The Nobel Farce

I thought I would be writing today about the peculiar mathematics of the newest version of Obamacare as set up by Senator Max Baucus.  You know the math I mean:  the math that says that the government can spend a Trillion Dollars on health care and REDUCE the federal budget deficit.  And write about it I will, but not today, because events have overtaken the health care debate.

What, I ask, has Barack Obama done to merit the Nobel Peace Prize?  The man has been in office for nine months, and the United States is still involved in every single conflict in which it was involved when he took office.  He said he would close Gitmo . . . but he hasn't.  He said we would be out of Iraq . . . but we aren't.  He is currently considering whether to commit tens of thousands of additional American soldiers to the conflict in Afghanistan, an option that is still on the table despite the rhetoric of the surrender monkeys who are advising him.  He has not negotiated any treaties with Iran or North Korea to stop nuclear proliferation.

From what I have read so far, it appears that the world agrees with me.

From the liberal writer Peter Beinart on The Daily Beast:

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.

From Michael Binyon at The Times of London:

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.

From uber-liberal Mickey Kaus writing at Slate about what Obama should do with the prize:

Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech.

I won't even go to the trouble of posting what the conservative press has to say about it.  When Mickey Kaus says that Obama has a narcissism problem, then I think the President needs to worry.

Obviously, the Nobel Peace Prize had little credibility even before this decision.  For goodness' sake, the Nobel Committee previously awarded the peace prize to the terrorist and mass murderer Yasir Arafat.  Nevertheless, the symbolism of awarding the prize to Obama is nothing more than political grandstanding.  The President should decline the award and suggest that the Committee award it to one of the other, worthy, nominees.