Did President Obama deserve the Prize? Now? Maybe, maybe not. In terms of achievement, no. In terms of setting America on a better course, yes.
But that is not the point. All the criticism of the decision is based on the preposterous notion that previous recipients were all more deserving. Some undoubtedly were. But this same prize was once awarded to Yassir Arafat. Nuff said.

I hope he does far more to deserve it yet more in a few years. But let’s face it:
1. He followed George W. Bush and his Republican cronies who would have been prime candidates for the Nobel War Prize if one were given because his solutions for foreign policy problems were to call people names and throw our young men and women and our money at them. President Obama looks incredibly good by comparison.
2. He called off the stupid missile defense system in eastern Europe that wouldn’t have been effective and pointlessly aggravated Russia, a country whose cooperation we need. (And he replaced it with a more effective, less pointlessly antagonizing system.)
3. He and his administration have talked to Iran rather than bluffing them then invading them like McCain and Palin(!) would have done.
As French President Nicholas Sarkozy (not always an Obama fan) said about why the U.S. president really got the Nobel Peace Prize: “The award marks America’s return to the heart of the people of the world.” And that’s a very good thing.
Now watch the right wing nuts self destruct even more.

Which brings up a question. Our Sarah quit the Alaskan governorship because:
a) She found it boring.
b) She found it hard. (After all, facing off the entire Russian air force every day must be hard.)
c) There was more money to be made putting her name on books other people write and making divisive stem-winding speeches to wacko commercial groups.
So, given that, would she by now have given up the vice presidency (assuming McCain would have survived the pressures of the presidency this long (which assumes he would have noticed the problems he faced enough to realize the pressure of the presidency; mostly GWB apparently didn’t))?
Anyway if she bailed out on the vp’cy that would appear to put Nancy Pelosi next in line; I’d have no particular problem with that but some Republicans would go ballistic; well, even more ballistic. Followed by Robert Byrd, no spring chicken himself, followed by (drum roll) Hillary Clinton.
So just how far would our Sarah go toward carving out her ideal life when it would mean advancing people she presumably detests?

I see the Taliban and Rush Limbaugh are both against the award. When the divisive druggy terrorists are against you, you must be doing some things right.

…thoroughly nonplussed and completely dismissive.
but, this is not the first time the prize committe has gone to the bottom of the barrel – Arafat, Gore, Carter now BHO have added nothing to it’s prestige.
congratulations are in order, though.
Congratulations.

The Europeans seem to understand the reason for President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, better than 14% of Americans who voted on CNN’s question: Did President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? They, the Europeans, etc. can see his desire for diplomacy and his demeanor of achieving peace among the people of the world. They have had eight years or more of the other Presidency to bite their fingernails over. “Hope doesn’t disappoint”.
The winners of the Nobel Peace Prize are very diversified, and because of that cannot be compared with one another.

I read the news about Mr. Obama Nobel price in newspaper. On the same page there was a news that US Air force is testing a new 13.500 kg bomb. Is that ironic or it is ironic?

H22 it must be that the European folk are just more astute than Americas.

We have heard from many of the same Republicans who are whining about Obama’s winning the Nobel prize. They were the ones who devalued and dismissed the military honors given to John Kerry. They seem to have no concept that as they are dismissing and discounting everyone who wins these honors. SImply because someone they support has not received the same recognition they believe it has no value. In fact, what has no value is their opinion!
It sure makes you realize just how awful the last Administration was. Scarecro-W and Tinman-C would never have been considered for something like this. If anything, Tinman-C may be up for some war crimes recognition. The best Scarecro-W may get is good sportsmanship ( he doesn’t even qualify for a good attendance award).

…thoroughly nonplussed and completely dismissive.
However, this is not the first time the prize committe has gone to the bottom of the barrel – Arafat, Gore, Carter now BHO have added nothing to it’s prestige.
Congratulations are in order, though, just good manners.
Congratulations.

I’d feel a lot better about the award if Obama or any of the politicians who send our boys into danger had the courage to do the same. I think it minimizes the value of the award.

John Kerry went into battle. Several Democratic senators and representatives have. But you are right, the Bush administration was chock full of chicken hawks.

Here’s a sensible article by Juan Cole on why he won the prize and who’s trying to poo-poo it and why.

BHO won a prize?? Oh Poo Poo!

“”…chock full of chicken hawks…”"
…just like the BHO boys. Not a soldier or vet amongst them.

Robert Gates, Sec. of Def. was a 2′nd Leut. in the USAF. I don’t know he was in combat but he was in the service.
But more to the point they are not hawks. They are trying to avoid wars, not stupidly start them like the Bush admin. Should we pull out of Afghanistan? I don’t know but it’s a war I was in favor of and we should have ended, and probably would have, but Bush pulled resources and funding out of Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq for nothing.

