Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

I probably should have completely given up any notion that the Nobel Peace Prize was worth more than a warm bucket of spit when Arafat won it, but you’ve got to be kidding me...

OSLO (AP)—President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

He has accomplished precicely nothing in any of those areas other than to secure another worthless UN resolution.  I feel bad for all of the people who actually deserved this. 

Real Debate has this little factoid:

The deadline for being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is Feb. 1.

Ergo, Barack Obama could have only been President for less than two weeks if he was nominated at the last minute.

1. Ninety percent of the time the committee seems to do a great job.  And then the other ten percent of the time you can only wonder about what the deliberative process looks like.

   And with all due respect, even if we may disagree with the argument, at least one can make a plausible argument for Yasser Arafat.  One can make a plausible argument for Al Gore.  But I am unclear as to what the Nobel committee could possibly be citing Obama for, other than the fact that he is simply not George W. Bush.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 09, 2009 at 0850 hrs




2. No wonder he put off meeting with his Generals regarding Afghanistan for so long.  This will weaken America as Obama tries to live up to this award as he sure as heck didn’t earn it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 0900 hrs




3. One can make a plausible argument for Al Gore

   Please do.  I’d love to hear that one.  I assume it’s something along the lines of “He’s gotten so immensely fat that just by placing his enormous body between two warring countries he would completely cut off access of the armies to each other, causing the war to cease.”

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 0901 hrs




4. RS,a plausible case for Arafat? I want what you’re smoking. Because you’d have to be high to suggest that a thieving, murderous, dishonest pile of suet like Arafat, in the deapest pit of hell, could even remotely be considered for a ‘peace’ prize.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 0903 hrs




5. Yea, whatever; but I’ll bet he doesn’t have one of those ‘World’s Greatest Golfer’ coffee mugs…oops, I should probably keep my mouth shut.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 0912 hrs




6. The “esteemed” nobel peace committee has as much credibility as the MTV music award panel.  This will likely not work out very well in the long run for our narcissist-in-chief.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 0928 hrs




7. While the nominations had to be turned in February 1, when was the actual voting?  I could see many, many people being nominated back on Feb 1.  Of course that doesn’t mean that he accomplished anything the past nine months either. 

   This award does somewhat support a world-view outside the US that was not happy with GW’s invasion of Iraq.  Despite many US citizens feeling that military action was justified, it scared the crap out of many small countries (and large ones like Russia and China).  i.e. “If it could happen to Iraq it could happen to us”. 

   But I think this will hurt Obama here in the US.  Even supporters in the US don’t seem to quite understand what brought this on.  It seems to play into the narrative that he’s just a “Paris Hilton” type celebrity.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 0938 hrs




8. Given how hard Bill Clinton campaigned for the award toward the end of his second term (no, he did not get it), this has got to be a knife in the back.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1002 hrs




9. Oh my, twice in one week I agree with Owen.  What is going on?

   This is the world saying they are happy the U.S. doesn’t have someone who supports a “shoot first ask later” foreign policy in the White House anymore. 

   Otherwise it makes no sense.  He’s done some good work on loose nukes, but Nunn-Lugar started that effort and they didn’t win.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1010 hrs




10. Oh Boy!  This is going to be fun! 

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1033 hrs




11. This Committee nominated Hitler for crying out loud, why would this be of any surprise? Why not a posthumous award for Idi Amin? It’s just as stupid.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1128 hrs




12. Come on you guys, after all, he was a community organizer in Chicago.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1135 hrs




13. God knows how they figure this stuff out.  I think maybe they just gave it to him because he’s not G. W. Bush.

    And I’m not even kidding.

    I have a lot more respect for the awards given out for the sciences.

    Posted by scott on October 09, 2009 at 1201 hrs




14. Obama getting the Peace Prize flabbergasted me when I read it this morning.

    I mean, what has the man accomplished since he came into office. He’s “fostered dialog?”  Seriously?  What wars has he stopped? What treaties have been signed because of him? What countries have stopped making nukes?  Foreign policy-wise, he has accomplished little to nothing of import.

    Regardless of what one thinks of Obama, his lack of impact on the world and on peace is quantifiable.  In fact, given the situations in Korea, Iran and Afghanistan, one could justifiably argue that things are worse.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1212 hrs




15. Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha! 

    I love when this happens.  It gives you wacky righties a reason to say the craziest stuff.

    I can only imagine what the rest of the extreme right wing elitists will have to say on the fair and balanced mainstream right wing media. Should make for some great laughter.
    I mean it, you guys are hilarious! Practice makes perfect.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1213 hrs




16. It’s only a consolation prize for losing the Olympic bid.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1234 hrs




17. “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.
    “The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1252 hrs




18. What do you expect from a party where 30 Republican members vote in support of gang rapes. I guess they are the party of Roman Polanski.

    The party of morals my @$$.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1257 hrs




19. The Nobel Peace prize has been suspect for a while, but when they gave it to Al Gore over Irena Sendler, it cemented the complete worthlessness of the meaning of Peace.  They should just name it the Political Correctness award now.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1343 hrs




20. I think the issues at hand are those of risk and sacrifice.  The list of peace prize winners includes people who’s actions included great personal risk, and in the case of people like Sadat, resulted in the sacrifice of their lives.  To cloud that list with people who risk little and sacrifice nothing both cheapens the award for the those past winners and, by association, usurps their risk and sacrifice.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1351 hrs




21. Shock and Awe….ya that pretty much covers it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1408 hrs




22. I see we have the belligerent presence spoken for.  Grow up Pat.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1418 hrs




23. Smeety,

    I’m not trying to be belligerent, just accurate at calling a spade a spade.

    The Republicans are nothing but a bunch of cry babies that have destroyed their own party.  The comments made on this thread prove it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1440 hrs




24. Pat,

    The only point proven is that you are unable play part in a political debate.  But by all means, continue….  it only helps.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1453 hrs




25. He has accomplished precicely nothing in any of those areas other than to secure another worthless UN resolution.

     

    You are assuming Obammy got the prize for the reasons they stated.  I think the stated reasons were just lip service.

    Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because the self-appointed Euro-socialist-intellectual-elitists who bestow this symbolism over substance award found their prodigal son in Obama.

    They are thinking “Finally a man who brought true socialism to the US”. Trillion dollar stimulus package, appointing “czars” for everything? Relentlessly shoving Obamacare down our throats despite overwhelming grass roots resistance to it. He was a LOCK

    We should have seen this coming.  Obama didn’t do anything internationally… But he did a TON domestically.  Obama took that ROGUE RENEGADE CAPITALIST United States that those Euro-socialists love to look down their noses at if not for the fact that they have to look UP, and he has socialism on the CHARGE!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1516 hrs




26. Hey Smeety,

    Did you read xxpilot’s post.  Now that is belligerent.

    Sickum Smeety.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1528 hrs




27. So, xxpilot, are you saying if President Obama was a real American they would have never given him the award?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1532 hrs




28. You guys are fun when you let your own inherent biases compromise your ability to recognize that an argument that you personally disagree with can be perfectly valid.

    Yasser Arafat: Regardless of its ultimate success, the Oslo Accords were a huge step in Israeli/Palestinian relations.  You can’t credibly give the award to just the Israeli side of the table - they’ve committed some pretty gross atrocities in their own right.  Regardless of what you think of the rest of what Arafat has done, the Oslo Accords were undeniably noteworthy.

    Al Gore: Humans contribute to their environment, often in ways that are harmful.  The degree of that harm relative to other more innate causes of fluctuation is certainly subject to debate and discussion.  But humans do bad things to the planet and in many cases they are things that can be mitigated or eliminated through simple awareness.  Certainly, Al Gore has played a major role in communicating that message, regardless if we agree with him as to the extent of man’s effect on his environment.

    I’m not saying I agree with either award, but the arguments I made are entirely legitimate.  And even though I disagree with their decisions, I can at least identify a rational argument for the committee’s position.  Some of you come in with the attitude that people who are fundamentally bad can never be recognized for actions that may potentially be good.  I, however, can admit that Yasser Arafat did some good things while still believing that his general existence has been fundamentally harmful. 

    Otherwise, put me with Steve Austin and Carrie Lynch.  Obama won this award precisely because he is not George W. Bush.  In the arena of foreign policy, his differing approach is his only real accomplishment to date, if you can even call that an accomplishment.

