# Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize



## observor 69 (9 Oct 2009)

New York Times

October 10, 2009
Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize 
By WALTER GIBBS and ALAN COWELL
OSLO — In a stunning surprise, the Nobel Committee announced Friday that it had awarded its annual peace prize to President Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” less than nine months after he took office.

“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said in its announcement. With American forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama’s name had not figured in speculation about the winner until minutes before the prize was announced here.

Likely candidates had been seen here as including human rights activists in China and Afghanistan and political figures in Africa. 

But the committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts so far rather than reward him for events in the future. 

Thorbjorn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, told reporters that Mr. Obama had already contributed enough to world diplomacy and understanding to deserve the prize.

Asked whether the prize was given too early in Mr. Obama’s presidency, he said: “We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.”

The prize was announced as the Obama administration wrestles with global crises from the Middle East to Iran to southwest Asia while American military forces are still deployed in large numbers in Iraq and the White House is considering whether to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. 

Mr. Obama has appealed for reductions in nuclear arsenals and is seeking to restart peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

But he also confronts challenges from Iran amid fears that Tehran is seeking a nuclear weapon — charges Iran denies.

Mr. Jagland said the conflict in Afghanistan “concerns us all. We do hope an improvement in the international climate could help resolve that.” Mr. Jagland had been asked by a reporter whether Mr. Obama’s selection for the award was intended to influence the American debate on troops levels in Afghanistan.

More at LINK

Congrataulations Mr.President


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2009)

WTF?  With all due respect to the President, the Nobel Committee loses a bit of cred in my eyes with this nomination - why not let the guy get more of a record of, oh, I don't know, GET SOME CONCRETE WORLD PEACE RESULTS before awarding him something?

More from the Associated Press, Reuters (Brit wire service), Agence France-Presse, and DPA (German wire service)


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2009)

I thought the thread title was a joke.... and then I saw the news articles. Kinda spits on Lester B's Peace Prize.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2009)

All Nobel Peace Prizes are "jokes," including Mike Pearson's.

Look at the laureates: the list is a reflection of the _times_ as seen through the lenses of a few _distinguished_ Norwegians.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Oct 2009)

Shows either that the Nobel committee are a bunch of lefties or they have quite the sense of humor.


----------



## Neolithium (9 Oct 2009)

The only thing I can say to the Nobel Committee is  :  
I put a band-aid on one of my kids yesterday, doesn't that qualify me for a Nobel Prize in Medicine?


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2009)

While I respect the office of POTUS, this is proof that all talk no action works. Nobel Prizes/UN: same, same.

He is now going to be more insufferable. How much did it cost the taxpayer for the POTUS et al, to take a vanity trip to Copenhagen, where the Europeans now see through him?


----------



## DBA (9 Oct 2009)

CNN has a headline of "President Obama to react to winning Nobel Peace Prize. Watch live at 10:30 a.m. ET." How artificial can you get, he has already reacted to it when he first heard it.


----------



## gcclarke (9 Oct 2009)

DBA said:
			
		

> CNN has a headline of "President Obama to react to winning Nobel Peace Prize. Watch live at 10:30 a.m. ET." How artificial can you get, he has already reacted to it when he first heard it.



Now really, I wouldn't call that "artificial", I'd call that a "stupid headline". Obviously the man has to respond to the news.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Oct 2009)

Am I the only one to read the headline and think:



> *Sideshow Bob*: Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2009)

Apparently, IAW the timeline, "someone" had to have nominated President Obama one week afer becoming President. It would be interesting to know WHO nominated President Obama. Joe who?


----------



## gcclarke (9 Oct 2009)

I agree that this is rather premature. He's made some decent steps, and some nice speeches, but hasn't, that I've seen, actually you know, resolved or prevented any armed conflicts. I will admit that I liked Barack the candidate much more than Barack the President. I mean, you would think that a president whose party controls both the House and the Senate would at least be able to get a little thing like health care passed. Not to mention his non-action on the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. 

