Robert Scheer: "Earning His Nobel Prize"

President Barack Obama discusses the START treaty during a phone call with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on March 26, 2010, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.

Robert Scheer:

At last, a believable sighting of that peace president many of us thought we had elected. Give Barack Obama credit, big time, for the startling progress he has made in tempering the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review Report for the first time prohibits “first use” of nuclear weapons against nations complying with the nonproliferation treaty. It also pledges a halt to U.S. efforts to modernize such weapons, as had been proposed by then-President George W. Bush in his call for new nuclear “bunker busters.”

Whereas his predecessor succeeded only in eliminating the nonexistent Iraqi nukes, this president has forged a treaty with the Russians that will reduce the world’s supply of the devil’s weapons by one-third. But it was essential to follow that up with a clear departure from the always-insane policy that the U.S. has a right to develop and use such weapons as conventional tools of war.

That is the right that Harry Truman acted on in perpetrating the most atrocious act of terrorism in world history when he annihilated the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is what spawned the nuclear arms race that so troubles us today, especially regarding North Korea and Iran.

Yet until Tuesday no American president had renounced the immoral claim that our nation had some God-granted right to use those weapons again. While we consistently insisted it was morally repugnant for any other state to follow in our footsteps, we continued to build ever deadlier versions of these intrinsically heinous weapons.

But that madness ended when Obama on Tuesday affirmed an all-important distinction that Bush, more than any other president, had insisted on blurring—the distinction between nuclear and all other weapons, including the chemical and biological varieties. Lumping them together as weapons of mass destruction denies the global life-ending threat that nukes alone present.

Ironically, the most important section of Obama’s strategy statement, instantly attacked by his knee-jerk critics, could help fulfill the penultimate goal of Ronald Reagan. Because of Obama’s declaration that the “United States will not develop new nuclear warheads ... or provide for new [nuclear] military capabilities” there is now a plausible case to be made for anti-missile defense. Reagan always insisted that his Strategic Defense Initiative program was a means toward nuclear arms cuts and ultimately the abolition of these horrific implements of mass death. But SDI could be properly criticized as a cover for aggression unless we cut the arsenals as opposed to refining and expanding them.

In his historic meeting with then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Reagan embraced the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons—just as Obama did in his April 2009 speech in Prague. It is a position that commends itself to all who honestly confront the threat these weapons pose to human existence. We have indulged the luxury of not confronting that ultimate horror because of the time that has passed since the explosion of those now relatively small nuclear bombs over Japan. As Henry Kissinger puts it in the documentary “Nuclear Tipping Point,” which was screened at the White House on Tuesday night: “Once nuclear weapons are used, we will be driven to take global measures to prevent it. Why don’t we do it now?”

The answer is that we have become inured to the danger and lulled into accepting these weapons as usable implements of war, an attitude reflected in Tuesday’s reaction by Arizona Republican Sens. Jon Kyle and John McCain, who in a joint statement denounced Obama’s policy as limiting the nuclear “option.” They repeated the old canard that nuclear weapons are a legitimate choice in response to a non-nuclear threat.

That will be the line of those who oppose the Senate’s ratification of the new START agreement with Russia and the long-overdue passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If they win in that debate there is no serious possibility of progress in preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and breaking the death wish of those who still toy with the idea that such weapons are legitimate. Those in the peace movement who think Obama should have gone further in his efforts to put the nuke genie back in the bottle should tread carefully here. Instead of demanding perfection, they should be gratified that we finally have a president who has at least laid down some important markers of progress.

After decades of both Republican and Democratic administrations indulging the absurdity that “nuclear war fighting” could have a humane outcome, Obama has reversed course. It took 150 meetings, including 30 at the White House, and the president’s frequent direct intervention. The outcome is a bold statement of nuclear sanity, and for that President Obama should be applauded.

Howie P.S.: Not everyone is as enthusiastic: "Revised US Nuke Policy Offers Few Changes" (Democracy Now! with video/audio). Ben Cohen (TrueMajority.org) wants us to "Help Obama end our long nuclear nightmare."

Fineman: "In Oslo, Obama Sounds Like Bush"

Howard Fineman:

The Norwegians weren't applauding the peace-prize acceptance speech President Obama just gave in Oslo and I know why. The speech in many ways could have been written for, and delivered by, a man they loathe: George W. Bush.

