Reminder: President Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 2009


by NW Spotlight

The Nobel Committee announced in October 2009 that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. President Obama was nominated for the Peace Prize less than two weeks after becoming President. He was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, and the nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace Prize was February 1, 2009.

The Huffington Post reported in October 2009 “The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.”

The chairman of the Nobel Committee said “Some people say – and I understand it – ‘Isn’t it premature? Too early?’ Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond – all of us.”

At the time, the Nobel Committee praised President Obama’s “pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.”

Fast forward 4 ½ years to this week.

On Sunday, the Washington Post Editorial Board ran an op-ed titled President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy.

And then an essay in the American Interest from Monday points out that President Obama’s “desire to see a nuclear-free world” may be “one of the biggest casualties” of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The essay talks about how Ukraine agreed to turn over remaining Cold War Soviet nukes after security guarantees from the United States and the United Kingdom in the “Budapest Memorandum.” If Russia ends up taking land from Ukraine and President Obama doesn’t put teeth into the security guarantees, the essay notes that it will be the second example of nations losing land after relinquishing their nuclear arsenals – with Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi providing the other example.

The author writes “It is almost unimaginable after these two powerful demonstrations of the importance of nuclear weapons that a country like Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions,” and “North Korea would be foolish not to make the same calculation, and a number of other countries will study Ukraine’s fate and draw the obvious conclusions.”

Barack H. Obama with his Nobel Peace Prize Medal and Diploma at the Award Ceremony in Oslo, Norway, 10 December 2009.
Copyright © The Norwegian Nobel Institute 2009

  • USSR, Yukon Sea Clearly Now

    Putin on the Kibitz: Bwaha ha ha, give this Obama Trojan horse an affectionate pinch on his arse and thank Tina Fey for not flippin’ my lousy leadership into a Baltic Seascape.

  • Jack Lord God

    The point about giving up nuclear weapons is well taken.

    Obamas attacking of Gaddafi was absolutely inane. Through that little move we reduced a country to anarchy, and demonstrated to the world that giving up WMD’s, as Gaddafi had done in the face of strength, Gulf War 2, was completely pointless.

    Ukraine further cements the narrative. The only thing that seems to be agreed upon in the situation is Obama is utterly incompetent with regard to the situation. Putin and Ukraine certainly know he is incompetent, Without a doubt Syrias Assad has figured out that there is little reason to dispose of WMD’s since all Assad has to do is send Obama a couple of golf course brochures and a Beyonce mix album and Mr. Genius will be distracted for a month.

    It is getting harder and harder to defend this administration as anything but idiotic. Surely no one would maintain their foreign policy has been other than disastrous. On the home front we have the major policy initiative, Obamacare, being pushed back yet again because the administration rightly fears public wrath should its effect come to proximate to the election.

    That last part seems to be the only thing this bunch of boobs have gotten right. Funny, when it comes to covering their own butts, these guys put a lot of thought into that. When it comes to anything else it is shear boobery. .

  • mairez

    Has a Nobel Prize ever been withdrawn after it was presented?

    From Wikipedia:
    “The winner was chosen unanimously on October 5.[9] but was initially opposed by the Socialist Left, Conservative and Progress Party members until strongly persuaded by Jagland.[10]

    Jagland said “We have not given the prize for what may happen in the
    future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And
    we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to
    do,” noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama’s foreign policy
    efforts. Involvement in which can now be proven as early as March 2009.
    Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president’s efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama’s support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.[11] The New York Times
    reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether “the
    committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician’s
    promises at face value”, stating that “no one could deny that ‘the
    international climate’ had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the
    main reason…’We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'”[9]”

  • Bob Clark

    I can’t believe the number of professional and well educated people who fell for the hopey-changey shtick back in 2008. These friends also tended to be more intuitively inclined than logically inclined. It was so obvious to me and other conservatives even in 2008 it was shtick and akin to pixie dust.
    Now, even Jimmy Carter doesn’t think much of Obama as president. Looking back even one term Carter has an edge over Obama. Carter deregulated the airline industry, giving us over 30 years of very competitively priced airline travel fares. By comparison, Obama has expanded federal regulations by thousands of pages.

    Obama and Chuck Hagel just before Russia invades Ukraine talk of gutting the U.S military. This out of touch with reality as usual. We should beef up the U.S military in response to Russia’s invasion even if means imposing a special national security tax to fund such a response. Reagan never had to go to war with the Soviet Union because he out armed them and took the shackles of over regulation off so as to power the U.S. economy, demonstrating to Soviet leadership the inability to compete with the U.S. In the process, Americans re-found their pride in their country, rather than feeling guilty about themselves as now with Obama.

  • Sally

    Peace through weakness. Works every time.

  • matt mccleary

    Im guessin the nobel piece means absolutely nothing now……The only thing obameo deserves is liberal moron of the year prize……Hes already done so much damage to our UNITED STATES…I just hope we can come back from it…….EVERYONE………VOTE THIS NOV FOR US……Please we need to take back our COUNTRY!!!!!!!

  • Pingback: hack de clash of clans online()