Gee I guess the Washington Examiner wasn't around to question when Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson won.
The Constitution is pretty clear on this. Maybe they didn't get challenged, but their precedent does not trump the rule of law.
BTS
OBAMA WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
by WuzLovesDubs 68 Replies latest jw friends
-
BurnTheShips
-
hamilcarr
Societies are not static, they change.
-
Mad Dawg
Ø Roosevelt was awarded the Prize for brokering a peace treaty between Japan and Russia.
Ø Wilson was awarded the Prize for his work on the Treaty of Versailles – it had nothing to do with the League of Nations.
Ø Lech Walesa, through Solidarity, brought the communist government to its knees. By 1983, the Communist Party had lost much of its grip on the population.
Ø While Tutu hadn’t seen complete success in 1984, he was well on his way. 1984 was the beginning of the end for apartheid.
Ø Although I am no fan of Carter, he should have been a third recipient in 1978. There has still been no military conflict between Israel and Egypt since then. There was no reason to give it to him in 2002.
There was a time that the peace prize was awarded for actual accomplishments. Just as the science prizes still are.
Alfred Nobel’s will states: “ during the preceding year [...] 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.”
I don’t know what Obama did in 2008 to earn the Prize, but I do recognize the right of those in charge to give it to whomever they wish – for any reason they wish. Even if, in so doing, they cheapen it by giving it to Obama, Al Gore, Gorbachev, and Yasser Arafat.
-
moshe
If we continue with our virtual 20% un-under- employment we will see anarchy, not peace. A government that can't provide work for it's citizens can't expect them to meekly lose their homes and watch their children go hungry. What will Obama and Congress do when a million unemployed march on Washington next year?
-
Gopher
Mad Dawg,
Regarding Woodrow Wilson, you said: " Wilson was awarded the Prize for his work on the Treaty of Versailles – it had nothing to do with the League of Nations." That is INCORRECT. The League was his major accomplishment in 1919.
Read this: http://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/index.asp?section=woodrowwilson&file=peace
Regarding Tutu, you said 1984 was the beginning of the end for apartheid. How would anyone, including the Nobel prize committee, know that to be true as early as 1984? As I posted before -- Tutu hadn't accomplished anything. Using your standards for Obama, the Nobel prize committee should have waited before awarding Tutu its prize.
The reason they gave awards in the past to men like Wilson and Tutu was the leadership and work they had put in to make a very positive impact on diplomacy and peace. In the view of the Nobel committee, Obama has already made a positive impact. He was one of the very few who opposed the Iraq war from the outset. In his presidential campaign he showed how America would approach world diplomacy differently if he were elected. America liked the message, and much of the rest of the world was also impressed -- friends and foes alike.
The partisan divisions in America are the only reason any big deal is being made about this award. Even Obama himself tried to downplay the award, and he certainly did not campaign for the award.
The world looks to America for leadership, and Obama is taking on a difficult job, especially in view of how the Cheney/Bush administration alienated most of the rest of the civilized world with its cowboy diplomacy.
-
Mad Dawg
Gopher,
From the official Nobel website the motivation for nominating Wilson was: “Wilson advocated international law and arbitration. In January 1917 he had made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the belligerents to end the war, calling for a "peace without victory". After the USA had entered the war, Wilson outlined his view on a post-war settlement through his "Fourteen points". These became the guiding principles for the Paris Peace Conference (1919-20), and included the establishment of the League of Nations. However, Wilson failed to obtain ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, and the USA did not join the League of Nations.”
The League was a by-product of ending WWI.
You need to read more carefully. Nowhere does your source state that Wilson was given the Prize BECAUSE he founded the League of Nations. It only says that there were letters of support FOR the founder of the League. That is a big difference.
By 1984, Desmond Tutu had already spent many years uniting South Africans of all races to rise up against apartheid. Pardon the pun here, but Obama pales in comparison to Tutu.
I find it odd that Obama is hailed as a “man of peace” while he is ramping up in Afghanistan and has done nothing but follow the Bush policy in Iraq. As you pointed out, unintentionally I’m sure, Obama was awarded the prize on the basis of policy, speeches, and politics – not actual accomplishments.
As I said before, I don’t care why they gave it to O – or to some despots for that matter. If they want to cheapen their award in this fashion, what is that to me? Regardless, I am still at liberty to point out the award for what it is.
BTW, just what is this “positive impact” O is supposed to have had? Which war has he stopped?
-
BizzyBee
Give it a rest, eh? It's done, he's accepting it, he's not giving it back, the committee was empowered to decide, not you. Obama's non-Bushness stands out in relief around the globe. Peace-loving people are thrilled and hopeful. Get over it.
-
Farkel
:Give it a rest, eh? It's done, he's accepting it, he's not giving it back, the committee was empowered to decide, not you. Obama's non-Bushness stands out in relief around the globe. Peace-loving people are thrilled and hopeful. Get over it.
I'll give it a rest when you give George W. Bush a rest. Bush is gone. Done. History. Disgraced. Shitcanned. Banished.
You let sleeping dogs lie and I'll give a living dog a break on this one, ok? But since he is still "living" and Bush is "dead" I'll tear him apart the next time he does something bad. That will be the next time he opens his mouth, by the way. So far, he has scared the doo doo out of me, and since he's been only 8 months into the job, I'm REALLY scared what he will do next.
Short version: you folks who think you can continue with bashing Bush policies won't fool real Americans for very long. You have to come up with NEW ideas and policies that work. "Not Bush" doesn't mean "must be good."
I'm waiting for good ideas from our President. I'm not just skeptical, I'm scared. And worse, I'm right to be scared. And that scares me.
Farkel
-
villabolo
Valium anyone?
villabolo
-
BizzyBee
Sorry, but as I have pointed out before, the devastation of the Bush administration will live on for many years and perhaps generations. Don't blame me - it is the truth, just as the havoc wrought by the Reagan administration is visited upon the current political landscape.
Yes, there are expectations that Obama will have ideas to fix this mess or some of it. And he'd better deliver. He knew what he was walking into. Bush's legacy is not an excuse. It is simply part of the context of past failures.