Let me start by saying Whisky Tango Foxtrot?!
How did President Obama receive the Nobel Prize for Peace after only being in office for a few days? (The Nobel Nomination Committee receives the nominations for the year postmarked February 1)
Who was in competition for the prize this year? (h/t M.K. Ham of the Weekly Standard)
Sima Samar, women's rights activist in Afghanistan: With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women's Affairs.
Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.
Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon."
And what did President Obama do from January 20 until February 1? Bueller? If this was President Obama's Third or Fourth year in office and he actually got people stop fighting, yes I would say fine -- but against these folks above? Obama never had to struggle against a State determined to kill him; He never did the hard work of clearing out loose ordinances; Civil Rights leaders in Congo and Afghanistan did more.
By the way, why was President Obama the first American President not to meet with the Dalai Lama, another Peace Prize winner? President Obama has chosen Nixonian Realism to deal with Ahmadinijad and Hugo Chavez. And, like most of the Left, faults Israel first before holding Palestinian bombers to task.
As William Jacobson and Ann Althouse wrote, this is a form of lobbying by the European Left regards putting more troops in Afghanistan. Remember what General McChrystal said:
Does the Nobel Committee or the Democrats support General McCrystal? Nope.
There are two reasons: The Valley is ahead of the news cycle by months or years. Let's take issues on this post alone:
A) I wondered about Afghanistan long before the White House did, back in August. Read and weep:
It seems President Obama has planned to increase the troops into Afghanistan. But what is his long term goal?
When he was Senator Obama, he opposed nation and Democracy building overseas. So did all the Liberals and Democrats. Following that logic, the increase in troops is not to build a stable, democratic nation into Central Asia.
Is he using the troops to prop up Karzai and stop elections there? As President, President Obama has not supported any Democracy movement overseas. For instance, look at how Obama treated the Iranian protesters.
B) The Nobel Prize is a partisan prize, written in 2007. Read and understand:
By those basic precepts, the prize should go to someone who has made people's lives more freer and peaceful.
In the last two decades, the prize has gone to Anti-semites such as Yassir Arafat, Mohammed El-Baridi and the United Nations (famous for it's 1975 "Zionism is racism" and always voting against Israel save for the United States), Democratic partisans such as, (anti-Semite) Jimmy Carter and Albert Gore. Receiving the Nobel Peace prize does not change the sins, but it should not redeem the sinner. An Anti-Semite is still an Anti-Semite after they win the award.
By the way, how many wars and massacres have the United Nations stopped? The same amount as the League of Nations.I could think of other, more deserving people, who should get the Peace Prize: How about the Burmese Monks? How about an Iranian dissident? or a Cuban one? Or a Palestinian organization which believes in non-violence?
The last Republican who was given the prize was Henry Kissinger; Does removing dictators and theocrats count as bringing peace and freedom? If the Nobel Prize is the guide, people can suffer under dictators or theocrats. Thanks Norwegians!
C) The Democratic Party would rather deal with dictators then support Democracy Overseas, written February 2008. Read and wonder:
Meanwhile, Israel is under fire for protecting itself. The murder of the Head of Hezbollah has caused Israel to put it's embassies on High Alert. Oh, and the head of Hezbollah was no innocent -- read his crimes here.
The Democrats don't support American allies outside of Europe or East Asia. They don't support Iraqi democracy (Wilsonianism was a Democratic idea, last used during the Clinton Administration); They don't support Israel during it's time of need and because they shut down FISA, no one can hear the networks talk. (And take a listen to the Anti-war protesters, they don't support Israel either or Democracy overseas).
Got it? Good.
And another reason for Conservatives, Republicans and the media: I actually know whats going on within the Party. I point my rhetorical cannon at Liberals and hypocritical media. I would trust Dan Riehl, RS McCain, Clifton B.and Pam Geller before I would trust Conor or Frum. And seriously, the New York Times has not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower (and before that Teddy Roosevelt's re-election) re-election.
And finally, a debate question:
Would the Nobel Committee give the next award to Hamas since they hated President Bush too? Or do Leftists put themselves above ideals?