Um, Why Don’t You Call Oslo and Ask the Nobel Committee, Chip?
Oct 10th, 2009 | 20 responses
Yesterday’s White House presser was consumed with questions about the Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Peace Prize to Pres. Obama. Absolutely nothing unexpected or untoward about that, of course. But one reporter’s line of questioning was, shall we say, a bit over the top? Bizarre might be a better word. If you’ve watched these briefings before, you will not be surprised that the reporter was CBS News’ Chip Reid:
Yesterday’s White House press briefing was pretty lively, with, as one might imagine, plenty of questions about the Nobel Peace Prize. CBS News’ Chip Reid’s interests stood out, but not in a good way.
Reid said, “I mean, most Democrats have praised it, and most Republicans have said, ‘You have got to be kidding me — Ronald Reagan didn’t get one, but Barack Obama, nominated 12 days after he was sworn in, gets a Nobel Peace Prize.’ And the fear among some, even some Democrats, is that this is going to widen the partisan divide and make things even more difficult to accomplish on every front.”
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to move on, responding, “I’ll leave the pundicizing to the pundits.” But Reid wasn’t through, complaining that the award itself may be “a partisan thing,” because previous winners include Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Gibbs noted that Teddy Roosevelt also won, and again tried to move on.
Reid kept pushing. “But Ronald Reagan, could I just ask you to respond to that?” the corresponded added. “The man who helped bring the Cold War to an end….”
Shouldn’t national White House correspondents have a more nuanced understanding of 20th century history?
Ron Chusid longs for the days when broadcast journalists actually focused their questions on substantive issues rather than ridiculous right-wing memes.
Or, as BarbinMD puts it:
Seriously, Chip? The President’s opponents compare him to Hitler, accuse him of setting up “death panels,” of being the anti-Christ, or whatever other batshit crazy thing the lunatic of the day comes up with, while the Republican Party has been obstructing anything and everything he wants to do, but now that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize things might get ugly? Compared to what?
20 Responses to “Um, Why Don’t You Call Oslo and Ask the Nobel Committee, Chip?”
That the PC Prize award was a bigger, more shallow and silly, joke than ever this year is no big deal.
Reagan didn't get it? Wrong party. It's not Obama's fault that the idiots picked him, but he still had the option of disclaiming it. His judgment on this and other issues may be questioned and not just by right wingers; its called free thinking.
DLS, did you have an opinion about last year's NPP winner? Did you think it was a joke when Henry Kissinger was awarded and accepted it while at the same time directing the invasion of Cambodia? Have you always disparaged the NPP, or only selectively disparaged it — when you disagree?
That Reagan didn't get it is simple — I'm surprised Chip is so ill-informed. Reagan oversaw a huge military build up, which is the antithesis of what Nobel's will directed.
duck, sure you can concern troll the president all you like — particularly since — I'm just guessing — that you will never find yourself in his position. Had he turned it down, are you sure that you would have praised him for doing so? Really sure? Or would you have perhaps been shouting at the rooftops that it was another example of his supposed arrogance?
It's heads I win tales you lose — as it always is.
Yes, and he did that free thinking thing and decided for the reasons he stated that he would accept the prize. His judgment on this issue can certainly be defended.
I think Obama tried to choose the option that would make the issue go away the fastest. Rejecting the Prize may have kept it in the news longer; and really, folks, he's got more important things to focus on. As usual, he was pragmatic.
There's a reason people hate the media.
Obama did not deserve this award, he hasn't done nearly enough, he just wasn't Bush.
For a comparison take Normal Bourlag who created dwarf wheat and is directly responsible for India being able to finally feed its population. He saved millions and millions of lives for that. Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm Mmm Mmmm, is not nearly in the same league.
Leonidas, you could at least take the time to spell the man's name correctly. Instead of reaching back to the 1970's, you could have just looked to the year 2008.
Your childish recounting of Rush Limbaugh's parody shows that you don't know much about the NPP, but rather have just accepted what you have been told.
