On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0500, georgecleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:15:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,

Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.).

HTH,
R


Jeez richard. Sour grapes make lousy whine.

Alfred Nobel created the prize to be awarded "to the person who 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."

And you feel that he had done that by Feb 1, 2009?

Hopey has been going around the world for the last 9 months trying to
do those very things.

He has? Lessee - on the recent trip to Copenhagen (not to campaign for the
Olympics) the White House touted his meeting with McChrystal (the military
commander he personally picked to help win a war) about troop build-ups.

And the NYT compares him to such "lofty company" (maybe they should have said
"transformative figures"...) as Lech Walesa and Teddy Roosevelt. Lech Walesa's
thoughts? "What? So fast? Well, there hasn't been any contribution to peace
yet. He's proposing things, he's initiating things, but he is yet to deliver."
Teddy didn't give any thoughts on the matter.

The 1976 joint winner, Mairead Corrigan: "President Obama has yet to prove that
he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in
Afghanistan and many other issues"

And the Middle East peace he is supposedly inspiring? Let's see...

Hamas - ""Obama does not deserve this prize."

Iran: (Government Spokesman) "The decision in this area was hasty, and
conferring this prize was premature."
Iran: (Ahmedinejad) "I hope that by receiving this prize, he will start taking
practical steps to remove injustices in the world."

Fred Armisen:

"Out of Iraq? Nope, not even close..."
"Close Guantanamo Bay? Not Done..."
"Improve Afghanistan? Actually, I think it's worse..."

And guess who said this:

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of
the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

In your opinion, was the speaker being honest, falsely modesty, disingenuous, or
???

And yes, I realize there are numerous quotes out there that either show outright
support (or at least don't directly question it) for his win.

And, as should be obvious, while the nominations
were in February the voting by the committee was just a short while
ago.

Well, it might not be as "obvious" as you think. The nominations were reviewed
and a "short list" was compiled by, IIRC, March 15, 2009. Do you feel that he
had accomplished the above by then? If so, why? The voting was in August. IAC,
can you objectively show how and why you feel he is "the person who 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," even as of yesterday?

All it takes to be nominated is to have one qualified person,
like a history professor, forward said nomination to Oslo. Limbugh has
been nominated, as was W.

And what your reaction be if "Limbugh" (I'm guessing you mean Rush Limbaugh) had
won (or even found out he was under serious consideration)? Bush is another
matter - while IMO he wouldn't be an appropriate choice (or deserving choice
overall), his selection would at least have had a marginally-defensible claim
for actual accomplishments and attempts in Africa.

Finally, again, barring anything untoward from Obama's camp, this doesn't really
reflect upon him, but rather, greatly diminishes an already-diminished Peace
Prize. Should a undergrad that shows great promise be given a degree based on
that promise? Should a med student who shows great promise be allowed to skip
further training because of that promise? Would you loan your life savings to
your broke-ass deadbeat brother-in-law because he promised - greatly - to pay
you back...?

TC,
R

hth

Geo. C.