Sure the speech had the pleasant stuff about banning torture and the value of negotiations, and Obama gave a nod to Martin Luther King, whose own Nobel speech in 1964 was a paean to pacifism. But Obama wanted to make it clear that he was NOT Martin Luther King. He was a commander in chief leading two wars, confronting an implacable terrorist foe, burdened by a wobbly job rating and a dysfunctional Congress, and facing a dicey electoral future for his party in 2010 and himself in 2012.

So Obama accepted most of the fundamental premises of his maligned predecessor's post-9/11 theory of the world. Yes, Obama said, there is evil in the world and it must be confronted. Al Qaeda is evil, he said. No, "Holy War"—jihad—can never be a "just" war. America not only has a duty but self-interest in spreading free speech and freedom of religion around the world, even in places and cultures that seem to reject it, because those values are "universal."

There was more. The word "terrorism"—recently absent from Obama's foreign-policy speeches—made a comeback, big time. He praised the peace-making maneuvers of two Republican presidents (Nixon and Reagan) and of Pope John Paul. Obama challenged Europeans and others to stand up to Iran and North Korea—which, he said indirectly but clearly, want to develop nuclear capability so that they could "arm themselves for nuclear war." He was careful to avoid anything more than the most anodyne reference to the conflict between Israel and Arabs—a conflict Europeans depict as a one-sided saga of Israeli oppression of Palestinians, whom Obama didn't mention.

And in the theatrics of the visit to Oslo - skipping dinners and receptions; flying in and out and barely doing a drop by to pick up his award - Obama (a gracious guy) managed to seem rude and impatient with ceremony in a way that Bush, back in Dallas, had to admire. It was as if Obama was saying: even THIS president doesn't do canapés and champagne with European peaceniks! Hoo-ah! After the speech, Karl Rove was crowing, if you can crow by Twitter. "Tweeted that Gerson and Thiessen had gone to work at the Obama White House," he e-mailed me—Gerson and Thiessen being the two neo-con wordsmiths in the Bush shop.

The fascinating question of course is: why did Obama give the speech he gave? Surely there is something about reading those morning CIA briefings concerning Al Qaeda (something Bush famously didn't always do) that concentrates the mind. There's that hoary old line that conservatives like to use: "a conservative is a liberal mugged by reality." But there is some truth to it.

Obama's speech is not that surprising, actually. Even though his breakthrough speech was the one he gave against the war in Iraq in 2002, he doesn't have the reflexive fear of the use of military force that so burdened Baby Boomer leaders. Even in 2002, and certainly in later years, he has made it clear that he views the American involvement in Afghanistan as not only strategically justified but also morally justifiable. Many of his early supporters didn't listen. Having just decided to send 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan, he had no choice but to make the case he made—however uncomfortable it was to do so in Oslo.

Of course American politics was involved. Obama is having enough trouble with the conservatives in his own party—the Blue Dogs and various "gangs of"—to discomfit them culturally by hobnobbing with the Norwegian socialists who chose him for the Nobel award. Obama has health care and climate change and financial regulation and a whole lot of "government" to sell Congress. It's bad enough to represent "the Washington power elite" without having to be seen in the admiring embrace of Europeans in white tie and tails.

Remember: Obama won the White House in good measure because of swing voters in states such as Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia. Look at Oslo through their eyes, and you can see why Obama went late and left early and sounded like a Texan. Not to mention the fact that fewer than one in four American voters think he deserves the prize.

Eugene Robinson on Obama's Nobel speech

Eugene Robinson (WaPo):

The traditional Nobel Peace Prize lecture, given every year at Oslo's modernist City Hall, does not usually include such words as: "I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed."

President Obama accepted the Nobel for peacemaking by delivering an eloquent, often grim treatise on the nature and necessity of warfare. Anyone who doubts his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, which he has escalated with an "extended surge" of 30,000 new U.S. troops, should read a transcript of the Oslo speech. Hawks who suspected -- and doves who hoped -- that Obama was a secret pacifist will see that although he did not set out to be a "war president," he has accepted his fate.

Obama's major speeches often lay out not just what position he is taking or what decision he has made, but also the thinking process that led him there. Listening to his lecture Thursday, I had the sense that we were hearing arguments and counterarguments that might have been running through his mind during the long policy review leading to the Afghanistan surge.

A senior administration official, speaking not to be quoted by name, told me this week that the day Obama decided on the troop increase was the toughest so far for the president. The options, according to this official's account, were all bad.

