President Obama's Nobel Acceptance Speech

Here's the full text of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. It expresses humility and a recognition that the award was premature, but more importantly, the President addresses the issues of just war and the need to remain engaged with the rest of the world to protect national interests against barbarians like al Qaeda and the Taliban.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

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.

This is the kind of speech that needs to be repeated to Congressional Democrats, who are pushing for a cut and run from the just war in Afghanistan just as surely as they were pushing to abandon efforts in Iraq even as the surge there was showing signs of improving the security situation.

Still, the security situation requires constant vigilance and we must address the fact that we truly face evil in this world in the form of an ideological war by al Qaeda and their affiliates in the Taliban and other related terror groups against all those who they consider unbelievers.

Obama Can't Win For Winning

President Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize despite having a paltry record on which to be judged. He won because of what the Prize Committee hoped for Obama to achieve in his position as President of the United States. The Committee is set to present the Prize this week, but President Obama isn't exactly following protocol set by past recipients and that's rankling those involved in the process.

Barack Obama's trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.

Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

"Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. "This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy," she told VG.

The Norwegian Nobel committee, which awards the peace prize, dismissed the criticism. "We always knew that there were too many events in the programme. Obama has to govern the US and we were told early on that he could not commit to all of them," said Geir Lundestad, secretary of the committee.

Norwegians think the President is rude to not meet with the King, even though the Committee is doing its best to cover its disappointment in the inability to hold all the usual scheduled events.

I can't fault the President for not attending all the events as scheduled as there are other issues to deal with on this latest trip to Europe, even as protocol would dictate his attendance and foreign policy and diplomacy can and do get furthered by these very kinds of events. Lundestad, who has written books on international relations, knows very well how diplomacy operates so he's playing down the snubs.

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama, who took office just weeks before the Peace Prize Committee met to actually decide this prestigious prize, won the award and stunned the crowd who gathered in Oslo to hear the announcement.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan woman's rights activist.

The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

NBC News reported that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called Obama with the news just before 6 a.m. Aides said the president felt "humbled" by the committee's decision.

For what actual accomplishment did Obama win for? Did he attempt to bring peace to a longstanding conflict? Did he sign an international accord or agreement?

No, the Committee states:

"...for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

Hardly.

He did nothing other than issue a few utterances that he would do things differently than his predecessor, President George W. Bush. That was apparently more than enough to win the award. It wasn't so much Obama winning the award as yet another rebuke of President Bush, who still manages to get under the skin of the elites in Europe.

Palestinian terrorist Yasir Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize for signing the Oslo Accords, which was at the time seen as a huge step forward in Arab-Israeli relations.

As for a new climate, it's interesting that the Committee claims that Obama created a new climate for international relations, when he sucks up to dictators and despots and forsakes US allies. His pursuit of talking to Iran will result in Iran having still more time to pursue its nuclear weapons goals, one that will likely result in the first use of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II.

Meanwhile, there were far more deserving candidates that were overlooked, including Tsvingerai of Zimbabwe, who should have won the election against thug Robert Mugabe, but eschewed violence to take a position within the government and seek reconciliation. Throw in various aid groups that were providing aid to Afghan refugees.

How exactly was Obama nominated? Well, the process allows media elites, academics, and others to nominate candidates and the Committee votes on the results:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

Those nominations begin in September of the year before. In other words, the nominations began September 2008, before Obama was elected President in November 2008, and months before he was sworn in.

Clearly, this was a hugely political decision, and one based on no merits whatsoever.

UPDATE:
There are calls for Obama to turn the award down. That might be a wise decision, because this is a mockery of an award that has long been mocked, particularly when you've got more worthy candidates and prior winners who actually accomplished something - whether it was a lifetime of work or signing a peace treaty or ending a conflict or providing assistance to refugees or other humanitarian work.

Obama has done none of that.

UPDATE:
On further reflection, this isn't just a mockery, it's a travesty to all those who actually furthered the goals of peace. It further diminishes this award and shows just how politicized the award has been. Instead of awarding the prize to those who are truly worthy of receiving it, Obama receives the award primarily because he isn't President Bush. In other words, Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well among the elites.

Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Prize For Economics

As Tigerhawk perceptively notes, there are at least two personas to Paul Krugman. I'd count at least three. The first is the one in which Krugman was a very good economist and came up with some interesting theories. He was well regarded in international trade law circles.

Then, Krugman went to work for Enron.

He also became a columnist for the New York Times in which he spews nonsensical ravings showcasing a lunatic mind that focuses endlessly on President Bush almost pathologically.

Krugman won the Nobel Prize for his earlier works, though one has to wonder just how his later anti-Bush writings at the Times influenced the voters.

Many folks are incredulous at Krugman winning, mostly because of Krugman's incessant and inane rants in the Times, including Don Surber, Jammie, Sister Toldjah, and memeorandum has the run down.