In it's announcement to the world that the Norwegian Peace Prize Committee stated that Barak Obama won the prize because: "Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

What This Means
It's pretty obvious to me, from reading this, that Obama was awarded the prize not because of what he's done, but because of what he is attempting to do. This is not an unusual move on the part of the committee. Any number of winners have been recognized for their efforts not their results.

In fact, this is what the prize is designed to do. Reward concerted efforts.

It also means that a large swath of the world's population no longer views the United States with fear and suspicion. Why would anyone see something wrong with that?

Rush Limbaugh, on learning of the award stated: "They [the Nobel Committee] love a weakened, neutered U.S, and this is their way of promoting that concept, Obama did make a big show of appeasing Iran during its election crisis. Perhaps they should change the award's name to the Neville¹ rather than the Nobel."

Glenn Beck stated: "[Barak Obama] has to turn it down -- because it is such a joke -- that he'll turn it down and it's the only way for him make a win out of this. Only his arrogance will stop him from doing it."

Michelle Malkin stated of the committee: "The World Apology Tour yields dividends."

She went on to say "If Obama had an ounce of real humility, he’d refuse to accept the award." and "...Obama acknowledges he doesn’t deserve the award, but he will accept it anyway. He’s “deeply humbled.” But not really."

On learning of the award Brian Kilmeade made an odd guess as to the president's actions regarding Afghanistan. He 'observed': "I'm wondering, does that anything to do with the delay of the deployment of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan? Because that was his big postulization² over the last week or so. 'Should I put more troops in?' If you redu...(stuttering in anger apparently) if you add forces to a war...you can't win Rock."

¹_{Arthur Neville Chamberlain: Is best known for signing of the Munich Agreement of 1938. This agreement ceded the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany. This was just prior to the start of World War II. Chamberlain, also promoted a "containment" policy for Germany in 1939. This policy was abandoned when the U.K. declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939.}

²_{I know there is no such word; this is exactly what he said as he said it. This is aparently directly from G.W. Bush's dictionary.}

"This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009."

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace."

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes."

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone."

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better."

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come."

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

This is he same crowd that insisted that George W. Bush deserved respect simply because he was President of the United States.

It didn't matter how many mistakes were made, what happened to the economy, how many people were demeaned, denigrated, or simply slandered or libeled, George W. Bush was the president period.You (all of us) simply had to respect the office.

This meant that he or his staff could request funds from Congress and misappropriate them by declaring war on a nation that did NOT harbor Osama bin Laden. It meant that someone on his staff could leak information to the press about Valerie Plame and never have to worry about "paying the piper" for that leak. Meanwhile a professional analyst with longstanding experience in the very region of the world the Iraq war was conducted in had her cover blown. Thereby "killing off" and ruining the career of said analyst. And not to damage the analyst herself, but her husband.

It meant that the nation could be plunged into it's deepest debt since World War II and the economy go to absolute hell in a handbasket.

And what did these so called pundits do? They piled on to Ms. Plame, blaming her for sending her husband to Nigeria (a power she did not have), claiming that she and her husband were trying to bring down a president, or worse, trying to shield a "known dictator." The president himself was "golden."

They defended the actions of the president and did their best to divert attention away from Osama bin Laden and onto Saddam Hussein. Two names that sound nothing alike, but are still foreign to most American ears.

The Latest Slanders
That Rush Limbaugh would compare Obama to Chamberlain is wildly speculative at best and downright slanderous at worst.

That Glenn Beck would insist that Obama return the prize, an act only two other people have taken in the one hundred eight years of the award, is over-reaching. But he added insult to insult. He implied that Obama was too arrogant to do so. Where's your prize Glenn? How about giving back the twenty-three million you've made for making wild claims and spreading lies.

Malkin, in her way, was much milder than usual. Placing most of the blame on the Nobel Prize Committee not Obama. Though she did imply that Obama was disingenuous in his declaration of humility. Apparently Ms. Malkin is a mind-reader.

Finally Mr. Kilmeade made a rather odd connection to troop strength in Afghanistan and the timing of the award. Apparently, according to Kilmeade, Obama clinched the prize by delaying a decision on increasing the number of soldier's on the ground in Afghanistan.

Active Imaginations
The one thing that's obvious to me is that these "pundits" go well out of their way to come up with reasons and excuses for the sitting president. None of which indicate the least bit of respect for the office or the person in that office. Facts have little to do with these observations either.

What is This About?
It's not about respect for the office. That's obvious. It's not about a prize really. It doesn't matter what Obama does. He is a "failure" no matter what happens. It's not about supporting a sitting president either. In fact nothing would please this crowd more than complete and utter failure.

And this is what it's all about. John McCain did not win the office. Their "boy" is not at the helm. Therefore anyone who is sitting there, regardless of party affiliation, gender, "race", or political leanings, is a target of their ire.

The current president doesn't really have to make mistakes. The talking heads on the right will create them.

The oddest thing about all of this is that somehow, someway, it's Obama's fault that he didn't know he had been selected.  Remarkable too in that he didn't even know he was a candidate for the award.

How that works exactly, is a great mystery, but the wing-nut brigade has made it a problem and blamed the president for something a group of people in Norway did. It must be magic.

First, I strongly suggest some remedial "reading for comprehension" study. The Nobel Prize Committee made it quite clear why they made the selection they did. You've all ignored it or just didn't understand it.

Second, the more ridiculous your charges the less credibility you have. You do know that don't you? No? Ah well.

Third, I'd love to see full disclosure (as we bloggers will soon be required to do) as to how much money you are paid by a political organization or politically connected individual for getting on the air and making these claims. It's only fair.

Fourth, learn the language. You lot make a very big deal of learning English if you live here, but don't seem to have full command of it yourselves. Honestly that alone is quite funny.

"Postulization" indeed!

Finally, if you can't support the person in the office maybe you could just shut up. You know, as you expected the left to do for eight years.

October 13, 2009

Today three of the five members of the Nobel Peace Prize selection panel rejected the notion that Obama had done nothing to earn the prize. One of the five refused to answer specific questions in this regard and the fifth was unavailable for comment.

Thorbjoern Jagland stated: "We simply disagree that he's done nothing. He got the prize for what he's done."

In so saying Jagland pointed out that Obama's efforts to heal a divide between the West and the Muslim world seemed to be having a positive effect. He went on to say that most world leaders were positive about the award with most of the criticism coming from the media and Obama Republican rivals.

Jagland continued: "All these things have contributed to - I wouldn't say a safer world - but a world with less tension. I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous."

Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year. Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Finally Jagland stated that the committee does not take U.S. politics into account when making a decision.

Kaci Kullman Five, a longtime committee member said: "We all expected that there would be a discussion.  Of course I expect disagreement and debate on the prize. But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."

All of the opinions here are my own. I receive no monetary compensation for my opinions (unlike the pundits I've mentioned), I do not receive any special consideration, freebies, or discounts. My opinions are based solely on observations and disgust.

Got a problem with that? Let me know about it.