Then again, the Peace Prize has at times been a joke. I mean, they even gave one to Yasser Arafat


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2009)

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/riddle-why-didnt-barack-obama-win-nobel.html



> Riddle: Why didn't Barack Obama win the Nobel Prize for Literature?
> 
> Answer: He wrote 2 books.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Oct 2009)

An example of all hail Rome.
WTF has this guy done?Besides win an election to be in control of a superpower?


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2009)

At the link, I like this comment:

my15minutes said... 

There also has to be some significance to the fact that Obama wins the prize on the day that the US bombs the freaking moon.


----------



## mariomike (9 Oct 2009)

My respect and admiration goes to people who discover Insulin, and that sort of thing.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Oct 2009)

What.  A.  Joke.

 :endnigh:


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Oct 2009)

Obama winning the Nobel peace prize ranks up their with Gores Oscar for "Best Documentary". :

Just another political prize that has lost any credibiltiy.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Oct 2009)

Should this be merged with the "stupidest thing you heard today" thread?


----------



## FDO (9 Oct 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Should this be merged with the "stupidest thing you heard today" thread?



I second this motion!


----------



## DirtyDog (9 Oct 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I mean, you would think that a president whose party controls both the House and the Senate would at least be able to get a little thing like health care passed. Not to mention his non-action on the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.


Health care "little"?  (joke?)

Not moving forward on the repeal is the only good thing he's done.  Or not done actually.  Just another instance of him not really doing anything I suppose.


----------



## mariomike (9 Oct 2009)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Just another instance of him not really doing anything I suppose.



That's probably for the best. Just leave the place the way he found it.


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2009)

Obama would dramatically increase his credibility if he turned down the award in addition to what he said...."he does not yet deserve it".....come 2012 he would be a shoo-in....


----------



## Spanky (9 Oct 2009)

Didn't Milli Venilli (sp?) win a Grammy?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Oct 2009)

Their Grammy was revoked after it was revealed that the lead vocals on the record were not the actual voices of Morvan and Pilatus.

Maybe they will take Obama's back after they realize he has done nothing spectacular either.


Country leaders are mostly lip singers anyway!We all seen what happened when the link to Bush's ear went down on occasion. ;D


----------



## Shec (9 Oct 2009)

On the downside:  now we're going have to listen to even more emphatic self-righteous, sanctimonious, sermonizing from this professorial snake-oil salesman who proclaims himself the prince of morality.

On the upside:  this award raises expectation levels beyond anything that can possibly be achieved which in turn hastens his fall from grace.

PS.  In case you hadn't noticed I don't share the popular opinion of this flim flam man.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Their Grammy was revoked after it was revealed that the lead vocals on the record were not the actual voices of Morvan and Pilatus.
> 
> Maybe they will take Obama's back after they realize he has done nothing spectacular either.
> 
> ...



You know these guys names?


----------



## Fusaki (9 Oct 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You know these guys names?



I was thinking the same thing...

X-Mo, is there something you want to tell us?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Oct 2009)

Hey I copied outta Wikipedia.
That's my story.
I will have girl you know it's true stuck in my head all night....

Now back to slamming Obama ;D


----------



## mariomike (9 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Country leaders are mostly lip singers anyway!We all seen what happened when the link to Bush's ear went down on occasion. ;D



Like a ventriloquist's dummy?
Clinton could, and still can, talk a good line. But, do you trust him?
Ronald Reagan's 1984 D-Day speech in France was very powerful.
President Roosevelt's Declaration of War Against Japan - while men were still trapped below decks in many of the ships bombed at Pearl Harbor - put the war in terms of a CRUSADE.
President Kennedy's Inaugural address was a masterpiece of writing and Kennedy delivered it magnificently.


----------



## gcclarke (9 Oct 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Like a ventriloquist's dummy?
> Clinton could, and still can, talk a good line. But, do you trust him?