The president had concluded that beginning a withdrawal -- which is what I believed he should do -- was too risky, given evidence of "real and serious threats" to the United States still emanating from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Leaving troop levels unchanged would have just perpetuated the unacceptable status quo, the president decided, without even a theoretical path to a day when U.S. forces could safely withdraw.

Obama decided on a double gamble. He gave Gen. Stanley McChrystal most of the troops he requested -- not just a contingent of trainers to try to whip the Afghan military into shape, but also combat forces to smash and "degrade" the Taliban insurgency. And he set a deadline of July 2011 to start bringing the troops home, hoping that would spur Afghan President Hamid Karzai to make desperately needed reforms.

Obama saw this course of action as most likely to create the conditions to bring the greatest number of U.S. troops home at the earliest possible date, the senior official said. But several administration officials have made clear in public statements that July 2011 is meant to mark the beginning of a withdrawal, not the end, and that Obama's policy doesn't anticipate a day when the last U.S. soldier turns out the light and closes the door behind him.

In his Oslo speech, the president gave a brief history of war -- from the "dawn of history" through the terrible conflicts of the 20th century to the messy "wars within nations" of today, in which "many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred."

His basic conclusion is that war is always tragic but sometimes necessary: "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." And while he reiterated his support of multilateralism, he vigorously defended the role the United States has played since the end of World War II as a military superpower, acting in "enlightened self-interest."

So the question about the use of military force is not if, but how and when.

On how war should be waged, Obama pledged that the United States will faithfully abide by the standards of the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration seemed to regard as flexible and outdated. It remains incredible to me that a U.S. president has to explicitly renounce torture, but that's an obligation Obama inherited.

On when to use force, Obama offered no comfort to those who might feel "a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause." The president gave a list of potential causes that was actually quite comprehensive. He said that war can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as in the Balkans. He mentioned failed states, such as Somalia. He talked about the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

Obama concluded with soaring words of hope, but drew a clear distinction between the world as we would like it to be and the world as it is. No, it wasn't at all the kind of Nobel lecture we usually hear.

Greg Sargent introduces "Obama’s Nobel Acceptance Speech"

Greg Sargent introduces the speech with an excerpt:

In his Nobel acceptance speech, which is currently underway, Obama immediately sought to project humility, describing his accomplishments as “slight,” reaffirmed America’s role as global peacekeeper, and justified his Afghan escalation with an extended, almost professorial meditation on history’s eternal debate over the morality of violence and “just” wars:

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago –- “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism –- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions –- not just treaties and declarations –- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.

The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -– because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

Full transcript here.

(Hillary) "Clinton says Nobel a recognition of Obama's vision"

AP:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she thinks President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of "his attitude toward America's role in the world."

"His willingness to really kind of challenge everyone ... restores a kind of image and appreciation of our country," Clinton said in an NBC "Today" show interview broadcast Monday.

Clinton said she didn't think winning the award would have any effect on Obama's deliberations over what to do next in Afghanistan, including the question of whether to send large numbers of additional troops into a country where violence has recently surged.

"I think that the president makes each decision on the merits," she said in the interview taped during her visit to Zurich, Switzerland. She said the Nobel award is "not going to influence" the tough decisions Obama faces on Afghanistan.

"Every one of those deaths and all of the injuries of any our men and women in uniform weigh heavily on all us," Clinton said. "I want to guarantee all your listeners that this process will result in a very well thought-out approach." She said she recognizes some are demanding a precipitate withdrawal while others believe there should be a substantial infusion of forces.

"Neither extreme is really focused on the situation, as we are," Clinton told interviewer Ann Curry.

Asked about speculation that, intentionally or otherwise, she now projects too low a profile in heading up the U.S. diplomatic establishment, Clinton called that charge "absurd" and said it is "so at variance with what I do every day."

"Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified," she said. "I believe in delegating power ... I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day ... It's just the way I am."

"My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the president and I believe are in the best interest of country, but that doesn't mean it has to be me, me, me all the time. I like lifting people up."

She answered "no" bluntly - but smilingly - when asked if she would ever run again for president.

"This is a great job," Clinton said. "This is a 24/7 job, and I'm looking forward to retirement at some point."

"Republicans Probably Wish There Were A Nobel Prize For Fear!"--Congressman Alan Grayson (video)

MSNBC-ED Show via MoxNewsDotCom, video (03:15).

Howie P.S.: H/t to Darryl's "Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!" where you can also find Red State Update: "Solution to health care," video, (04:26).

Glenn Greenwald on Obama's Nobel: "some sort of strange joke"

Glenn Greenwald:

When I saw this morning's top New York Times headline -- "Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize" -- I had the same immediate reaction which I'm certain many others had: this was some kind of bizarre Onion gag that got accidentally transposed onto the wrong website, that it was just some sort of strange joke someone was playing. Upon further reflection, that isn't all that far from the reaction I still have. And I say that despite my belief that -- as critical as I've been of the Obama presidency regarding civil liberties and Terrorism -- foreign affairs is actually one area where he's shown genuine potential for some constructive "change" and has, on occasion, merited real praise for taking steps in the general "peace" direction which this Prize is meant to honor.

Obama has changed the tone America uses to speak to the world generally and the Muslim world specifically. His speech in Cairo, his first-week interview on al-Arabiya, and the extraordinarily conciliatory holiday video he sent to Iran are all substantial illustrations of that. His willingness to sit down and negotiate with Iran -- rather than threaten and berate them -- has already produced tangible results. He has at least preliminarily broken from Bush's full-scale subservience to Israel and has applied steadfast pressure on the Israelis to cease settlement activities, even though it's subjected him to the sorts of domestic political risks and vicious smears that have made prior Presidents afraid to do so. His decision to use his first full day in office to issue Executive Orders to close Guantanamo, ostensibly ban torture, and bar CIA black sites was an important symbol offered to the world (even though it's been followed by actions that make those commitments little more than empty symbols). He refused to reflexively support the right-wing, civil-liberty-crushing coup leaders in Honduras merely because they were "pro-American" and "anti-Chavez," thus siding with the vast bulk of Latin America's governments -- a move George Bush, or John McCain, never would have made. And as a result of all of that, the U.S. -- in a worldwide survey released just this week -- rose from seventh to first on the list of "most admired countries."

All that said, these changes are completely preliminary, which is to be expected given that he's only been in office nine months. For that reason, while Obama's popularity has surged in Western Europe, the changes in the Muslim world in terms of how the U.S. is perceived have been small to nonexistent. As Der Spiegel put it in the wake of a worldwide survey in July: "while Europe's ardor for Obama appears fervent, he has actually made little progress in the regions where the US faces its biggest foreign policy problems." People who live in regions that have long been devastated by American weaponry don't have the luxury of being dazzled by pretty words and speeches. They apparently -- and rationally -- won't believe that America will actually change from a war-making nation into a peace-making one until there are tangible signs that this is happening. It's because that has so plainly not yet occurred that the Nobel Committee has made a mockery out of their own award.

But far more important than the lack of actual accomplishments are some of the policies over which Obama has presided that are the very opposite of peace. Already this year, he not only escalated the American war in Afghanistan, but has ordered air raids that have produced things like this:

That was from a May airstrike in which over 100 Afghan civilians were killed by American jets -- one of many similar incidents this year, including one only a week ago that killed 9 Afghan civilians. How can someone responsible for that, and who has only escalated that war, possibly be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the very same year that he did that? Does that picture above look like the work of a Nobel Peace laureate? Does this, from the May airstrike?

Beyond Afghanistan, Obama continues to preside over another war -- in Iraq: remember that? -- where no meaningful withdrawal has occurred. He uttered not a peep of opposition to the Israeli massacre of Gazan civilians at the beginning of this year (using American weapons), one which a U.N. investigator just found constituted war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. The changed tone to Iran notwithstanding, his administration frequently emphasizes that it is preserving the option to bomb that country, too -- which could be a third war against a Muslim country fought simultaneously under his watch. He's worked tirelessly to protect his country not only from accountability -- but also transparency -- for the last eight years of war crimes, almost certainly violating America's treaty obligations in the process. And he is currently presiding over an expansion of the legal black hole at Bagram while aggressively demanding the right to abduct people from around the world, ship them there, and then imprison them indefinitely with no rights of any kind.

It's certainly true that Obama inherited, not started, these conflicts. And it's possible that he could bring about their end, along with an overall change in how America interacts with the world in terms of actions, not just words. If he does that, he would deserve immense credit -- perhaps even a Nobel Peace Prize. But he hasn't done any of that. And it's at least as possible that he'll do the opposite: that he'll continue to escalate the 8-year occupation of Afghanistan, preside over more conflict in Iraq, end up in a dangerous confrontation with Iran, and continue to preserve many of the core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies that created such a stain on America's image and character around the world.

