Liberty Scott on Nobel Peace Prize
October 12th, 2009 at 11:00 am by David FarrarLiberty Scott summarises things well:
The best sentiments I’ve noticed on this, is that Morgan Tsvangirai, who had been mooted for the prize, has been imprisoned, tortured, beaten up repeatedly, lost his wife in an accident, and STILL decided for peace in Zimbabwe, to form a joint government with the murdering gangsters of Zanu-PF.
Apparently that wasn’t good enough. Not good enough for an African man in Africa at the front line of essentially civil war and insurrection, in a truly bankrupt economy, to risk himself so much to bring peace and justice to Zimbabwe. He may have been able to do much for Zimbabwe with the US$1 million prize.
But instead it went to Obama for some nice speeches.
I don’t think you can criticise Obama for this. From all accounts he is as mortified as everyone else, and this actually makes his job much harder.
Related posts:
- The EU wins the Nobel Peace Prize
- Hope for Zimbabwe
- The Nobel Prize winner
- Liberty Scott on Labour and obesity
October 12th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Yeah, it is all rather a bit, “Here’s your Victoria Cross. Now go out and earn it.”
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 11:08 am
It has made a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize. The judging panel need to be exposed as the sycophants they clearly are.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Not often that I agree with Liberty Scott, but I do on this.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 11:31 am
If Obama truely is mortified, perhaps he might consider giving his $2m windfall to Morgan Tsvangirai. Not holding my breath.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Bush got 9/11 less than a year after being in office. I wonder how Obama would go in similar circumstances. Would he still get a prize if he mobilised the Marines – an action that any president would do in order to not appear weak.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Those Scandanavian governments are a pack of apologists for the “progressive” peace mongers of Europe and now America. Obama was always going to be over hyped and so it has been proved. He will turn out to be like Mr J.Carter,peanut farmer from Georgia, defeated in 1980 by a massive majority.
Vote:Obama has done nothing yet, except perhaps start to undercut US security measures – trying (!!!!!) to close Guantanamo, lecturing the Jews while cosying up to Hamas, sending mixed messages to Iran, repealing parts of the Patriot Act and generally giving the fingers to western allies.
And now the Nobel prize, entries only closing 11 days after Obama entered the White House. George Bush was hated by the “capitulationist” community because he was determined to defend Americans from terrorists.
Obama’s only strength is that he can deliver a speech like a good snake oil salesman. He has negotiated nothing as yet.
Obama will become a one term president and will be reviled in the USA. He will still be a hero to the reotards of Scandanavia.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am
the same as this was done to carter..
and the awarders then/since were open it was a political act..
designed to nudge carter further down this ‘peace’-path..
the burning question now is..
who nominated him..?
or do they just decide on the day..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I don’t know whether you have read Obama’s speeches acknowledging the prize DPF, but to me that doesn’t sound mortified at all. Everybody who puts himself in the race for POTUS must have a rather grandiose image of self of course, but this guy really thinks he’s the chosen one and all..
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I normally detest the unctuous, equivocating Liberty Scott, but he’s got this one right.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
One of the things we saw during the Bush years was the foamy-mouthed lunacy of the deranged anti-Bush left. No politician is perfect or immune to criticism, of course. But much of the criticism of Bush redefined the word “bizarre”. I’m talking the invading-Iraq-to-steal-oil loons, the 911 truthers, the Dan Rather “fake but accurate” memo fakers, and all the others who accused Bush of things that even a child could show weren’t true. These people were filled with such irrational hatred that they were willing to sacrifice their own reputations attacking Bush.
The Nobel Peace Prize people are the same. We get that they don’t like Bush. But by giving prizes to international midgets Carter, Gore, Baradei, and now a man whose achievements are limited to all talk but no action, they’re showing that their hate has overtaken their desire to protect their own credibility.
The prize also insults the rest of the world. They mentioned that Obama wants to foster international cooperation, even if he hasn’t gotten around to doing it yet. Do these Norwegians think that the world needs America’s permission to cooperate? That the world needs Obama to organise us and stop us disagreeing? The Nobel Prize people noted that Obama has said all countries are equal, then given him a prize to incent him to lead us.
