U.S. President Barack Obama smiles after making remarks on regulatory reform in the East Room at the White House in Washington October 9, 2009. Earlier in the day, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES POLITICS)
Apparently, SNL’s skit was premature. Maybe President Obama hasn’t actually accomplished the following:
1. Closing Gitmo (same as Bush)
2 Outlawing torture by revoking Bush’s EO that said much the same thing
3. Withdrawal from Iraq (thanks to Bush)
4. De-escalation of war in Afghanistan (campaigned that it was the necessary war and now dithers as more American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan this year, than in the previous 7 years)
5. peace between Israel and Palestine
6. Olympics in Chicago
7. Supporting democratic movement in Iran
8. Supporting democracy in Honduras
9. nuclear disarmament
But, hey, so what?! At least he’s now won the Nobel Peace Prize for non-accomplishment; and delivered a presidential promise to use this award as a rallying “call to action”. It’s the thought and rhetoric that counts, right? Basically, he’s being awarded for what he may accomplish in the future (Even supporters are questioning, “Why?”). If his pretty words actually inspires us to achieve peace, enhances international relations, then some day in the future, maybe the award will have been earned. Here’s a novel idea: Why not award the prize to him THEN?!
I’m not trying to be funny, here; I wouldn’t want to be accused of siding with the terrorists.
But seriously, folks…
WASHINGTON/OSLO (Reuters) – Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world.
The bestowal of one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.
Awww….they love him not for the leader he is, but for the leader he wants to be; for saying what they want to hear.
Kim Priestap writes:
“If just wanting world [peace], talking about world peace is enough to get the Nobel Peace Prize then every beauty pageant winner should have gotten one. “
Obama said he felt humbled and unworthy of being counted in the company of the “transformative figures” of history who had won the prize.
Maybe CNN and Wolf Blitzer would care to factcheck this one for actual accomplishments in the pursuit of peace? Even President Obama isn’t buying it. He doesn’t sound humbled; more like embarrassed.
“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership,” he said, speaking in the White House Rose Garden. “I will accept this award as a call to action.”
Kanye West, at this point had to interrupt the acceptance speech with the following:
“Hey, hey Barack, I’m really happy for you, I’mma let you finish, but I just want to say his teleprompter had one of the best bids of all time. OF ALL TIME.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” citing his fledgling push for nuclear disarmament and his outreach to the Muslim world.
What about Reagan’s push for nuclear disarmament?
What about Bush’s “outreach to the Muslim world”?
Just 12 days into his presidency, what had President Obama done thus far to join the ranks of Carter, Gore, and Arafat in garnering such a prestigious nomination as the highly credible Nobel Peace Prize?
1. He campaigned in 2008 to escalate the “necessary” war in Afghanistan
2. He campaigned in 2008 to invade a sovereign ally, Pakistan, to go after al Qaeda and out-Bush, Bush.
153+ were killed within the first week of of his peace presidency, including the continuation of Predator drone attacks in Pakistan.
Obama has been widely credited with improving America’s global image after the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, who alienated both friends and foes with go-it-alone policies like the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Bush alienated friends with “go-it-alone” policies? Really?!
So Bush can be credited for the Obama peace prize award.
President Obama campaigns in ’08 against President Bush; and goes around the world on his grand Apology Tour and wins acclaim.
Niiiiiiice….
But critics called the Nobel’s committee’s decision premature, given that Obama so far has made little tangible headway as he grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea.
The White House had no idea the Nobel announcement was coming. Obama, who got the news of the prize in a pre-dawn call from his press secretary, now also has the burden of living up to its expectations.
The first African-American to hold his country’s highest office, Obama, 48, has struggled with a slew of foreign policy problems bequeathed to him by Bush, while taking a more multilateral approach than his predecessor.
Despite troubles at home including a struggling economy that have eroded his once-lofty approval ratings, the Democratic U.S. president is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational figure.
How did President Bush not exercise diplomacy and multilateralism?
Yes. Bush’s fault.
Also blogging:
The Anchoress
Bottomline Upfront
Brutally Honest
Bookworm Room
Gateway Pundit
The Radio Patriot
Michelle Malkin
@Hard Right:
Ah yes, his picks:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ship_of_fools_obamas_intimates.html
Oops, in the filter. P&T
Gee, it seems if you inspire someone you can win the Nobel Peace Prize? Guess the following all deserves one:
Mr. Rogers – He inspires a whole neighborhood.
Hugh Hefner – He inspires girls to take off their clothes.
Tom Cruise – He inspires Katie Holmes.
Barack Obama – He inspires me to PUKE!
Says a lot about who really deserves a Peace Prize. Once it had been given to Jimmy Carter, it lost it’s illustrious value.
Guess we can plan on it going to the Hollywood industry next. They inspire total unAmerican ways of life.
I think the Nobel Prize is an honor for the President, he was very gracious about accepting it.
Well now, SOP. My “welcome” was genuinely extended/ My suggestion that you spend less time trying to defend Larry (who does seriously fine holding his own) and more time trying to make your own points was also genuine. None of which was delivered with a ‘tude.
It also became ironic since you accused Aye, another FA author, of unfairly picking on Larry, then came back with your snark response saying you felt much “better” hearing a welcome from me, an FA author.
So sorry you felt my genuine “welcome” was worthy of a sarcastic and defensive response from you. Frankly, I don’t know how to take that based on my comments, as little warranted that. Strikes me as you’re a bit short tempered, and misread intents, with too many. That’s a personal characteristic that I won’t lose much sleep over, but will keep in mind should I peruse your future comments.
Seattle actually allows “moderates”? Go no…
Hard Right, I wasn’t disputing your observations of Larry’s erroneous call on Obama being, or selecting “moderates”. As I said, it all depends upon what Larry thinks is a moderate. And if you’ll also notice, I did ask Larry to weigh in on the Obama czar picks right after addressing you… since “moderate” is not an apt description of any of them, IMHO. So you and I aren’t in disagreement there.
Where I give Larry the benefit of the doubt is some of his comment #57 laundry list of conservative traits. He was against the TARP and stimulus, and is on record saying so here. With that I agree.
But if you want specifics on others where Larry and I agree, or disagree…
Agree that gay marriage should not be legal, but don’t have a problem with benefits via civil unions. Agree on the 2nd amendment rights and also agree with him that McCain-Feingold is an assault on Free Speech. And of course I agree that both the Soledad and Mojave Desert crosses should be displayed. I agree with the Alito and Roberts SCOTUS selection, but disagree with his opinions on Sotomayor, and Thomas as a disgrace.
However that’s quite a bit in common to start.
I disagree with Larry that war should be declared only via a poll of public opinion. We citizens are not privvy to intel, nor the threads that connect events and plots. And as I said earlier, I disagree that to “tame” the Congressional beast, we let them spend until the citizens mutiny. Trying to undo that damage is nigh on impossible.
From all I’ve read of Larry, he is a moderate who’s largest flaws are giving Obama too much benefit of the doubt, and favoring a French style health system that I still believe is fiscally unsustainable. Additionally the American proposals are not the French system. It empowers the government with too much data collection on medical records, and too much power to decide who gets treatment, and how much to pay medical professionals. In short, Larry believes the medical profession should be non-profit. I don’t. It is not non-profits that make the lionshare of medical breakthroughs.
So disagree with much? Yup… but there’s far more here in the nation that are considerably more left than Larry.
Lisa, Post #97 – I sympathize with you if you really do feel that way. The selection of Obama was not an accolade. It was an insult. Even the idiots in Norway know Obama is the biggest liar to ever be elected (or bought) and he can’t do anything on his own. He hires thugs for everything. Look at his Czars and Cabinet members. Most are either Communist, or criminals, or tax evaders. Do you really think he deserves a peace award of any kind? Think hard.
Madalyn
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Gosh…again with the thin skinned, poor pitiful me routine.
Larry, I didn’t say that the falsehood was yours….I said you posted it. I have no problem calling you out and applying the appropriate words to you, as well as your posts, when you are purveying myths.
You should know that by now.
The Snopes page that you linked clearly said that there was “no substantive evidence” to support the “rumor that circulated late in 2001″ yet you posted it anyway going on to expound that the supposed nomination of President Bush happened 11 days after his first Inauguration.
The attempt at a clever wording change in your PS in #6 doesn’t change the fact that you are still putting forth a claim that has “no substantive evidence”.
@sickOfPartisanship:
Just to clarify things for you a bit.
Larry posted a claim in #1 above in which he stated:
I asked him in #2 to back that claim up with a list of Nobel Peace Prize recipients which fit that description.
