Nobel What Prize?

Ditto. (Via)

Susie Madrak notices that the nominations closed the week after the inauguration, before Obama had had a chance to do anything about “Peace” and concludes, “I can only assume that he won for the achievement of not being George W. Bush.” Yup.

Mark responds likewise: “I think it’s safe to say the rest of the world really, really didn’t like Bush.” Nope. They sho nuff dint.


7 responses to “Nobel What Prize?

  1. Actually, the nomination was made with the first weeks of the administration but they had the subsequent 9 months to deliberate. I think Nobel was looking at the Obama Administration’s non-proliferation goals, which it seems the media is incapable of doing. The actions are both ambitious, and on their way to succeeding. The success of these policy goals will have a dramatic effect on global security. Given that Nobel emphasized his work on the nuclear front, its not hard to understand why they made the decision.
    First, we have an unprecedented public statement in Prague wherein President Obama called for a nuclear weapons free world, or Global Zero. A U.S. President has never done that. Following that, the Administration jumpstarted the START treaty follow-on process with Russia, which is designed to lead to further dramatic reductions in the nuclear arsenals of both countries (and it is clear that once the follow-on treaty is concluded, the Administration has more than 67 votes in the Senate to ratify it). Then, the Administration committed itself to ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Following this, the U.S. took action to remove the missile defense shield from its aggressive posture in Poland, which has led Russia to a) become amenable to greater reductions in their arsenals, and b) perhaps more importantly, to agree to putting real pressure on the Iranian regime to end its nuclear weapons program. Since then, the Iranians have loosened up dramatically, and are cooperating to a degree that wasn’t though possible just a few months ago.

    That’s concrete progress in the first 9 months of the Administration.

    I think the surprise over the award is warranted. But the myth being perpetuated here and in the media that the Administration hasn’t done anything concrete on this issue is just that. A myth.

  2. Nope. For defeating John McCain & thereby preventing an addtional war.

  3. Thanks, FrankF, the best rebuttal I have seen to the naysayers, especially the progressive/liberal whining. THAT has been disheartening. Just shows how much the left has their heads up their (you know where), and I count myself a progressive. I voted for the guy, and wept when he won. Well, no one is perfect.

  4. Which additional war might that be, Raven? Afghanistan, maybe? Or Iran? Obama used his statement acknowledging the prize to threaten Iran again. As it is, he’s continued Bush-Cheney’s wars, so they should have gotten the prize, not he. This am Bizarro World Nobel Peace Prize.

  5. I’m not George Bush either, AND I haven’t waged war on anybody!

  6. Actually, jean, Frank’s “explanation” is almost as lame as the Committee’s. It still amounts to giving somebody a prize for a) promising to do things he hasn’t done and based on history so far probably won’t do, and b) for talking about things Bush wouldn’t talk about even though none of them are original with Obama. If showing interest in peace is sufficient even as, as Duncan said, he’s threatening war, well, that’s not much of a criteria, is it?

    Jonathan: Your nomination papers are undoubtedly in the mail.

  7. Pingback: Leave Obama Alone, You Damn DFH’s! « Arranology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s