Preserving Obama’s Precious Peace Prize
UPI FILE
On
Dec. 10, 2009, President Barack Obama received the Nobel Prize medal
and diploma during the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, Norway.
President Barack Obama spoke Saturday from the Rose Garden
at the White House, advocating military action against Syria. He also
said he is abstaining from such action as he awaits Congressional
approval. In typical fashion, Obama wants to have his cake and eat it,
too. Under such orchestration, he can blame Congress if his attacks
against Syria have a calamitous outcome. Of greatest importance to the
President is his legacy.
Nearly four years after he won the Nobel Peace Prize (for exactly
what, nobody seems to know), Obama has acted more like a war criminal
than a humanitarian. Yet the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which handed him
the award, said it was “for his
extraordinary efforts
to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
When he accepted it, the President said he was “surprised” and “deeply
humbled.”
Certainly, he was surprised. His biggest contribution to world peace
at the time had been as a Chicago community organizer. That Obama was
deeply humbled verges on impossible. He is a man without a scintilla of
humility. If the President has his way, he will accept all of the credit
or none of the blame regarding Syria.
Yet we shouldn’t have been surprised that Obama was bestowed his
prize by socialists in Oslo, Norway. In 1919, the dubious award was
presented to President Woodrow Wilson. He was commander in chief during
World War I. During the war, 100,000 Americans were killed (if you count
disease and accidents) and another 320,000 were wounded. It was also
Wilson’s regressive peace plan that led to Adolph Hitler.
According to the Cato Institute, Obama has already spent more than
$400 billion in the past five years on waging foreign wars or what the
Defense Department prefers to call “overseas contingency operations.”
In January, Dave Lindorff wrote the following in a blog post entitled
“Hey, Hey, Barack! What Do You Say? How Many Kids Have You Killed Today?”:
The result of this policy of state terrorism has been a
wretched, criminal slaughter of children — a slaughter that has been
hidden from view, and denied wholesale by the Pentagon and the
president. Over 3000 [sic] people have been killed, the vast majority of
them non-combatant “collateral damage” deaths. Over 172 of these have
reportedly been children.
Obama Is Plumb Out Of Friends
It turns out Obama, who treasures his image as a peacemaker, is not a
friend-maker. The lack of international support for Obama’s military
intervention against Syria is astonishing.
- Canada is no friend of Obama’s: His incessant delay on the
Keystone XL pipeline has infuriated the Conservative government of Prime
Minister Stephen Harper and angered Canadians. Most Canadians believe
that Obama will refuse the pipeline and that he is simply jerking around
Canada so it cannot make commitments to other oil importers.
- Great Britain is no friend of Obama’s: Last Thursday, the
British Parliament rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal to
join the United States in a joint action against Syria, despite
Cameron’s pleas. Many British are angry that Obama is not backing the
country’s claims on the Falkland Islands, which are again threatened by
Argentina. Since the Suez Crisis in 1956, Britain has been America’s
staunchest ally. Obama never seems to see any relationship as a two-way
street.
- Russia is no friend of Obama’s: Russian President Vladimir
Putin is not one to let bygones be bygones. He and Obama have had
several disagreements. The conflict came to a head last month over
Russia’s granting asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward
Snowden. Because of that incident, Obama said “nyet” to a personal
summit in Moscow with Putin this month. Now, Moscow defends Syrian
President Bashar Assad.
And it goes beyond nations. In his book
The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House,
Edward Klein claims that Obama has few to no personal friends in part
because he is always eager to shift blame of failed policies to others.
Even
Hermene Hartman, the publisher of
N’DIGO,
Chicago’s leading black magazine, and the past president of the
Alliance of Business Leaders and Entrepreneurs, a powerful group of
blacks in Chicago, has said: “Barack is not necessarily known for his
loyalty.”
The Networks’ Weapons Of Mass Distortion
The good news for Obama is that TV anchors and analysts revere him,
at least when it comes to a good war — or, if necessary, a bad war.
MSNBC,
CNN and
FOX News have been showing why
war is unavoidable with videos of dead and dying Syrian children. Given
beforehand is the perfunctory: “Warning! The images we are about to show
you may be disturbing.” That always gets people’s attention. I haven’t
seen such compelling TV since 22 years ago, when newscasts were showing
empty Kuwaiti incubators after Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard had
reportedly ripped babies from them. Only later was it reported that no
such thing happened — that and the fact that Saddam did not have weapons
of mass destruction (WMD).
Liberals Have A Krystal Ball
The hardest part of my job is watching
MSNBC. It’s good to
know what the not-so-loyal opposition is thinking, which is mostly
nothing. Case in point was last Thursday. On “The Cycle,” Krystal Ball
(that really is her name) opined that America “owes it to Syria” to
intervene. Ball added that the reason President Ronald Reagan pulled out
of Lebanon in 1983 after 241 Marines were killed in their barracks by a
suicide bomber was because at that time “America lacked the moral
courage” to do the right thing.
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is that Reagan was
unwilling to waste the lives of America’s young people in a religious
conflict where U.S. intervention could only make matters worse and could
start a global war.
For Ball, it’s as though the Iraq war never happened. It’s as if 4,500 American troops did not die there.
Obama Is Driven By What Is Best For Obama
The situation in Syria is grim. Children are dying, and chemicals are
probably being used. Do the dead care if they were killed by chemicals
or by lead? Let us not forget it was grim in the 1970s when the Khmer
Rouge killed more than 2 million people in Cambodia. It was grim during
the Rwanda genocide that killed more than 1 million people. If we didn’t
intervene then when the Nation could afford it and we were not facing
an Islamic backlash, why are we intervening now? It can’t be WMDs. The
only foreign WMDs that are a clear and present danger to our national
security are the nuclear warheads being stacked high in North Korea and
unstable Pakistan.
Obama doesn’t seem to care about such threats, in part because the
only advice he values comes from his all-powerful troika: first lady
Michelle Obama, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric
Holder. They are determined that Obama’s initiatives promote Obama’s
legacy.
Anything else is unimportant.