U.S. President wins Nobel Prize.......

[Growler67 0]

Been scratching my head since first reading about it and I gotta ask: "FOR WHAT?!?!?!?!?!"

 

The commitee is mostly left with a possible "token" conservative but I'm wondering what he has DONE to become a recipient? Does this in fact deminish the award as well as the commitee to just hand it out as if it were candy? WTF, Over?

[Ruggbutt 45]

Lets not forget that Alfred Nobel is turning over in his grave. Yasser Arafat also won the Peace Prize................

[+Typhoid 231]

 

the Nobel Peace Prize has now sunk to such a low level as to now be a mere silly irrelevancy.

[+Dave 2,318]

Right on Andy.

[Silverbolt 104]

That's no a serious buisness anymore....like Ruggbut said

 

 

 

 

i want a peace nobel also

[+wilco 11]

Maybe they thought handing out the Nobel Peace Prize would deter Obama from rethinking his position on Iran: "Hey man, you can't bomb that poor little country, we gave you the Noble Prize!" That's what I call European foreign politics...

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Way to go Barry!

[eraser_tr 29]

 

Honestly, it's very premature to really be getting a nobel peace prize. The tone of our international relations has certainly taken a big step in a better direction and world attitutes towards the US are infinitely better than they were. But so many things are still up in the air it's really too early to be giving out awards. Though Iran starting to cooperate would be big if there's real progress there.

[Growler67 0]

 

Honestly, it's very premature to really be getting a nobel peace prize. The tone of our international relations has certainly taken a big step in a better direction and world attitutes towards the US are infinitely better than they were. But so many things are still up in the air it's really too early to be giving out awards. Though Iran starting to cooperate would be big if there's real progress there.

 

Iran's "cooperation" is late and veiled as they aready have the capabilities they've wanted. If they still needed things (materials, facilities and so on) they wouldn't be "cooperating". North Korea needs food and cash and so they are still at their same old "cooperation/extortion" games.

 

Just sayin.

[+Typhoid 231]

 

Honestly, it's very premature to really be getting a nobel peace prize. The tone of our international relations has certainly taken a big step in a better direction and world attitutes towards the US are infinitely better than they were. But so many things are still up in the air it's really too early to be giving out awards. Though Iran starting to cooperate would be big if there's real progress there.

 

are you kidding?

 

you are right on the premature side, but I disagree on the tone, better direction (than what?) and attitudes towards the US.

 

The Mendacious One is the laughing stock on the international arena. He has lost all credibility in the mid-East and now has no influence with the players there. After betraying Israel, he has no influence with Israel. After appeasing Iran (and Russia), he has no influence there.

 

He's a zero where it counts.

 

strip through the lofty, empty rhetoric and focus on any actual accomplishments. none. He talks a big game that sounds great, and delivers on nothing.

 

Iran is not starting to cooperate. They are playing us and the UN inspection teams for the fools. and winning.

 

the winner of the Peace prize has actually set the stage for a profoundly dangerous situation.

[Derk 265]

Eh eh, maybe the prize is a bit early or premature, but the general "Obamabashing" over here is in my eyes just as premature. So, realising I'll probably going to be shot down in flames for this on these forums, but willing to take the risk: congratulations mr. President , and I'm sure you are going to proof that you are a worthy winner of the Nobel Prize for peace !!!!

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

[eraser_tr 29]

INCOMING!

[+Typhoid 231]

Eh eh, maybe the prize is a bit early or premature, but the general "Obamabashing" over here is in my eyes just as premature. So, realising I'll probably going to be shot down in flames for this on these forums, but willing to take the risk: congratulations mr. President , and I'm sure you are going to proof that you are a worthy winner of the Nobel Prize for peace !!!!

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

 

if he actually earns it - as in real accomplishments that produce lasting peace - I'll be among the first to congratulate him.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Typhoid

[+Dave 2,318]

You usually get awards after you earned them. Not before.

[ezlead 42]

It bodes well for our country,even though most don't feel he has earned it. YET!!

Has anyone checked him for 666.

[+whiteknight06604 931]

well if Carter can get it then Carter 2.0 can too I guess.Just simply throwing him a bone for swallowing all the Climitology and Global community BS.

[Growler67 0]

You usually get awards after you earned them. Not before.

 

 

There is a growing "Pencil In" campaign going on several other forums I belong to. Since Barry seems to attract accolades for doing.........what does he ACTUALLY do again.........oh yeah: genuflects to foreign leaders, spends 3 generations of unborn Americans into indentured servitude, has the US Dollar devalued by just printing as much as he needs for the next installment of "the Bailout Agenda", demoralize the Military actively engaged overseas, is trying to further bankrupt another 2 generations of unborn Americans with an idiotic Health Plan modelled after the one Canada is trying to get out from under because it's bankrupting them, all but bludgens the IOC with the Oprah Bomb in an attemt to have them award Chicago with a Summer Olympiad, is attemting with his Congressional Croonies to incorporate coverage of illegals in his Health Care plan. I'll just stop the (incomplete) list here.

 

You want to pencil him in for another award in which he has demonstrated action and proven himself beyond all others, do so HERE.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

I know i'm not taking this seriously.

 

Since the nomination of Tookie Williams a few years ago i've adjusted by ignoring the Peace prize winner.

[Rickitycrate 10]

The Noble Prize was a consolation for striking out on the Olympic bid. I heard speculation on tv that he got the Noble to help give him credibility at the negotiation tables. So maybe it has become a political tool. Maybe soon it will be up for bids on ebay or found in a Cracker Jack box. Those Cracker Jack prizes aren't what they used to be.

[Derk 265]

Well, so far so good. No " I'm hit" or "taking damage" (yet)

on this side.

But there's one thing I am genuinely interested in: is a lot of the posts here so negative because of the " premature " thing or is it because of pres. Obama, in other words how would the reactions have been if George Bush would have recieved the prize let's say 8 years ago.....

In the mean time Obama doesn't feel very much at ease with the prize either so this whole thing is rather academic.

The Nobel Prize comittee indeed pulled a strange trick.....

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

 

PS: thanks everyone for your patience and allowing me to

intrude on internal US matters.....

Edited October 10, 2009 by Derk

[Rickitycrate 10]

Obama is not at fault on this. I don't think it makes sense to him. But it does seem IMO that the prize is intirely too political. But it is in the hands of those few who determine the award. It's their choice to do what they want and maybe in the choices they make the award will become largely meaningless. Or perhaps I'm just too narrow minded. Seems so many things are losing their meaning. Things like "here's a prize for what you are going to do" perplex me. I see today the prize commitee was asked for clarification and they stated the decision was made based on what he has aleady done. Okay, their ball, game and rules.

 

Derk, I think the reaction would be the same, probably stronger if it were Bush, just a differenet group of people reacting which would not make things better or change the premature/unwarranted aspect. Conservative Americans are not the only people questioning the decision.

[+Dave 2,318]

Yes even Pres Obama seemed dismayed. Don't get me wrong. Had he done something to deserve it then I wouldn't mind but when

even he is saying WTF.....then you know something is fishy.

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

obama who?

[Derk 265]

Derk, I think the reaction would be the same, probably stronger if it were Bush, just a differenet group of people reacting which would not make things better or change the premature/unwarranted aspect. Conservative Americans are not the only people questioning the decision.

 

 

Makes sense .

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

[Growler67 0]

Well, so far so good. No " I'm hit" or "taking damage" (yet)

on this side.

But there's one thing I am genuinely interested in: is a lot of the posts here so negative because of the " premature " thing or is it because of pres. Obama, in other words how would the reactions have been if George Bush would have recieved the prize let's say 8 years ago.....

In the mean time Obama doesn't feel very much at ease with the prize either so this whole thing is rather academic.

The Nobel Prize comittee indeed pulled a strange trick.....

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

 

PS: thanks everyone for your patience and allowing me to

intrude on internal US matters.....

 

 

GWB wasn't perfect by any stretch, however...........

 

************************************

 

COMMENTARY

Bush Quietly Saved a Million African Lives

BY Paul Kengor

National Catholic Register

August 9-22, 2009 Issue | Posted 7/31/09 at 11:01 AM

 

 

What if a president, on his own initiative, under no demands from staff or from supporters or opponents, set out to spend an unprecedented amount of money on AIDS in Africa, literally billions of dollars, at a time when the nation could not afford it, citing his faith as a primary motivation and, ultimately, saved more than a million lives?

 

 

Wouldn’t the story be front-page news, especially in top, liberal newspapers? Wouldn’t it lead on CNN, MSNBC and the “CBS Evening News”? Might statues be erected to the man in the nation’s more “progressive” cities?

What if the president was George W. Bush?

I pose these uncomfortable questions for two reasons: 1) President Bush did precisely that regarding the African AIDS tragedy; and 2) a study claims that Bush’s remarkable action has indeed saved many precious lives.

 

 

And as someone who has closely followed Bush’s humanitarian gesture from the outset, I’m not surprised that the former president continues to not receive the accolades he deserves — including even from conservative supporters — for this generous act.

 

 

Bush himself realizes the lack of gratitude and media attention. I personally witnessed it very recently, on June 17, when I was in attendance for one of Bush’s first post presidential speeches, in Erie, Pa. There, too, he mentioned the AIDS initiative — even adding that one of his daughters is in Africa today, working on the epidemic — and, there again, it received no press coverage whatsoever.

 

 

It all began in January 2003, during the State of the Union. In a completely unexpected announcement, Bush asked Congress for $15 billion for AIDS in Africa — drugs, treatment and prevention.

 

 

America soon learned this was not the typical State of the Union throwaway line: To show his seriousness, Bush followed on April 29 with a press conference in the East Room, where he exhorted Congress to “act quickly” on his “emergency plan.”

 

 

Accompanied by the secretary of state, he prodded America’s wealthy allies to join this “urgent work,” this “great effort.” He explained that AIDS was a “dignity of life” issue and “tragedy” that was the “responsibility of every nation.” This was a “moral imperative,” with time “not on our side.”

 

 

Bush then shocked the press by pointing to an unusual personal motivation, citing the parable of the Good Samaritan: “[T]his cause is rooted in the simplest of moral duties,” he told journalists. “When we see this kind of preventable suffering … we must act. When we see the wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not, America will not, pass to the other side of the road.”

 

 

With amazing quickness, just four weeks later, Bush inked a $15-billion plan and challenged Europe to match the U.S. commitment without delay. How did the plan work? In April, a major study was released by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. According to the study, the first to evaluate the outcomes of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Bush initiative has cut the death toll from HIV/AIDS by more than 10% in targeted African countries from 2003 to 2007.

 

 

“It has averted deaths — a lot of deaths,” said Dr. Eran Bendavid, one of the researchers. “It is working. It’s reducing the death toll from HIV. People who are not dying may be able to work and support their families and their local economy.” Co-researcher, Dr. Peter Piot, says PEPFAR “is changing the course of the AIDS epidemic.”

 

 

The study — still having received virtually no press attention several months after its release — estimates that the Bush relief plan has saved more than 1 million African lives. Those are the facts. What about opinion, particularly public opinion?

 

 

That brings me back to my initial point. If a Democratic Party president had done this, he would be feted as both a national hero and international hero on his way to a ceremony with the Nobel Committee. George W. Bush, however, is getting very little credit — or, at least, no fanfare.

Again, I’m not surprised. I first wrote about the Bush AIDS initiative in a 2004 book, followed by several articles, including an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, plus many discussions on radio and TV talk shows.

 

 

I was struck by two reactions, from the left and the right:

From the left, I got incensed e-mails from Bush-hating elements refusing to concede that Bush did what he did. They said the craziest things, insisting not a dime had been spent and that the program effectively did not even exist. They could not find it within their power to grant that Bush could do something so kind, which they should naturally embrace. I’ve been most disappointed by my fellow Christians in the “social justice” wing — Catholics and Protestants alike — who have been deafeningly silent on a campaign that ought to serve as a poster child for precisely what they advocate.

To be fair, some have stepped up to thank Bush, including no less than Bill Clinton, as well as musician-activist Bob Geldof. But they are the exception. (In a piece for Time, Geldof wrote about the moment he personally asked Bush about the lack of awareness of the AIDS initiative: “Why doesn’t America know about this?” Bush answered: “I tried to tell them. But the press weren’t much interested.”)

 

 

From the right, I still get angry e-mails explaining that what Bush did for Africans is not a “core function” of government, certainly not enumerated anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Fiscal conservatives asserted that America could not afford this huge expenditure at a time of post-9/11 recession, burgeoning budget deficits, on the heels of a massive operation in Afghanistan, and as military spending was about to go through the roof as U.S. troops headed for Baghdad.

Technically, or perhaps fiscally, much of this is true.

 

 

Yet, to be sure, George W. Bush understood the financial cost — and said so explicitly. Nonetheless, he judged that only America could carry out this “act of compassion” at that critical juncture. He also judged, apparently, that only he, as a Western leader, had the will to do this.

 

 

So, he did it. He absorbed the cost to try to save lives. Well, we now know that the policy has worked — just as, yes, we know it contributed to a record deficit. Still, it is rare when history can so directly, indisputably credit a president for a specific, undeniable policy achievement — a genuinely generous one that clearly emerged from his personal doing, from his heart. Millions of lives have been spared or bettered due to President Bush’s intervention.

 

 

But while the policy helped, it never did anything to help George W. Bush’s terrible disapproval rating — and still will not, given its lack of attention. Well, George W. Bush, the much-ridiculed man of faith — ridiculed often because of his faith — always said he never expected rewards in this lifetime. Here’s one that apparently will need to wait.

 

 

Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004)

and professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision & Values

at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.

 

***************************************

 

HERE is the link. 11 months since the Messiah was elected, barely 9 since he was sworn in.............again, what has he DONE to deserve the NPP? Just sayin'.