According to the Nobel Peace Prize folks the prize should 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."
I suppose we could fit Obama into the last category, as he has been hanging out with the G-20 and the G-8 quite a bit in recent months.
We can't blame him for not facilitating peace in the Middle East. The best of them have tried to no avail. Creating peace requires accommodations that the Middle East are not ready for yet.
And I will leave Afghanistan and Iraq to your imagination. We are still there, whether you agree with the fact that we should be there, we are there. I think we forget that we are still in Japan and Germany......over 60 years later.
Did I mention that the nomination deadline for this year's award was February 1, 2009? Please remind me how long the current President of the United States was in office at that time?
Read more here.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
I just don't get it. I thought Nobel prizes were given to people who accomplished great things not who might do something in the future if he can give up appearing on talk shows. If causing my stomach to churn is worthy of a prize, then so be it, otherwise I think it is time to ignore the Nobel committee.
Posted by: Deb | October 09, 2009 at 08:53 AM
I agree with Deb. Couldn't have said it better! When did abstract and assumed future 'accomplishments' such as "hope" and "change" become worthy of this prize?
Posted by: Kenley | October 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM