Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Rumfoord]

Publicus was there then, that's why he knows the facts. I believe he knew Mr. Boland at the time.

errm. the next one. blabber, statements without checking the facts.

in case of Mr. Boland and the Boland Amendment, publicus gets his facts wrong, and id did not make to a true statement if you are going on to repeat it.

he fail to recognise his mistakes and error, fail to admit them and fail to apologise.

if publicus told you he was there, he probably lied to you. in the internet there are a lot of people out there who made-up stories. lot of thin air.

easy check is to ask them to elaborate or substantiate their fiction with facts, they can not answer and thier story collapse like a house of cards.

you should know that from your own experience or learned it by now. why keep telling BS if you can not defend it resonable?

I have met Publicus face to face and have read his writing going back 35+ years.

You I have no clue about, but he is real, and I know that for a FACT.

I suspect he was up too late in Bejing when he posted this, and mixed up War Powers amendment with Boland.

'73 -'83 dates He also is on a completely different time zone, and so can't correct in your time frame. Tough.

Boland was

"amendment to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 passed on December 8, 1982."

...

Interestingly, you only flame the poster and demand facts, that you never search up yourself.

Clearly little more than an argument ad hominum style of discourse... which most can see right through.

Redrum bartalk.

Argument ad homminid.

yep, a Boland Amendment of 1973 seems to be fictional.

i told him that he got his facts wrong because to my knowledge there don't exist any Boland Amendment of 1973. after i told him that he got all agitated and unreasonable. repeated his mistake several times. i recommend him to check his "facts" before making statements, but no avail.

but maybe there is some Boland Amendment of 1973 that a quick internet search doesn't reveal. considering this i gave him the chance to come up with his "facts".

he fail to produce them or failed to regognise his error. you supported him too and failed too. you should have cross check his 'facts', before making a statement. its an easy task, prevent you from losing credibility and/or looking stupid if you insist on something that is plain wrong.

if you telling BS, it can happen that i ask for facts, ask for an explanation. because to my own knowlege i consider it as false. but i am willing to give the BS talker the chance to substantiate his statement and give him the chance to convince me that i was wrong. or give him the chance to review his statement, recognise and admit his mistake. that is not flaming or shooting the messenger.

in the end there is also a lot of doubt, if he was realy there, according to publicus himself, and that he knows Mr. Boland personally. but how he could get then that Boland Amendment wrong. or he knows more than you and me.

-------------

and no, that monkey face is not an argumentum ad hominem. i aimed at the "content" of your post. two smileys , in two lines. one smiley in each line. and nothing more, no words, no explanation. that was your "content".

all i wanted to say is that instead of using imbecile emoticons, without any additional words or linguistic sign of the English language, a monkey face would be much more funny.

equals that sign:

but i don't how how to explain it to you using only stupid smiley language.

and if you have nothing to say but can not refrain to reply somehow, than don't use the childish kindergarten smileys. post some monkey face photos instead. or better let it be at all.

[Jingthing]

Keep in mind, Obama did not ask for nor did he expect this prize. Politically, it is a mixed blessing. He is already massively popular internationally so he needs no help there, but he is struggling to keep his majority together at home. Nativist Americans treat European praise with much suspicion. I don't think Obama deserves brickbats for winning a surprising prize which he himself knows and in fact explicitly SAID he does not deserve.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Jingthing

[webfact]

Keep in mind, Obama did not ask for nor did he expect this prize. Politically, it is a mixed blessing. He is already massively popular internationally so he needs no help there, but he is struggling to keep his majority together at home. Nativist Americans treat European praise with much suspicion. I don't think Obama deserves brickbats for winning a surprising prize which he himself knows and in fact explicitly SAID he does not deserve.

I concur. You've said it very well.

Edited October 10, 2009 by webfact

[Publicus]

Giving Obama the Noble peace prize for things that he may make happen in the future is like giving a celebrity film maker an Oscar for the film he is currently making that may be a classic when finished.