Through no fault of his own, Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to what the rest of the world spends combined. The U.S. accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales. We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.

(snip)

On Democracy Now, Naomi Klein calls Obama's award "disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize," and adds: "I think it’s quite insulting. I don’t know what kind of political game they’re playing, but I don’t think that the committee has ever been as political as this or as delusional as this, frankly." On Daily Kos, Michael Moore writes ironically: "Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize -- Now Please Earn it!" Mairead Maguire, the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, says she's "very disappointed" with this award, noting: "President Obama has yet to prove that he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in Afghanistan and many other issues."

And my Salon colleague, Alex Koppelman, adds several thoughts about the efforts by the DNC and some Democratic groups to explicitly equate opposition to the Prize with "casting one's lot with terrorists."

Nobel Leader explains why Obama was honored (video)

Nobelprize.org, video (08:00).

Maddow: Nobel Peace Prize for Dummies (video)

MSNBC-Maddow, video (11:02).

"An Open Letter to Americans Who Are Annoyed at Obama's Nobel Prize"

Greg Laden:

If you are a right wing Republican conservative Yahoo, this letter is NOT for you. If you are a moderate, progressive, liberal, centrist, or anyone associated with the legitimate (i.e., not FOX News) press, this IS for you.

Dear Disgruntled Sisters and Brothers,

Many people are beside themselves, or at least a little annoyed, or in some cases simply bemused, because Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but he "seems to have not done anything yet." There are so many misconceptions behind that sentiment that I don't know where to start.

If you are one of the people who does not like the fact that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, please consider the following.

Some people say that this was a political act. Well, duh. In fact, double duh. The ultimate goal, and perhaps only noble goal, of politics is to find and support peace, within and between nations. Were you thinking there was some other objective, or that politics, ideally and in its most expansive form, was for something else?

The committee awarded this prize to Obama because of his efforts to enhance international diplomacy, but especially because of his vision to have a nuclear free world and his efforts to achieve this. In so doing, the Oslo committee has endorsed nuclear disarmament and probably moved us substantially towards that goal. Is this a problem for you?

President Obama had engendered a new international political climate. He has brought multilateral diplomacy back from George Bush's scrap heap as a a viable strategy, and has reemphasized the role of the United Nations and other international institutions. This underscores and gives much needed credibility to the use of dialogue and negotiation to resolve international conflicts. This is a change from previous American policy of unilateral strong-arming, which as so far been singularly ineffective, and even if sometimes effective is over the long term destructive to our position in this world and generally immoral. In just a few moves, over a short amount of time, Obama has reversed (for the better) American foreign policy. Do you not think this is a good thing?

Real nuclear arms control negotiations are finally happening because of Obama's initiative, with the US playing a salient role. Surely, you must think that is worth something.

For the first time in a decade, the US is seriously involved in the international conversation regarding climate change. Is that a problem for you?

While it is true that every single human rights objective we would like to see met has not yet been addressed, for the first time in years the US is actually positioned to realistically be involved in positive advancement of democracy and human rights, instead of just playing a game to provide cronies of the leadership with more defense contracts. Why does this bother you?

Hardly ever does someone come along, as Obama has done, to capture the world's attention and give everyone real hope for a better future. If, as an American, you are having a problem understanding why Obama was awarded this international award, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you do not have the same large scale and international perspective that the Oslo committee has. As an exercise in self appraisal, try this. Of the following individuals, which ones can you identify as to what country they are affiliated with, what they may have done to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (they all were), or what job they had?

