The first thing I thought when I heard about Obama’s peace prize is that it must be a fake headline from the Onion. As usual, right-wing Fox News/Rush Limbaugh style criticism of President Obama has been so ridiculous and over the top, that any legitimate substantive criticism is ignored. Right-wing smear merchants like Sean Hannity are now denouncing Obama’s Nobel Prize, because it is apparently further evidence of Obama’s Socialism.
The right wing cries that the Obama-lovers at the Nobel Committee rewarded Obama for waving the white flag of surrender on the “war on terror.” Even more bizarrely, the Democratic Party is invoking the fear tactics of the right wing, “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists … in criticizing the president for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.”
The only problem here is that the dominant narrative is the exact opposite of the truth. I judge politicians by what they do, not from inspiring speeches and campaign promises. I don’t just figure they have good intentions, and take their word for it. Liberal defenders of his prize cry “he’s only been in office nine months” or that “he has the Republicans to deal with, he will be labeled as a sissy and he won’t get re-elected if he ends the wars.”
Now, surely one cannot expect Obama to dismantle all of our imperial army’s foreign entanglements in just nine months. By the same token, one can also not expect an occupier in chief, in office for only nine months, to earn a peace prize of any sort.
There’s no denying he inherited the two wars. However, he also escalated and expanded the occupation of Afghanistan by 21,000 troops earlier this year. He’s currently in deliberations about exactly how much to escalate the occupation by. This is not to even mention his nonstop deadly predator drone attacks in Pakistan, which have killed hundreds of civilians. His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, repeatedly ruled out any possibility of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. The only question he’s examining is just how much he’s going to escalate the death and destruction.
Whatever motivation you attach to a warmonger is irrelevant. The Nobel Prize shouldn’t be for anyone who is actively bombing and killing people. Is this really a radical concept?
Although the corporate media seems to have forgotten, Iraq is still under U.S. occupation. Obama has a plan which will leave 40,000-50,000 “residual forces” after the Status of Forces Agreement is fully implemented.
We’re still playing divide and rule in Iraq, while top U.S. military officials widely admit we never really plan on leaving. This is not a policy of peace; it’s George Bush with better speeches.
Obama obviously has no problem continuing the U.S.’s “special relationship with Israel,” even if it includes staying silent during war crimes. Thus, he bit his tongue while Israel unleashed Operation Cast Lead, a sustained bombing campaign against the people of Gaza, last December and January. Hundreds of civilians were killed, including 300-400 children. This is verified by all credible sources including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Israeli human rights group B’tselem, and the United Nations Human Rights Council (the Goldstone Report). How can a president, who supported with his silence the deaths of hundreds of children, possibly deserve a Peace Prize?
It seems the U.S. and Europe feel pride knowing America has a president who speaks better than George Bush, but I assure you the victims of Obama and the U.S.’s violence don’t see him as a man of peace. In the countries currently under U.S. occupation, this is surely how the majority of the population feels.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, truth be told, has a better claim to the award than Obama. His speeches aren’t as good, but Iran doesn’t occupy anyone. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic is responsible for the deaths of a hell of a lot fewer people than Obama. To the man with the least blood on his hands goes the peace prize!
Obama’s foot is the one snugly within the boot of American imperialism (which is currently on the necks of three Muslim countries). I’ve heard that perhaps this prize could inspire Obama to stop his military violence. Maybe we should give AA sobriety chips in advance to alcoholics, as long as we feel they have good intentions of course. So, don’t be so negative and cynical! It could encourage them to stop drinking, it’s worth a try! Maybe the class troublemaker deserves a gold star for “best behaved student,” and maybe, just maybe, Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
I completely agree. Nothing has changed since the Bush Adminstration, its the same policies with a new face. We have to stop making excuses for our leaders and hanging on to delusions that “their intentions are good” and hold them accountable because their actions reveal their true “intentions”. Great article! You really cut through the lies and B.S we see on television and and hit the nail on the head.
Obama sucks! I mean the world is still corrupt! Did we forget that we already had a war with Afghanistan!!! Can the U.S. just keep to itself!! I love your article!!!
Mr. Glatzer: It’s pretty apparent that you’re a peacenik who’ll never give the U.S. credit for the good done and the lives saved worldwide under the leadership of both Democratic and Republican presidents. You seem to believe that there’s no price paid by never using military force. If the Nobel Peace Prize had any meaning–the Prize was awarded once to Paletinian terrorist leader Yassar Arafat–the U.S. armed forces would deserve to be awarded it.
Since you seem to lack palatable sources that oppose your Leftist idology, here’s some “legitimate substantive criticism” regarding the Peace Prize issue from leading conservative intellectual Charles Krauthammer, in an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel. The complete interview, which address Obama and his presidency, is available here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,656501,00.html
SPIEGEL: Mr. Krauthammer, did the Nobel Commitee in Oslo honor or doom the Obama presidency by awarding him the Peace Prize?
Charles Krauthammer: It is so comical. Absurd. Any prize that goes to Kellogg and Briand, Le Duc Tho and Arafat, and Rigoberta Menchú, and ends up with Obama, tells you all you need to know. For Obama it’s not very good because it reaffirms the stereotypes about him as the empty celebrity.
SPIEGEL: Why does it?
Krauthammer: He is a man of perpetual promise. There used to be a cruel joke that said Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be; Obama is the Brazil of today’s politicians. He has obviously achieved nothing. And in the American context, to be the hero of five Norwegian leftists, is not exactly politically positive.
SPIEGEL: It hardly makes sense to blame him for losing the Olympic bid in one week, and then for winning the Nobel Prize the next.
Krauthammer: He should have simply said: “This is very nice, I appreciate the gesture, but I haven’t achieved what I want to achieve.” But he is not the kind of man that does that.
SPIEGEL: Should he have turned down the prize?
Krauthammer: He would never turn that down. The presidency is all about him. Just think about the speech he gave in Berlin. There is something so preposterous about a presidential candidate speaking in Berlin. And it was replete with all these universalist clichés, which is basically what he’s been giving us for nine months.