Atlas Shrugs

VIDEO: Lightning Bolton Tears Obama's Silly Nobel Speech to Shreds

While everyone on the right fawns and coos over Obama's acceptance speech for a silly Nobel peace prize (rotflmao!), simply because, for the first time,  he didn't embarrass us or run American down, or bow to Muslim or communist kings. Ambassador John Bolton, OTOH,  rips Obama's ridiculous mask off and exposes the ridiculous notions and the many fallacious statements, one after another.

And let's be honest. If O had a shred of decency, he would never have accepted it.

G-d, I love J to the B's testicular fortitude. Yeah, baby. Watch this video. "It's like he didn't have any lead in his pencil after his speeches at the UN and his speeches on Afghanistan" (It gets better)

Bolton called Obama's self stroking speech a 'Pedestrian, Turgid, and Uninspired' Address [NRO]

Oslo. Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama’s address in the Norwegian capital was “pedestrian, turgid, and uninspired.”

“It followed the standard international leftist line,” says Bolton. “He played to the crowd and filled the speech with clichés from the American and international left by saying ‘America cannot act alone’ and that he ‘prohibited torture.’ The speech was also typical of Obama in its self-centeredness and ‘something for everybody’ approach.”

“It was so diffuse that though I wouldn’t call it incoherent, it was getting close,” says Bolton. “It was a lot about him, again, especially with his comments about being at the ‘beginning, not end’ of his labors for the world.”

Obama made some “breathtakingly simpleminded statements in his section on humanity’s history of war and the ‘hard truth’ that war will not end in our lifetimes,” adds Bolton. “No kidding. I don’t know what that is supposed to prove.”

UPDATE: The intrepid KGS transcribes Bolton's remarks on Van Susteren's show:

Greta: What do you think of the speech?

Ambassador John Bolton: I thought it was a pretty bad speech. I thought it was turgid, repetitive, I thought it was analytically weak, sort of at a high school level. It's like he didn't have any lead in his pencil after his speeches at the UN and his speeches on Afghanistan. So all in all a pretty surprisingly disappointing performance.

--In circumstances like that, one alternative is not to say very much, is to thank the Nobel Committee for the award and accept it in humility and then sit down. Sometimes when people don't have much to say, they don't say very much, other people say it for times as long which seemed to be the way he did it.

--I think that this was a conscience effort by the Nobel Committee which has been over the years a very highly politicized body to try and effect the American political environment, to try and send a signal of what they wanted from an Obama presidency. I think that it's a big mistake on their part, I believe our own political polls show that. I think that it will turn out to be a mill stone around the president's neck, but that's obviously not the way the Nobel Committee saw it.

--I think that you have to look as I said, back as well to the speeches at the United Nations, and what was striking was how little new was in this speech. But I think it's important in looking at how Obama addresses national security. Not to try and parse his speech too carefully, not to say, "well I like this paragraph, but I don't like this paragraph." You have to look at the speech whole, just as you have to look at the man behind the speech whole, and I think that's where he runs into difficulty. This speech in Oslo is filled with some of the most amazing misconceptions about everything from human nature to the role of the United States in the world.

--Lets start near the beginning of the speech. He says, that "We have to acknowledge the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict from our life times." Well no kidding, homo sapiens are hard wired for conflict and we're not going to eliminate violent conflict until homo sapiens ceases to exist as a separate species. The whole notion that you could even think about eliminating it, not just in our life time but soon there after, I think reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. When you start from that kind of position it only gets worse from there. I've got other examples to.

Then just a few paragraphs later, he says talking about the setting up the role of the United States which many people said was a positive to the speech. He gets to it by saying stability after World War II was brought about, quote "Not just treaties and declarations that brought stability, but the fact that the United States helped underwrite global security", as if to say it's the treaties and the declarations were the center piece and that the United States made a small contribution here or there. In fact, it was the American nuclear capability after WW II and the strength of the military alliances, led and dominated by the United States that brought stability and defeated the Soviets and the Cold War. That didn't seem to make it into this speech.

The Unbearable Lightness of O

The emperor's got no clothes, but he's got a gold plated prize. He's up for the Heisman award. Yeah, he actually watched a game. And rumor has it BO is going to pitch the first game of the World Series. Then a Cy Young award!