Tell me GC, did you support the shirker, Bush, over the vet, Kerry? I’m guessing you did. Did you complain about “not a soldier or vet among them” when Bush’s chicken hawks were sending our young men and women over there undertrained and under-equipped? I’m guessing you didn’t. Did you do any research as to who in the Obama administration has or has not been a vet? I’m guessing you are parroting a line you heard on the radio.

I should have said
Did you complain about “not a soldier or vet among them” when Bush’s chicken hawks were sending our young men and women over there undertrained and under-equipped into a needless war?

As time goes on there will probably be fewer and fewer presidents who were soldiers. Fortunately the draft is gone, sparing many men (and women) from going into the Army.
Being a military vet doesn’t mean that person will be a better president.
I’m pleased for our President….the folks who awarded it recognized that this man was offering to talk instead of standing on a the “do it our way or else” platform for the world. He is working to bring us back into the world community instead of bully it or isolate us from it.

pagan the draft had nothing to do with those presidents who served they saw the need and volunteered, you think like a lot liberals do, Obama included, advoid duty.

The question, cknuck, is would those presidents have joined if there wasn’t a draft? One can “serve” without being in the military. Those who volunteered during war time (maybe not including the Revolution) probably joined because they hoped to join something other than the Army. The Army takes anyone who can breath….except in West Point, of course.

cknuck it’s impressive that you could read the minds of those presidents who “served”. How about GWB. He joined a National Guard unit which, at the time, was used by politicians to keep their kids out of combat. He took flight training at a cost of thousands of dollars to the US. Then, when his flight abilities, such as they may have been, were needed he decided to go join a political campaign rather than a battle. How about his mind cknuck?
Now what about John Kerry, who should have been president and almost was. He served in battle and was somewhat heroic. How about a shout-out from you for that liberal who surely could have avoided duty but didn’t.
Oh and where do you get your data to support the claim liberals avoid duty? You can never claim I disparaged any group of people after your having said that!

nnmns how is it reading minds if a person volunteers for the service? Seriously do you have some kind of crush on W? You seem so obsess with him did you vote for him and later want to take the vote back? nnmns you ever serve?

cknuck I did what my draft board thought would be best for the country.
Now what about the conservative shirker Bush vs the liberal veteran Kerry?

I find that there are two sides to this argument. One the hand, it is true that the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama can only be good for the US and its moral image. It is a clear signal from a certain number of elites who are saying to the US and the world that the dark era of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld is over. It is a call to the world that America has changed for the better and all these signals can only be good for America, and for US soldiers on the ground. On the other hand, it can be argued, that apart from these lofty messages, Obama has not quite done much – actually, to be honest, he hasn’t done anything for peace, has he? No he hasn’t. In South America he has not come to any agreement with Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. He has not pushed Israel one centimetre to give up its nuclear weapons and nor has he been able to stop them from building more settlements on Arab lands. He has not engaged with Syria. He has done nothing in Iraq. In Afghanistan he has also been unable to do anything effective. Indeed, with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq, what has Obama done any different from Mr.Bush? It’s early days you may rightly say to me, and I couldn’t agree more – but then, the same could have been said for the elites who ‘decide’ on who gets the Peace Prize?!

Cknuck, stop with the Liberal bit, it’s ridiculous. President John Kennedy was a democrat, and a liberal and saw hard battle. Vice President Biden’s son is a troop in Iraq, and so are many other sons of Congress and the Senate I’ve read. I didn’t stop to check if they were liberal or conservative. You should try for peace Ck., that’s the Christian way.

H22 I do what I want without taking orders from you, and it surprises me that you would know “the Christian Way” in a nutshell. I know Kennedy was a dem at the time so was I but I hardly think of him as a liberal. There is no peace while sin abound.
nnmns, I thought so

All of this whimpering and sniping by the conservatives simply shows they really do chafe at Obama’s designation as a Nobel Laureate for Peace. In a back handed kind of way that is still recognition of the honor – and of the expectations that come with it.
Assuming that military experience and governmental expertise are one in the same is foolishness. History has taught that (look to U.S. Grant and his lousy governance for example. George W’s “experience is another instance). Patriotism is not measured by hash marks down a sleeve. If it were, then Kerry would have won the election and Scarecro-W and Tinman-C would have been sent back and many lives saved as a result.
Peace cannot be bought. It can only come from one person working with another – in conversation or in labor. Some folks ge tit and some don’t. I thank God for those who do.

Cathy Ruse, of the Family Research Council comments on taxpayer funded abortion are incorrect and she knows it.
Show me any of the health care bills that allow taxpayer funded abortion.
Hey Cathy, is it ok to bear false witness against the President just because you have an agenda?
I think not.

