by Mark Silva
Mornings after the award of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Barack Obama, the man who challenged him for the White House is serving as the most outspoken representative of the Republican Party with praise for the president's prize.
Praise with a caveat.
"I'm sure that the president is very honored to receive this award,'' Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an appearance today on CNN's State of the Union.
As for the Nobel Committee, '' the senator said, "I can't divine all their intentions, but I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I'm sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we're proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.''
Wasn't he surprised to see the prize awarded to a new president just eight months in office, CNN's John King asked Obama's erstwhile rival.
"Well, I think all of us were surprised at -- at the decision,'' McCain said. "But I -- I think Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order.''
Others, most notably Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, have ridiculed the Nobel Committee's decision to award Obama the 2009 Peace Prize for his advocacy of diplomacy, nuclear disarmament, a cleaner environment and, as the judges in Oslo put it with a surprise announcement Friday, creating a new environment for political understanding around the world. Steele maintained that the prize itself had been demeaned. Radio's Rush Limbaugh denounced it as a ploy by "Europeans."
If Obama can turn the situation around in Afghanistan and quell the threat of the Taliban, a close friend of McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham (D-S.C.,) said today on NBC News' Meet the Press: "I will build a bookcase for him to put it in - it depends on what he does.''
"Clearly the committee that awards these prizes wanted to stick it to George W. Bush,'' Bob Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post editor, reporter and author, said on Meet the Press. Nodding heads around the table -- McCain among those who undertand well the meanng of both the prize and the 2008 election..
Comments
You know, Bob Woodward is really a hack.
Look at that bootlicking book he wrote about Greenspan: MAESTRO.
What a crock.
He couldn't see that Greenspan was just a facilitator of the Wall St. Bubblemeisters, helping them pump up the mortgage backed securities bubble.
Anyway, Woodword is equally clueless in thinking the Nobel Committee has nothing better to do than "slap Bush".
Not that Bush does not deserve slapping. He deserves much worse than that.
The reporter who really nailed it was Pamela Hess this morning on C-Span.
Who observed that the award to Obama reflects WORLD OPINION of Obama and world perception of him as the individual most likely to "bend the curve" toward peace.
And the Nobel Committee is right.
Woodward needs to go back and study Obama's October 2002 address on the impending invasion of Iraq.
Maybe he hasn't read it yet.
In it, Obama revealed his prescience and his understanding of the limitations of military force.
His predictions there came true.
The Nobel Committee also based its decision of a number of other notable positions taken by Obama.
The Philadelphia address on race relations.
The Denver Acceptance Speech.
The Inaugural.
The Cairo Address.
The nuclear de-escalation policy.
As Mayor Daley I liked to say,
"you can't beat somebody with nobody".
When the 200 or so nominations were reviewed, guess what?
Only one stood out.
Yeah, that's right....
Obama.
Or, as Bill Clinton would say, Who?
Posted by: ornery | October 11, 2009 11:00 AM
I think this is how most decent Americans feel. Then there are the others.........
Posted by: bill r. | October 11, 2009 11:01 AM
Why not the Nobel Prize for Medicine as well?
Obama's done just as much to earn that as he did to earn the Peace Prize.
The world outside the Tribune Tower is laughing at the award. One poll says even the Norwegians are shocked.
Posted by: Bruce | October 11, 2009 11:16 AM
The only Obama action that would satisfy the Nobel Euro-leftists is to wave the white flag in Afghanistan and Iraq and then -- like most European countries -- rely on someone else to do their dirty work like defending freedom. Trouble is, there IS no one else. But watch Obama follow their lead so as to justify his 12-day peace award and have America become the new France. "Peace in our time" said Chamberlain...and probably now Obama's mantra as well.
Posted by: Daryl | October 11, 2009 11:28 AM
I think the Nobel Prize is an honor for the President, he was very gracious about accepting it.
Posted by: Lisa | October 11, 2009 11:41 AM
They give the Nobel Prize (now seen as joke by a lot of people after Gore) to a man who has done nothing. But, the man that ended the Cold War does not got one.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 12, 2009 12:30 AM
hello dear,
thnks for dis wonderfull effort
thnks
http://www.pnrinfoline.com
Posted by: Sarah Danes | October 12, 2009 2:57 AM
But, the man that ended the Cold War does not got one.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 12, 2009 12:30 AM
The man who ended the cold war did get one. Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990.
Posted by: Nick | October 12, 2009 10:45 AM
Sorry Nick pull a CNN and do a little fact checking. I know the left never lets a real fact get in the way of a lie.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 12, 2009 6:20 PM
Crooks, so who do you think won the Nobel in 1990?
Posted by: Nick | October 12, 2009 10:38 PM
Nick who do most people think won the cold war? If you think it was Gorbachev go ask the people of Poland, the old East Germany, Estonia, Ukraine, Romania, and Hungary just to name a few. The Nobel Peace Prize started heading down a long time and now they give it to Obama for what he may do, what is that. It was Reagan who walked away from Reykjavík, Iceland. It was Reagan who forced the USSR back to the table. It was Reagan who challenged Gorbachev to go further, saying, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Very few think Gorbachev ended the cold war.
When Reagan visited Moscow for the fourth summit in 1988, he was viewed as a celebrity by Russians. A journalist asked the president if he still considered the Soviet Union the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era." At Gorbachev’s request, Reagan gave a speech on free markets at the Moscow State University. In his autobiography, An American Life, Reagan expressed his optimism about the new direction that they charted, his warm feelings for Gorbachev. The Berlin Wall was torn down beginning in 1989 and two years later the Soviet Union collapsed.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 13, 2009 2:00 PM
Crooks, so in your view of history, when Reagan said tear down this wall, Gorbachev, thought to himself "Gee, I never thought of that, Well, now that Reagan has said it, I guess I have to do it?"
Nonsense. Utter Nonsense. Gorbachev is the one who took the concrete actions to end the cold war, at great personal risk. Reagan's speeches pale in comparison of importance. Do you honestly believe the Berlin wall fell because Reagan mentioned it in a speech 5 years before? Most everyone except rabid rightwing Republicans like you understand that Gorbachev was the key player in the end of the Cold War. After Gorbachev, there are a great many individuals from Eastern Europe who deserve more credit for the End of the cold war and the fall of communism than Reagan. Solidarity, Walesa, Havel, KOR. Yeltsin and a host of others did far more, and deserve more credit than Ronnald Reagan does. Only the truly blind Reagan worshipers believe that Reagan's speeches mean more than Gorbachev actions.
Posted by: Nick | October 13, 2009 2:30 PM
Nick read a little history and then get back to me. Why not read what Walesa said about that then, oh sorry but you may have to eat your our words. For that matter why not read what a lot of leaders say about Reagen. And then try a little U.S. history and how under Reagen the free world forced the USSR to end the cold war or became a 3rd member of the world. And Yeltsin really did very little until after the wall was down.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 14, 2009 1:11 AM
Crooks, I've read alot of history. I've read the writings of Havel, KOR and other Eastern European particpants. I don't recall any of them claiming that Reagan ended the cold war, or that Reagan was responsible for the fall of communism. I did read alot about how Grobvbachevs reforms gave them room to operate. I read alot about how Gorbachev refused to crack down on them as the hardliners demanded, even while he was being held under armed guard. I read alot about the risks the participants themselves took, and their own actions in freeing themselves.
But certainly if you think speech giving is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, then you have little reason to question awarding it to Obama.
Posted by: Nick | October 14, 2009 11:56 AM