I have already heard some liberal commnetators trumpeting that this erases the Olympics snub and shows that the world really, really likes us again. But doesn't it really say the opposite. This award is nothing more than a slap at Bush and at America as it existed pre-2009; before the Obama-maculation.
As noted in the article, the deadline for nominations was February 1st. Only roughly two weeks after Obama even assumed office. Nevertheless, even now Obama has no concrete achievements unless you count throwing Eastern Europe under the bus by withdrawing our promise of a missle shield. In foreign policy and the prosecution of two wars*, Obama has essentially continued Bush's policies.
So Obama wins for his speeches. Which goes back to the earlier point that the award may be to an American, but is, nevertheless, another example of anti-Americanism. Let's remember that theme of the BHO World Apology Tour to date: America is a terrible place, with great sins that is primarily responsible for anything sucky in he world today; but that was not on my watch and isn't evrything all unicorns and Skittles now ??
Even the AP can't hide from this point:
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan woman's rights activist.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
What's really scary is that this normally inconsequential award could actually do harm in this case. If the Narcissist-in-Chief sees this as a vindication of his policies (and we already know how giddy he gets bask in the warm glow of anti-Americanism) he might go all-in and ramp up Apology Tour v.2.0.
* Hey Nobel people -- do you appreciate the irony of awarding your Peace Prize to the head of state of a country prosecuting not one, but two wars ?? Then again, you also gave this award to Arafat so you obviously care little about your credibility.
But this award will allow the Great Leader to use it as a lever to get even more concessions out the Iranians!
ReplyDeleteG. Snuffleuffugus (actual sentiment)
Quick question: how do you get an award based on what you WANT to achieve? Can I get an award because I want to finish first in my class? Or because I want to be the best hockey player in the NHL? We have devolved into existential nothingness.
ReplyDeleteLazy Libertarian
I'd rather get unicorns and handjobs.
ReplyDeleteB. Smith
I'm just that damn good!
ReplyDeleteB. Hussein Obama