Giving it to the multiple murderer Arafat just might have been an aberration; when they gave it to Carter, and one of the committee stated they did it to whack at Bush, that made it a fact; giving it to Algore? Please. Now they've proven it doesn't mean a damn thing except a political game to thump on America.
This will no doubt come as great comfort to the democracy protesters in Iran, the oppressed citizens of North Korea, the Afghan women being beaten by the Taliban, and the people of Poland, the Czech Republic, Georgia, etc., feeling the hot breath of the growling Russian bear. They’re all basking in that Obama-inspired “peace.”(I'll add, the people in Honduras trying to keep a Chavez buttmonkey from taking over)
Compared to all that “strengthened diplomacy” and “people’s cooperation” President Obama was efforting, how could the other nominees even compare?
The only thing that really bothers me is that this comes just days after the Obama administration turned a blind eye to the Dalai Lama and told the world that it's at least considering a separate peace with the Taliban. That's grotesque. Meanwhile, there are real peace activists and dissidents out there whose dungeons will stay just as cold and dark for another year because of this. Indeed, this news comes during a year when the Iranian people rose up against tyranny and were crushed. Surely someone in Iran — or maybe the Iranian protestors generally — could have benefitted more from receiving the prize than a president who, so far, has done virtually nothing concrete for world peace.
Hey, the Russians are trying to clean up Stalin's reputation(it's just so hard to scrub all the blood off...), maybe the Nobel Peace Prize can go to him next! After all, he sent millions of Soviet citizens to their final peace; that's far more than the number of Jews(and other people who got in the way) Arafat murdered.
Added: from the Times:
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. 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.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace. I can only say 'risks'?
Added: "If you aren't thrilled about this, you've thrown in with the terrorists."
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party."
Great pride for WHAT, you miserable dirtbag? You really, truly suck. As Ace points out, Republicans have 'thrown in" with Hamas? You mean the same terrorist group that endorsed Obama last year?
Two quotes from a Reuters article:
"It would be wonderful if I could think why he won," said Claire Sprague, 82, a retired English professor as she walked her dog in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for."
Itya Silverio, 33, of Brooklyn, was also surprised. "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black," she said. "What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet."
and the big points,
"The guy hasn't solved any conflict anywhere so how can he win the peace prize? But if we don't reelect him the next go around we will all look like idiots because the world has anointed him," said Schultz, who lives in a suburb of Dallas.
and
"It looks less like an objective award than it does a political endorsement," said William Jelani Cobb, a history professor at Spelman College in Atlanta and author of a forthcoming book on Obama.
"Guantanamo is not closed yet and it makes it difficult for him to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan," he said, referring to the U.S. prison in Cuba where some detainees have been held for years without trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment