Needs of the Many

Bring Your Lies & Half-Truths … I Will Destroy Them

Even The Nobel Jury Can’t Defend Obama’s Peace Prize

Posted by Casey on October 13, 2009

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 09:  U.S. President Barac...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Anyone with the mental capacity above a 5 year old knows this Nobel business was nonsense.  Non of my Democrat friends have even tried to defend Obama’s non-award award.  Quite the opposite actually … even they are searching for examples of why Obama would qualify for such an award.  This may actually be even more ludicrous than Gore’s Nobel award … almost.

So what did the Nobel jury responsible for giving Obama the award do to defend their decision?  Very little.

Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday’s announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.

Three of them rejected the notion that Obama hadn’t accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn’t answer calls seeking comment.

“We simply disagree that he has done nothing,” committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. “He got the prize for what he has done.”

Ok then … what has he done?

Jagland singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

“All these things have contributed to – I wouldn’t say a safer world – but a world with less tension,” Jagland said

Ok, let’s evaluate this shall we?

The Nobel jury knew this was going to be a controversial decision.  Which means they fully understood that Obama is not viewed as someone who is deserving of this award.  Yet they gave it to him anyway.

One of them declined to answer a direct question as to what Obama had done to deserve the award.  Which means he was either forced into voting for Obama, or it was purely motivated by his own personal politics.

The other three believe Obama was deserving for a couple of reasons.

Healing the divide between the West and Muslim worlds was cited as one reason.  So how exactly has he done that?  None of our former enemies in the Muslim world are on any better terms than they were under Bush.  In fact, you can make a solid argument that things with Iran are much worse now than they were under Bush with Obama’s latest (and justified) verbal lashing of Iran’s nuclear program and the sanctions that followed.

I haven’t seen any evidence of the Muslim world being more accepting of the US because of Obama.  As I said before, none of our former enemies is on better terms with us because of Obama.  Several of our allies are on far worse terms now with Obama.  Canada, Turkey, Israel, Honduras, Columbia, and all of Eastern Europe to name a few.

Which leads me to the second issue the Nobel jury said qualified Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize … the missile shield.

Abandoning our allies’ safety and violating treaties and agreements with our friends is apparently a trait coveted by the modern Nobel committee.  How exactly is not coming to the aid of a weaker nation who has asked for our assistence to keep flaming missiles from raining down on their heads a qualifier for the Peace Prize?

The worst part was when Jagland admitted that Obama’s actions hadn’t at all made the world safer … just released some tension.

So pissing off our friends, not mending fences with our enemies, and leaving our weaker allies to hang out and dry against very curious opposition to missile defense while at the same time carrying on virtually the same policy as Bush in the War on Terror with no success in making the world safer is what gets you the Nobel Peace Prize these days?

We used to call that failure … now it gets you an award.

But liberating millions of people, fighting the enemies of the civilzed world, and having a net reduction in murders in the nations in which we are doing those things didn’t qualify the previous president?  I’m not even advocating Bush should have won the award, but at least show some common sense in the process.

The Peace Prize is no longer about making a safe world, but rather making a “world with less tension” … justice be damned.

Jagland asked who had done more in the previous year for the development of peace than Barack Obama.

CBS News had a crap load of suggestions earlier this month.  Like everyone else … Obama wasn’t even on their radar.

After CBS went over the profiles of several potentials for the Peace Prize, and the reasons they likely would not win (which involved political retribution for challenging China) … they got to their suggestion.  Frankly, I think they hit it on the head.

Another top candidate is Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba, tapped by CNN as the frontrunner; Cordoba, the head of Colombians for Peace, has tried to end the conflict between her country’s government and the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. She has secured the release of 16 hostages and was kidnapped herself in 1999; critics have complained, however, that she is too close to rebels.

Cordoba has done more in the past year to prevent an actual war than Obama.

Or how about Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan.  He’s an Islamic scholar who is a leading proponent of interfaith dialogue.  He led an effort in 2005 called the “theological counter-attack against terrorism.”

Prince Ghazi has done more to bridge the gap between the Western and Muslim worlds than Obama has.

That’s just two candidates that met the Nobel jury’s qualifications for Obama, but exceeded Obama’s contributions.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements

6 Responses to “Even The Nobel Jury Can’t Defend Obama’s Peace Prize”

  1. Perez Christina said

    Obama himself believe he doesn’t deserve the award

  2. netsurfer said

    Sounds to me you are jumping at straws and making many assumptions without all the facts, typical of anti-obama whining. What you said about the Nobel jury is a load of crap. You don’t know what you are talking about and if you don’t really know you should STFU. The jury does not have to answer to you or anyone else. They award who they want to, it’s their choice. It was a clear unanimous decision to award Obama, so for you to make assumptions on what these other jury members were thinking its crap just like you.

    • Host said

      When exactly are you going to defend your statements Netsurfer? The Nobel jury can award anyone they see fit. No one is arguing any different. However, when even they don’t understand why they gave Obama the award we have to question their motives. The fact is that there were far more deserving people than Obama. Something recognized by the jury members.

      What assumptions are being made? That there are more qualified candidates? They jury member admitted that … so it is not an assumption. The Nobel jury is a load of crap, and has been for many years now. They consistently prove they are less interested in Alfred Nobel’s vision of world peace than advancing some agenda (see Arafat’s award).

      Your claim that I don’t know what I’m talking about is not supported by any facts. Which means … you are ignorant, and don’t know what you are talking about.

      If you support Obama getting the award, just say so. Provide support for why you think the award was warranted so we can have an educated, mature debate. Name-calling, and wildly hurling nonsensical accusations provides no benefit to your argument. While it fully supports mine.

      • Joseph said

        Host,

        Asking someone like the lefty netsurfer to use facts to sustain his argument is akin to asking your dog to opine on Quantum Physics.

        Clueless only begins to describe their mindset.

    • >>Sounds to me you are jumping at straws and making many assumptions without all the facts, <<

      Let me help you. The TOTUS-reader has done… NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. He had 2 books ghost written about the nothing he did, he did nothing as a Senator and now, as TOTUS-reader/fuhrer-wannabe, he has done NOTHING, except give your great-great-great-grandkids a debt they can never pay off.

      Next time they will be giving the award to nobel award to a fetus, so long as it is born to parents with the right political leanings and is enough not George W. Bush.

  3. KansasGirl said

    Who cares why is was given to Obama. I’m just trying to sleep through this debacle. Somebody pinch me.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: