Posted by 
If wishes were prizes, they might add up to the once-prestigious award that was bestowed on President Barack Obama this morning. In what sounded initially like a send-up of his inflated celerity, Obama – on the job for all of nine months and with no accomplishments of note to his credit – was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for seemingly nothing more than the political aspirations of global unity and “hope” on which he has yet to deliver.
The official rationale for the prize, according to the Swedish Nobel Committee, was Obama’s work to strengthen international diplomacy and eliminate nuclear weapons. But given that Obama has to date done nothing at all to further these goals – and, indeed, may have hindered the latter by indulging Iran in its dogmatic pursuit of a nuclear weapon – this appeared to be little more than high-minded window dressing. Insofar as the Nobel committee cited any tangible accomplishment by the American president, it was to laud him for capturing “the world’s attention” and giving people “hope for a better for future.” In essence, Obama has been honored for his campaign rhetoric.
Obama is not the first sitting American president to be awarded the Nobel, but he is the least deserving. Theodore Roosevelt received the prize in 1906, and Woodrow Wilson won in 1919. Yet both these presidential predecessors had done something to warrant the distinction: Roosevelt was acknowledged for successfully negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese war; Wilson for founding the League of Nations and formulating the Treaty of Versailles. Whatever the long-term merit of these achievements – the League of Nations is now widely considered a failure – they could be considered real contributions to world peace at the time of their recognition. No such claim can be made on behalf of the Obama administration’s policies.
So conspicuously thin is Obama’s in-office résumé that even some on the Left professed shock at the committee’s selection. Writing at The Daily Beast, Peter Beinart pointed out that honoring Obama on the basis of a few speeches was a backhanded confirmation of the conservative critique of his presidency:
I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.
Indeed, it seems Obama’s chief accomplishment, in the Nobel Committee’s eyes, is that he is not George W. Bush. Thus, without naming Bush directly, committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said, “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.” Elsewhere, the committee praised Obama for creating a “new climate in international politics,” one in which “multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position.” The message was clear: Obama is not Bush.
Never mind that the Bush administration repeatedly sought multilateral solutions to foreign crises, whether in its fruitless attempt to secure UN cooperation against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or in its commitment to working with European powers to contain Iran’s nuclear program. Never mind, too, that the Bush administration did more than its successor, at least so far, to cut nuclear weapons stockpiles. In the end, its party affiliation was uncongenial to the Nobel Committee, which has devolved into a rubber stamp for the correct (read: liberal) politics. It is no coincidence that, of the three prominent American politicians to win the Nobel in the past decade, all, including Obama, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, have been Democrats.
Even worse than the blatant partisanship of the committee, the Nobel has become a missed opportunity to honor the truly deserving. There was no shortage of such choices among this year’s nominees, who included the likes Hu Jia, the Chinese dissident serving a three-and-a-half-year prison term on trumped-up charges of “incitement to subvert state power”; Morgan Tsvangirai, the longtime foe of Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe who has suffered relentless harassment from the regime’s thugs, and whose wife was killed this March in a suspicious car accident that occurred just days after he had become prime minister in a power sharing deal; and Sima Simar, the Afghan human-rights activist whose campaign to bring attention to the plight of Afghan women, as well as her outspoken opposition to Islamic practices requiring women to be kept in seclusion and to wear the burqa have made her a target for Taliban terrorists. All have done more than President Obama to advance the cause of human rights. All could have used the recognition and financial resources that come with the prize more than the articulate but unaccomplished leader of the world’s most powerful country.
It is, of course, not President Obama’s fault that he was chosen for the award, and he was appropriately humble in his acceptance. “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize,” the president said, observing that he did not view it “as a recognition of my own accomplishments.” And it’s hard to credit the claim that this year’s choice has diminished the award – an award whose past recipients, after all, have included unrepentant terrorist Yasir Arafat. But even by these historically low standards, the 2009 award was unique: It provided a reason to dismiss the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize even for those who like its winner.
The best thing you can do for yourself is to not respond to me because I am way out of your league and I'll wipe my *ss with your face if you do.
So how does this caveman response equal my response to your ignorant response? Like I said, you better shut up before I wipe my *ss on your face
It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Peace price for the whom?
Peace price for the man who lies down against the world threat?!
Peace price for a cowardice that shakes the bloody hands of the Religious Hitler?!
Peace price for a man who has no consideration for his boys and great consideration for the killer of his boys?!
