an election, growing a beard, and making a freaking movie.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/10/13/on-the-nobel-prize-for-occasional-peace/

I hereby inject the below certifiable Facts in the above OP-Ed:

"someone will make the decision that this whole Iraq war thing is stupid"

Yes, Mr. Taibbi....that someone was Barack Obama, back in 2002, before that war started. He called it just that; a Dumb war.

aka Fact #1: Obama wasn't in National Office at the time of the Iraq war Vote, so the only thing he could do was speak out against it...which he did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUV69LZbCNQ

---------------

"moves will be made to wrap up this idiotic business and bring everyone home. At which point someone making this dreary logistical decision will get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and that someone will probably win it..."

Yes, Mr. Taibbi....that someone was Barack Obama, and yes, he already did win the Nobel Peace Prize.

aka Fact #2: We are in the process of getting out of Iraq, period. Obama gave a timeline, and to date, he is on schedule.

-----------------

"He was, after all, elected in part because his party, the Democratic Party, which had supported the idiotic invasion at the start, had lately decided to abandon the idea and present itself as being against this particular war."

No, Mr. Taibbi.....the Democratic Party DID NOT SUPPORT the invasion of Iraq at the start....

House Democrats voted AGAINST the invasion, 126 to 81.....
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Senate Democrats voted for the invasion, 29 to 23.......

which means, if you'd bothered with the math as much as you did with the snark.....that a majority of congressional Democratic Party DID NOT support the Iraq War resolution....which means, again, you are incorrect. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4326183

aka Fact #3: 126+21= 147 Congressional Democrats who voted against Iraq VS. 81+29= 110 Democrats who voted for the Iraq War. The Nays have it on the Democratic side, period.

-----------------------------

"He is a good-looking black law professor with an obvious bent for dialogue and discussion and inclusion. "


No, Mr. Taibbi, Barack Obama is no longer a Law Professor, he is now the President of the United States and a Nobel Laureate (obviously to your great chagrin)...although, you were correct in noting that he is still Black, I don't remember that as being cited by the Nobel panel as the reason he won (so I'm not sure why you need to inject this fact, and in the way of more snark)....although based on the prejudice, hatred and the double standard that he has had to face in this country, I suggest to you that this would have been another very good reason. Please note that when busy ridiculing individuals who did not request to win a prize, that you at least include their accurate profession at the time of the win.

aka FACT #4: Barack Obama is President of the United States of America.

-------------------

"The Al Gore award, I don’t even want to go there. I went years thinking that the Al Gore prize was a joke someone was playing on me. I still can’t believe it really happened.

.....Even Gore, during the Kosovo war, boned up on his war cred before he got a prize for losing an election, growing a beard, and making a freaking movie."


Fuck you too, Mr. Taibbi!

aka Fact #5: Since twisting the facts, and shading the truth were wrong when done by journalists during their push for war in Iraq, then it holds true that you, Matt Taibbi are just as wrong here too. period. Because certain facts are non-negotiable.

If one thinks disparaging Obama and Gore for winning something that they did not ask to win merits ridicule, than one has a problem...whether one will admit it or not.

Mr. Taibbi, your smugness in making false pronouncements earns you the below Award!










THEY WHO LAUGH LAST, LAUGH BEST!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. What's his problem with Al Gore?

[FrenchieCat]

9. Looks like Matt doesn't like a bunch of folks......

[gateley]

2. Good calls all, Frenchie! I actually like him a lot but at times he can be

way too snarky and full of himself, as evidenced in the examples you cited. He just didn't see the FACTS because he was concentrating too much on sounding COOL and knowledgeable. FAIL.

Love those clips! (I think the one of Biden losing it was when he was shown an SNL skit skewering him!)

Again -- Brava! :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[FrenchieCat]

5. That one of Biden was when the Crazy partisan interviewer from Florida was asking him about

Socialism and Barack Obama...I believe.
He couldn't believe he was being asked about that.

[Mojambo]

6. No. I think that Biden one is when they showed him a clip of an impression of him on SNL. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Taibbi kind of reminds me of Maureen Dowd.

Both of them can be clever, entertaining writers, but often given to snark for snark's sake.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Irony is that his article was published in the magazine True Slant....

