October 11, 2013

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons wins the Nobel Peace Prize, I say, and Meade says: "That's a slam on Obama."

"Why?" I ask, and he says, "Obama was going to go to war over chemical weapons. They're trying to say: Maybe we shouldn't have given you the Peace Prize." Hmm. I read the NYT article:
Urging the destruction of “an entire category” of unconventional weapons, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its 2013 Peace Prize on Friday to a relatively modest and little-known United Nations-backed body that has drawn sudden attention with a mission to destroy Syria’s stocks of chemical arms under a deal brokered by Russia and the United States.
"Don't we need to look at their explanation of why they gave the prize." I mean, it could be more of a statement about how bad chemical weapons are — which would align with what Obama's been saying. But it could be about how there are peaceful ways to go about eliminating chemical weapons, which might be phrased in a manner that disapproves of Obama.

But look what we are doing! It's what everybody's been doing for the last 5 years: Making everything about Obama. The sun rises in the morning, and what does it mean for Obama? A bird twitters in a treetop, and what is he saying about Obama?
The chemical attack outside Damascus initially drew an American threat of military reprisal before Moscow and Washington reached a compromise arrangement to seek the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks under international supervision.

Thorbjorn Jagland, the former Norwegian prime minister who is chairman of the panel, said chemical weapons had been used by Hitler’s armies in their campaign of mass extermination and on many other occasions by states and terrorists. He denied that the award to a body based in The Hague represented a Eurocentric shift after last year’s award to the European Union. “It’s global,” he said.
Nothing like denial to point the way to the truth?

What does this year's Peace Prize say about Obama?
pollcode.com free polls 


Matthew Sablan said...

The weapons haven't even been destroyed yet. I'd say, if it were political at all, it has to be read as a complete and utter slam against Obama.

They are basically saying: Europe and Putin chose the right path, you did not.

St. George said...

The Nobel prizes have to be the most successful PR stunt in history.

The winner of the Peace Prize is selected by five people (who serve six year terms)...

The Norwegian Nobel Committee 2010

Thorbjørn Jagland (Chairman)
President of the Storting

Geir Lundestad (Secretary)
Professor, Director of the Nobel Institute

Kaci Kullmann Five (Deputy Chairman)
Adviser Public Affairs

Sissel Rønbeck (Member)
Deputy Director, Directorate for Cultural Heritage

Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (Member)
Senior political adviser to the Progress Party's Parliamentary Group

Ågot Valle (Member)
Member of Parliament

Matthew Sablan said...

Though, I suppose, a real slam would've been giving it to Putin. Though, that may have been a bridge too far to sell in Norway. So, maybe it is just about chemical weapons.

damikesc said...

It's further making the Peace Prize absolutely pointless. Another "winner" who, albeit this is a technicality, HASN'T DONE A DAMNED THING?

They've been in Syria for, what, 2 weeks now?

gerry said...

This is such silly shit. How can something rendered meaningless by its having been awarded to the twerk in the White House mean anything anymore to anyone with a brain?

Peter said...

The science Nobels still mean something, but the rest have become the hit-or-miss efforts of a Committee desperately trying to make relevant political points.

Jane said...

How much money would I have to cough up to award a prize? These used to be Lifetime Achievement Awards -- now, whatever you say about it, it's not that any longer.

betamax3000 said...

Nobel Peace Clam says:

I Take the Grit of Conflict and Turn it Into the Pearl of Peace. This Takes Nobel Peace Clam a Lot of Time: Please Be Patient with Nobel Peace Clam.

betamax3000 said...

Nobel Peace Clam says:

The Ocean Above Me is In Constant Motion. There are Sharks and Whales and Seahorses. I Ignore the Constant Motion and the Sharks and Whales and Seahorses and Do My Work. Nobel Peace Clam is Diligent In This.

betamax3000 said...

Nobel Peace Clam says:

Nobel Peace Clam Does Not Fear the Sharks and Whales and Seahorses. Nobel Peace Clam is Much Too Busy with Peace to Experience Such Fear.

Hagar said...

"Thorbjørn Jagland, the former Norwegian prime minister who is chairman of the panel, said chemical weapons had been used by Hitler’s armies in their campaign of mass extermination and on many other occasions by states and terrorists."

After reading that statement, you still look for reasoning behind the reward?

betamax3000 said...

Nobel Peace Clam says:

Nobel Peace Clam Knows That He is But One Clam in a Much Bigger World. Still, Nobel Peace Clam Will Make Pearl after Pearl after Pearl: It Is What He Does.

betamax3000 said...

Nobel Peace Clam says:

One Day Nobel Peace Clam Will Give the World A Giant Pearl Necklace of Peace.

Robert Cook said...

A slam on Obama would have been to award the prize to Edward Snowden and/or Bradley/Chelsea Manning, both of whom deserve it.

SteveR said...

There are a lot of slams on Obama, history will be the sharpest.

Tibore said...

"What does this year's Peace Prize say about Obama?"

It says that too many people drag Obama into something that shouldn't be centered on him to begin with. And yes, I say that knowing all about his work to get a strike organized on Syria: The situation there should be what takes the fore, not which nation's leader did what.

I swear to God, so much of the press and political wannabes have no clue how to properly focus on a problem. No clue.

madAsHell said...

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.....who in the hell is paying for that??

Jane said...

Hitler and Chemical Weapons? On the battlefield? That's not something I've read, and I'm reasonably educated on the topic.

Is he speaking of Zyklon-B as a "chemical weapon"? Or the carbon monoxide of asphyiating people in an enclosed truck? Or the various other "chemicals" used in the Holocaust? I hate to say he's jumped the shark, but speaking of the Holocaust as a misuse of Chemical Weapons is dreadful reasoning, at least.

El Pollo Raylan said...

It's part of the international war on chemistry.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Thorbjørn Jagland (Chairman)
President of the Storting

Ågot Valle (Member)
Member of Parliament

These people are vocalic and diacritical supporters of world peace.

SteveR said...

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.....who in the hell is paying for that??

Your grandchildren

cubanbob said...

The only ones getting slammed are the prizes themselves. As noted above they should just stick to lifetime achievement in the hard sciences. As for the peace prize, seriously who would want to share that company with the likes of a Yasir Arafat?

Hagar said...

All of that; if there is any thought at all, it is a general slam on the U.S., and attempting to equate napalm and agent orange in Viet Nam with the Nazi Party's use of Zyklon-B for their "final solution."

JRoberts said...

I see it as a vote for process over concept.

Substance over style.

Actions over Obama reading his teleprompter.

SOJO said...

Of course they shouldn't have given him the peace prize, but that was their fault, not his. They should slam themselves if the must or apologize for their error.

Ambrose said...

If Norway were under attack - facing a true existential threat, I wonder how many members of the Committee would favor the use chemical weapons?

david7134 said...

This is much ado about nothing. The reference to Hitler's armies using chemical weapons, come on. For that matter the US can be compared to Hitler as we use the gas chamber. Certainly the Nazi's killed more people, but a life is a life and if you are put off by the use of chemicals, then you had better clean up your own act first. This makes as much sense as the Civil War being about slavery. Both sides endorsed the concept on slavery within their borders, but the North claimed that it was fighting to free the slaves, how about in your backyard first?

The fact is that chemical weapons are very poor on the battlefield. They have just as much potential for harming your troops as the enemy. They are easily neutralized once the initial panic of their use has been overcome. They are more of an emotional pull for people that don't think. For that matter, the US commonly uses chemical weapons. Last big example was Waco.

Lydia said...

While they've mostly given the prize to individuals, they've also given it several times to organizations like the International Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières, and not always for particular achievements just their overall mission. Here's a full list.

But picking this particular group this time around does highlight Obama's warlike kabuki with regard to Syria.

RecChief said...

I didn't take your survey, because I could care less about how anything is connected to Obama, other than his leadership of this country. Or the lack of leadership, depending on how one views things.