It's rubbish.

Some people in PRChina like the movie comparason too.

Ma Shengang for one does. Mr. Ma is president of the China Institute of International Studies of the Communist Party of China: "If we compare Obama's presidency to a movie, the Nobel committee just handed him the Academy Award based on the movie's prologue."

Says Yuan Peng of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, "Most Europeans like Obama because their styles and ideas make a good match, for instance in the clean-energy issue. Western awards usually go to those whom Westerners like and share values with."

I wonder if "most Europeans" are represented at this thread or whether Mr. Yuan might have to rethink his paradigm in this respect. I do note The Times of London said, in part, "Absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize..."

Mr. Ma continued: "The Dalai Lama's winning of the award in 1989 [year of the Tienaman Square Massacre] showed that the peace prize is sometimes politicized."

PRC state media also quote a reaction from Afghanistan, that of Taliban militia spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, "We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan."

Mr. Yuan, quoted above, continued yesterday, "A winner who was thought to have brought peace to one region [of the world] may be a killer in the eyes of the people of another region."

Jin Canrong of Renmin University in the PRC advises his sheeple (sheep + people = sheeple) that, "Chinese people should not care too much about the Nobel Peace Prizes nor the Oscars Award. As they are like a beauty contest of foreign girls: what does it have to do with us?" I suspect Mr. Jin doesn't speak the international tongue.

[animatic]

Attack, attack, attack, and discuss nothing.

Why not add to the discussion, rather than slag the discusees?

Big Brother is watching.

This is TVF not FoxNews... or is it?

Not one comment about the facts placed here,

and P never responded to that jab about a incorrect date,

because he hadn't logged back on yet.

So that 'memory' of his getting agitated is of someone else entirely.

Losing track of who is being aggressively agitated?

Or doesn't make a difference who?

Attack, attack, attack, and discuss nothing. Trollistics 101

And maybe get a few people you disagree with banned.. seems the plan.

Thus controlling the discourse to a favorite's direction.

Bringing this to topic:

A very conservative Republican mindset, get rid of all dissent and alternate opinion,

through shaming, mis-direction and confusion. One thing likable about Obama,

is that he rarely falls susceptible to these low end gambits. Keeps dialog open

and tries to talk content, ideas and possibilities, rather than a blanket shut down

of all other opinions. This maybe why the Nobel folks are trying to give him a hand.

Bout time someone occasionally takes the higher roads if possible vs the lower ones.

or

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[Lopburi99]

I initially believed Obama had the opportunity to be a great president. That opportunity window is closing. He made a huge mistake by allowing Pilosi and others to craft the $787B stimulus bill with its 8000 costly porks. That turned off most Americans big time. Now he is facing further alienation by seniors for a variety of reasons, particularly for the proposed massive Medicare cuts. Presently there is talk of a possible second stimulus plan. Very risky for him politically given all the spending he has already done. He would need to very skillfully sell the American people on the necessity and potential of spending another estimated $829B, or he'll be a one term president.

If he can continue to prevent a further devastating blow to the economy he can be a reasonably successful president, even if he doesn't win a second term.

At least he'll have the Peace prize for his mantel.

But I don't see a future U.S. aircraft carrier being named after him.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Lopburi99

[Jingthing]

But I don't see a future U.S. aircraft carrier being named after him.

How short sighted!

You will be surprised. Just being the first African-American president does mean he will be a major historical figure that will never be forgotten like so many presidents. I predict a plethora of things will be named after Obama. Maybe not Mount Rushmore though ...

[animatic]

The really great presidents were notable for the risks they DID take,

and those that played it safe for either;

how luck they had in time and place,

or how miserably they failed in general.

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[Rumfoord]

Some people in PRChina like the movie comparason too.

Ma Shengang for one does. Mr. Ma is president of the China Institute of International Studies of the Communist Party of China: "If we compare Obama's presidency to a movie, the Nobel committee just handed him the Academy Award based on the movie's prologue."

Says Yuan Peng of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, "Most Europeans like Obama because their styles and ideas make a good match, for instance in the clean-energy issue. Western awards usually go to those whom Westerners like and share values with."

I wonder if "most Europeans" are represented at this thread or whether Mr. Yuan might have to rethink his paradigm in this respect. I do note The Times of London said, in part, "Absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize..."

Mr. Ma continued: "The Dalai Lama's winning of the award in 1989 [year of the Tienaman Square Massacre] showed that the peace prize is sometimes politicized."

PRC state media also quote a reaction from Afghanistan, that of Taliban militia spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, "We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan."

Mr. Yuan, quoted above, continued yesterday, "A winner who was thought to have brought peace to one region [of the world] may be a killer in the eyes of the people of another region."

Jin Canrong of Renmin University in the PRC advises his sheeple (sheep + people = sheeple) that, "Chinese people should not care too much about the Nobel Peace Prizes nor the Oscars Award. As they are like a beauty contest of foreign girls: what does it have to do with us?" I suspect Mr. Jin doesn't speak the international tongue.

i guess you got your quotes from here: http://world.globaltimes.cn/americas/2009-10/475514_2.html

why don't link it as a reference? to name your sources, didn't learn you that at school.

even people that had never access to higer education, as participants in the internet, they know how it works with linking to a source.

but holding that information back, gives you the chance to pick up and selected only certain lines, to support your bias and narrow minded view, right?

anyway, these chinese are spot on and their comments aren't so different from that what i read in the european press or in the comments of the most formists here on this board. so what.

you maybe in full love with Obama and a true american patriot, but that is no reson to belittle citizen of other Nations and call them in your chauvinistic arrogance sheeple just because they do it different than in your "superior" US of A.

[PeaceBlondie]

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

For just a moment I would ask you to contemplate whether such a statement reflects much more about you than it does about Reagan.Do you have that level of self awareness I wonder?...........Sometimes wickedness has to be addressed, and sometimes that means showing one's military and moral strength.

I an an absolute pacifist because I am a conservative Christian. Reagan and Bush 2 showed they were neither. Moral strength comes with religious pacifism: Jesus as a peaceful Jew; Gandhi, King, Oscar Romero, etc.

[syd barrett]

The Nobel Prize has a long history of being awarded to the 'wrong' person.

For example Knut Hamsun won the Nobel prize for literature, despite the fact he was a prominent Nazi.

I kid you not, it wouldn't surprise me if Adolf himself was on the short-list all those years ago.

[venturalaw]

Well, after seeing all the bashing I just have to post something. For the last 8 years we have been lied to constantly, ignored and watched suspected criminal activity. It's been a terrible feeling sitting and watching this all happen with no way to correct it till now. Obama was fresh air to the USA and people actually felt a sense of the real America again. People felt proud again and I don't think it matters whether there was an economic meltdown either. Clinton and even Regan were those types of people. Their presence was undeniable. I think most of you in other countries can at least feel that he is trying to mend those ties with your countries. That's what Amercans really want and are. He represented that during his campaign and showed the good side of the American people. That is why they voted for him because he mirrored them.

It's not about party lines even though some want to drag it into that. It's about being human beings and doing the right things. He's trying to do that. Give him the credit he deserves. Just think about the last administration.

Well thought out and delivered. You do your party proud. I completely disagree with your position and analysis, however, what you said was absent the customary liberal demeaning tone and insults that so often pervades these debates.

Edited October 10, 2009 by venturalaw

[Lopburi99]

... I completely disagree with your position and analysis, however, what you said was absent the customary liberal demeaning tone and insults that so often pervades these debates.

Isn't that the sad truth Ventura.

[webfact]

// General advise

If you want your post to live please read Thavisa rule #29

29. To not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[Rumfoord]

The Nobel Prize has a long history of being awarded to the 'wrong' person.

For example Knut Hamsun won the Nobel prize for literature, despite the fact he was a prominent Nazi.

I kid you not, it wouldn't surprise me if Adolf himself was on the short-list all those years ago.

do you read books?

the Literature prize is an issue of its own. and as you said Knud Hamsun was awarded with the nobel prize for LITERATURE, in 1920. the he became later in his life a supporter for nazi germany is an other issue.

in the scientific fields there are maybe cases, where you could argue that a 'wrong' person earned the merits, some other scientist much more deserved who have done the proto research.

the nobel peace prize is also an other issue. difficult to say a 'wrong' person was awareded, just controversial cases. the committee is for sure aware of these controversies, but they doing it their way.

[DickFarang]

The Vietnam War ended after Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1973 which prohibited the Executive Branch expending any taxpayer appropriated funds on any aspects of the war.

Nixon thus was hamstrung by US Rep Edward Boland (D-MA), then chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and the Congress which as we know constiutionally has the power of the purse in all matters. Only after Congress voted to prohibit the Executive expending any further US Government money on the war in Vietnam did Nixon finally, at long last, throw in the towel. Nixon had no choice but to withdraw US troops as the cash pipeline was rapidly drying up.

Nixon didn't know how to end the war with or without anything so in response to the clear demand of national public opinion, Congress acted decisively and firmly to end the war by bringing financing of the war by US taxpayers to a screeching halt. Nixon signed the documents, that's all.

Boland Amendment? in 1973? i think you got here a couple of facts wrong.

anyway, what a bizarre and wacky bricher style point of view on the war that the US of A fought in vietnam and south east asia.

heroic taxpaxyers ended the Vietnam war? okay, there was of course a opposition to the US involvement in the Vietnam War. growing from year to year. out of many different reasons and arguments from the left to the right. and the average american. the public opinion became less supportive. the body count grew, lots of ugly pictures in the news and for the war-monger politican that adventure become more and more difficult to justify.

in the (north) vietnamese view the war ended in 1975 and thats because they won the war and kicked the americans out.

My statements and the post are true and accurate. You simply add hyperbole to them ("heroic taxpayers" and the like).

The Boland Amendment of 1973 took effect in phases at the beginning of the 1974-75 fiscal year, or in this particular instance Oct 1, 1974. After the House and the Senate enacted the Defense Appropriations Act of that fiscal year, which prohibited the Executive Branch spending any further monies to pursue the Vietnam war, Nixon had until 1975 to get out of Vietnam (by 1975 Ford had become prez), so the Executive Branch had some modicum of time to deal with the cutoff of war funding by the Congress.

Congress wouldn't ever have cut off funding of the US military during a war unless it had had its voting constituents banging down its doors, as the US public in fact were doing. In the Nov 1974 off year election the Republicans lost about six dozen seats in the House and several in the Senate as the body politic relieved itself of Repugnicans who were unsympathetic to it.

So what part of Congressional government do you not understand?

In the Wikipedia biography of that Mr. Edward Boland, I read:

Boland's most famous work as a Congressman was the 1982 Boland Amendment, which blocked further funding of the Contras in Nicaragua after the Central Intelligence Agency had supervised acts of sabotage without notifying Congress.

That is some 10 years later in a different continent.

[Lite Beer]

Inflammatory and distasteful post deleted.

[Publicus]

Publicus was there then, that's why he knows the facts. I believe he knew Mr. Boland at the time.

errm. the next one. blabber, statements without checking the facts.

in case of Mr. Boland and the Boland Amendment, publicus gets his facts wrong, and id did not make to a true statement if you are going on to repeat it.

he fail to recognise his mistakes and error, fail to admit them and fail to apologise.

if publicus told you he was there, he probably lied to you. in the internet there are a lot of people out there who made-up stories. lot of thin air.

easy check is to ask them to elaborate or substantiate their fiction with facts, they can not answer and thier story collapse like a house of cards.

you should know that from your own experience or learned it by now. why keep telling BS if you can not defend it resonable?

