Credit/Blame Bush for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize


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.


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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

Here’s what is stopping tort reform
By: James R. Copland
October 15, 2009

In his Sept. 9, nationally televised speech before a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama made news by saying that medical-malpractice litigation “may be contributing to unnecessary costs” in the U.S. health care system.

Since then, trial-lawyer advocates — including their lobbying arm, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), and various allied “consumer” groups such as the Center for Justice and Democracy — have been engaged in a fierce counterattack. Front-and-center among the lawyer-advocates’ arguments is that litigation is too small a piece of the health care puzzle to make much difference.

In a letter to Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, such self-styled consumer groups claimed that costs consumed by medical-malpractice litigation represent “less than 0.6 percent of all health care spending.”

To reach this number, the groups are playing a deceptive fraction game, in which they embrace a small numerator based on a ridiculously narrow interpretation of litigation costs and a large denominator encompassing every dollar spent on health care.

The lawyer-allies would count as litigation expenses only the malpractice litigation claims paid out directly by insurance companies in a given year. Conveniently, the lawyers’ advocates ignore self-insured hospitals and legal-defense costs, not to mention defensive medicine — the cost of excessive tests, procedures and referrals that doctors order due to fear of liability.

Ninety-three percent of doctors say they have practiced defensive medicine, and the real cost savings from reforming malpractice liability stem from curbing such wasteful practice. Academic researchers have reached different conclusions on how much money tort reforms save by preventing defensive medical practice, ranging from 2 percent of all health costs in some studies to as much as 9 percent in others.

Such a percentage itself is much larger than it might seem. If we look at the difference in U.S. health spending relative to that in other developed countries — such as Canada, Germany or France — medical-malpractice reform would eliminate anywhere from 6 to 27 percent of all additional health costs.

While defensive medicine costs a lot, it is hardly the only cost-escalation stemming from lawsuit abuse. The lawyers’ advocates try to ignore the vast health-related litigation — apart from medical-malpractice lawsuits, which target nursing homes, pharmaceutical manufacturers and HMOs.

And the cost of this litigation matters, too. From 1992 to 2003, the cost of litigation per nursing-home bed rose 700 percent. When trial lawyers almost sued the vaccine manufacturers out of existence in the 1980s, they drove up vaccine prices as much as 4,000 percent.

After that vaccine-liability crisis, Congress acted responsibly to establish an alternative compensation system outside the tort system, which hurt the trial bar’s profits but preserved the vaccine markets. But Congress will not take any meaningful steps to curb lawsuit abuse as a part of comprehensive health reform this year, notwithstanding that 83 percent of the American public wants them to do so.

The reason is clear — money. The trial lawyers’ political action committee is the second-largest donor to Democrats’ federal campaigns, and lawyers gave $127 million to Congressional candidates in the 2008 political cycle — more than doctors and health professionals, hospitals and nursing homes, pharmaceutical companies and HMOs, combined.

As medical doctor and former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean admitted in a town-hall meeting this summer, “The reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers.”

It’s a myth to think that liability reform alone could cure the nation’s health care problems, but it is equally a myth to think it doesn’t matter. Unfortunately, because of the trial lawyers’ stranglehold on Congress, meaningful liability reform — this year — is simply wishful thinking.

James R. Copland is the director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute and the project manager for its Trial Lawyers, Inc. series, including a brand-new Health Care update.

My comment is in the spammer. P&T.


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.

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.”


I was trying to be sarcastic. I am too thick skinned to be offended easily. Being a moderate in Seattle does that to you.

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.


I’ll see your Murray, Cantwell and Gregoire and raise you Norm Dicks. I think that leaves me a “straight flush” 🙂


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.

Hmmm…..Actually, the first paragraph made it very clear that:

Despite a rumor that circulated late in 2001, there was no substantive evidence to support the claim that President George W. Bush was amongst the nominees for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize

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

Here’s a cached version from prior to my screenshot:

View at

Here’s a copy/paste of the Snopes page someone posted on a blog way back in 2004:

View at

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

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

You shamelessly twist and distort.

Projection much?

Aye, larry has already shown he will not admit to being wrong, especially when it involves his defense of his messiah.