    The time to give a leader this award is after he’s done something, not in the hopes that he will.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 09, 2009 at 1550 hrs




29. The Nobel became irrelevant after it was awarded to Arafat.

    And now we have a whole pile of people howling about someone getting an irrelevant prize for doing nothing.

    I haven’t laughed this hard in weeks.

    Someone be sure to let me know when Glen Beck is going to pee on himself.

    I don’t want to miss that for sure.

    Posted by Swamp Gas on October 09, 2009 at 1553 hrs




30. Hey Smeety,

    “The only point proven is that you are unable play part in a political debate.”

    This thread has absolutely nothing to do with a politics. People are debating a man winning an award.  And just because he is President Obama it becomes a national crisis with the righties.  Good grief!

    It’s this Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glen Beck, mentality that has brought the Republican party to the sorry state it’s in.  A party that is willing to alienate itself from the majority of the population all for what??  Being petty?

    It’s this mentality that lost the election for the Republicans.  Keep it up with and watch the party continue to flounder.

    Now this is a political debate.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1629 hrs




31. Pat, or Fester Bestertester, which everone your going by, try wrapping your little mind around this,

    And then go to any of your liberal hot spots, like DailyKos, or whatever and let see what you have.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1640 hrs




32. Pat,

    With all due respect, this debate is whether Obama has done anything worthy of a Noble prize.  I voted for him, but he hasn’t done anything yet in my opinion.  Heck, even Michael Moore has stated “congratulations President Obama—Now Earn it”

    I think it is a fair criticism to state that a noble prize should be based more on change than hope. Heck, if hope were enough, Bush should get one.  Didn’t he hope that he could create a middle east democray which would bring peace to the region.  Despite the “mission accomplished” banner he failed horribly.  Ideas should not be enough, we all have them. And truthfully, Obama’s hopes are no greater than yours or mine. 

    So I ask you, what has Obama accomplished that entitles him to the award? 

    The stated mission of the Peace prize is to go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    Done the most? Not yet.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1644 hrs




33. Yes Pat,

    By all means we’ll take your advice because nominating Democrat-lite last time worked so well for us.

    How about we play a different game?

    When are the Democrats going to dump their uber-liberal wing?  Or Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, and Keith Olbermann?  They are the mentality that is making Americans look seriously at the Democrats right now and go to some tea parties.  You guys are walking over the same cliff right now.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1644 hrs




34. Pat,

    So ‘republicans approve of gang rape’ does not constitute a political debate?

    Keep talking…..

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1648 hrs




35. Dick Morris???? 

    I guess I should have included him with the other guys that are ruining the Republican party.

    And no, I’m not a liberal.  I’m just not a sheep blindly following what’s being fed by the ditto head media.

    I’d like to see the Republican party come back.  But it won’t. It’s too far gone from where it came from and it’s been losing itself since before Reagan.  And the Democrats aren’t much better.  That’s why I’d lump them together as Repcrats.

    A shell game is being played by the two party system.  This system has been bought and paid for by big business.  This government is not a government created by the people for the people any more.  It is a government that has been created by big business for big business.  And where does that leave the rest of us. Pawns in a game that gets people thinking that there are two camps of thinking and then gets them to go after one another.  Then they, the government, owned by big business, goes about it’s way doing what they do regardless of what is in the best interest of the nation.

    I don’t know how you can stop this juggernaut we’re in. But I damn well know it’s not pissing and moaning about who gets an award.

    It’s time for a change, and it’s not going to come from either the Republicans or the Democrats.

    It’s time to start thinking for yourselves.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1710 hrs




36. Ugh this is bothering me </a>[/url] lets see if that fixes

    Carry-on

    

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 09, 2009 at 1715 hrs




37. On behalf of the Nobel Committee, I want to clear something up:  President Obama was awarded the “Nobel Appeasement Prize”.

    I apologize for any confusion

    Posted by Steve on October 09, 2009 at 2023 hrs




38. Sorry neomom, I leave my comments on the short comings of the Democrats on pro-democrat blogs.  This isn’t that blog.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 11, 2009 at 1547 hrs




39. The Nobel Peace Prize has lost it’s value. Shit

    Posted by Nike dunk sb on October 11, 2009 at 2251 hrs