Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
October 11, 2009 by Standing on Truth
Filed under Politics
So President Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Too fast? On grounds that are not convincing? Embarrassment?
Author and scholar Judith Miller says, “The decision to award Barack Obama the Nobel Prize rewards him for not being George W. Bush and for his aspirations rather than his achievements, his promise rather than his performance.” I could not agree more.
I’m curious though. Will this affect his decision about whether to honor General McCrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan or will he continue to hem and haw, vacillating between the far-left wing of his party and the General’s informed opinion? Ms. Miller goes on to say, “The Nobel committe chairman readily acknowledged that he hoped the prize would encourage Obama’s ‘emphasis on negotiations’ in resolving that conflict, too.”
Hmm. Interesting. Manipulative? Presumptive? How will Obama respond?
Allan Lichtman, American University history professor, says this in an article by Joshua Rhett Miller, “his [Obama's] liberal base will be pushing him to live up to this” and “this [Nobel Peace Prize] was to encourage rather than to recognize an accomplished fact.”
Will President Obama continue trying to get the whole world (enemies, terrorists, unhinged irrational people) to sit down and have tea with us or will he realize that there are people with evil intent out there that want to kill us and kill us brutally and there is no way around that? What will look like peace on the outside will be registered to terrorists as, “Wow, look at how weak (and foolishly trusting) this country is. We can take ‘em!”
Will he continue to be a puppet for the fascists, socialists, and pacifists of the world? I’d take mean ol’ President Bush who had the guts to stand up to terrorist ideologies anyday. I want to stay safe. I want the world to respect us. Anyone who thinks the world respects us more when we eliminate any perception of strength is mistaken.
What President Obama is being awarded for is seen by many of us as ignorant and idealistic at best, and reckless, foolish, and dangerous at worst.