Nobel Committee has missed Chamberlain.
What remains from the US CREDIBILITY?
If I were Obama I would be embarrassed. He should give it back and tell the Nobel committee that he will accept it when he has actually DONE something to deserve it.
It doesn't. Your only equal is Bubba.
Yes you are, thank the little pink fairies. Decent folk wouldn't allow you near my league. Go talk to Bubba.
They lost me when they chose Al Gore over Irena Sendlerowa — a polish woman that saved 2500 jewish kids from extermination by the Nazis. This prize has been totally devalued by the morons who make the award.
AlFranken1
According to Louis Farrakhan, the Messiah is here and his name is Obama. As for childish insults, you are still Bush bashing long after it's fashionable. Obama did expand Bush's Patriot act so I guess you think it's OK now. Hypocrite.
Obama received millions in undisclosed foreign donations.
It is fashionable to bash Bush for as long as we are suffering from his actions. We are still in the middle of the worse recession in my lifetime and this mess was created under his watch. He and his Treasury Secretary and their conservative policies are the ones that drove this market crash. It is the greedy underwriters who gave loans to anyone who would apply so that they may sell them on the international market. It is Bush and his policies that turned a blind eye to it.
Screw the working man who actually builds something of value — who wakes up in the morning to the cold or hot day and earns an honest living building something like a school or a church or something that is concrete in substance that people can enjoy and seek shelter for the rest of their lives and their children lives.
No– that quality if forever gone. The trade, the skill, the honor all washed away by the tide of capitalist greed. All given to Mexican laborers who all live together in one house for 30 dollars a day building crap out of level and out of square. Manufactured in sweat shops while smoking dope.
Those are the elements your greedy politicians have created.
Regarding Louis Farrakhan, who cares what he thinks!
I care about what he thinks as much as Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, or any other freaky fanatic.
You are the one making a gross assumption about who I am.
It is you that can't comprehend past my screen name.
Maybe if my screen name was Fred Flintstone you would accuse me of being a stoneage fat man or something. Maybe you would complain my dog Barney or some conspiracy between the dogs name and Barney Frank — and therefore I must be a liberal
YOUR FU*CKING FREAK !!!
If Obama expanded Bush's Patriot Act then shame on him. That would make both of them Communists like Chairman Mao.
We can call both of them Chairman Bush and Chairman Obama.
Spying on ordinary Americans. Diluting our privacy.
I would have to do some research on your claim but you certainly won't reveal your source.
That isn't something a FPM'r does.
They just talk sh*t all day without any citation or substance —
just f*cking bla bla bla bla.
Good for him. If I were him, I would invest it in bonds because this economy is going to suck for quite some time. Thanks to your President Bush.
Pink Fairies? You're a pink fairy? Like in a pink too too and walking around like a faggot with a limp hand.
Is that the league you're in? Like in West Hollywood?
no faggot — I mean intellectual league. My abilities to debate the current issues is far beyond your abilities to absorb and decipher.
You are in kinder garden and I'm in an Ivy League University.
You are a Hick in which your Mother and Father are brother and sister in mountains smoking dope and making moonshine where as I am experiencing multiple cultures and have a reality check on life.
Go back to circle jerk you fairy.
Your screen name is starting to make sense.
It has everything to do with Bush. The world is so relieved to see him go that this is the only way they can express their gratitude. It is Ironic that Adolf Hitler was once considered for this award and how the people who nominated him were shunned.
I don't think Obama deserved this award. He certainly didn't do anything special to deserve it.
This award has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with our actions in the past 9 years.
Maybe I can enlighten you
Some of the credit for the economic crash goes to those in congress who were lobbied by Fannie and Freddie to ignore and reject regulation attempts in 2004. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters are an example. As banks were under pressure to make these horrific loans they were bundled and sold to greedy speculators all over the world as derivatives. When the housing market crashed these trillions in derivatives became worthless.
As for Obama expanding Bush's Patriot Act see http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Administrat...
I hope you can open your bitter mind and see the real corruption happening now that will take down our country if we aren't vigilant. Obama will do what his masters tell him but who are his masters?
Bush? You think Bush should get it?
He is the reason we got attacked in the first place.
He is the one that turned a blind eye.
We haven't got attacked again because of Congress not Bush.
Bush was negligent his whole time in office.
what a shmuck you are!
And thanks to your president Obama who has tripled Bush spending and put us in an unsustainable debt spiral.
And it can be a decision seen by many as a questionable choice:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_...
