A couple of days ago, I awoke to find out that Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
While I understand the potential good the course Obama has charted may well lead to - this award was wrong. I think 9 out of 10 people I talk to agree with me that it is simply much too soon to give him this kind of award. He did not bring about Middle-East peace like Jimmy Carter, he did not end the war in Northern Ireland.
So, I thought about it and asked myself, "Why would the Nobel Committee do this?" Are they, as the right likes to claim, some sort of leftist, America hating group? I decided, "Probably not, if they were, Americans wouldn't receive hardly any awards, yet we do."
No, I decided it was probably that for eight years we had such an abject failure of an administration, course, and President in the area of foreign policy, a course which scared the crap out of the world, and a course which in fact made nuclear proliferation MORE likely, not less - they (the committee) probably just breathed a sigh of relief, and wanted to make a political statement that the world couldn't easily afford a repeat like George Bush and Dick Cheney. Even the supposed abandonment of WMD by Muammar Qaddafi, was mere show, and an attempt to blame North Korea (another abject failure) for proliferation during the Bush years, back-fired when it was found that in fact it was Pakistan which was transhipping Uranium Hexaflouride through DUBAI PORTS WOLRD to Libya. Qaddafi recently repayed our new 'friendliness' (under Bush) by speaking for an hour at the U.N. condemning the US and the West as evil. Apparently lessens about Hussein not being redeemable didn't manage to penetrate the psyche of Bush about Qadaffi when the opportunity for an aggrandized photo-op arose.
I think that is probably the root of the award, a fear and sigh of relief - and if so - I hope of course they are right. Obama is clearly FAR more skilled in the area of understanding the world - but that doesn't make the Nobel Committee right - this award cheapens the awards provided to MANY more worthwhile recipients. Simple talk and good speeches about wanting to do good, even his profoundly insightful speech in Cairo, do not equate to truly putting yourself on the line, risking all for the sake of understanding, and through understanding, achieving peace. Blessed are the Peace-makers, and making peace is a noble endeavor, but let's wait for that peace before we bless them overmuch.
Well we agree on one thing, he hasn't done anything yet to deserve this and the Nobel committee was just making a political statement. Honestly I hope he does earn this before he leaves office but I have my doubts. There is one thing he is doing internationally that I saw scroll across the bottom on the news one day and have not found since. It said something about working with Russia on a joint missle defense program. I have thought for years, at least since the USSR went away, that if our anti ballistic missle system was really designed to protect us from countries like Iran and not Russia, then why not share it with them. The system will not protect us from an attack by someone who can launch a few hundred missiles anyway so why not share it with the big players in the game who can do that to prove we are just concerned with the rogue one shots like N.Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, and the others who might be able to get one or two missles in the air. As far as the Nobel prize I saw a website out there telling people to vote for Obama for the Heisman trophy, cause if he can get the Nobel prize without bringing peace anywhere why not the Heisman without playing football.
ReplyDeleteWell, put, Penigma.
ReplyDeleteI think the president accepted the award in a pragmatic sense in that he probably intends to use it for political leverage in the Middle East, etc. (It may or may not help him; only time will tell.)
It was most likely given to him in order for the Nobel committee to exert ITS OWN political leverage, so President Obama might try to turn that notion on its head a bit. That he and they agree on some issues may make that very difficult task slightly easier, because he might at times avoid looking overly contradictory and disingenuous if and when the award is measured off against the hard international choices he will have to make--but it will remain a very difficult task to pull off.
Still, he should prepare himself for heavy criticism (from abroad and from his political adversaries at home) every time he feels compelled to use U.S. military forces outside of humanitarian causes.
In the short run (by which I mean the next few years), this may look somewhat negative for him. But if he wins a second presidential term, it may ultimately benefit him.
We'll see.
Regarding the Russian missile scenario: much of the international press surmises--correctly, I think--that this all goes back to Iran, and ultimately to Israel/Palestine. (The U.S. press has made the former connection, but it hasn't consistently made the latter connection.)
