Quote of the day

America's favorite legacy warmonger, Liz Cheney, decided to offer the President some suggestions on what he should do during the Nobel ceremony if the logical option of swearing fealty to her father was out of the question:

"The notion that this White House says he will go to Oslo to accept this prize just adds to the farce," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday." "But I do think he could send a real signal here. I think what he ought to do frankly is send a mother of a fallen American soldier to accept the prize on behalf of the U.S. military and frankly to send the message to remind the Nobel committee that each one of them sleeps soundly at night because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today."

Yes, I'm sure he'll get right on that. But this just speaks to one thing I'd like to address. It's easy to criticize and mock the President and the Nobel committee surrounding this whole "awarding a guy you don't like an award you don't like" thing. It's ridiculously easy. But if you are going to do it, could you at least understand the basic concept of the award? Sure the "I hear Obama is going to get a Best Picture Oscar for his intent to make the best film ever" joke is great, but "he should accept it on behalf of war starter X", or "how come they never gave the award to war starter Z", or "he should accept it on behalf of all wars", or "start a war....now" largely misses the point of a PEACE Prize. Go back and read those last two words and see which one doesn't fit with war. Also, I'm fairly sure that other countries fought to liberate Europe in WWI and WWII, unless you think the Iraqi army posed a real invasion risk to Denmark.

Let me get in one final cheapshot: Liz, how about instead of going on Fox News to criticize the Nobel Peace Prize, you go to the funeral of one of those Iraq War soldiers you revere so much and ask them if they're thankfull for all the lies your father had to tell to get put them in that pine box. Now go away.