He provided a list of multiple names in #3 which proved to be laughable upon a minimal amount of fact checking.
I then asked him several more times to tell me, specifically, which of the people/organizations he listed were awarded the NPP based solely on good intentions rather than accomplishments.
You’ll notice, there has been no answer.
You see SOP, you’re at a bit of a disadvantage here. Your rather recent arrival deprives you of an understanding of prior, and ongoing, debates between the various names on these pages.
Larry, while appearing reasonable, is an established, proven purveyor of myths. When unchallenged, myths tend to become commonly held beliefs which, in turn, leads to even greater levels of misinformation.
SOP, once you’re here for a bit, you will begin to see patterns emerge. You will begin to see discussion styles more clearly.
You will discover that I fill my posts and my comments with a mixture of sarcasm, humor, factual analysis, and, yes, in your face confrontation. For that I do not apologize. I aggressively seek, defend, and protect the truth and unabashedly pursue/confront those who attempt to pass off information that cannot be factually supported.
I hope that helps you to understand why I challenged Larry on the things that he posted in this thread. At times, he just throws things up on the board that don’t make good sense and I choose to not let it go unchallenged.
I sincerely hope that you will stay awhile. You’ll find a wealth of information here as well as some of the best discussions on the Interwebz.
We have a lot of fun. Sometimes we needle one another…..and, when necessary, we bludgeon.
Don’t let your first impression color your entire opinion. Stick around. Based on the comments you’ve left so far, you’re going to fit right in.
@Aye (#100, 101)
Once again, here’s the chronology:
I wasn’t defending the award to Obama; I was merely explaining it in the context of the history of the Nobel Peace Prize. All the other Nobels are awarded for achievement. The peace prize has often been awarded, at least partially, as a means to encourage and assist the recipient in his goals. I provided a partial list of awardees (e.g. climate change commission; Arafat/Peres; and others) who illustrated this. In a later comment, I readily conceded that Obama’s award represented an extreme example of this.
Now, as another matter, people were incredulous that Obama should be nominated only 12 days after having being inaugurated. I thought that I remembered that President Bush had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A quick and dirty Google search brought up a Snopes post, in which the (bold letter) conclusion was “TRUE.” The first paragraph of the description stated that Bush was allegedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, only 11 days after taking office; so I “went” with this. However, right after posting, I read over my post and then checked the link, to make sure that I’d gotten it right. This was simply a mechanical check, to make sure that the link worked. I normally do this.
I was surprised to see that the headline conclusion had been changed, from “True” to “Mixed.” Whoops, I said, I’d better read this again. Only upon this second, more careful reading, did I learn the following:
#1. There is NO official list of Nobel Prize nominees. So we don’t know if Bush was nominated in 2001 or 2002 or never or any year after that.
#2. To the extent that any evidence exists that Bush was nominated, the evidence is stronger for 2002 than for 2001.
#3. Nominations for Nobel Peace Prizes don’t mean much. There are in excess of 100 nominations every year, many obviously trivial. So the fact that Obama was nominated only 12 days after his inauguration really isn’t all that remarkable, no matter when, if ever, Bush was nominated.
After a more careful reading of the Snopes post, I went back and revised/corrected my earlier post. Note that I did this less than 5 minutes after the original posting, and I did this before Aye posted his “gotcha” response.
Yes, I made a mistake. A purely honest mistake, which arose out of haste and carelessness in my reading of the original Snopes article. But I caught and corrected the mistake on my own and there was certainly no intent to post a “falsehood.”
With regard to me being “thin skinned” and being a “proven purveyor of myths,” well, I think that this thread is a great, illustrative example of my relationship with Aye, ever since he and I first started communicating on this blog.
The irony is that I really didn’t think that there was anything all that controversial about what I was writing. I was simply making a very simple point, which I think is something widely acknowledged, which is that the Nobel Peace Prize has often been used as a device to encourage certain individuals and movements, as opposed to simply being a reward for a job already completed. I wasn’t defending anything or anyone and I stated, in follow up comments, that the award was given for political purposes. I don’t see any substantive disagreement between my own interpretation of this and the interpretation of most others active on this blogpost, save for the fact that I made my comments without heaping layers of scorn over President Obama, whom I think has “handled” the news of this award with considerable grace.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
P.S. You guys might enjoy this one, from a perhaps surprising source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/daily-show-destroys-cnn-f_n_318295.html
The NY Times (shock) wrote an op ed on N!bama’s prze acceptance. . .to me, this would have been the way to have most gracefully dealt with the award. . .