Liberals, conservatives and all in between who dismiss other’s opinions as whimpering and sniping show lack of reason. Patriotism is no longer simplistic or black and white these days but a defining determination that remains a measurement is definitely integrity of commitment of the welfare of this nation as a whole. Looking back over all of our presidents I fail to see the justification for Obama winning the prize in such a short time with very little accomplishments, he does not have his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, like Carter, both Wilson and Roosevelt were involved in war ending efforts. Obama has not ended a war nor has he brought boys back from an ended war. To define this reasoning as whimpering as opposed to objecting to the compromise of the integrity of the award is simply without reason or refusal to admit possible fault.

He gets credit for working to prevent wars in various ways. And of course almost anyone would look good after GWB.

working to prevent wars? what about our men stationed on two war fronts.

All I have heard or read from Obama is that he is working hard at ending the humongous load of (well, you know what I mean) that Bush/Cheney ignited. It took 8 years to totally mangle everything as badly as this. What I sense in this award is that people around the world hope Obama will accomplish something meaningful. It is an act of hope and encouragement not only for Obama but for our whole nation.
Patriotism does not sprout from the barrel of a gun (or from knowing how to disassemble, clean, aim, or fire said gun) – it comes from the hearts of people working not only to preserve but to improve our nation. That is indeed worthy of an award of this magnitude. I hope we are ALL up for the challenge.

nnmns, Almost all would look good in the White House after GWB…true for the most part, however…the other choice in this past election, IMO wouldn’t have been an improvment…McCain/Palin. )

cknuck: “working to prevent wars? what about our men stationed on two war fronts.”
So I take it you are unambiguously in favor of withdrawing quickly from Iraq and Afghanistan. That puts you in the camp with a lot of liberals and probably not many conservatives.

nnmns if you would ask I would tell you. I believe we should withdraw from on front before establishing another. I also believe that we go into these situations losing from the beginning because the commitment should be full. Also now we are in this position what are we going to do when Iran is ready to rumble? I thank you for not pulling the bush card because I did not vote for him.

” Also now we are in this position what are we going to do when Iran is ready to rumble?”
There doesn’t seem to be any real evidence Iran wants to rumble. And we’d be such fools to attack them it would surely take a Republican to do it. John McCain probably would have, likely by now. And we’d be in an unimaginably worse mess.

I don’t what you have observed but there is plenty of proof of what Iran wants to do.

There was plenty of proof that Sadam had WMD’s too, Cknuck!

“there is plenty of proof of what Iran wants to do”
Show it.
Oh, and here are 10 things you think you know about Iran that are wrong. Everyone should read them.

Yes everyone should read them but should everyone believe them? Do they change the way Iran actually feels about Israel or the U.S? And if Israel engages what do you think the U.S. will do?

Thanks for the site, nnmns. Interesting read.

Iran is run by Islamic militants, the ones who willingly blow themselves to smithereens in order to further their cause of worldwide Islamic rule.
When their bombs are ready, they will mount them on rockets which have been thoroughly tested and launch everything they’ve got against Israel and whatever “American interest” nearby.
After that, what we do will not matter. They will have won, and from the billion or so Muslims left after any counter-attack against Iran, will spring leaders and plenty of followers that will continue the cause.
Israel will be gone and America licking her wounds while Islam dominates from the Middle-east to the Philippines to most of Africa.
This is speculation, but is very easy to imagine.

The notion that Iran is a monolithic rogue-state plotting international mass murder with the full support of a Koran-besotted population of fanatics is obviously false. But the notion that Iran is a sane and peace-loving state is equally false, and I did not find the “10 things I didn’t know” (some of which I did know) very compelling.
I don’t think Iran is the single greatest threat to world peace, but to dismiss it as a threat altogether would be naive.

Monolithic? No. Top-heavy with power? Yes.
With the deepest respect for the people in the streets, at home with their loved ones, they are not the ones who will decide to launch.
Sacrificing the very population one is responsible for is nothing new for fanatical leaders.
I cannot get this scenario out of my head.

Does Iran remind one of the Crusades, GC? The Crusades were the magnifcient effort to convert the “heathens” to Christianity. Iran just wants to blow up all their version of “infidels”. They haven’t figured out that that is as useless as the Crusades…a “loving” moment in Christian history.
President Obaman isn’t a war monger and has tried to bring back diplomacy. So much better than the previous man, who was a joke for 8 years.

“”…Does Iran remind one of the Crusades…?”"
…only in the twisted, derelict, diatribes (each of these words has been carefully chosen for aptness, so they are not “name-calling”) of liberals.
The “Audacity of Hope” has been resolutely replaced by the audacity of liberal ideology.
…someone even won a prize for this travesty.

Yes, liberal ideology….wonderful thing that it is, GC. Hope? That is still around, because the previous joke in office isn’t.

…yes, indeed; the PREVIOUS joke!
(in reference to the sick joke CURRENTLY in office)!
…it’s just too easy…live by rhetoric, die by rhetoric.
Try truth.