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Albert Lutuli, Albert Schweitzer, Alfonso García Robles, Alfred Hermann Fried, Al Gore, Alva Myrdal, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, Aristide Briand, Arthur Henderson, Auguste Marie François Beernaert, Aung San Suu Kyi, Austen Chamberlain, Bertha von Suttner, Betty Williams, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Carlos Saavedra Lamas, Carl von Ossietzky, Cecil of Chelwood, Charles Albert Gobat, Charles Gates Dawes, Christian Lous Lange, Cordell Hull, Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld, David Trimble, Desmond Mpilo Tutu, Eisaku Sato, Élie Ducommun, Elie Wiesel, Elihu Root, Emily Greene Balch, Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Ferdinand Buisson, Frank B. Kellogg, Frederik Willem de Klerk, Fredrik Bajer, Fridtjof Nansen, Friends Service Council, George Catlett Marshall, Georges Pire, Grameen Bank, Gustav Stresemann, Henri La Fontaine, Henry A. Kissinger, Hjalmar Branting, Jane Addams, Jean Henry Dunant, Jimmy Carter, Jody Williams, John Hume, John, Lord Boyd-Orr of Brechin, John Raleigh Mott, Joseph Rotblat, José Ramos-Horta, Kim Dae Jung, Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Kofi Annan, Lars Olof Jonathan (Nathan) Söderblom, League of Red Cross societies, Lech Wałęsa, Lê Ðức Thọ, Léon Jouhaux, Léon Victor Auguste Bourgeois, Lester Bowles Pearson, Linus Carl Pauling, Louis Renault, Ludwig Quidde, Mairead Corrigan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Martti Ahtisaari, Médecins Sans Frontières, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat, Mohamed ElBaradei, Mother Teresa, Muhammad Yunus, Nelson Mandela, Nicholas Murray Butler, Norman E. Borlaug, Óscar Arias Sánchez, Paul-Henri-Benjamin d'Estournelles de Constant, Philip J. Noel-Baker, Ralph Bunche, René Cassin, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Seán MacBride, Shimon Peres, Shirin Ebadi, Sir Norman Angell (Ralph Lane), Tenzin Gyatso, Theodore Roosevelt, Tobias Michael Carel Asser, Wangari Muta Maathai, William Randal Cremer, Willy Brandt, Woodrow Wilson, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin.

Seriously. Read through that list. The people who awarded this prize can explain who each of these individuals is and why they were given the Nobel. Chance are, as a moderately to very well educated American, you can barely identify one in ten of these individuals. So please consider the possibility that you have, as many of us do, too narrow a perspective to be shooting your mouth off about what kind of job the Oslo committee did.

Obama understands that diplomacy is effective only if based on the concept of finding shared values. Compared to George Bush, he not only knows how to lead in this regard, but clearly thinks it actually matters that the US president DOES lead in these matters. The Oslo committee is pretty much with the rest of the world in wanting to recognize this. Is there some reason that you are against this?

Obama in his policies and actions well represents 108 years of tradition by the Oslo Nobel Committee, working to enhance and reward these policies and attitudes. Obama is the world's leading spokesman for this new international diplomacy. When the Nobel Committee endorsed Obama's statement that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." .... why did that not make you feel proud to be an American? For once?

Your Blogger,

Greg

Howie P.S.: H/t to Jessica Tarantino.

"you just haven't earned it yet baby" (with video)

Spencer Ackerman, with video (03:31):

Nobel: It’s Not The Achievements Themselves, It’s The Destination---Yes, yes, ha ha he just hasn't earned it yet, has he? And, truly, he hasn't. We have 124,000 troops in Iraq. We are considering an escalation -- another one -- in Afghanistan.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beginning to heat up to a slow boil again. We probably won't have a real climate bill in time for Copenhagen. The U.S. still has the world's biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Guantanamo Bay is in business. But, as I just wrote at the Washington Independent, all that misses the point.

[T]urning it down would be a slap in the face to an international community that is showing, in the most generous way possible, that it wants the U.S. back as a leading component of the global order. The issue is not Barack Obama. It’s what the president represents internationally: a symbol of an America that is willing, once again, to drive the international system forward, together, toward the humane positive-sum goals of peace and disarmament. The fact that Obama hasn’t gotten the planet there misses the point entirely. It’s that he’s beginning, slowly, to take the world again down the path.

There are 120,000 troops in Iraq -- but by the summer of 2010 there will be 55,000; and by December 2011; practically none. There is a consideration of another Afghanistan escalation -- but as part of a measure, if adopted, to bring stability and peace to a region whose volatility threatens millions. (Yes, this isn't so convincing, even to me.) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is heating up again -- but Obama has taken risk after risk already to address it, and his bigger risks are yet to come. We probably won't have a real climate bill in time for Copenhagen -- but through no fault of Obama's, and he's working to mitigate its consequences. The U.S. still has the world's biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons -- but Obama never promised that he could yield nuclear disarmament overnight. Guantanamo Bay is in business -- but not, insh'allah, for long.

Progressives have a unique responsibility to hold Obama to his own stated vision, and the vision that the Nobel committee honored today. But there is a difference between an incomplete agenda and a counterproductive one. And in truth, the agenda is never complete. The work goes on. But we are on a path. Fired up, ready to go.

Howie P.S.: t.a. barnhart tells us "Why the Nobel Peace Prize makes sense."

The Goracle on Obama's Nobel (video)

CNN, video (00:47):

Former Vice President Al Gore reacts to the news that President Obama was honored by the Nobel Committee.

President Obama's Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize (video)

MSNBC, video (09:26).

BBC: "Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize"

BBC:

The Nobel Committee said he won it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.

Mr Obama - woken up with the news early on Friday - said in an address at the White House that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" by the award.

He said he did not feel he deserved to be in the company of some of the "transformative figures" who had previously received the award.

Speaking outside the White House, he said he would accept the prize as a "call to action".

There were a record 205 nominations for this year's peace prize. Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Chinese dissident Hu Jia had been among the favourites.

Instead the committee chose Mr Obama, who was inaugurated less than two weeks before the 1 February nomination deadline.

There was widespread surprise at the committee's decision. While world leaders were largely supportive of the award, thousands of people have contacted the BBC with more sceptical views.

An estimated 75% of comment sent to the BBC expressed surprise at the award. Some said awarding the prize to Mr Obama was plain wrong, others that the decision had come too soon, before he had made any concrete foreign policy achievement.

ANALYSIS
Paul Reynolds BBC News, London The award is certainly unexpected and might be regarded as more of an encouragement for intentions than a reward for achievements. After all, the president has been in office for a little over eight months and he might hope to serve eight years. His ambition for a world free of nuclear weapons is one that is easier to declare than to achieve and a climate control agreement has yet to be reached. Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population".

The Nobel laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

"Only 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 Norwegian committee said in a statement.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said.

He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms.

'New climate'

Reaction to the committee's decision from around the world was swift and varied.

MARDELL'S AMERICA
“ There was already a huge weight of responsibility on Obama's shoulders, and this medal hung round his neck has just made it a little heavier ”
Mark Mardell BBC North America editor

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said he could not think of anyone more deserving of the award.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," Mr ElBaradei said.

At the other end of the spectrum, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency the award was ridiculous.

"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he said.

Since taking office in January, President Obama has pursued an ambitious international agenda including a push for peace in the Middle East and negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme.

THE SELECTION PROCESS

Those qualified to nominate candidates include members of national governments, international judiciary, academics and previous prize winners

Five Norwegians are chosen by Norway's parliament to sit on the Nobel Committee

The committee compiles a shortlist of between five and 20 candidates

The shortlist is considered by the Nobel Institute's permanent advisers, mainly Norwegian academics

The Nobel Committee chooses the winner

Details of the nominations and selection process are kept secret for 50 years

But critics say he has failed to make breakthroughs. Domestically, Mr Obama has been working to tackle an economic crisis and win support for healthcare reform.

Some said they saw the prize as a way of encouraging the US leader early in his presidency.

"It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope," said Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, a former winner.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the award confirmed "America's return to the hearts of the people of the world".

The statement from the Nobel Committee said Mr Obama had "created a new climate in international politics".

"Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play," it said.

The committee added that the US was now playing a more constructive role in meeting "the great climatic challenges" facing the world, and that democracy and human rights would be strengthened.

Mr Obama is the first US president to win the prize since former US President Jimmy Carter in 2002. Former vice-president Al Gore shared the prize in 2007. HAVE YOUR SAY

Richard, United States

Among earlier US leaders, Theodore Roosevelt won the prize in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson won it in 1919.

The Nobel prize was invented by the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901.

He designated the parliament in Norway, which at the time was united with Sweden, to elect the peace prize committee. Swedish academies are responsible for other prizes.

The prize-giving ceremony for the peace award is due to take place on 10 December in the Norwegian capital, Oslo.

David Axelrod patiently schools Morning Jokesters (video)

MSNBC, video (06:56).

Howie P.S.: Joe and Halperin really suck this time. Gregory, too. Greg Sargent passes along a DNC missive that points out that the RNC has joined Hamas and the Taliban in criticizing Obama's Nobel award.

"Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize" (with video)

itnnews, video (01:48):

Barack Obama has become the fourth US president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Howie P.S.: The Morning Joke crew earns their nickname, again. Halperin really sucks.