It seemed a given that someday, President Barack Hussein Obama, a unique leader of extraordinary diplomatic impulses and innately peaceful instincts, would win the Nobel Peace Prize.
It's a given that the Nobel Committee would be impressed and deeply touched by President Obama's brilliant landmark speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009 "on America's relationship with Muslim communities around the world" in which he proclaimed:
"So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end."I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
It's a given that the Nobel Peace Prize would be awarded to this president who, in the destructive, deadly "cowboy diplomacy" shadow of George W. Bush, bucks deadly political winds by consistently urging, in the words of the Nobel Committee, "a world without nuclear weapons" and for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
But despite Nobel Committee protestations to the contrary, it was never a given that, in 2009, President Obama would be awarded the highest international accolade long before any of his diplomatic initiatives or ideas have been implemented, much less been proven effective.
(I strongly recommend that you read Obama's Nobel: But Has He Done Anything Yet? by Pierre Tristam, About.com Guide to Middle East Issues.)
The question naturally follows: Why now?
And an awful possibility occurred to me: Because they can now. Because the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded only to living persons.
Because the Nobel Commitee is afraid that Barack Obama, America's first black president, might not be alive a decade or more from now when the vast worldwide importance of his peace-based leadership becomes widely evident.
And I sadly realize that the Committee may be correct, given the frenzied, gun-toting, racist-spouting, Fox News-led swell of angry, violent mob extremism that causes President Obama to receive more than 30 death threats every single day.
And I wonder: How and when will this insidious threat to human life and our country's leadership, and deliberate repression of U.S. democracy end?
And when, oh when, will the United State finally institute sane gun laws in line with the rest of the free world?
Take a few moments to read the Nobel Committee Statement on Awarding Peace Prize to Obama - Reasons Why Barack Obama Won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
And while you're at it, read my Pros & Cons of Gun Ownership & Use Laws .
Comments
If I could give this post a thumbs up, like in Facebook, I would!
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded posthumously–to Dag Hammarskjöld in 1961–but not in recent years.
My suspicion is that he basically won the Prize for beating McCain. The Nobel Committee did not like the Bush Doctrine, for obvious reasons, and probably would have given an Anti-Nobel Peace Prize to Bush if there were such a thing. This is the next best option.
This is what I thought too.
If nothing else, liberals are accomplished at writing, thinking and talking drivel.
When Bush was running things, can we safely assume that, because frenzied, gun-toting (yes, even liberals carry guns), racist spouting (Jesse Jackson perfected that), CNNNBCCBSBBC-led swell of angry—you get the picture–openly uttered death threats against President Bush, should he also have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for surviving assassination attempts?
Liberalism is truly a dysfunctional mental condition.
Deborah White, who should be writing speeches for Iran’s Ahmadinejad, is one of the many reasons fewer and fewer people trust mainstream media–and gravitate towards Foxnews.