Obama Peace Prize
By Daniel Greenfield
Brilliant misstep that was meant to honor Obama, but in reality humiliates him
Part of the fun of living under the Obama Administration is having your news headlines keep turning into April Fool’s Day. This belated April Fool’s Day, a bunch of aging left wing Norwegians decided to give away the Nobel Peace Prize to one Barack Obama… for just being himself.
This is actually a brilliant misstep that was meant to honor Obama, but in reality humiliates him, because not even his defenders at home can point to anything he’s actually done to deserve the award.
Had the Committee of Eccentric Left Wing Norwegians waited a bit and handed the award to Obama for pushing for Israeli concessions or some of his diplomatic roundtrips, it would have significantly burnished his image. Instead what they’ve done is turned both Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize into laughingstocks.
When even the same unfailingly worshipful media is seriously questioning the award, it’s not a good sign. The Committee of Incontinent Peaceloving Norwegians has said that they wanted to “encourage” Obama, which is patronizing and condescending. And it gives the entirely accurate impression of the slow kid who’s given a trophy just for showing up.
Domestically this award is a disaster for Obama. It’s something not even his closest media backers can claim he deserves. It’s not something even he can claim he deserves. It turns him into a joke. And even ABC is now running a list of Obama Nobel jokes.
About the smartest thing Obama could do now would be to decline the award, but he isn’t likely to do it. The award gives him a forum, but not a whole lot less. Mostly it shows him up as being an empty chair and the Nobel Committee as being a bunch of dishonest agitators who have no interest in rewarding achievement, only in promoting agendas.
The prize citation reads, “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” But what “extraordinary efforts” are those, no one has any idea. And what form has this cooperation taken? No one has any idea either.
The official Nobel mandate states that the prize should be awarded, “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”. Does anyone seriously think that’s Obama?
Read the rest at The Canada Free PressRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
By Michelle Malkin
Isn’t it so fitting?
From community organizer to Illinois state senator (present!) to U.S. Senator for 143 days before moving into the White House…and now, the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize — not for anything he’s actually done, but for the symbolism of what he might possibly accomplish sometime way off in the future:
“President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
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.”
It’s the final nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s coffin.
A Chinese dissident and an Afghan women’s rights activist lost out to this:
“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.”
Read the rest at Michelle MalkinRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )