Washington Extra – A late start
It must be more than a little frustrating to win the Nobel Peace Prize for your best intentions — ridding the world of nuclear weapons – and then struggle to even get the START Treaty ratified this year. Not surprising, then, that President Barack Obama told his deputy to work “day and night” to get this thing through.
But whatever the temptation to throw a little egg on the president’s face, many security analysts still find it amazing to see Republicans blocking a treaty that the U.S. military so strongly backs. Welcome to bipartisan Washington, again, I guess.
Despite the uneven start to the week, Wednesday was not a bad day for Obama by any means.
The president was able to celebrate GM’s successful blockbuster initial public offering, by implication a victory for his controversial bailout of the automobile industry. The offering cut the government’s stake in the company to 26 percent from 61 percent and raised more than $20 billion, with investors betting on a positive future for the automaker which so nearly went out of business. Obama said taxpayers would end up recovering more from General Motors than his administration spent on the bailout, adding that a million jobs were saved and many more were now being created.
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will travel to auto town Kokomo, Indiana next week to celebrate. The rescues of the banking and auto industries certainly didn’t make great politics in the midterm elections, but with much of the money coming back to the public purse, “bailout” might not be such a poisonous word in the 2012 campaign.
The other better news for the Democrats was the fact that they finally seemed to get their act together on taxes, after weeks of seeming to flounder without a clear strategy. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will first present the middle class tax cuts to the Senate and House respectively for a vote, before a separate vote on the cuts for wealthier Americans. They may not win the Senate vote, but at least Dems reckon they will be able to pin any failure to get a deal squarely on their rivals.
Here are our top stories from Washington today…
Nobel award to Obama required lengthy U.S. Constitution check
When President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last October it caught most by surprise and sent his lawyers scurrying to quietly make sure that the president could receive the prestigious award without running afoul with the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
A provision in the Constitution, known as the Emoluments Clause, bars the receipt of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind from a “King, Prince or foreign State”. When the Nobel prize was established more than a century ago, Alfred Nobel’s will specified that the recipient of the peace award was to be chosen by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian parliament known as the Storting.
However, Justice Department lawyers told the White House in a 13-page legal memorandum — sent to the White House counsel last December and released late Thursday — that the U.S. Constitution and federal law did not bar Obama from receiving the prize.
The memo went through various legal arguments, such as whether congressional approval was needed — no was the answer — and the level of involvement by the Norwegian government in the selection process. The lawyers determined that the Storting had “no meaningful role” in selecting the prize recipients or funding the $1.4 million award.
Plus, the Justice Department lawyers added to their reasoning past precedent — noting that two previous sitting presidents (Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) had won the Peace Prize as well as a sitting vice president, Secretary of State, and a U.S. Senator.
It applied similar reasoning to determine that Obama could accept the award under a federal law that limited circumstances under which he could receive certain gifts and decorations.
Always good to check.
Unveiling the Obama Doctrine
President Barack Obama did more than collect his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Besides the trumpet fanfare, the black-tie festivities, the pomp, the circumstance and of course the speech, he unveiled what Washington-watchers are calling the Obama doctrine. But what is it, exactly?
A quick online search shows an early mention of the Obama doctrine in March 2008, when Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were still slugging it out for the Democratic presidential nomination. The American Prospect cited Obama speeches starting in January of that election year and talked to Obama’s foreign policy team to get an idea of what the future president’s world view might be. One key quote from the candidate on the Iraq war was seen as defining the doctrine: ”I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place.”
“An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda,” The American Prospect said. “Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It’s both and neither — an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.”
More of the doctrine emerged, according to a column in The Washington Post, after Obama’s handling of the rescue of a U.S. ship captain from Somali pirates in April 2009, in which Obama said little and relied on Navy SEALs to free the captive: “The Obama Doctrine seeks to regain the world’s sympathy by acknowledging that while the United States is a great nation built on worthy principles, it is not perfect.”
Fast-forward to Oslo and Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech, which is winning praise from perennial Obama critics Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
The Atlantic’s political blog called it “multilaterlism with teeth” and described it this way: ”Obama sought to move past the liberal sentiment that Americans felt as a backlash to the Iraq War: the idea that America was engaged in an imperialist enterprise, militarily and culturally. His answer: we do not seek to impose our will, but we will stand for global security and rights.”
It’s not the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, but it’s not what some of Obama’s anti-war critics want either.
War is a means to a end. Those in power and in command of fighting forces will use those forces to get what they want. War happens when communication breaks down, or when one or both parties are hostile towards each other for emotional reasons.
Iraq was about oil. Afghanistan is no different. Bin Laden is no longer on the agenda. The taliban only need to be gotten rid of because they will not negotiate deals with us. They are not concerned with doing business with the US so they have to go. As a predominantly Christian nation, we should remove the log from our own political eye so that we can see clearly enough to remove the specs from the eyes of those we deal with.
When we as a nation learn to care for our own fellow citizens then we can talk about “human rights” in other countries. Then we can talk about the “liberation” of people in suffering. Just because we treat our citizens like well fed cattle it doesn’t mean we are any better than countries that treat their people like poorly fed cattle.
War is a waste of life, money, and time. Especially when there is so much work to be done.
No one like a wife to keep even a peace laureate honest
Cheering crowds greeted U.S. President Barack Obama in Norway as he received one of the world’s great honors but at least one person was there to ensure that the pomp and circumstance of winning the Nobel Peace Prize did not go to his head.
When her husband, who is not only president but a best-selling author, wrote seven lines of text in the guest book at the Nobel Institute on Thursday, first lady Michelle Obama asked if he were writing a book, and then commented as she prepared to write her entry: “Mine won’t be as long.”
Obama joshed gently back: ”She will resist writing something sarcastic since this will be recorded for the future.”
When asked what he wrote in the guest book, Obama said he had congratulated the Nobel Committee for work done not just for peace “but to give voice to the voiceless and oppressed around the world.”
By tradition, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient visits the institute to sign the guest book and meet the selection committee.
Obama accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace in Oslo nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to break the momentum of the Taliban. In his acceptance speech, Obama said the United States must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified.
American Muslims are fierce patriots, Obama says
President Barack Obama can duck a question with the best of them, but when he was asked about the arrest in Pakistan of five allegedly home-grown U.S. jihadists, he seized the opportunity to damp down a potential backlash against American Muslims and praised the community for its “fierce patriotism.”
“What has been remarkable over the course of the last eight, nine years since 9/11 is the degree to which America has reaffirmed the extraordinary contributions of the Muslim American community,” he told a brief press conference during his Nobel Peace Prize visit to Oslo.
Pakistani officials said the five young men, students in their 20′s from northern Virginia who were detained in a city called Sargodha to the southeast of the capital Islamabad, appear to have been intent on “jihad.”
The arrests follow repeated warnings by U.S. intelligence officials of the potential risk of U.S. citizens being recruited by militants. U.S. authorities have also recently charged 14 people with recruiting, training and funding young Somali-American men to join and fight with an al Qaeda proxy on the Horn of Africa.
“Now, the Muslim American community is vast, so we have to constantly be mindful that some of these twisted ideologies are available over the Internet and can affect our young people. But I think we’ve got a good story to tell here and one that we need to build on,” Obama said.
Click here for more Reuters political coverage
Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque (Obama with Nobel prize)
How Obama’s Nobel speech played in Washington
For a man who just won the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama didn’t look all that happy as he strode to the lectern in Oslo. He had that downturned smile that was almost an acknowledgement of all the critics who say the award is premature — especially for a commander-in-chief who has just vowed to send 30,000 more U.S. troops into harm’s way in Afghanistan.
The speech itself didn’t make much of a splash on morning television in Washington. None of the major TV networks carried it live, though CNN did, cutting away from Obama from time to time to show an audience listening attentively, with a few eyelids drooping. But viewers didn’t have many options if they wanted to see the speech as it happened. They could see a blink of Obama sandwiched in between the televised feature stories — Dillie the Deer, a taped interview with first lady Michelle Obama, a duel interview with Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman to promote their new movie.
The Washington Post ran a live feed on its Web site; after the speech ended, there was a story and a photo slide show. The New York Times posted a text of the address. The Drudge Report – a one-stop online gateway for some in Washington — ran two small headlines about the Nobel ceremony (“Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize…” and ”Norwegians Incensed Over Obama Snubs…”) over the main story. Just after the speech it was “SNOW DRIFTS TO 15FT!” but later it changed to “DEMS TO LIFT DEBT CEILING BY $1.8 TRILLION!”
Before the chattering classes start weighing in on how he did, let’s hear what you think? Was it statesmanlike or disappointing? Or something in between?
Photo credit: REUTERS/John McConnico/Pool (President Barack Obama poses with Nobel Peace Prize medal and certificate, Oslo, December 10, 2009)
“I have seen college students receive college degrees who did not earn them, I even heard of a law and accounting student receiving their license that had not passed the BAR and CPA Exam”
Then they did not deserve their degrees or licences. And they are a small minority who devalue the efforts of the many people who earnt their qualifications through hard work.