I don't have to recount everything that Obama has done to deserve this honor, unless you have a problem with the Google. Oh my, what happened today? Turkey and Armenia have agreed to what? Do you remember Leonidas how this was an issue oh, say a year or two ago? As of today, it is better. Why? It was a priority. For the Obama administration.
Cleaning up after the Bush administration is hard work. But he is doing it step by step.
Good point, Karen. I also think it would have been really churlish to turn down the award, even if he said it was a great honor. I saw an article the other day that said only two winners of the Nobel Peace Prize have ever declined it voluntarily: Jean Paul Sartre (for reasons the article didn't state), and Le Duc Tho (I hope I have his name right), who won the Peace Prize jointly with Henry Kissinger, and declined it for that reason — in my view, with perfect justification. Henry Kissinger deserved the Nobel Peace Prize like Jackie Susann deserves the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Given that Bush stood for invading and occupying a country that posed no threat to us and thereby causing the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; given that he stood for abrogating the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and the War Crimes Act, and for creating an entire extralegal infrastructure to permit the use of torture; given that he stood for indefinite preventive detention without charges or trial, secret prison gulags, flying prisoners to notorious human rights abusing countries to be tortured, and prison camps outside the reach of any law, U.S. or international (or so he thought) — given all that, I would say that not being Bush is actually a much bigger deal than it might seem at first glance.
Sure can be defended.
As you pointed out, the judges and the Prize are faulty. So if one declines the prize I would applaud that move.
You see the fuss this issue is generating? Do you really thing the rejection would have been more controversial?
Right on. Borlaug was the best.
So K and K, do we all agree that this was a Non-Bush award, instead of an Obama award?
Why should Reagan have gotten it? He invaded Grenada, armed Iran and aided the same forces who sponsored the death squads in El Salvador.
And why is Kissinger's award seen as legitemate? He advised two different presidents on conducting two unwinable wars.
I will say that Obama won because of the change in the international environment that occurred when he took office and obviously not for specific achievements. It may not have been the best choice, but it wasn't the worst either. Its nothing for him to hang his head for— why cheer when Obama loses the Olympics but jeer when he wins a Nobel?
“Have you always disparaged the NPP, or only selectively disparaged it — when you disagree?”
I've always disparaged it, because it has been a pathetic joke for ages. It has been a deliberate anti-Bush political statement before (award to Carter in recent years, in retaliation for the Iraq war launch) as well as a play-pen carnival when it boosted Al Gore's extremism celebrity status. That it also went to Kissinger and to the most notorious earlier recipient, terrorist superstar Yassir Arafat, is well known. That it has become for many years a left-wing play-pen political statement and a joke has long been obvious. That it is even more of a joke this year than before, rewarding the election of Obama and lefty-loved intentions rather than any real achievements, is also obvious. Even smarter lefties were puzzled, when not angered, by this choice (angered at the slighting by the award of those deserving more, for actual achievements and for stronger political statements, such as with the Chinese dissidents).
I should also add, in case you've failed to read it elsewhere, that if Obama or anyone else would ever work to actually reach a peace agreement between Israel and its enemies, winning recognition of Israel and ending the state of war still held against it by its enemies, that would be a real peace achievement (the best possible for the past several years, arguably) and anyone securing this agreement would deserve the prize and would make the prize meaningful and respectable again.
DLS- Typical of the right to disparage the international committee as a lefty playpen. Why has it gone to figures like Carter, Obama and Gore instead of those who claim to have freed so many millions (Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush)??
Because the right has thumbed its nose at world opinion for decades now and acted as though US leadership should not concern itself with it. That, my friend, comes down to arrogance and ignorance because we cannot lead unilaterally and we set a poor example when we break international laws and treaties that we demand other nations obey. We can't expect countries to want to join us when we've tortured our enemies or put them in secret black hole prisons either.
We learned in our forays into the ME that our own military won't withstand longterm efforts in that region and I've yet to see those on the right concede that those efforts went a long way towards almost breaking our armed forces and bankrupting us as a nation. Or is money that the Pentagon, Blackwater or Halliburton wasted somehow worth the cost to Americans??? What about the 700 million spent on that useless fortress in Baghdad called the US embassy???