“To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize,” the president said,
FOR ONCE, I AGREE WITH OBAMA!!
Sure, the man who has established schools for girls in Afghanistan and Pakistan at risk to his own life. How's that? Or the woman who lost to Al Gore Jr who rescued people from the Nazi's. Or the Human Rights activists in the PRC? To name a few.
When one considers the nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize must be submitted as of Feb. 1st. It's a stretch to believe this was a surprise to Obama. He was at that time, President for 11 days!
His only accomplishment at that time was being elected. IMO, this was a done deal. A set up. Everything about this administration is a con, and the only folks who don't get it, are those with stars in their eyes, and dribble running down their chins.
My advice? Don't listen to what Obama says, watch what he does. So far, it ain't pretty.
Well that is an above average FPM post. I'm impressed
according to Wikipedia, typically the nomination is due by February but that isn't always the case. I don't when his was.
But the rules really don't spell out like some sort of beauty contest.
I believe they voted for Obama for the symbolic direction the U.S. is going.
Bush was viewed as a tyrant and a criminal through the eyes of many across the world.
So as you look at certain people and class of people as terrorists, they also look at us in the same manner. They see us as terrorists. As terrorists going to their country and killing their families.
So mass delegates that make up the nomination are educated and objective to all points of views — similar to what Jimmy Carter has.
We obviously wouldn't go to FPM for any suggestions because their view is extremely subjective.
So it really isn't so much about who it is but rather who it isn't — you should at Feb 1 more at how close it was to January 20th — Bush's last day in office
Don't forget that Bush was the first to run up our deficit even before his $700 billion dollar bonus to the criminals who sold those derivatives.
If you look at this chart:
http://christianityforums.org/index.php?showtop...
you will see that Carter and Clinton kept the deficit low where as Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Jr. escalated the deficit tremendously.
I obviously not making this up and under Clinton, the deficit decreased.
If a Republican was in office instead of Clinton, our deficit would be going up twice as much as it is now because we wouldn't be getting any tax revenue for our budget to get us out of this mess.
Everyone agrees that we have to have stimulus spending — all other nations our doing it and Europe is depending on us to do it.
Allen Greenspan agrees everyone.
all that is is just political rhetoric.
The huge difference between Obama's plan and the Republicans is that we are investing in our infrastructure and not fattening the bottom line of the bankers like Bush's 700 billion dollar hand out.
So blaming Obama for tripled spending is like blaming your doctor because you went out and got AIDs for your promiscuous behavior.
A pretty good article that is somewhat objective and neutral:
Let me highlight one paragraph in your article:
“The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.”
That brings the Reverend King to mind:
“In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other non-violent means. By the time of his death in 1968, he had refocused his efforts on ending poverty and opposing the Vietnam War, both from a religious perspective. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. national holiday in 1986.”
—-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
There is no question in my mind that Obama represents an extension of his achievements.
If you ever go to a baseball game on Jackie Robinson Day, you will witness his contribution to the game through the people who have directly benefited from his bravery.
Obama and the people who will follow him directly benefited from this prior Nobel Prize Winner.
If you want to fail to acknowledge that or dismiss it, then you speak volumes for the Republican party and those who spew your venom.
testing.
Those 11 days included at least one weekend, so it's only 9 or so productive days.
Correcting myself: there were 2 weekends in that period, making it seven productive days of this administration with which the committee based their selection.
Pris, you are simply an extremist who thinks that those who don't agree with you are either communists, terrorists or not playing with a full deck. According to your extremist fringe, a prez who lied us into war is a wonderful prez compared to one who wants health care for all Americans.
Your extremist side is becoming more and more like extremist Muslims, enjoying the sacrifices of their young who are getting killed and disabled for what?
I think the committee that hands out the Nobel Peace Prize should do it on merit, what someone has already accomplished, not on what he hopes to accomplish.
One last correction: there would be at most seven productive days of his presidency to grade him on because what if he was nominated on Jan 22nd? What a strange year this has been so far!
another way to look at, Obama is being bipartisan — which your constituents love to question.
Thanks for going to bat for Obama!
Doesn't happen that often here at FPM
Regarding congress lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, that was under a Republican Congress.
You're cherry picking
AF, Bush wasn't a pushover for the internationalists. He knew his role was to represent America, not to punish, and to apologize for, America.
