Jules Crittenden:
Giving the award to a president who is in the process of or on the verge of ceding to belligerents in at least three highly volatile geopolitical arenas neatly accomplishes that, and coming at the beginning of Obama’s term, will encourage people view his actions and their consequences in terms of “peace.”Dan Riehl:It also makes up for the gross slight to Neville Chamberlain in 1938.
I do not freakin' believe this. But via the BBC- it appears to be true. For what? Are you frickin' kidding me? What a stupid joke. What a worthless award. Video of the announcement here. They put weight on his WORK? For Nuclear Weapons? All he has done is TALK! This is total BS!TigerHawk:THE MAN HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!! I can't believe this. Really, I can't. What a waste. One sensed this was just a worthless political award anymore. But this removes all doubt. If I were on the committee I'd be embarrassed. This is an absolute disgrace.
Given Obama's objective lack of actual accomplishments so far, the "science is settled" that the Nobel Peace Prize is a hopelessly politicized popularity contest. Don't even try to argue.Townhall.com's Matt Lewis:
The award could not have been given for accomplishments, but the committee did note in a citation that Obama has, "captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."Two things: A sitting American President winning the Nobel Prize for Peace simply serves as proof that he's not killing Raghead Sunzabitches fast enough for this crowd.
It seems Obama was awarded based on zero accomplishments, but on lots of "hope" for the future ...
It also means the same people who ruthlessly attacked the President for Chicago not getting the 2016 Olympics saying it was proof Obama has no real international standing are now doing exactly what they would have done if Chicago had won: attacking the event as a "popularity contest" that has no real meaning.
The only thing that has any meaning to these clowns is getting another war on. God forbid an American President does something like win a Nobel Prize, it just makes him a "narcissistic international rock star" or something, right?
It does not matter what this man does for America, the insane Wingers will attack him anyway. Everything they do is predicated on justifying the hatred they have for the man.
[UPDATE 7:45 AM] YAFB at Rumproast called it earlier this morning:
Since a major part of my reason for favoring Obama in last year’s election was the hope of at least a degree more civility from the US in international relations, I’m happy to see anything that rewards such behavior. Though, of course—to say the least—there’s much room for further improvement even at this early stage in the Administration (excuse the British understatement, and this is maybe something folks will want to explore in the comments). I may be a cynical old once-militant hippie, but after the horrors of the last decade or so, I never thought I’d live to witness the day when another US president said anything about nuclear disarmament except “mañana” or “No fucking way.” It’s a start.Oooh! Oooh! Mista Kotter!Over the course of the day, I’ll be looking for prizewinning hyperbolic or full-blooded spit-the-dummy reactions from the blogosphere and other media. Do join in if you spot anything worthy of a facepalm, food for thought, or a hearty chuckle, and I’ll post the most noteworthy as updates.
[UPDATE 2 8:38 AM] On a more serious note and playing Devil's Advocate here, if the Wingers are right, doesn't that mean that America's international standing and belligerent attitude under the previous administration was so dismal and such a threat to world peace that the Nobel committee gave a rookie President nine months in on the job the f'ckin Peace Prize for basically being a sitting President not named George W. Bush?
And the guy really hasn't changed the worst of Bush's policies, either. We're still fighting two wars, and still detaining some "suspected terrorists" for eternity and causing a hell of a lot of collateral damage flat out killing others. And still this guy gets a Nobel Peace Prize because despite the killings and bombings and war, what he's done so far has been considered that much of an improvement.
What does that say about how the world viewed America post-9/11 under Bush/Cheney?
[UPDATE 3 8:53 AM] Attaturk at Atrios's place thinking the same thing:
I guess Krauthammer was right, the international regard for the United States has so fallen after Obama became President that they just awarded our Chief Executive the Nobel Peace Prize -- probably for not being like Charles Krauthammer.Amen to that.
[UPDATE 4 9:03 AM] Josh Marshall also agrees:
But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the 'hyper-power' as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration.He won because he's managed to not kill the planet yet, and people expected us to have done so by now. My goodness.
[UPDATE 5 9:35 AM] NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof makes a logical, legitimate argument as to why Obama really should not have won the award.
He’s been largely absent on Sudan, Congo, Burma and global poverty and health issues, and doesn’t even have a USAID administrator. I think he has the right instincts on these issues and expect him to get engaged, but shouldn’t the Nobel Peace Prize have a higher bar than high expectations? Especially when there are so many people who have worked for years and years on the front lines, often in dangerous situations, to make a difference to the most voiceless people of the world? I think of Dr. Denis Mukwege at the Panzi Hospital in eastern Congo, or Jo and Lyn Lusi at the Heal Africa Hospital also in eastern Congo, or Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health for his tireless work in Haiti and Rwanda, or Greg Mortenson traipsing all over Pakistan and Afghanistan to build schools, or Dr. Catherine Hamlin working for half a century to fight obstetric fistula and maternal mortality in Ethiopia, or so many others. In the light of that competition, it seems to me that it might have made sense to wait and give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in his eighth year in office, after he has actually made peace somewhere.Which I can accept, October 2016 would make sense. I also like the sound of Obama's "eighth year in office", but that's another thing.
Posts
6 comments:
This is going to be nearly as much fun as reading wingnut and PUMA sob-sessions on 11/4/09. Their tears and outrage make me happy. Is that wrong, Zandar?
Oops, I meant 11/4/08, obviously. Though I image there will be plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth on 11/4/09 too as the sad anniversary is relived...
I just honestly don't get it. Like I said, I've had my problems with Obama's foreign policy and Warren Terrah decisions, but he basically got this award for America not having a complete assclown in charge of the Shiny Red Button.
I agree that the award is premature, although I have seen some point out that it puts pressure on him to follow through on fulfilling the promise for which he was nominated for this award. Because it is being given so early it will be a footnote in his time as President, I can imagine the history books now "After a historic election pitting the first female, African American, and oldest candidates against each other the United States elected it's first AA president. Obama enacted a reversal of the previous president, receiving only the 3rd Nobel Peace Prize given to a sitting president..." etc etc.
Anyways, the real lesson to be learned here is the one you pointed out: no matter what Obama does, he is going to get flak from the Village and the GOP (see M. Steele's statement). The WH and the Dems need to keep this firmly in their heads and plow forward without regard for GOP concerns.
I feel the award is premature - essentially, it's as if we're being rewarded for electing him (or he's being nominated based more on his game-changing). I am a bit annoyed as this feels far too political.
I think Obama is the kind of person who certainly can (and probably will) do Nobel-Prize level things. He has yet to.
However the reaction of course from his opponents is predictable.
The "premature" argument's understandable, but it's not how the Nobel Committee necessarily thinks and has worked in the past. In their own words, they've expained their rationale, so we don't have to guess:
[quote]The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama’s efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners’. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
“He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate,” Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. “Some people say, and I understand it, isn’t it premature? Too early? Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond – all of us.”
After the prize was announced, Jagland compared the decision to give it to Obama to [when] the prize was given to German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 for his “Ostpolitik” policy of trying to find common ground with Eastern Europe, which was under Communist sway.
He said the same thing was true when then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev got the prize in 1990 after he had launched perestroika and glasnost, and allowed Eastern Europe to emerge from Kremlin control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-wins-nobel-peace-pr_n_314907.html
[/quote]
Check that: "Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now."
It's not personal. It sounds like Obama gets that.
YAFB
Post a Comment