Conservatives are now running Israel and planning to go ahead with settlement building. We don't want them to expand their settlements, which we think would create more tension in the region. So the Israelis are using the threat of Iran as leverage in order to put pressure on us--it's a sort of, well, if you can help curb Iran's belligerence, we'll stop our settlement expansions.
Russia holds some economic sway with Iran. Hence, we're scrapping the Eastern European missile shield and offering an olive branch to Russia. I think the missile shield, as conceived in the Bush administration, was a bad idea from the start. So though it's a gamble on the part of President Obama, it's a good one in that if a missile shield is necessary, Russia might as well be brought into the Western fold as a more useful shield idea comes into focus. (Russia might ultimately be used as leverage against China, too....)
I agree that the award was premature. It feels like he was given the award because he is "not Bush", nor is he a Bush clone.
ReplyDeleteI think Penigma hit it squarely on the head where he said that when confronted with the total failure of the Bush administration, almost anything looked better. However, I'm divided on whether he should have accepted the award.
He has accepted the award, and hopefully he can turn the acceptance of the award into initiatives which will further peace, especially in the Middle East. Untimately though, peace in the Middle East is not going to be accomplished by US or any European power intervening. I feel that peace in the Middle East will ultimately happen (if it does) when the parties involved get tired enough of killing each other, and that the rest of the world (including the US and Europe, Russia and China) stop arming the parties to go kill themselves.
I think Ttucker's idea is also an interesting idea. If indeed we are not intending a missle defense to defend against a massive Russian launch, then why not cooperate with the other major powers so that all can be protected from a rogue state such as North Korea or Iran? It makes perfect sense, and it would further take a point of contention away from the bluster that is often Prime Minister (in reality president) Putin.
I think this award represented what was said by France's Sarkozy, that America has returned to the hearts of the rest of the world. WE are no longer scaring the crap out of the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteObama not only got the award, as someone put it, for not being Bush, he got it, in a sense WE got it, because of no longer as a nation supporting the ideas that were in power under Bush - and Obama is credited, although he only deserves it in part, for leading us out of those ideas into something new and different - and yes, in my opinion better.
When Carter received his Nobel, which at the time I didn't think he deserved either, because at that time we didn't have the 30 years of lasting peace between Egypt and Israel, under multiple leaders on both sides. Any student of the middle east wars against Israel would appreciate what a huge difference that made in the recent struggles with Gaza as an example, or how different the Israeli conflicts with Lebanon would have turned out had Egypt been willing to be a participant making for two fronts.
The award is given for vision and intent as much as for success, as was ably pointed out on some news programs. Maybe the Nobel committee with their track record knows what they are doing better than we give them credit. Only time will tell. I'm willing to wait to have an opinion about them being right OR wrong, because I was wrong before when they gave that award to an American President. The one thing I have not determined is if they have ever actually BEEN WRONG in giving the award. I don't think they have.
Just a follow up thought - reading up on the controversial figures who have received Nobel prizes (and not just for peace) was educational. I encourage any of our readers who haven't recently revisited the topic to do so in the context of the criticism of Obama.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes him look positively tame as a choice, LOL.
Pen wrote:"did not bring about Middle-East peace like Jimmy Carter, he did not end the war in Northern Ireland."
ReplyDeleteGee, so I guess it's kind of a shame that the Nobel committee didn't give that Peace Prize posthumously to Teddy Kennedy for his efforts in successfully ending the conflict in Northern Ireland........which would still have been a slap in the face to those conservatives who 'hate America'.
Just this morning, I saw more footage of Limbaugh, ranting away about being in agreement with Iran and the Taliban that Obama didn't deserve the prize. The thought that crossed my mind was that maybe who they were in agreement with should be a wake up alarm that they were WRONG.
Sometimes 'right' is ONLY a direction, not a conclusion...or a destination.
I just read something really interesting. The nominations for the nobel prize were due Feb 1. Obama had been in office all of 12 days. So far he had a big inaugural party and given the queen of England some dvds that would not play in a dvd player in England. The fact that the Taliban and Iran and Limbaugh said he does not deserve it does not mean they are on the same side. I agree with some of the things you guys say here and disagree with others. Even people who usually get things wrong get them right sometimes.
ReplyDeleteHere's one (though not all) of the big reasons why the U.S./Eastern European missile shield was dropped:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8303517.stm
I wrote about it earlier in this comment thread...if you wish to read my admittedly overly-verbose analysis.
I would posit, as many international news agencies have, that it also goes back to the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians. Again, however, I've already written about that.
TTuck,
ReplyDeleteThe committee commented that they didn't nominate him for his actions as President, but rather for his actions in running for President leading to a profound change in tone.
Pen, I think that is exactly the point. Normally for a Nobel prize you have to do something, not just change the tone so the world thinks you might do something.
ReplyDeletett wrote:" ttucker said...
ReplyDeletePen, I think that is exactly the point. Normally for a Nobel prize you have to do something, not just change the tone so the world thinks you might do something."
Actually, reading over the list of those who have received the peace prize in the past, it HAS been given for the attempt, for the vision, not for completed success. There are people who have received the peace prize who did not succeed at all - but tried.
Heck, I think the man deserved it just for ordering Gitmo to be closed. THAT is just one of the things which is going to be one of our greatest occasions for shame in our country's history.
Well they are starting to fudge on that a little also. Last month they quietly filed a brief asserting the right to keep 50 of the prisoners locked up indefinitely without charging them. These 50 are the big holdup. Their own home countries do not want them back since for most Afghanistan was not their first dabbling in armed jihad. The Senate has threatened to cut the money needed to close Gitmo if these 50 are brought to the US. That is the problem with dedicated people. Of the ones they released about 1 in 3 end up back in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting us again, so what do you do with them? If you call them POWs you can keep them until the war is over but part of the rationale behind some of the interrogation techniques is that they are not soldiers of a country with a command structure and therefore cannot be pows. Some of Obama's advisors did not do their homework, if he wanted to close Gitmo, ok say so, but they should never have let him mention a deadline until he was in office and had access to the details on all the prisoners.
ReplyDeletett wrote: "The Senate has threatened to cut the money needed to close Gitmo if these 50 are brought to the US."
ReplyDeleteAnother case of fear mongering.
This country can safely detain - imprison, lets use the right word for it, we're not simply causing someone a delay somewhere - this country can safely imprison these 50 people currently at Gitmo.
The notion that they are too dangerous to bring onto US soil is just ludicrous. We have imprisoned dangerous people, including dangerous terrorists, before without incident.
Now apart from the fact that we have not had problems with escapes from either Gitmo OR any of our maximum security facilities here in the US, think about it for just a moment. IF we had a prisoner escape - an incredibly remote possibility, but IF - then aren't we eager to get that person back in custody ASAP? Our chances of doing that in Cuba are nil, and our more often enemies are more likely to help an escapee than to return such a person.
Even if you posit the notion that having these prisoners on US soil would subject us to retaliation, I would argue that US soil still presents a better opportunity for effective information gathering for intelligence purposes.
This position by our Senate makes us look flippin' stupid to the rest of the world, especially to those parts of the world that are predominantly muslim. Those Senators should be ashamed to cave in to anxiety over taking an action that can be vulnerable to poltiical spin, and not putting serious decision making to benfit the country first.
The wide world is a scary place, with a few scary people in it. So? We deal with it. There are aspects of those scary people in this big bad world that we are less able to address as capably. We have the power and the ability to handle THIS problem with 'scary people' very effectively.
Perhaps the Senators have forgotten which side of the bars we are on. I for one am not terrified of long-incarcerated men who are scared, far from home and the support of family and friends, strangers in a strange land.