Bolton smacks it out of the park:

O's albatross: Misguided Nobel will weigh on the rest of his presidency John Bolton

Americans were justifiably proud last week of their many Nobel Prize winners. Eight of the nine honorees in physics, chemistry and medicine were US citizens, some native-born, some naturalized, a near total American sweep. And their achievements were glorious: better understanding how DNA works, the basis for enormous medical progress; developing fiber-optic cable, revolutionizing global communications; and advances in cell biology, with enormous implications for treating cancer. In each case, these breakthroughs, some made as long as 20 years ago, have proven themselves beyond the laboratory, and already made enormous real-world differences.

Next to these marvels, how to explain the Nobel Peace Prize, the most prestigious of all, to President Barack Obama, in office less than nine months?

The Nobel Prize web site says the awards recognize "extraordinary achievements," but the Obama citation refers only to his "extraordinary efforts," a dramatic contrast. Accordingly, President Obama was gracious and humble in his remarks after the award, but he would have done better to decline the award entirely, and invite consideration only after he fashioned a real record of achievement.

Unfortunately, this year’s Peace Prize follows a decades-long series of politicized decisions by the Norwegian Nobel committee. The committee has repeatedly rewarded its ideological brethren, the common theme being a desire to produce a more modest role for the United States in world affairs, and a larger role for multilateral organizations, or, as some describe it, "global governance."

Read it all........

Bolton says Nobel a Political Manipulation

Nobel, Yes. Noble, no!

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton talks about the trend of the Nobel committee in recent years to cheerlead political philosophies, especially to American voters, and gets to the heart of why many of us found it both risible and offensive.

Barack Obama, the perfect recipient

Awarding BHO the prize is at once shocking and depraved. Ayn Rand predicted it all.
Robert Tracinski's  commentary best sums it up.

The Nobel Prize for Moral Posturing

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Is a Joke

by Robert Tracinski

The news announcement came over my cell phone this morning—I thought it was a joke at first, a headline from The Onion instead of the New York Times—that the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize is Barack Obama.

For what? What has Obama ever accomplished for the cause of world peace?

The Nobel Committee says the prize is "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Which Obama has accomplished by—what exactly? Giving a speech at the UN?

Are they giving Obama the prize because he is withdrawing US troops from Iraq? But that drawdown began under the previous administration and is possible only because of choices made by George Bush. Obama has merely continued the natural course of the Bush policies.

Is it because he has closed down the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo? Well, he has promised to do so—but his own deadline has passed, and he hasn't done it yet.

Did Obama get Iran to relinquish its nuclear weapons? No, he has merely started a new round of negotiations whose main effect seems to be to give US support to Russian aid for Iran's uranium enrichment.

Has he championed the cause of "democracy"? Obama has sided with a would-be dictator against the constitution of Honduras, and he just cut off funding for an organization that helps document Iranian human rights abuses.

Has he achieved peace in Afghanistan? On the most pressing foreign policy issue of his administration—the most immediate issue of war and peace he has so far been called to decide upon—Obama hasn't even made a decision yet. But he's getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

So I guess it is a joke, after all—a joke by the Nobel committee at its own expense.

The fact that Obama hasn't actually accomplished anything isn't all that unprecedented. When the Nobel committee gave the prize to lifelong terrorist Yasser Arafat, they did not do so because the Oslo Accords were a great success. They did so because the accords were in trouble. Several members of the committee admitted later that their motive in giving the award was to encourage Arafat to stick with the "peace process." It didn't work, of course, and a few years later, Arafat would launch the Second Intifada, importing Iranian explosives to strap to suicide bombers and plunging the Palestinian territories into another round of chaos and bloodshed from which it has yet to emerge.

The new Nobel is also meant for the same purpose: not to reward something Obama has done, but to influence his future action. Lech Walensa—Nobel recipient in 1983 for facing down the Soviets—put it quite clearly: "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act. This is probably an encouragement for him to act."

This is an attempt by the Nobel committee to play on Obama's vanity in order to influence his decisions on Iran and Afghanistan. The message is: how could you possibly let Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or how could you send an additional 40,000 troops to "escalate" the war in Afghanistan—after we've just given you the Nobel Peace Prize?