Lastly, as DPF says: “From all accounts he is as mortified as everyone else, and this actually makes his job much harder”. The Norwegians want to encourage Obama to implement the sort of policies that a committee of retired Norwegian politicians approve of, but make it harder for him to do so. Do they live in a bubble that they don’t realise this? Why are they so insular and lacking in self awareness? Should they be awarding international prizes when they themselves are so unworldly?
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
We get that they don’t like Bush….they’re showing that their hate has overtaken their desire to protect their own credibility.
What about last year’s winner? What’s weird is how they gave the 2008 prize to Martti Ahtisaari for twenty years of work. Consistency somewhat lacking.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“I don’t think you can criticise Obama for this. From all accounts he is as mortified as everyone else, and this actually makes his job much harder.”
If he was mortified, the speach he made hid it well. He is also going to accept it personally. He could ;
1. Turn it down suggesting it goes to someone worthy
2. Send a relative of a dead solidier to accept it on his behalf.
Still I suppose he is in good comapany with SOME of the past recipitants – Arafat and Gore to name two.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I don’t know what this has got to do with Bush, he was never a contender for Nobel anyway due to the Cheney around his neck.
In this case it seems like the committee are trying make history rather than reward it.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
President Obama did seem rather embarrassed on television the other evening – as if he had just been presented with a gold card membership to the local Playboy club.
Perhaps with regards to Afganistan he should take the excellent advice one of his predecessors received about Vietnam “declare victory, declare that we’ve won, and pull out”
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
FTFY.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Would seem to be an American thing James, not sure how far it goes back but.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Sorry DPF, but as I noted http://bit.ly/4rYMxI, Obama was far from mortified in his announcement of his acceptance, he was in my view patronising and arrogant
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Oh and I think in the USA his days of adulation are over, Saturday Night Live has trained it’s satirical guns on him well and truly
Vote:http://bit.ly/2NVY5d and look at the impact Tina Fey’s mockery had on Palin, well they have now started to skewer The One
October 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
If Obama truly is mortified, perhaps he might consider blowing Zanu PF off the face of the fucking earth?
[DPF: I think that might rule him out for getting a hat trick of them]
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Phil
Much as there was very little to celebrate from Carter’s Presidency, one of the few concrete lasting achievements that he can point to is brokering the Egyptian Israeli peace accord. That on its own, given its effectiveness over the years, was worthy enough of the Nobel Prize.
Obama can’t even come remotely close to this. It gets worse in fact. The nominations for the 09 award closed TWELVE DAYS after his inauguration. This was the European socialists who sit on the Peace Prize committee having a wet dream that one of their philosophical fellow travellers was now the President.
The liberal MSM in the US, who have largely been very light on Obama (with some prone to sycophancy), have been refreshingly dismissive almost derisive about this award. If Obama is so mortified (and surely his closest political advisors must know this merely reinforces the right’s narrative about Obama) then he should’ve graciously declined. That he hasn’t merely reveals his overweening narcissism.
Elijah
Vote:“Declaring victory and pulling out of Afganistan” – hang on a minute. This was the righteous war according to the left unlike the wicked evil Bush war in Iraq. Obama bleated endlessly on the campaign trail about needing to bloster the effort in Afganistan and withdraw from the Iraq theatre. He reiterated in March 09 that losing in the Afpak theatre was not an option and as recently as this August said the same to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. In the left’s eyes, the apparent Bush neglect of Afganistan led all Democrat candidates in 07/08 to trip over themselves wanting to fight this war properly because the motives in dealing to the Taliban seemed so much more clear cut than the less obvious threat to US interests posed by Saddam Hussein. Obama has had many many months to learn what truly effective counter insurgency campaigns cost in terms of troops so McChrystal’s request should not have been any surprise. Bush weathered the enormous political opposition to Petraeus’ surge in Iraq and was ultimately rewarded with its success. Obama will likely choose the worst of both worlds – maintain a troop presence in Afganistan without the numbers to really deal to the Taliban and suffer the eventual humiliation Johnson faced in Vietnam.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
What does “FTFY” mean?
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Yes, and the White House is asking SNL to fact check it’s skits now. For fucks sake.
Obama has apparently mentioned himself about two thousand times in speeches, and that was just practising in front of his shaving mirror.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Sorry, “FTFY” = “Fixed That For You”. Perhaps I’m to young ‘n’ hip for Kiwiblog [ducks].
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Aha, so the Butler did it.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Obviously the Nobel Prize should have gone to and shared between President Bush and Morgan Tsvangirai. Bush in his effort to free the enslavement of Iragis and Afghanis at the hands of those respective murderous regimes and for Morgan Tsvangirai for his tireless effort in trying to negotiate power-sharing with Mugabe’s thugs, thus leading to peace .
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Kinda sad all the attention a special interest award decided by a mere five people gets by the world’s media and decision-makers. Really they should have disbanded themselves after they gave it to Wilson in 1919 for his work in crafting the Treaty of Versailles, making a piece of crap nobody liked and which most historians see as laying the foundations for WWII.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
That’s a bit Orwellian. Does anyone remember a time when it was history that Bush was invading to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction? My memory is so… Oh, new Shortland Street episode to watch!
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Thanks James, I thought I was up with internet speak (all I could make was “for this fuck you” which didnt seem right).
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“Kinda sad all the attention a special interest award decided by a mere five people gets by the world’s media and decision-makers. Really they should have disbanded themselves after they gave it to Wilson in 1919 for his work in crafting the Treaty of Versailles, making a piece of crap nobody liked and which most historians see as laying the foundations for WWII.”
In fairness the French and the Australians played their part too, but you are more right than wrong.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Bush invaded Afghanistan to deal to Al Qaeda for 9/11, it is arguable how justified it was, but it is not arguable how unpeaceful it was and how unsuccessful it still is in freeing Afghanis from violence.
And as Ryan says Bush invaded Iraq supposedly to eliminate Iraqs non-existent capability to attack the US. Hmmm, that war (as opposed to peace) is still going too, the US are withdrawing but I don’t think that will signal an end to the murder.
Bush was as unsuitable for a Peace prize as Obama is. Bush himself said a number of times that what he did probably wouldn’t be judged in his lifetime.
If in twenty years the Middle East including Afpak is in peaceful harmony as a result of what happend this decade then who would deserve the peace prize – Bush and Obama jointly?
I agree that Tsvangirai would have been more deserving, but his time may come yet. Zimbabwe is still very much a work in progress too.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I agree that Tsvangirai would have been more deserving, but his time may come yet. Zimbabwe is still very much a work in progress too.
Yes, he’s made a start, but that’s it. If he say, peacefully gets rid of Mugabe (hopefully without buying him out) and stops famine and inflation he’d be in the running. Martti Ahtisaari worked a looooong time for his Nobel.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Call me crazy, but perhaps the Middle Easterners would deserve the peace prize.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Ryan S>That’s a bit Orwellian. Does anyone remember a time when it was history that Bush was invading to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction?
I remember a time when there were plenty of reasons to invade Iraq. Freeing the Iraqi people was specifically mentioned in the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm):
“Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;”
I reckon about 95% of the reasons for war listed in the resolution are factual and valid. That’s not a bad percentage… probably better than the reasoning behind much of NZ’s foreign policy. If the media simplified the case for war in to one of possession of WMD, then that’s not really the fault of the Bush Administration.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I’d just like to add my name to the list of people who normally don’t agree with LibertyScott but do today.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
David,
That doesn’t change the fact that, without UNSC sanction, the invasion was illegal under international law. If Powell and Bush’s considerable (yet farcical) efforts to convince the Security Council of Saddam’s WMDs had succeeded, they would have got that authorisation. That’s why they made those efforts, rather than trying to convince the UNSC that Saddam was treating his people poorly – which was common knowledge, but not a good enough reason for the Security Council to sanction ripping the place apart. As it stands, it was an illegal aggression.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Ryan S>That doesn’t change the fact that, without UNSC sanction, the invasion was illegal under international law.
The US made efforts to convince the SC because Tony Blair wanted them to. Which was a massive waste of time, but it shows just how far the US is willing to go to cooperate with the wishes of allies such as the UK. In fact, the SC involvement made war more likely, rather than less, because it helped convince Saddam that the French and the Russians would be able to prevent an invasion and therefore he didn’t have to start behaving himself.
Compare with 2009. China and Russia are preventing the rest of the world from placing and enforcing sanctions on Iran. Sanctions might have solved the issues presented by their development of nuclear weapons, their sponsoring of aggressive war against Israel by Hizbollah, and their arming of anti-Sunni and anti-coalition forces in Iraq. But China and Russia make it inevitable that Israel (or possibly the US) will have to sort things out militarily.
But, regardless, pre-2003 Saddam was sponsoring terrorist groups that threatened US citizens, and was shooting at US aircraft enforcing no fly zones over Iraq. The US is entitled by international law to defend itself. The right of self defence isn’t subject to veto by the UN. Therefore the invasion didn’t violate international law. And they involved a substantial international coalition, including NZ. Are you saying that helen Clark violated international law? If so, why isn’t she locked up?
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“why isn’t she locked up?”
Good question.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
This is all good for me. Obama looks more like a knob than he did before, and the naive nomes of Norland are finally and utterly discredited. Ahh….. all part of life’s rich tapestry.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Obama getting the Noble Peace Prize is going to make it tricky trying to talk tough to Iran. His words with the Iranians have to backed by the threat of force, but how do you do that when you’re a Noble Peace prize winner? You’d look like a bit of a hypocrite. Did Mother Teresa ever get what she wanted because she was backed by a nuclear arsenal or a US carrier battle group? No and I don’t think the Iranians will be any more inclined to listen to the US in regard to their nuclear ambitions just because Obama got the Peace Prize. All in all I think the Noble committee have cocked up. It must be something toxic in all that whale meat the Norwegians eat screwing up their brains.
Vote:October 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
adamsmith1922 1:09 pm,
Every time I see that sorry excuse for a president he comes across as “patronising and arrogant”.
Vote:Much in the same way as our previous dear leader came across whenever she open her cake-hole in public.
Excuse me while I go and have a retch.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I’m with Kris K.
You perhaps read more than was there into OB1 DPF.
But then you always try to look for the good.
If OB1 had any character he would have declined and done so privately when they nominated him 2 weeks into his presidency.
he hasn’t any character as the US is finding out.
The Nobel Peace prize is worthless.
Vote:I would refuse to have it should I win it as a matter of principle.
But then again I won’t ever be in the running.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Well remarkable that this one issue brings so many in agreement, including my erstwhile usual opponents.
The question I have is if something goes drastically wrong between the US and any other country (whether it be terrorism, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia, whatever) within the next 3 years, will the Nobel committee apologise?
Of course the list of questionable recipients is long, Kissinger whilst a clever statesman, could hardly be said to have been a man of peace, and Lê Ðức Thọ refused, which made sense ironically, given North Vietnam broke the Paris Peace Accords comprehensively.
Vote:October 13th, 2009 at 3:58 am
Couldnt do much with 1 million in that country, Inflation would kill it
Vote:They need good governance
October 13th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Obama’s image is fragmented by the many symbols he gathered but it may have been strategically. It has just surfaced that he will push the socialist gender agenda and that is the Nobel cause. I think it’s the end of him but thanks for the price to charity…
Vote:October 13th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Biomag: US$ are not inflating at the rate of the $Z. The latter is no longer used now anyway.
Vote:October 13th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Don’t forget the Nobel Committee are socialists. They aren’t much interested in recognizing merit and rewarding it when they can instead (mis)use their power to influence future events. They expect Obama to spend the next three years proving he ‘deserves’ the award by failing to stand up to those who hate Western civilization and want to destroy it.
Obviously Obama could have and should have just refused it. Not only would that be what any decent person would do, it would probably be to his political advantage.
As for Tsangvirai, it’s been quite a while since they gave the prize to someone who stood up to a totalitarian regime. I think the criteria have changed so that sort of thing no longer qualifies.
Vote: