TPM reports on Liz Cheney's Debut As Fox News Sunday Panelist. She talked about Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize with a bizarre take on what peace means...
"What the committee believes is, they'd like to live in a world in which America's not dominant. And I think if you look at the language of the citation, you can see that they talk about President Obama ruling in a way that makes sense to the majority of the people of the world. Americans don't elect a president to do that. We elect a president to defend our national interest. They may believe that President Obama also doesn't believe in American dominance and they may have been trying to affirm that belief with the prize. I think, unfortunately, they may be right, and I think it's a concern."
4 comments:
aaahhhhhh....my brain is leaking out my ears!
Where the Cheneys trip up is in their assumption that governing in a way that "makes sense to the rest of the world" must be somehow detrimental to the US. Since the only way forward they can see is conflict, they can't grasp the concept that the majority of the planet is not out to destroy the US.
I think perhaps the Cheneys, and their ilk, simply see the world as a zero sum game. Anything else requires too much egg-heady type thinking.
Simply put:
1. Less for you means more for me.
2. More for you means less for me.
Therefore, I must always have more and you must always have less.
Anything more nuanced than that causes problems with the catchy phrases like "Country First".
Nuance doesn't translate well into catch phrases. This undoubtedly contributes to why Democrats can never come up with any of their own.
TT
Or, as Bill Maher put it, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is the trifecta of everything U.S. Conservatives hate: foreigners, black people, and peace.
Post a Comment