Bush didn't march to the internationalist's drum. Obama does, and that's why they like him. They also see him as weak. He's a pushover. They must love that. Your comparison to Carter is perfect. We all know what a peacemaker he was. He ushered in legitimacy for Islam in the person of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now, Obama, like Nero fiddling while Rome burns, can't make a decision to approve a surge in Afghanistan, while we have troops over there who need this decision to be made quickly and who need more numbers to fight this war to win.
Funny isn't it, that Obama has no problem with being dictatorial here at home, but bows and scrapes to our adversaries and the feckless, shallow body called the UN.
When it comes to international affairs, I'd rather be respected for my strength, even feared, than be loved. It's a grown up game of hardball, not a child's game.
Btw, Wikipedia has been discredited, I wouldn't use them as an info bible if I were you. If they're happen to be right, then Feb. 1st is a deadline, but, maybe isn't a deadline? How perfect. The international crowd can't even get that right!
Lucy Clueless is testing her keyboard again. Too many bong hits again
Huh? You make absolutely no sense. I think you just like throwing the word “extremist” around. That's how Obama tries to cause division in our own country. You sound like a extremist nut.
It is bad practice to write in caps. It is very difficult to read and hard on the eyes. Caps are reserved for the first letter on names and titles and to emphasize.
Some people use caps only to disguise their poor punctuation so I feel for you if that is the case.
You prefer to ignore reality because you're blinded by hate and possibly a faulty education. I feel sorry for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Unlike you, Wikipedia cites their source:
Let us put a microscope on your last claim first — and then we will use this correction as grounding to dispute the balance of your Crapolla:
under the description of “Nobel Peace Prize” on Wikipedia, the following statement that I cited is as follows:
“Nominations must usually be submitted to the Committee by February 1 of the year in question. Nominations by committee members can be submitted up to the date of the first Committee meeting after this deadline.[6]” Notice note #6 — click on that and it takes you to the official Nobel Peace Prize website —
( ^ a b “Who may submit nominations?”. The Norwegian Nobel Committee. Retrieved 2009-09-10.)
After listing the possibilities of who can submit a nomination, they describe the rules of the time frame as follows:
“The Nobel Committee makes its selection on the basis of nominations received or postmarked no later than February 1 of the year in question. Nominations which do not meet the deadline are normally included in the following year's assessment. Members of the Nobel Committee are entitled to submit their own nominations as late as at the first meeting of the Committee after the expiry of the deadline.” Notice the part that states: “Members of the Nobel Committe are entitled to submit their own nominations 'AS LATE AS AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE DEADLINE”
you: “Btw, Wikipedia has been discredited, I wouldn't use them as an info bible if I were you. If they happen to be right, then Feb. 1st is a deadline, but, maybe isn't a deadline? How perfect. The international crowd can't even get that right!”
So who should I discredit?
The one who cites the source with precision or the one who makes a gross assumption based on a unsubstantiated claim?
That might be a tough one for someone who comes from a defected intellectual gene pool such as FPM.
Coming from the same source is the remarks of “feckless, shallow body, that doesn't march to the internationalist drum…”
These opinions are obviously in the eyes of the beholder and in this case filled with a bias agenda.
I appreciate the bold assertiveness taken post 9/11 and most of it was justified: The Iraqi war and the fallacies that build up to it sent a clear message to Osama Bin Ladin: “We will turn it into what ever is in our best interest no matter how false it is”. — that is nothing new.
We have done that in the past effectively.
regardless of your perspective of the debate in congress and your lack understanding of how a democracy works with our checks and balances, Both Democrats and Republicans know to decipher the difference between putting national interest first and the partisan politics — they are both competitive by nature.
The conclusion is within you, like most on this website, can not decipher the difference and are therefore subjected to being taken advantage of by propaganda machines like FPM.
If you study this string, you will see I make a hobby out of beating up this intellectual gene pool.
Xyz waves the white flag with name calling after I break down his claim with viable disputes, MaryAnn’s, USMC Sniper — all losers.
You’re the latest kill on the side of my plane.
Cheers Priz
In your defense, I like this you tube better because it is saying directly what your you tube is trying to say but without the lame sound bites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiybm8yXg5A
So lets say that the Democrats are responsible for the irresponsible lending practices of qualifying low income families verses the private market selling derivatives through the private sector.
Sure– the Republicans can point the finger to public financing mechanisms just like the Democrats can point the finger at the deregulation of the lending practices by Greenspan as well as his policies of lowering the interest rate and flooding the market with money thus causing an over supply of housing. So why did the market crash?