The Bush/Cheney decisions regarding the building of Gitmo, the interrogation mistakes of Gitmo, will go down in history as among the worst choices of an adminstration marked by a lot of bad choices.
It's time as a country to change our mind-set, and start making decisions that are NOT fear based for a change. A very welcome change.
The kind of change that peac prizes are awarded for making.
I hope Obama over-rides the Senate on this.
TTuck,
ReplyDeleteIf I may, I believe the number is closer to 20, but whether 50 or 20, I think we can agree it's a LOT fewer than Bush was holding, and so claims that Obama is 'doing the same thing Bush did' are specious.
But you are entirely correct, there is a segement of the population at Gitmo which are dedicated jihadists. However, I don't agree that the people cannot be held as POW's. GC3 provides entierly for the treatment of irregular combatants. If they were not lawfully acting as fighters for the then government of Afghanistan, then they can be charged with criminal offenses, either in the International Courts, or in Afghanistan.
What people who are held for 5-7 years without charge do, is not an indication of what their prior acts were. I certainly feel it is understandable that someone held (or 1/3rd of those held) for that long with no Counsel, no access to family and no hope of release, might be very resentful of the US, so much so that even if they HADN'T had an axe to grind before they were sent to Gitmo, they did upon leaving. Remember that those who have been released were released because no substantive evidence, gained lawfully or unlawfully, was presented which suggested they had acted illegally prior to arriving at Gitmo - so, in short, we had no right to hold them. If they acted badly afterward (and I'm surprised it's only 1/3rd), that suggests only one thing, that holding someone that long -when there is no evidence to do so - is a very bad thing, and leads to bad outcomes. Deciding to continue holding an innocent person because our illegal treatment of them hardened them into a resentful person, is immoral on it's face - we screw up, mistreat somoene, but then can't release them because of our mistreatment?
Finally, we have to live on the moral high ground, here, as this situation so amply illustrates. WE have to prove our cases, we have to NOT torture. Enhanced interrogation should never have been used, and if being a POW or convicted criminal prevented us from torturing, then we should have heeded that lesson and NOT tortured. We created an 'extra-legal' double-speak land, with the intent of side-stepping our own and interational laws to put these folks outside the courts, and the US Supreme court rightly stepped in and said 'not no, but hell no.' They did so because our underlying conduct was not in accordance with our principals as a nation, and frankly, not in our long term interests.
Obama IS in a pickle, but the only course out of these waters now is to try those who are there, and if they are not convicted, to release them into their home country. Failing that, to have Afghanistan try them for illegally fighting a foreign power on their soil - but that's the problem, they weren't illegally fighting any more than the Eagle Squadron or Lincoln Brigade were. That these guys are dangerous is beyond dispute, but if we can't prove it, just like the drug dealer, we can't simply jail them forever because we 'just want to.' If we do that, we become the dictatorial state they (the jihadists) accuse us of being and/or supporting, and we create MORE jihadists, not less.
TTuck,
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I don't like 20 or 50 - but I needed to deal with another "birther" type lie that Obama is following in Bush's footsteps, he's changed things 90%, I WANT 100%, and I want these folks tried - but we're not there yet.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteYou also touched on another point, namely that some Congresspeople are actually concerned about having these people on US soil (assumedly for trial). I've also heard there are certain people who actually are concerned they'd be released onto US soil if not convicted.
Let me deal with both -- first, they ARE on US soil already. Gitmo is defined as US soil no differently than is any embassy. Frankly, by being at Gitmo, the chances are that if they escaped they'd be MORE likely to see freedom than say if they were at Alcatraz (assuming we re-opened it) or Angola Super-Max, because at Gitmo they are 1/4th of a mile from Cuba and undoubtedly if they made it to Cuba, they'd be released by the Cubans.
If they were not convicted under our laws, we would repatriate them to either - their country of origin, which might refuse them, or to their place of capture. While it MIGHT take some negotiating, ultimately we would NOT be releasing them on US soil, not unless we all thing our immigration laws have suddenly ceased to exist. They could apply for amnesty rather than be repatriated, but we'd deny it. That concern, that they'd be released on US soil is fear-mongering and little else, it is not true.
K-Rod, I'm glad you have returned to posting with us. However, I approved your most recent posts against my better judgment.
ReplyDeleteThe OJ trial has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize. As such, it warrants no further discussion.
Mr. Obama has related that he is quitting smoking cigarettes. I have no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever smoked crack. If you have evidence from a credible source, please present it here. Remember, you need to attribute your source so that we can verify.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteDid y'all forget what a joke the OJ trial was?
If the turban does not fit; you must acquit."
What the heck does this have to do with ANYTHING????????????
K-Rod said...
Back on topic, kids.
"Is The Nobel Piece Prize winner still smoking pot? cigs? crack?"
Wasn't that Dubya who was alleged to have been into coke and crack? While having the alcohol problem?
To "W's" credit, he appeared to remain sober while in the White House (articulate, not so much)
Obama obviously is struggling with his cigarette addition - but the rest? Based on what? Other than the right would like it to be the case?
Oh DG .. (sigh),
ReplyDeleteYou expect a coherent, purposeful and on topic comment from K-Rod??? Why? That's clearly not something he has the time for.
KR - what turbans are you referring to? What does your comment have to do with this topic? Would you please explain how jury set aside applies here? What are you suggesting is the mode of conduct which you are obviously trying (but failing) to mock?
As for Obama, what causes you to suggest he's using crack? Speak your mind here son, what's the nature of your accusation? At least in Bush' case there was a book by a close family friend (and others) who said GWB used cocaine, have you got any shred of evidence other than conjecture from FreePers or birther sites or the like?
TTuck,
ReplyDeleteJust a bit of further detail on the 'released into the United States' scared drummed up by the far right...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-10-20-supreme-court_N.htm
These people are NOT being released/allowed to emigrate into the United States. For now, they are stuck in Gitmo. Presumably they could, under international law, simply be returned to Afghanistan (their point of capture), but I'm sure in the interest of diplomacy we aren't going to do that. Regardless, there simply is no risk that anyone at Gitmo would be summarily released into the US, that was and is, just nonsense.
KR wrote: "Is The Nobel Piece Prize winner still smoking pot? cigs? crack?"
ReplyDeleteI fail to understand how smoking cigarettes is an issue. Not the healthiest thing that Obama could choose, but perfectly legal and hardly likely to affect his judgement in the White House.
As to pot or crack? Do you have any indication that Obama is currently indulging in either of these? Or are you trying to suggest that some earlier experimental behavior somehow disqualifies someone from any future activity?
That would be a ludicrous assumption, and as I pointed out, would presumably then have debarred George W. Bush from conservative support and serving in subsequent office - state OR federal.
Even the Amish have a period where they encourage their young people to experiment and act wildly, before making the decision to embrace a not wild life style.
Here's a suggestion - try applying a fair and even-handed standard instead of a double standard that makes anything done by conservatives, no matter how bad, magically acceptable, while viewing the conduct of anyone else differently.
And do KR, by all means, start documenting your sources. In the past those sources have not proved reliable.
Despite K-Rod's assertions to the contrary, Rule #2 and Rule #4 were not broken by Penigma. This isn't a debatable issue however, my ruling on that stands.
ReplyDeleteNo evidence has been put forth to show that President Obama has indulged in the smoking of any illegal substance while in office as President. As was pointed out, if past conduct were to be reviewed, George Bush should have been equally ineligible for support by K-Rod. If you have credible information to show that Mr. Obama has indulged in illegal activities in the White House or anywhere else while serving as president, then provide that information here.
I don't see anywhere where any contributor to this blog has suggested that Mr. Bush should have won the Peace Prize... if there is a prize for war mongering or for blatant stupidity, and criminal disregard for fundamental human rights, probably. Peace? Hardly.