ABC News reports this surprised the committee when instead the award was met with fierce criticism in the U.S., where many argued Obama had not been president long enough to have any impact worthy of the Nobel and even his supporters believed the prize a mistake.
This is how they think,
"...in that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for."No. It did not achieve what it had hoped for. He is admitting to hoping for a political boost that didn't happen, and not to admitting to increased world peace, bad enough because it is still not achievement. Pretty much all Americans saw what the Nobel Committee did not, we saw them squandering their institution for their preferred politics, they conflated what they want for what is, what people actually did. They dishonored themselves and the award.
It's your webpage.
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".See the problem, the whole past tense thing? Cart, horse and all that. Maybe the "shall have done" construction threw you guys off, what is that, subjunctive past pluperfect? No wait, that would be "would had done." It's tricky, we'll put your wish casting with deadly important matters aside, we'll ignore your typical liberal 'create-your-own-reality' approach to running important global institutions, we'll elide over you destroying your own credibility and cut you some slack, that past-tense achievement thing could have been stated more simply and more emphatically. It could have just said, "whatever our panel would like to happen." Just change it. Do what you like.
We learn Obama called the committee, not to discover if more worthy people were passed over in favor of him, rather, to find out if other winners had skipped the award ceremony.
The article begins, "In a break with Nobel tradition, the former secretary to the committee says the 2009 award to President Obama failed to live up to the panel's expectations.
That wasn't the break with tradition. Awarding for political support and not achievement as mandated is the break with tradition. We're glad you regret it.
23 comments:
I think we should give the Cubs a World Series Championship to make them play better.
Yeah that.
At what point did anyone not consider the award a travesty?
Synova!!! YaaaaaaY!
"We learn Obama called the committee, not to discover if more worthy people were passed over in favor of him, rather, to find out if other winners had skipped the award ceremony."
So.Very.Barry.
But then this Nobel Peace Prize is regularly awarded to people who go to great lengths to make the world a less peaceful place.
Also, what's a Peace Congress? A collection of high-ranking SJWs?
Think about it.
Yes, obviously, the Nobel Peace Price is an unfunny joke and giving it to Obama for anticipated peace acts was an even unfunnier joke but have we forgotten how completely bat-guano crazy everyone was about Obama back then? By comparison, today, you can suggest that he's not entirely right about everything, that the Iran Deal is at least arguably not his best effort and Obamacare has not lived up to all the hype, and people don't immediately call you a racist.
Hey, Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. To borrow from Synova, it's been a travesty for a long time. The two Israelis who stupidly sat down and talked to Arafat also got the award. I guess for being first class reality deniers.
Seems Barry's whole life is a lie.
To be fair, After Arafat got his Nobel he did go and die, so it worked to further peace in that case.
Don't they have a SCOAMF award. Obama has earned that fair and square.
Daniel Pipes theory about the Obama seemingly incoherent foreign policy aligns with this Peace Price analysis very nicely. (at least in my own head it does)
The coherence behind the Obama doctrine, according to Pipes, boils down to one simple sentence. Obama snarls at our friends and smiles at our enemies... "You smile at the enemies because you hope that they'll smile back at you".
The Nobel Peace Price committee smiled at Obama, hoping he would smile back.
The idea behind the Obama doctrine, is that these people, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, can be influenced if you are nice to them.
The Nobel Peace Price committee was nice to Obama, hoping he would be nice to everybody else.
The only problem is that there is no guarantee that niceties alone will produce a desired result. You know. Call me crazy but it's possible that people who say death to America over and over again, for decades, say it over and over again because they mean it.
The Nobel prizes are based on merit not politics, but it appears that isn't the case. Unless of course that merit is in line with those politics.
"The coherence behind the Obama doctrine, according to Pipes, boils down to one simple sentence. Obama snarls at our friends and smiles at our enemies... "You smile at the enemies because you hope that they'll smile back at you"."
This is the coherence behind Urkels Doctrine. He's a muslim sympathizer that wants to be accepted by marixsts around the world. He lives in an in-between state, never fully being accepted by islam because of his half-blood nature and therefore seeks arab muslim acceptance, while eschewing the American culture that he grew up in. Instead his genetics take over in that his mother a radical marxist marries a black african muslim radical marxist who died when he was young. His entire life has been maturation and marination in the leftist/marxist world view.
So why the surprise at his sneering towards his friends while wanting to garner support from that part of the world that will never accept him and see him only as an abeed and a idiotic one at that.
Btw.. the same modus operandi, if you will, follows here at home.
Obama smiles at a deserter, releasing five Gitmo detainees in exchange for the deserter. But fails to make a phone call to the family of a 'Sanctuary City' victim gunned down by an illegal alien.
But then again, I have a sneaking suspicion that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real father.
Reagan didn't get one. The only Presidents to win a Nobel peace prize are: Jimmy Carter,Barack Obama,Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt.
So yea, it's shit for brains in the committee.
It could be said that Obama is the least American president America has ever had.
It's for something you did, not what you might do.
This seems to be a fairly simple concept.
bagoh20 said...
Reagan didn't get one. The only Presidents to win a Nobel peace prize are: Jimmy Carter,Barack Obama,Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt.
So yea, it's shit for brains in the committee.
TR got his for ending the Russo-Japanese War, so he earned it.
Teddy couldn't get one today. He didn't know the first thing about leading from behind.
Look for Bill Clinton to snatch a Nobel for his tireless work in bringing world leaders together with hot underage girls on Fantasy Jailbait Island.
There are far more dead bodies and regugees in the Middle East than when Obama took office. However, they were not killed or displaced by Americans so they don't really count. The situation is analogous to Baltimore where there are lots of murder victims but since they weren't killed by cops they really can't properly be counted as victims.......What's that saying about making a desert and calling it peace?
The election of 1912 was one of those fulcrum moments where world history was changed and for the worst. I think that if TR had won the US would have gotten into the war earlier and that the war would have not ended with an Armistice but with a victory march down the Alexanderplatz. There would have been far more American casualties, but Germans would have known that they had lost the war-- and there wold have been no WWII. Future historians would have blamed TR for his war mongering ways, and pined wistfully for the enduring peace that Wilson would have been able to negotiate with his superior intellect and peaceful disposition. And there would have been no WWII.
Maybe the "shall have done" construction threw you guys off, what is that, subjunctive past pluperfect?
It is an odd construction. It's future perfect, meaning that Nobel was willing forward but looking back at past accomplishments.*
I find the use of "shall have done" odd because shall as a modal verb is used with I and we (first person); "will have done" is the better future perfect construction for a third person subject like he or she. Shall connotes some sort of obligation.
____________________
*BTW, is to go to whoever 'shall have done...' should be "is to go to whomever 'shall have done'...
/pedantry
Maybe Obama is the only true worthy winner if Nobel's word are taken to mean:
The prize is to go to whomever "ought to have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Methadras said...
But then again, I have a sneaking suspicion that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real father.
Agreed. Which is why I didn't get worked up over the citizenship issue. I'm guessing ole Barack senior was a handy chump at a time when they needed one to explain Stanley Ann's pregnancy. Has anyone found evidence that Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann ever lived together?
Post a Comment