“This was Barack Obama’s chance.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12douthat.html?_r=3
Also, was it just by chance that N!bama’s schedule was left wide open the entire day –
tge day of the announcement? Perhaps he had knowledge of what was going on? Is the
NPPC going to give him one every year to bend his thinking?
Here’s an editorial which reflects my own points of view (as described earlier) about the Nobel Peace Prize. It discusses the many Peace Prize winners who were “goodists,” defined as mainly writing and talking about how peace is such a good thing. The editorial makes the point that President Obama is not at all an atypical Nobel Peace Prize winner, which was my original point.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704429304574467080047317314.html
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Any Kool-Aid Left in that tankard?
http://page.politicshome.com/usa/transatlantic_consensus_obama_did_not_deserve_nobel_prize.html
@ Larry
Well Larry, every other communist in the world has embraced him. The Castro boys love him. Chavez said there was no more smell of sulfur at the UN podium, instead he smelled hope. Why shouldn’t the a bunch of Socialists in Norway be any different.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #104:
Larry, I get your point. However, in the case of President Obama, what has he written or said that is extraordinary in the push toward peace? Reagan’s end goal dream was to also one day eliminate nuclear weapons. President Bush also talked of bringing peace to the world. ALL past U.S. presidents speak in platitudes of world peace and freedom and democracy. So what makes President Obama so different? It’s the projectionism on the part of people, looking for a savior of some sort. It’s the Obama messianic effect that has the world charmed into wanting to believe that there’s something special about this president- romanticizing him as JFK/MLK’s second coming, all rolled up into one. It’s hogwash, and undeserved.
Is that ability to charm and inspire others a trait worthy of a Nobel (after all, the power to believe and have faith can be a positive force of action and change)? If so, then the Nobel is exactly what I think of it: a joke.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Interesting, I just watched that clip this morning, after I read this column from the San Fransisco Examiner. Perhaps the numbers Senator Kyl quoted weren’t so farfetched.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Heres-what-is-stopping-tort-reform-64192382.html
My comment is in the spammer. P&T.
@wordsmith (#107):
Firstly, don’t misunderstand what follows. I don’t really disagree with #107. I think that there is a consensus that the decision to award the Prize to Obama was, to be charitable, ill-advised. Yesterday, one of the 5 Norwegians on the Peach Prize panel expressed surprise that Obama didn’t look happy but instead looked uncomfortable when he gave his first public comments regarding his award. I’m sure that Obama would have loved to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but he’d have greatly preferred for it to come down the road, when it wouldn’t be viewed as a joke.
I did read something else yesterday, however, which was of interest. It turns out that, in Alfred Nobel’s will, the award was to be given (to the person who contributed most, during the past year) to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. The Nobel jury member asked who has done a better job in these areas during the past year than Obama, specifically mentioning the end of the Czech/Polish anti-missile program and the direct outreach to the Islamic world.
Politically speaking, I consider myself to be what George W Bush might call a “compassionate liberterian.” Sort of Ron Paul, but believing in some sort of at least minimal safety net and accepting a role for reasonable regulation by government to maintain a fair (if not level) economic playing field. I despise — equally — borrowing to spend and borrowing to cut taxes. I think that there is more to fear from viewing the Constitution as being a “living document” than viewing it as chiseled in stone, but I think it’s important to have razor-sharp legal minds debating issues from both sides in Supreme Court deliberations. I like the current court balance of 4 to 4, with a conservative-leaning swing vote. I regularly vote for a conservative-liberterian, GOP congressman (Dana Rohrabacher).
So why did I vote for Obama? Simple. For the rest of my life, I’m basing my vote for President on the candidate who will make it less likely that a nuclear bomb will be detonated in Long Beach Harbor. What Obama has done thus far (and for which he received the Peace Prize) has convinced me that I made the correct choice.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Just add to what Wordsmith said in post #107.
It truly is a joke that President Obama is put in the same sentence as MLK. Even if President Obama has nine lives, he couldn’t come anywhere close to what MLK did.
About JFK…there are similarities. Both of them became Presidents on the coat tails of their personal charisma and the famous ‘Daly machine’ of Chicago. President Obama is, at best, JFK lite — without Marilyn Monroe and military service.
As well read as everyone is — you may have read this article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/what_soros_wanted_obama_delive.html
If you haven’t, you may find the some points on Soros intersting. I believe this commentary adds a whole new dimension of possibilities behind the Obama Nobel Peace Prize Award.
Here is an excerpt:___________________________
These words were surely music to Soros’ ears as he has been a lifelong Esperantist in the footsteps of his father. Soros is one of the world’s few native Esperanto speakers and was wont to quell his youthful depression in London’s famous speaker’s corner, proclaiming the virtues of creating the Esperantist version of the tower of Babel in the modern world. For readers who might never have heard of Esperanto, it was the invention of a 19th century Jewish doctor, who dreamed of a world free of nationality. He invented a trans-European language to push the ideology and Soros’ father, Tivadar was one of its leading proponents.
No American president thus far has professed more affinity for this absurd goal than Barack Obama. And he even has the preemptively awarded Nobel Peace Prize to prove it. Whether George Soros had anything to do with the award, we might never know, but it seems mighty darned fishy and definitely in keeping with both Soros’ international influence and his aim of “reorienting America in the world.”
___________________________________
@sickOfPartisanship:
I feel your pain, bro. Trying to be consevative in the great state of Washington, doesn’t allow for being “thin skinned”
Sarge in Elma, Washington
Thanks Sarge. Lucky Dog, you live 88 miles away from Seattle! I am right in the heart of King County and sometimes I wonder what depresses me more…the insistent rain or the irritating/condescending liberals.
But we both live in a state that elects Gregoire as Governor for 2 terms and keeps electing Patty Murray to be one of our Senators. I keep joking with a lot of my liberal friends that when Senator Murray enters a bathroom and shuts the door behind her, she is still not the most intelligent being in the room. The tub, the basin, the toilet, the medicine closet and trash can are way more giften than her.
@sickOfPartisanship:
I’ll see your Murray, Cantwell and Gregoire and raise you Norm Dicks. I think that leaves me a “straight flush”
Sarge
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Hmmm…..Actually, the first paragraph made it very clear that:
Despite the fact that clearly “there was no substantive evidence to support the claim” you “went” with it anyway…..
And before you fall back on, “Oh, the wording was changed after I posted it”…here is a screenshot that I took prior to #8, my very first response to you on this issue:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Here’s a cached version from prior to my screenshot:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Here’s a copy/paste of the Snopes page someone posted on a blog way back in 2004:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Snopes said “Bush wasn’t amonst the nominees…in 2001″ and later said there was “no substantive evidence to support the claim” yet you have put it forth over and over and over again with no attempt whatsoever to point out that what you were typing was unsupported by any evidence.
Even in your most recent post you continue to try and make the words on the Snopes page fit what you need them to say.
The clever attempt at myth purveyance is detailed out right there. There’s not a version of the Snopes page which supports what you typed, even with the clever parsing that you added later.
Screenshots and caches are handy for this sort of thing. They remove the guesswork and the wiggle room.
As to the remainder of what you have posted on this thread, I’m still waiting for you to point out specifically which people, or organizations, in your carefully parsed list of Nobel recipients received the prize for good intentions rather than accomplishments.
You keep saying its’ true. You should be able to prove it.
Of course, if you want to change your mind now and say that your conclusion is unsupported by the facts then you can do that.
@Aye: Did you ever consider the advantages of actually getting a life?
I stand behind everything I wrote on this thread. My comment in # 102 is my final statement on this matter. It’s 100% true.
- Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Did you ever consider the advantages of telling the truth prior to having your lack of integrity put in the spotlight?
You can say that you stand behind what you type, but that doesn’t remove the dishonesty and blatantly false representation of the facts.
The screen shots and the cached version of the web page expose your words for what they are.
@aye (#118):
I am satisfied to have the record of this thread be as it is.
You are the poster child for toxic political discourse. You shamelessly twist and distort.
It’s now out there, for all to see.
Not that anyone cares.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Projection much?
Aye, larry has already shown he will not admit to being wrong, especially when it involves his defense of his messiah.
Pingback: Still Negative Double Digits: Disapproval of Obama Continues, Despite Nobel Peace Prize — Steven Crowder Weighs in with Funny Peace Prize Rap Video « Frugal Café Blog Zone