I'd trust him with most things other than my girlfriend.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Oct 2009)

http://news.muckety.com/2009/07/06/obama-speechwriter-among-administrations-top-earners/17681

Theres a reason they make so much!


----------



## mariomike (9 Oct 2009)

As far as Presidents go, they say that LBJ was the last one to wear a military lapel pin. His was a Silver Star, and he, reportedly, didn't hesitate to flap that left lapel in peoples faces either, when needed. His biographer had this to say, "The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history, because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star."
I wonder how history will compare President Obama's oration skills to those of Martin Luther King?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Oct 2009)

What harsh critics!  You all know that Obama deserves his Nobel Prize just as much as Al Gore did.

Another peace prize winner was Vo Nguyen Giap earned for his skilful dipomacy in extracting the US from South Vietnam so he could finally crush it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize



> The Norwegian Nobel Committee then bases its assessment on nominations sent in before 3 February.



What exactly did he do in the first 4 weeks as president?


----------



## mariomike (10 Oct 2009)

I wonder how many Americans would vote Arnold Schwarzenegger for President? They can't, of course, because he was not born in America. But, he wouldn't be the first former movie actor Governor of California to get the Big Job!
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/4/27/1240852366449/obama-100-days--President-037.jpg


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (10 Oct 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I wonder how many Americans would vote Arnold Schwarzenegger for President? They can't, of course, because he was not born in America.



And Obama was?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

I really don't think he was born in Kenya although some do.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2009)

Heh:


----------



## bdave (10 Oct 2009)

I have heard that the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded to those who have done something but who are on a path which will lead to peace.
It is a prize which is meant to encourage those selected to continue on their endeavor of peace seeking.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Oct 2009)

bdave said:
			
		

> I have heard that the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded to those who have done something but who are on a path which will lead to peace.
> It is a prize which is meant to encourage those selected to continue on their endeavor of peace seeking.



And just where did you hear that?

Here's a quote from the Nobel Site (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html ):


> Decoration
> Facts on the Nobel Peace Prize
> On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated 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". Learn more about the Nobel Peace Prize from 1901-2008. The 2009 Nobel Prize is not yet included.



Emphasis added by Roy.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Oct 2009)

The real interesting thing is that the nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize would have to been made back in February or there about.  In other words, just after Obama had taken office and was still formalizing his policies. To paraphrase the Bard, "Something is rotten in the state of Norway."


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2009)

Methinks that the Nobel site is a bit off.  Here is something from their page:


> The Vietnam Conflict (1959-1975), was fought between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the *United States-supported * Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). The Southern and *American forces were defeated * and the war ended with unification of Vietnam under the communist government of the North.


Why did they not instead say the following:


> The Vietnam Conflict (1959-1975), was fought between the *Soviet Union-supported and so-called * Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), *which was supported militarily by the United States, Australia and the Republic of Korea*. The Southern forces were defeated *after the northern forces violated the Paris Peace Accord * and the war ended with unification of Vietnam under the communist government of the North.


(All bold text is mine)


----------



## Nauticus (11 Oct 2009)

My guess is because the Nobel site wasn't looking to give a history lesson. Everything they said was correct; you're only adding details that aren't necessarily relevant.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> My guess is because the Nobel site wasn't looking to give a history lesson. *Everything they said was correct*; you're only adding details that aren't necessarily relevant.


Not really.  They added choice details that they felt were relevant.  So I did the same, with a reverse-bent.  I was just making a point.


----------



## observor 69 (11 Oct 2009)

New York Times 

October 10, 2009
Editorial
The Peace Prize 
President Obama responded to the news of his Nobel Peace Prize the right way. He said he was humbled, acknowledged that the efforts for which he was honored are only beginning and pledged to see them through, not on his own but in concert with other nations.