I'll here untangle all the gaggle of he who goes OTT and goes before the whistle blows besides . I know I don't know how we got to here as I directed my earlier posts to the guy who kept repeating that Nixon ended the war in Vietnam. (Where'd that guy go?) Congress singularly brought that miserable war to its sorry conclusion, not Nixon.

The forumist 'animatic' provides good information about the 1973 War Powers Act and the then US Rep Edward Boland (D-MA), Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. From this pertch, Chairman-Congressman Boland had several high profile defense and security related "Boland Amendment" provisions of the time, to include one 'Boland Amendment' which angered Pres Reagan by terminating US funding of the anti Leftist government Contra militias armed by Reagan and operating among several countries in Central America.

The point is Nixon did not end the Vietnam War. Congress ended the war by cutting its appropriation of taxpayer monies directed to the budgets for defense and also foreign relations. The major troop level step Congress made on this occurred June 19, 1973, when Congress enacting the Case-Church Amendment to halt all US military operations and activities in South East Asia by August 15th, or two months later. Sen Clifford Case (R-NJ) and Sen Frank Church (D-Idaho) had moved the amendment thru the Senate, from which it then went to the House where it was floor managed by Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chairman-Cong Boland.

Further, in August of 1974 as Nixon was resigning the presidency, the threesome of Case-Church-Boland were leading the successful charge in Congress to reduce Nixon's earlier request to fund the South Vietnam Government's military operations in-country from USD $1.26 billion to only $700 million. The reduction however was nominal and superficial and the Congress knew it. That is, even if the reduction had been of, say $26 million instead of the actual $526 million, any reduction would have had the same effect as if it had been to zero--South Vietnam at this point could not defend itself.

In March 1975 the NVA (North Vietnam Army) launched a massive and multipronged attack to successfully culminate in its seizure of the South's capital Siagon, which the world has known since as Ho Chi Minh City.

US Rep Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a member of Chaiman Boland's Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, summed it up in this way: "Congress helped force an end to the Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it."

The most 'liberal' Dems in the Congress are starting to stir with the same thought in mind concerning Afghanistan but I don't expect much to come of it and that's another (if related) matter.

[Publicus]

The Vietnam War ended after Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1973 which prohibited the Executive Branch expending any taxpayer appropriated funds on any aspects of the war.

Nixon thus was hamstrung by US Rep Edward Boland (D-MA), then chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and the Congress which as we know constiutionally has the power of the purse in all matters. Only after Congress voted to prohibit the Executive expending any further US Government money on the war in Vietnam did Nixon finally, at long last, throw in the towel. Nixon had no choice but to withdraw US troops as the cash pipeline was rapidly drying up.

Nixon didn't know how to end the war with or without anything so in response to the clear demand of national public opinion, Congress acted decisively and firmly to end the war by bringing financing of the war by US taxpayers to a screeching halt. Nixon signed the documents, that's all.

Boland Amendment? in 1973? i think you got here a couple of facts wrong.

anyway, what a bizarre and wacky bricher style point of view on the war that the US of A fought in vietnam and south east asia.

heroic taxpaxyers ended the Vietnam war? okay, there was of course a opposition to the US involvement in the Vietnam War. growing from year to year. out of many different reasons and arguments from the left to the right. and the average american. the public opinion became less supportive. the body count grew, lots of ugly pictures in the news and for the war-monger politican that adventure become more and more difficult to justify.

in the (north) vietnamese view the war ended in 1975 and thats because they won the war and kicked the americans out.

My statements and the post are true and accurate. You simply add hyperbole to them ("heroic taxpayers" and the like).

The Boland Amendment of 1973 took effect in phases at the beginning of the 1974-75 fiscal year, or in this particular instance Oct 1, 1974. After the House and the Senate enacted the Defense Appropriations Act of that fiscal year, which prohibited the Executive Branch spending any further monies to pursue the Vietnam war, Nixon had until 1975 to get out of Vietnam (by 1975 Ford had become prez), so the Executive Branch had some modicum of time to deal with the cutoff of war funding by the Congress.

Congress wouldn't ever have cut off funding of the US military during a war unless it had had its voting constituents banging down its doors, as the US public in fact were doing. In the Nov 1974 off year election the Republicans lost about six dozen seats in the House and several in the Senate as the body politic relieved itself of Repugnicans who were unsympathetic to it.

So what part of Congressional government do you not understand?

In the Wikipedia biography of that Mr. Edward Boland, I read:

Boland's most famous work as a Congressman was the 1982 Boland Amendment, which blocked further funding of the Contras in Nicaragua after the Central Intelligence Agency had supervised acts of sabotage without notifying Congress.

That is some 10 years later in a different continent.

It's also Wikipedia.

[chuckd]

Keep in mind, Obama did not ask for nor did he expect this prize. Politically, it is a mixed blessing. He is already massively popular internationally so he needs no help there, but he is struggling to keep his majority together at home. Nativist Americans treat European praise with much suspicion. I don't think Obama deserves brickbats for winning a surprising prize which he himself knows and in fact explicitly SAID he does not deserve.

As you said, he admits he does not deserve the award.

Why, then, doesn't he take the honorable position of declining the award to give to somebody more deserving?

__________________________________

As an aside, I have heard today Obama was being considered for the Nobel Prize for Medicine, pending approval of his health care bill.

Also the Nobel Prize for science was under consideration but nobody has actually SEEN him walk on water just yet.

[OriginalPoster]

Give him the credit he deserves. Just think about the last administration.

It's pretty pitiful when the value of the current guy has to be measured by the worthlessness of the former guy. Thanks for the iron-clad logic. You should have been on the selection committee as well.

It might be pitiful but I think that to a large degree giving the award to Obama was intended as a rebuke of George Bush. The same can be said of the prizes given to Carter and Gore. I think that it is also partly intended to muzzle domestic critics of Obama (though I don't that that will work).

[hobanse]

Sweden made the goat to a gardener in the greenhouse. Obama has to do, what Bilderberger want him to do.

[animatic]

It's a wonder anyone can talk with bile riding this high.

Must sound like a bunch of vocal chordectomy patients,

[Rumfoord]

In the Wikipedia biography of that Mr. Edward Boland, I read:

Boland's most famous work as a Congressman was the 1982 Boland Amendment, which blocked further funding of the Contras in Nicaragua after the Central Intelligence Agency had supervised acts of sabotage without notifying Congress.

That is some 10 years later in a different continent.

It's also Wikipedia.

still better as nothing, or did you found meanwhile something about your fictional "Boland Amendment of 1973"

i guess not and that it was i told in the first place, followed by an anyway because i based my points on other arguments.

you started to told us big stories, that you know everything better, you know the persons involved and that you have been there.

but looks like you made a big, big mistake with the "Boland Amendment of 1973" you failed to check your facts. and you fail to admit your mstake or even regonise it. poor boy. lost any credibility. that you have been there sounds not reliable.

that an other submitter of fictional stories supports you, doesn't help so much.

anyway, if you don't trust wikipedia. your good right. how about a quote from the obituary on Edward P. Boland in the New York Times

Elected to Congress in 1952, Mr. Boland spent many years in relative obscurity, playfully observing that no one outside Springfield had ever heard of him. He marched for civil rights in Selma, Ala., with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1965 and promoted the Johnson administration's Great Society as chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on housing and urban development.

Despite those liberal credentials, Mr. Boland earned a reputation as a moderate. He was an avid anti-Communist and early supporter of the war in Vietnam. A World War II Army veteran, Mr. Boland supported the military and successfully lobbied to reinstate registration for the draft.

..

It was Mr. Boland's role as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence that gave him the fame he claimed to shun. Chosen for the post by Mr. O'Neill in 1977, Mr. Boland took over the committee months after disclosures that the Central Intelligence Agency had spied on American citizens and tried to assassinate foreign leaders.

so your 'friend' Mr. Boland wasn't the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense as you said, but a chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on housing and urban development. and he was a staunch anti-Communist and supporter of the war in Vietnam.

the "Boland Amendment" came much later, 1982. and have something to do with the financial support of the US for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

but the US of A wouldn't be the US of A if they didn't found a workaround and generate finacial funds to support the rebels in Nicaragua in an other way. that became later known as the Iran–Contra affair.

[animatic]

Give him the credit he deserves. Just think about the last administration.

It's pretty pitiful when the value of the current guy has to be measured by the worthlessness of the former guy. Thanks for the iron-clad logic. You should have been on the selection committee as well.

It might be pitiful but I think that to a large degree giving the award to Obama was intended as a rebuke of George Bush. The same can be said of the prizes given to Carter and Gore. I think that it is also partly intended to muzzle domestic critics of Obama (though I don't that that will work).

Certainly the rebuke to Bush fits the scenario well.

[cdnvic]

Okay, we've had enough of Mr Boland, lets get back on topic please.

[Jingthing]

Keep in mind, Obama did not ask for nor did he expect this prize. Politically, it is a mixed blessing. He is already massively popular internationally so he needs no help there, but he is struggling to keep his majority together at home. Nativist Americans treat European praise with much suspicion. I don't think Obama deserves brickbats for winning a surprising prize which he himself knows and in fact explicitly SAID he does not deserve.

As you said, he admits he does not deserve the award.

Why, then, doesn't he take the honorable position of declining the award to give to somebody more deserving?

__________________________________

As an aside, I have heard today Obama was being considered for the Nobel Prize for Medicine, pending approval of his health care bill.

Also the Nobel Prize for science was under consideration but nobody has actually SEEN him walk on water just yet.

Turn it down? That would be arrogant. One thing Europeans love about Obama is that he represents a significant moderation of American hubris. If you bothered to watch Obama's acceptance speech, you will see that he handled it with both humility and brilliance. There is still plenty of hope that he will really deserve the prize some day. Edited October 10, 2009 by Jingthing

[Groongthep]

Can we drop the discussion on Boland please. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

[animatic]

Regardless who ended which war, and how many on each side started or ended wars,

Obama is winding down one, and rebuilding bridges with many many nations.

No mean feat after the general disrepute Bush brought onto the USA's shoulders.

He seemed to have taken control of the tenor of the discussion well before

actually taking the oath of office, and made clear his aims for the nation in relation

to most other nations. He is attempting dialog with most sides of many disputes,

and regardless of FULLY implementing his plans, a good start is more than has

come to be expected the last several years.

Yes this seems premature, but planting good seeds in the expectation of growing trees

is always the way to build a healthy stand of oaks. In the presidential realm the time frame

must be seen as longer but it is possible to see where things can lead and sometimes

a good solid shove in the right direction is a good thing. I see the committee as doing just that.

As wall as a dope slap at the previous mis-administration.

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[OriginalPoster]

In the Wikipedia biography of that Mr. Edward Boland, I read:

Boland's most famous work as a Congressman was the 1982 Boland Amendment, which blocked further funding of the Contras in Nicaragua after the Central Intelligence Agency had supervised acts of sabotage without notifying Congress.

That is some 10 years later in a different continent.

It's also Wikipedia.

He's right though. The Boland Amendment was 1980's legislation. The legislation that cutoff funding was not named for anyone, rather it was unceremoniously called "House Joint Resolution 636". The name of the legislation is really irrelevant though, congress did in fact force the issue by cutting off funding.