“Sometimes you can give an award on potential and a direction or as a sign of support”
No. An award has always been for the recognition of something worthy. Not the belief that the recipient will do something worthy of the award at a later date.
Imagine if university degrees were handed out because of four years of study you have yet to do.
Imagine if you were given an Oscar for a movie you have not even made.
Imagine if you were given the medical nobel prize for a cure you have not yet invented, the physics nobel prize for a theory you have not yet discovered, or the literature nobel prize for a book you have not yet written.
No. There is no way that this situation can be salvaged or justified.
If you think Obama’s popularity and the opinions of Europe are important, then fine. But the nobel peace prize didn’t need to be sacrificed on an alter for their sake.
So what does Obama do for an encore?
Maybe he does walk on water…
President Barack Obama, having barely cut his teeth in office after nine months, has joined the rarified club of Nobel Laureates that includes the likes of Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. Even Gandhi, despite being nominated five times, never made the list.
As with anyone who reaches the impossible dream early on, the question is: what next? He’s 48 years old, has more than three years left at the White House, how does he top this?
Obama said he was as surprised as anyone.
“Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations,” he said in the White House Rose Garden.
“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, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”
But, he said, he would accept the Nobel Peace Prize “as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.”
“He got rid of the Bush Administration and that is enough in my book for him to get the Nobel Prize.”
Yes, he sure did.
Well, that and the fact Bush couldn’t run for a third consecutive turn anyway.
DEMOCRAT FAIL
The First Draft: What was the Nobel committee thinking?
Even before sunrise in Washington, tongues were wagging over the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s choice of President Barack Obama to receive this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. And the big question — aside from whether a first-term president in his ninth month in office has done enough to deserve the award — was, what was the committee thinking?
We know what they say they were thinking. Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, told ABC’s “Good Morning America”: “When we have a person whose ideals are so close to the ideals of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, we wanted to give whatever support we could to continued action in these fields.”
But if you read the official announcement, it sure sounds like it translates to: Obama isn’t George W. Bush.
There could be other considerations, of course. Perhaps the committee was still irked on Obama’s behalf about the public snub from Arizona State University, which invited the president to speak at commencement but didn’t give him an honorary degree because “his body of work is yet to come.” Obama joked about it when he gave the speech and the university eventually named a scholarship after him.
Or maybe they wanted to steal the thunder from NASA’s moon bomb project, which was ballyhooed by U.S. TV networks and shown live on the morning talk shows. If that’s the case, they needn’t have bothered. The NASA event was a bit of a damp squib, at least visually. If they find water at some point, that would be a different matter and the Nobel folks may have to consider the rocket scientists for a physics prize.
Was it a super-duper consolation prize for Obama, after his trip to Copenhagen last week failed to net the 2016 Olympic games for Chicago?
Possibly another factor was in play. If Obama goes to Oslo to collect his prize in December, it would be only a quick hop to Denmark, where international climate change talks are scheduled. The committee mentioned climate change in its citation. Were they hinting that he ought to go and put his stamp on these negotiations?
scarecrow you are endorsing my point,you did not mention Obama you just said some one like him should have got the award after the bush regime,so Bush was really the big influence.So anyone in the 200 hundred applicants should have been considered as long as they were opposite to Bush.Does this smell as much about politics as peace?But you bring up another interesting theory that really the American people got the award for kicking out conservatives well at least 52%of them,all politics my friend the peace aspect only incidental.
from Global News Journal:
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Obama had been awarded the prize for his calls to reduce the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons and work towards restarting the stalled Middle East peace process.
The committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
The laureate wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10 million Swedish crowns (1.4 million dollars or 878,000 pounds).
Obama was one of a record 205 nominees for this year's prize and the decision has come as a surprise to many. Zimbabwe's Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, had been tipped as one of the favourites.
Despite his ambitious international agenda, Obama is yet to make a significant breakthrough in the Middle East or effectively deal with the threat of Iran's nuclear programme and his country is currently fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Has Obama done enough to justify winning the Nobel Peace Prize? If not, who do you think should have won?
sure. i do belive that. it can be a real incentive or prize to Obama for the peace he can bring in his term. that much is the confidence in him by whole world or ‘prize in advance for the peace to bring in to Obama’
another thing is, the decision of the nobel committee is always to be resptected. there is no much point in questioning that.