We can say it started with Clinton but it was finish by Bush.
This all happened on Bush's and the Republican party's majority in the house. Why didn't they stop it?
They had the purse strings, the votes, the filibuster in the Senate.
Can you name the bills proposed to the house that would regulate Fannie Mae as well as the private sector?
Let us use an allegory to make my point clearer:
You can be George W. and I will be Pelosi.
George: “Hey Pelosi, hop on the bike of my motorcycle and let's go for a ride!”
( Pelosi jumps on and they zoom away and up comes a creek with a ramp to jump it)
Pelosi: “give it the gas George and jump the creek!”
( now George has control of the accelerator — that being Chairman Greenspan — as well as the brakes and gears — that being the Republican controlled house and Senate)
Goerge: ” gee wiz Nancy i don't know I think we will crash”
Pelosi: ( Pelosi grabs the accelerator with her right hand and man handles the left handle bar with her left hand and forces George to jump the creek but only to crash on the other side).
The end
is that what happened Louise?
I guess Pelosi must have been wearing the pants and twiste George W's arm when he signed the $700 billion bonus to the same bankers that sold those derivatives qualified by anyone who had a pulse.
3 successive Nobel Peace prices to keep the Islamic Regime of IRAN on power in spite of the deadly riots.
1 – Shirin Ebadi ( for white washing the Regime's crimes)
2 – Mohamad El-Bradeii of IAEA ( for minimizing the regime's nuclear threat)
3 – President Barak Obama (for offering enough time to Ahmadinejad to finish his nuclear arsonal, and for encouraging and backing the regime against the Iranians who riot to uproot the Islamic regime)
Finally! I was wondering when you were ever going to start with the racism canard, AlFraken1! What took you so long, you sly dog?
How dare you tell a U.S. Marine they are an embarrassment to the corpS? (notice the S at the end of corps, dumb shit? I typed it nice and big for you- you don't even know how to spell it, you wanker). I'd love to see your pinko, leftist, baby-face tell that to a Marine's face, especially mine. They're the ones out there dying for your right to be a moron because you're too much of a pu**y to fight for your country. You hide behind your anonimity to spew your hatred because no one can know where you are to come and kick your light-weight ass.
Also, you might want to look into what George Soros did to Greece. And no, he's NOT Greek.
Three problems with your talking points: The closing date for Nobel Prize nominations was on February, 1st, Mr Obama was sworn into office a mere 12 days before that so none of what you mentioned had had a chance to occur. Second even if the closing date was not on the first of February those speeches and meetings still have not bared any results; Iran is as hateful as ever as ever, El Queda still wants to blow you up, the the soap opera in Israel is still ongoing. As for the troop reductions in Iraq, the first of those took place in the fall of 2008, in other words they were already set into motion before B.O took office. But apparently temporal logic and results don't matter, only good intentions.
Also, while you keep insisting that Norway is a neutral country, point in fact it is not. Sweden and Finland are neutral militarily, Norway is a member of NATO. In any case whether Norway is neutral or not is irrelevant, neutrality, or alliances are foreign policy and that policy is decided by government, the Nobel committee is not the government of Norway.
you completely missed the boat.
all I'm willing to do is suggest you read my other comments before we discuss/correct your understanding
Now USMC is hiding under his fat moms dress.
Listen here you fat dike! If you talk to me like that in public I would punch you in face just like as you were a dude.
Then I would throw your silly fat ass over the balcony.
not just any punk ass bitch or just plain puck ass can talk tough on-line but a coward at that!
Even if he was a marine, he has to be a faggot at that.
I have been reading his crap for months and I know retard when I see one.
You, on the other hand, have never heard from in my life.
For all I know at this point, USMC Sniper cross dresses in his mama's Salvation Army suite every Sunday night.
You Freak!
Actually, it is the parlament of Norway that decides on the Peace Price. Being a Swede I have so munch other nonsens to be internationally embarrassed about so I will have any part of this.
I guess you are correct Al. No sleazebag republican deserves this award more then the biggest sleazebag democrat, Barack Hussein Obama..mmm…..mm…..mmm.
Life can be so cruel, you leftist slug, one day or another, you will feel it.
You're working way too to hard to legitimize the illegitimate. The more you try the more you prove that this “award” is all about hating Bush. How inspiring! Obama's a fraud as is this hollow “igNobel” bit of lefty sychophancy. You and your election-stealing namesake fit right in the same sinestral slime pit.