There cannot have been unbridled joy in the White House early Friday. Mr. Obama’s aides had to expect a barrage of churlish reaction, and they got it. The left denounced the Nobel committee for giving the prize to a wartime president. The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy. Members of the dwindling band of George W. Bush loyalists also sneered — with absolutely no recognition of their own culpability — that Mr. Obama has not yet ended the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Certainly, the prize is a (barely) implicit condemnation of Mr. Bush’s presidency. But countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama’s great achievements in less than nine months in office. Mr. Obama’s willingness to respect and work with other nations is another.

Mr. Obama has bolstered this country’s global standing by renouncing torture, this time with credibility; by pledging to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; by rejoining the effort to combat climate change and to rid the world of nuclear weapons; by recommitting himself to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and by offering to engage Iran while also insisting that it abandon its nuclear ambitions. 

Mr. Obama did not seek the prize. It is a reminder of the extraordinarily high expectations for any American president — and does bring into sharp focus all that he has left to do to make the world, and this country, safer. 

In Iraq, Mr. Obama is still a long way from managing an orderly withdrawal that does not leave a power vacuum and inflame a volatile region. He must decide, soon, on a strategy for Afghanistan that will do what Mr. Bush failed to do — defeat Al Qaeda and contain the Taliban — without miring American and allied troops in an endless unwinnable conflict.

To make real progress toward Mr. Obama’s declared goal of a world without nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must both agree to deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals. If, as we suspect, Iran refuses to give up its illicit nuclear activities, Mr. Obama will have to press the rest of the world’s big powers to impose tough sanctions. He must come up with a more effective strategy to roll back North Korea’s nuclear program.

While he has made an excellent start on climate change with new regulations that finally begin to grapple with carbon emissions, the United States has to lead the way to a global agreement. 

Mr. Obama is going to have to overcome narrow-minded opposition in Congress to keep his promise to close Guantánamo and deal with its inmates in a way consistent with the Constitution and American values. He has much more to do to erase the worst excesses of Mr. Bush in detaining prisoners without charges and flouting the Geneva Conventions.

Americans elected Mr. Obama because they wanted him to restore American values and leadership — and because they believed he could. The Nobel Prize, and the broad endorsement that followed, shows how many people around the world want the same thing.

LINK


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2009)

I think the New York Times has stumbled on the answer: the Norwegian Nobel Committee is, actually, _aiming_ the prize at the slim majority of Americans (the ones who bothered to vote) who, in Nov 08, were _seeking_ a different direction.

Many wags suggest that Obama is getting the prize just for not being George W Bush, and I think there is a bit of that - the Norwegians have aimed a harmless, risk-free slap at former Pres, Bush for his perceived belief in American _exceptionalism_.

The European (and Canadian) dislike for hatred of Bush was rooted in the *truths* he told: Europe (and Canada) are _strategically_ irrelevant; they (and we) have hidden, timorously, behind America's skirts for a couple of generations; we and they, the Canadian and European peoples, are unwilling and, our governments are, therefore, *politically* unable to be relevant. We have the _ways and means_ but we lack the will. America doesn't. Bush told us all that; "we" hate him for it.

Obama lies. He tells us he cares. But he's an *American leader* so we know that he cares, as he must, only for America and we *know* that he lies to us when he tells us he will _listen_ and _consult_. But we *wish* it was the truth so we _will_ it to be true, even as we acknowledge that "if wishes were horses poor men would ride."


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2009)

So E.R.?  

Should we all have a Jack Nicholson moment and listen to "You can't handle the truth!" as the population cowers from "the (hard, honest) truth".  The truth hurts.     >


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2009)

Yes, of course, we all (Canadians and Euros alike) *should* look at the world with clear, unclouded eyes.

We _should_ but we *will NOT* because hope and self deception are so much easier,

And we have so much *hope* _invested_ in Obama; he must, we hope, make our dreams come true. And how can he not? He's black, but, of course, so is Condi Rice. He came up through the rough and tough Chicago political system ... oh, wait, we don't want to think about that. He's young, but, again, so is Sarah Palin, and do we really want her finger on the nuclear trigger? He's not George W Bush - and that, really, is about all "we" can and do say for him.

So, yet again, hope will triumph over experience.

As to the Nobel Peace Prize: why not? Look at the other laureates and tell me that his award is more of joke than many of their's.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sarah Palin, and do we really want her finger on the nuclear trigger?



At least she can keep an eye on Russia from her backyard.  
"Mommy, what's *this* button do?"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As to the Nobel Peace Prize: why not? Look at the other laureates and tell me that his award is more of joke than many of their's.



http://nhwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/10/ten-worst-nobel-peace-prize-winners.html

The Ten Worst Nobel Peace Prize Winners

Barack Obama’s shocking selection as this year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize left some swearing, some giggling, and many simply stunned into immobility. But awarding the prize to a President who was in office less than two weeks before nominations closed isn’t the worst decision the Nobel Committee has ever made. It’s not even close. After all, Barack Obama hasn’t done much, but at least he hasn’t supervised genocide in the Philippines, impoverished the Palestinian people, or fueled the rise of Nazi Germany, so that puts him far from the bottom of the Peace Prize Barrel.

First awarded in 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize went mostly to pacifists and mediators in its early years, even as the great powers militarized and nationalized, hurtling through the bloodiest century in human history. It was only after the end of World War I, the War to End All Wars, that the Nobel Committee started giving the award to people who really made the world a more dangerous place.

10) Jimmy Carter- 2002- The worst ex-President in American history would rank higher on this list, except he deserved more credit for the 1978 prize shared by Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin for the Camp David Agreement. It was not the first step towards a broader peace in the Middle East, but Egypt and Israel haven’t gone to war since. But Carter got his trip to Oslo years later, well after he’s undermined the Clinton Administration’s efforts to stall North Korea’s nuclear program, and just about the time he started his incoherent ramblings against Israel.

9) Jody Williams- 1997- This Vermont activist headed the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which shared the prize with her. Williams urged Western powers to unilaterally ban landmines when hostile states wouldn’t agree to give them up. Like any weapon, landmines can be deployed irresponsibly, though American and Allied forces track their minefields and take other steps to prevent collateral damage. Landmines are also a defensive weapons system, which have played a large role in preventing North Korea from invading South Korea for the past fifty years. Williams took the flawed logic of the gun control movement, and expanded it to a geopolitical scale.

8) Kofi Annan- 2001- The Secretary General of the United Nations split the Prize with the U.N. itself for the U.N.’s general awesomeness at peace and stuff. Annan’s tenure was marked by widespread corruption, such as the Oil for Food scandal and a general inability and unwillingness to address the systemic flaws in a moribund bureaucracy guided as much by the wishes of tin-pot dictators as the free people of the world. On the bright side, the U.N.’s Peace Keeping troops weren’t accused of rape and robbery in several of the countries where they were deployed.

7) Elihu Root- 1912- The U.S. Secretary of State practices shuttle diplomacy before the term was coined, helping to arbitrate peace treaties around the globe. He did not ask for an arbiter following the Spanish-American War. As Secretary of War, Root oversaw the brutal American occupation of the Philippines, marked by a scorched earth campaign against rebel forces and some of the worst abuses by American troops in our history.

6) Frank Kellogg- 1929- The Kellogg-Briand Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris, outlawed war. Really. It prohibited the use of war as “an instrument of national policy.” It was signed in August of 1928. Since the deadliest war in world history had broken out yet, the Nobel Committee gave Kellogg the Peace Prize. They may have jumped the gun a little.

5) Aristide Briand- 1926- Brian was coauthor of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, but his medal was already on the mantelpiece for his work on the Locarno Treaties, a series of seven agreements designed to normalize relations with Germany. The principal treaty was an agreement by Germany, France, and Belgium not to attack each other, guaranteed by Britain and Italy. Looking back, it’s almost shocking that Neville Chamberlain never got this award.

3) Charles Dawes- 1925- Vice President Dawes shared the Prize with British Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain. Dawes lent his ideas and his name to the Dawes Plan, which forced Germany to pay huge annual reparations to Britain and France. The Dawes Plan completely collapsed by 1929. German resentment over punitive reparations is now seen as helping fuel the rise of the Nazi Party over the next decade.

3) Mikhail Gorbachev- 1990- For nearly a century, the Nobel Committee had been recognizing do-gooders who ignored dictators, appeased dictators, or asked dictators politely to stop killing people. In 1990, they stepped it up a notch by given the prize a dictator who wasn’t very good at being a dictator. Gorbachev’s flailing attempts to hang onto the last vestiges of Soviet power included sending KGB and military forces into the Baltic States, and he was ousted in a coup in August of 1991. But that birthmark was just so cute.

2) Al Gore- 2007- Gore clearly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for narrating the highest profile documentary about meteorology that year. The International Panel on Climate Change, which shared the prize, if not the stage with Gore, has since revealed that the most compelling evidence for its global warming work, the Mann Hockey Stick graph, was based on faulty reading of global temperature data. In it’s own words, the Committee gave the prize to Gore and the IPCC “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”, which quite frankly don’t have a lot to do with peace. Except that when it’s really hot out, people fight more I guess.

1) Yasser Arafat- 1994- Arafat shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Israel Foreign Minister Shimon Peres “for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East” following the 1993 Oslo Accords. Now if you sign a peace treaty in the Committee’s backyard, that’s going to get you some Nobel love. So let’s look at the evidence for and against Arafat’s selection:

Cons
*Unrepentant terrorist.
*Kleptocrat who kept Palestinians impoverished through equal measures of corruption and incompetence
*Wanted to kill the Jews and take their land

Pros
*Hated American power as much as Nobel Committee
*Snappy dresser
*Willing to put “killing the Jews” on the backburner if he could just take their land first.

Honorable Mentions- President Obama is the third sitting President to receive the award, and the first two seemed far more deserving at the time.

Teddy Roosevelt- 1906- Roosevelt received the Prize largely for his role in mediating the Treaty of Portsmouth, which ended the Russo-Japanese War. Credit should have been given to the Japanese Navy, which effectively ended the war by sinking the Russian Navy at the Battle of Tsushima.

Woodrow Wilson- 1919- Wilson’s efforts to create the League of Nations got him the Norwegian hardware. The League was one of the most colossal failures of the 20th Century, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

He's allowing open gay's in the military now.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/200910114445493670.html


----------



## Journeyman (11 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> He's allowing open gay's in the military now.
> http ://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/200910114445493670.html


And if we can't trust al-Jazeera.....  

I think their headline may be a tad premature though. According to today's CBC News:


> U.S. President Barack Obama *pledged to end the ban * on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a Washington speech Saturday but acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.
> 
> "I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,"' Obama said at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.
> 
> Obama reaffirmed his *commitment to end the ban * but *did not give a timetable or the specifics* that some activists have called for.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And if we can't trust al-Jazeera.....



ctv...cbc... ;D
CTV told the world canadians killed children at a range.Thankfully NIS did their jobs well and quick and kibosh their broadcasted taliban propaganda.


----------



## bdave (11 Oct 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> And just where did you hear that?
> 
> Here's a quote from the Nobel Site (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html ):
> Emphasis added by Roy.



It is what i heard, from an unconfirmed source. 
That being said, Obama DOES NOT deserve this.


----------



## gcclarke (11 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> He's allowing open gay's in the military now.
> http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/200910114445493670.html



About bloody time.


----------



## DirtyDog (11 Oct 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> About bloody time.


I have a few friends in the military down south who will be just _delighted_ to hear this.


----------



## gcclarke (11 Oct 2009)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I have a few friends in the military down south who will be just _delighted_ to hear this.



Mind you, it also has to get through Congress first.


----------



## Spanky (11 Oct 2009)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

I like the way this guy thinks.  Can't see the anointed one making this speech though.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Oct 2009)

New York Times

May 21, 2007
Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur 
By SARAH LYALL

LONDON, May 20 — The officer, a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force, felt he had no choice. So he stood up in front of his squad of 30 to 40 people.

“I said, ‘Right, I’ve got something to tell you,’ ” he said. “ ‘I believe that for us to be able to work closely together and have faith in each other, we have to be honest and open and frank. And it has to be a two-way process, and it starts with me baring my soul. You may have heard some rumors, and yes, I have a long-term partner who is a he, not a she.’ ”

Far from causing problems, he said, he found that coming out to his troops actually increased the unit’s strength and cohesion. He had felt uneasy keeping the secret “that their boss was a poof,” as he put it, from people he worked with so closely.

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue. 

The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them. 

“What we’re hoping to do is to, over a period of time, reinforce the message that people who are gay, lesbian and the like are welcomed in the armed forces and we don’t discriminate against them in any way,” a Defense Ministry official said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the ministry’s practice. 

Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States. This is particularly true in light of tensions between the allies after a British coroner ruled in March that a British soldier who died four years ago was unlawfully killed by an American pilot. 

For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear. 

“We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States,” the British official said. “There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.” 

The debate in the United States was rekindled in March when Gen. Peter Pace, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the country’s top-ranking military official, told The Chicago Tribune that he believed that homosexuality was immoral.

In January, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who until his retirement in 1997 held the same post in the Clinton years, when the Pentagon adopted its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times that he now believed that the military was ready to accept gay men and lesbians. A military already stretched thin, he said, “must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.” 

At least 24 countries — many of them allies of the United States, and some of them members of the coalition forces fighting alongside Americans — now allow gay soldiers to serve openly in their armed forces. 

It is hard to avoid comparing the British and American systems, gay soldiers in the British forces say. 

One major, an openly gay liaison officer in the British Territorial Army, told of an exchange he had in the southern Iraq city of Basra with an American staff sergeant, far from home and eager to confide. 

“He privately let me know he was gay,” the major said in an interview. “Not in a romantic way, but in a matter-of-fact way. He found it difficult, because he clearly had a whole part of his private life that he had to keep separate and distinct and couldn’t discuss with people. He was in his mid-30s, with no girlfriend and no wife, and he had to use all these white lies.”

Some Britons said they could not understand why the United States had not changed its policy.

“I find it strange, coming from the land of the free and freedom of speech and democracy, given the changes in the world attitude,” said the gay squadron leader, who recently returned from Afghanistan. “It’s just not the issue it used to be.” 

Until its policy changed, the British military had deep misgivings about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces. But it had no choice. It was forced to by a European court, which ruled that its policy of excluding homosexuals violated the European Convention on Human Rights. 

“There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end,” the Defense Ministry official said. 

Similar concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-sex partners. “But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven’t materialized,” the official said. 

To the extent it becomes an issue, it is usually within the context of the relentlessly rough give-and-take that characterizes military life, particularly at the lower ranks, said Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has studied the British experience. 

“The military is a proving ground, and the first thing people do is find your weakness and exploit it,” Mr. Frank said in an e-mail interview. “If you’re gay, that’s your weakness, and guys will latch on to that. But frequently this is no more significant a weakness than any other based on your accent, body type, race, religion, etc.” 

The British military actively recruits gay men and lesbians and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The Royal Navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, last summer, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride rally in London. (British Army and Royal Air Force personnel could march but had to wear civilian clothes.) 

Speaking at a conference sponsored by the gay advocacy group Stonewall last year, Vice Adm. Adrian Johns, the second sea lord, said that homosexuals had always served in the military but in the past had had to do it secretly. 

“That’s an unhealthy way to be, to try and keep a secret life in the armed services,” said Admiral Johns, who as the Royal Navy’s principal personnel officer is responsible for about 39,000 sailors. His speech was titled “Reaping the Rewards of a Gay-Friendly Workplace.” 

“Those individuals need nurturing, so that they give of their best and are, in turn, rewarded for their effort,” he said of the Royal Navy’s gay men and lesbians. “Nurture includes the freedom to be themselves. Our mission is to break down barriers of discrimination, prejudice, fear and misunderstanding.”

Once the news is out there, the gay Royal Air Force squadron leader said, the issue gets subsumed by the job at hand and by the relentless immediacy of war. 

At one point, his squad was working with a British Army unit. “I wouldn’t go into a briefing room and face them and say, ‘By the way, I’m gay,’ ” he said of his British Army counterparts. “Frankly, I don’t think they were worried, because we were all focused on doing a very, very hard job.” 

He recalled something his commander had said, when advising him to come out to his squad: 

“The boss said, ‘I think you will be surprised that in this day and age it will be a complete anticlimax, because as far as I’m concerned, homosexuals in the military are yesterday’s news.’ ”

LINK


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2009)

An interesting study in contrast:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-harper-a-tale-of-two-leaders/



> *Obama and Harper: A Tale of Two Leaders*
> 
> Posted By David Solway On October 17, 2009 @ 12:30 am In . Positioning, Canada, Politics, US News, World News | 40 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (20 Oct 2009)

He's also being awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. 
According to the committee, "that guy's just got great chemistry."

 ;D


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2009)

This guy has soooo much class:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-09/obamas-oslo-snub/full/



> *Obama Snubs the King*
> 
> Finally some Europeans are angry with Obama—the very ones who are awarding him his Nobel. Katarina Andersson on the president's decision to decline lunch with King Harald and skip his own Nobel exhibit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poppa (10 Dec 2009)

Fitting no?


----------



## observor 69 (10 Dec 2009)

US President Barack Obama walked into Oslo's City Hall to long applause. He smiled cautiously, knowing that in the world-wide audience there were sceptics. For many the Nobel Prize had come too soon, too early in his presidency. It was a prize for good intentions.

Mr Obama addressed those doubts in the first minutes of his lecture. He accepted that his getting the prize had caused controversy. "In part, this was because I am at the beginning and not the end of my labours," he said.

He went on to accept that compared to some of the giants of history who had received the award before - like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela - "my accomplishments are slight."

He also knew that for some there was a contradiction in accepting a peace prize when he has just ordered another 30,000 troops to deploy to Afghanistan. He told his audience that he was a commander-in-chief in the midst of war. In a speech that was about war and peace he defended the use of force. "I face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people," he said. "For make no mistake, evil does exist in the world."

Mr Obama then marked out what he considers to be the major difference between his administration and that of President Bush. He insisted that America must follow international agreements. 

"America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves," he said. He then reverted to a theme that I had heard often during his election campaign. "We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend," he said.

Introducing Mr Obama, the chairman of the Nobel committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, had praised the new president's commitment to oppose torture and to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. That has not happened yet. Today, here was a president re-affirming all the idealism of his campaign while tempering them with the reality of power.

Earlier in the day, he had said that if he was successful some of the criticism would subside but if he was not "all the praise in the world and the awards in the world won't disguise that fact". Outside the president's hotel were small groups of people demanding that Mr Obama earn his prize. For them, the test will be the Copenhagen summit next week and the pledges made by the United States. Others were demanding an end to the war in Afghanistan. 

It was a sober, cautious president who insisted on the one hand that the "instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace" while saying that "war itself is never glorious and we must never trumpet it as such".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/


----------



## observor 69 (10 Dec 2009)

One of the best speeches I have heard in a long time.


New York Times December 11, 2009

Obama’s Nobel Remarks 
Following is the transcript of President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, as released by the White House: 

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.         

                    ..............................................................................

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.text.html?pagewanted=print


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2009)

Norway reacts to the snub by inviting a cardboard cutout of President Obama to his Nobel prize obligations (Check far right side of picture)

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/sorlandet/1.6904497

I also tried to save the pic but something went awry. Mods, any help?


----------