Check out the link to the article.

I couldn't make this shit up!

[gateley]

22. Good comparison -- and they can both get that whiny tone in their voices. nt

[JamesA1102]

33. Funny I was thinking the same thing.

And both sacrifice facts for the sake of snark.

[WCGreen]

41. That is why I will nver take him seriously...

He thinks he is the second coming of Hunter S. and yet he sounds like an bit player on Gossip Girl...

[MarjorieG]

3. I am so tired of Taibbi, of Sirota, of Swanson, and all the precious pundits creating our reality-

not based on fact. Advocacy is one thing, but smug and error-filled another.

[brentspeak]

38. Goldman Sachs good! Single-payer bad! Campaign promises irrelevant! War is ok!

Holding Obama's feet to the fire is disloyalty!

Is that what you're trying to say?

[MarjorieG]

40. No, but as singlemindedly bashing Obama righteousness as you are, sure you'd assume that.

[FrenchieCat]

4. One(s) who love twisted truths unREC'd my OP.......

The truth hurts, hey?

Mr. Taibbi went this way......

[SIMPLYB1980]

25. LOL!

K&R

[chiffon]

32. bwahahaha!!

:rofl:

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. Good post!

I think Taibbi's writing about Wall Street has been courageous and on target, but this rant is a bit much. I think Frenchie makes some excellent points in rebuttal. I will take Taibbi's writing and opinions on a case by case basis.

[ErinBerin84]

10. me too

his reporting is interesting and usually worth reading , but his editorializing can get a bit tiresome, Hunter Thompson-wannabe ish.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I agree......

Sometimes, he's too cute by half!

[ErinBerin84]

15. like the thing where he said

Eric Holder must be taking bong hits, to have suggested that we are cowards when it comes to talking about race...what was the point? Sometimes he just seems smug for the sake of it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Did he actually say that??

Damn.

[ErinBerin84]

21. yeah

Yeah, it seems a little like willful misinterpretation on his part. He does concede later on (at Barnicle's urging) that we should have more racial discussions, but that Holder loses people when he uses "this kind of hyperbole", which is kind of like, pot/kettle. And there have been other times he makes great points, but a lot of time he just plays contrarian and gets cheap shots in, which weakens his central thesis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29301548/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/

TAIBBI: I think the attorney general was doing bong hits last night before he wrote this speech. I mean, this—the country is not significantly different than it was 50 years ago, except the president is black and, you know, every major institution in this country has been desegregated and we had a major civil rights brouhaha in the ‘60s and ‘70s that has already been resolved favorably. I mean, I think it‘s crazy for him to say this kind of stuff.

BARNICLE: That‘s an interesting point that you raise. Jonathan, do you think it‘s possible that Eric Holder is in the background there when Michael Phelps had the bong pipe? I mean—I mean, some of the stuff in here is, like, way out there. It‘s way out there.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. Wow, two white guys patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

:eyes:

I thought that speech was one of the most courageous given on the subject.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. The first award was given in 1901. Teddy Roosvelt got it in 1906.

So when he says that it "long ago ceased to be an award given to people who really spend their whole careers agitating for peace" does he mean that it ceased being what he though it should be five years after the first award was given? TR would be the first to say that he didn't "spend his whole career agitating for peace".

[FrenchieCat]

13. He wasn't thinking that deeply this time......

He happened to listen to RUSH and the Taliban blather on, and then decided to pile on.
Guess that was an easy out.

[boobooday]

16. Sometimes he seems to just be cultivating his image as a punk

Great analysis, Frenchie

[Cha]

17. So add Matt Taibbi to the list of

people who don't get it.

And, he doesn't get it in a fucking big way. "A good looking Black Law Professor"? He doesn't have the insight of Michael Moore that's for real.

"Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore"

Who goes on to say at the end..

"My prediction for the future? You become the first two-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!, Yeah!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8695710


"Ten reasons Obama won the Nobel"

"Before he became president -- Obama forcefully argued, at great political risk, that the U.S. should talk to its enemies (famously, in a debate with John McCain). He convinced a majority of Americans, and that is now U.S. foreign policy.

January 22 - On his second day in office, Obama announced plans to close Guantanamo in a year. He has made great diplomatic efforts to find residences for innocent detainees, even as fearmongers accused him of wanting to release terrorists in America.

February 27 - Obama details his plans to pull out of Iraq. He made his speech in front of uniformed Marines and explained that combat troops would be out by 2010.

March 13 - Obama Justice department drops 'enemy combatants' label on detainees, marking a return to the Geneva Conventions.

April 5 - Outlines details of nuclear weapons reductions plan in a speech to the public in Prague. The plan calls for intense international diplomacy and a respect for the right of fledgling countries to enrich uranium for energy purposes, proposing an international nuclear fuel-bank for those aims. All this was in the face of North Korean long-range missile testing.

April 13 - Repeals restrictions on Cuban Americans, allowing them to visit home as long as they want and to send money. Also allows telecommunications companies to pursue agreements in Cuba, hoping to promote communcation. This is the boldest move towards peace with Cuba any president has made in over 40 years.

June 4 - Obama makes landmark speech in Cairo, in which he quotes three different holy texts and speaks Arabic. Again, at tremendous political risk at home, Obama makes empassioned tribute to the achiements of the Muslim world and admits U.S. role in overthrow of Iranian government, attempting to create environment of honesty, respect, and cooperation.

June 27 - The U.S. begins removal of combat troops from major cities in Iraq.

July 6 - Obama heads to Russia to speak with Russian president about nuclear arms reduction. He makes a speech at a Russian University, notably saying, "There is the 20th century view that United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists. And that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view, that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance on another. These assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonishing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over."

Sept 24 - In a first for a U.S. president, Obama presides over a U.N. Security Council summit, where members unanimously agreed to a sweeping strategy to stop the spread of and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons"

http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/ten-reasons-obama-won-nobel.html

[Undercurrent]

19. .

Matt and Maureen sittin' in a tree
K - I - S - S - I - N - G



What a couple of petty losers!

[rug]

20. Something about this post is certifiable.

Maybe it's the graphics.

[Bonobo]

23. I have disliked him since his whitewash of the 2004 election fraud. nt

[Raine1967]

24. K&R

Facts have a liberal bias you know, Frenchie....

Excellent research! Thank you!

[Norrin Radd]

27. kr

A pointless one from Taibbi.

[Teaser]

28. Taibbi likes the sound of his own words far, far too much.

.

[jonnyblitz]

29. I am sure you remember when he trashed Wes Clark in The

Nation back when he was a presidential candidate in 2004. DUers were apoplectic about that and I remember Clark was your obsession back then before Obama came on the scene.

I like Tiabbi's Rolling Stone health care articles. I don't expect you Obama loyalists to like him or any of the other progressive columnists who point out truths you all are in denial about but are so obvious to the rest of us.

[ErinBerin84]

30. many people who replied here said they LIKED his reporting

I just think his act gets a little tired, but he's not alone in that crowd. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. I do think he has a tendency to pepper his valid points with cheap shots, which sometimes distracts from his point.

[HamdenRice]

31. Matt writes some good funny rhetoric, but he's also a coke addicted deranged stalker

by his own admission. One of his funniest essays was when he wrote about getting stoned on drugs and stalking Thomas Friedman -- for many months, iirc -- and making crank calls to Friedman's office phone. I should say formerly coke addicted, because I think he got help at some point.

Despite the entertainment value of his writing, I find it odd that people take his factual writing seriously.

[Writer]

34. I am enjoying the fact that a few more have caught on to this chipmunk-toothed loser

who styles himself as a Hunter S. Thompson with only half the bravado. He's part of the Cynical Chic Brigade, along with Jeremy Scahill, Bill Maher, and other tight-asses whose livelihood has been made off of perpetuating the mythos that nothing ever, EVER will improve in this nation.

Fuck 'em all.

[Enrique]

37. I agree about Taibbi

but do you think this thread has anything to do with Taibbi's journalism skills? I think it's all about defending Obama.

Not sure about Jeremy Scahill, all I know about him is his work on Blackwater, which seemed to be straightforward investigative journalism, without any attitude.

[iceman66]

35. Matt Taibbi is a professional shit-stirrer

He never has anything good to say about anyone, or anything.

[Jennicut]

36. Some of his articles I have loved, others have been "eh".

I think sometimes we forget that progressive/liberal journalists are not always perfect, they are human. You are going to disagree with them sometimes. There does seem to be an ego involved with some of them...wanting to be "too cool" and ever so hip so as not to believe in anything good that will happen in this country. It is all bad, all the time and will stay that way. But they are always far better then the conservative idiots we have passing themselves off as so called journalists.

[ipaint]

39. Been there done that.

It was wrong then and it's wrong today. You are acting the same as the rabid right during the first years of the bush administration.

"Conservatives who criticized Bush were deemed the enemy and were excommunicated: see this 2006 New York Times profile of Bruce Bartlett to see how that worked -- "An Outspoken Conservative Loses his Place at the Table" -- or look at how people like Andrew Sullivan were suddenly deemed "liberals" because of their criticisms of Bush. Those who, in general, criticized the President too harshly were deemed unpatriotic, standing with Terrorists, and suffering from personalized and emotional hatred (Bush Derangement Syndrome) -- as though excessive criticism was some sort of offense against decency or even a personal failing. As Bill Kristol himself acknowledged about the Right during Bush's first term: "Bush was the movement and the cause." One of the first widely-cited posts I ever wrote after I began blogging was about this phenomenon, titled "Do Bush followers have a political ideology?," which expressed the point this way: "'conservatism' is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as 'liberal' is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

(snip)

But also yesterday, Matt Taibbi wrote one of the most scathing (and typically insightful) criticisms yet of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, based on the twisted understanding of "peace" which Western Europe and the U.S. uniquely share and the "change" that Obama actually seems to represent.
Has Taibbi really committed a breach against public decency by expressing doubt that Obama's actions reflect genuine aspirations for peace? That's not a legitimate view?

(snip)

I've always seen the unique value of political blogs as applying outside citizen pressure on Beltway institutional political power -- which now resides primarily in Barack Obama and the Democrats -- to reject or at least resist the standard Washington influences. Every well-funded institutional faction is working feverishly using every means they have -- lobbyists, money, advertising -- to pressure the Democratic Party to serve their agenda. Why shouldn't "people on the Left" do the same? Shouldn't health care activists care more about the public option than Obama's political standing? Shouldn't gay rights activists be agitating aggressively for concrete action rather than pretty speeches? Shouldn't civil libertarians be constantly protesting an administration that has stomped on their beliefs? Shouldn't anti-war activists and empire opponents be objecting to the obvious incompatibility between escalating a war and being deemed the earth's leading peace activist?

It's fine that some people believe the most constructive thing to do is to support the Democratic Party and Obama, and whose primary thrill is dressing up in tuxedos and going into hotel ballrooms to swoon with adoration for the President like he's a rock star. He's likable and inspires a lot of people with his rhetoric, so that's understandable, or at least inevitable. And it's also fine, even useful, to have organizations close to the administration if they maintain at least some independence. But unless one wants to replicate the same dynamic that prevailed in the Bush era, it's vital that not everyone be devoted to that mission. Without individuals and groups devoted primarily to these issues rather than the President and the Party, those issues will be ignored. That's just how politicians, by definition, function. And whatever else is true, creating a climate where criticizing Obama is equated with a breach of one's citizenship or progressive duties -- even where the criticism is aggressive and "disrespectful," as one could describe Taibbi's critique -- is the surest way to follow the GOP down its path of well-deserved self-destruction."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/14/criticism/index.html


"Facts" 1 and 2 just prove you missed the whole point of the article.
"Fact" 3 is moot considering dems allowed bush's war regardless of the proportion of votes among them and are continuing to fund it today.

"Fact" 4 Taibbi never argued he wasn't the president.
"Fact" 5 is based on the legitimacy of the previous 4 "facts". Fail.

[autorank]

42. Leave Iraq, leave Afghanistan, draw down 700 overseas bases

That's a huge step toward peace.

I'm glad Obama got the prize but, at the same time, the "prize" isn't the reality.

The reality is two big wars, tons of overseas installations, for what? Nothing for the people,
everything for the fat cats.

We need to stop invadindg, injuring, and killing people.

We need to recognize that we don't have a need or even a right to have bases in foreign lands.

That's a peace effort. Any delay is just more bull shit for The Money Party.