In appealing to Obama's moral vanity, they know their man well—and it will probably work.

In this respect, Obama is the perfect successor to the last American president to win the Nobel: Jimmy Carter. Consider the legacy of Carter's term in office.

Carter withdrew American support for the shah in Iran, then failed to mount any effectual response to the seizure of the US embassy and its staff—all of which allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to establish a brutal Islamist regime which has been the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, a supporter of Palestinian terrorism, civil war in Lebanon, and insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a regime that has repeatedly murdered and tortured its own citizens.

By allowing a Communist takeover in Nicaragua, Carter encouraged a legacy of socialist strongmen that is still riling Latin America to this day.

Carter's weakness in Latin America and Iran also emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, inaugurating three decades of bloody civil war and providing the proving ground for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

So Carter's legacy is three decades of chaos and killing—and the growth of three of today's biggest threats to world peace. Yet Carter is infamous for his haughty, priggish sense of moral superiority.

This is what the Nobel Peace Prize really stands for: irresponsible moral posturing in the service of the leftist delusion that appeasement will bring peace, when all it really brings is more war.

Come to think of it, that makes Barack Obama the perfect recipient.

Nidra Poller: Obama's Richly Deserved Nobel Prize

Our eyes and ears in France, Nidra Poller ..............

YES VIRGINIA, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA DESERVES HIS NOBEL-PEACE-PRIZE

Paris 9 October 2009

Nidra Poller

Surprised? Shocked? Outraged? Not me. I’m delighted to see that the Nobel-Peace-Prize has been awarded to the person who most richly deserves it. Not only has he made gigantic efforts to promote Nobel-Peace in his nine short months in office but as president of the residually powerful United States of America he has the superforce to impose Nobel-style peace.

President and Nobel Prince of Peace Obama is not naïve, inept, inexperienced, or wet behind the ears. He is practicing what he preached. He has already fulfilled more promises than most voters ever suspected were being made. And the way things are going, only a miracle will keep him from delivering on the rest.

Bat Ye’or teaches us the meaning of peace in our times, the peace of dhimmitude, the peace that Nobel Norwegians have dutifully honored. It is the peace of convert or die…or hang in by the skin of your teeth. When the heads have been severed from the stiff necks that refuse Islam, when the converted have been folded into the prostrate masses of the ummah, the dhimmis hand over the keys to their granges, their wives and children, their hearts and minds, their lands and dwellings in exchange for a fragile peace requiring endless sacrifice and constant restraint.

This is the peace of dhimmitude, this is the peace Nobelly rewarded in…uhhh…Oslo, right? And B Hussein O is the most deserving laureate. On the very day the prize was announced, forty people were killed in a jihad attack in Peshawar Pakistan. Do you remember, way back when, during the campaign, he narrowed his eyes and said Iraq’s a distraction, let me get my hands on the trigger and I’ll take care of Pakistan. There you have it. A promise keeper of the first order. Iraq was also a distraction from Afghanistan. So mister Taliban tally your bananas, we’ve got other fish to fry, do your jihad thing and we’ll lower our eyes, peace be upon you.

President Obama’s Cairo speech alone earned him enough points to get this prize hands down. His bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. His consistent snubbing of European leaders. His betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic. His outstretched hand that reaches all the way to Iran’s nuclear sites and protects them from rain, hail, and Israel. His betrayal of Persians yearning for democracy. His reluctance to look into McChrystal’s ball and find some kind of half way plausible strategy for the overseas contingency whatchamegig in Afghanistan.

Am I being coy? Why haven’t I mentioned his master plan for the nuclear disarmament of… Israel!

Leaving the best for last. Even if he had not done all of the above, dayenu, he would be worthy of being hoisted on high in the Nobel firmament because he has declared war on Jewish construction in choice neighborhoods of al Quds and wannabe Palestine. Donche know, if you want peace be prepared to make war. And if you want the peace of jihad, make war on the Jews. Point your finger at them like a smoking gun. Sock it to ‘em like a latter day koranic saint. Grab them by the scruff of the neck and scold them for all the world to see. Sic ‘em with Goldstone, saddle them with Abbas, and send them to bed without dinner and ammunition. They wanted planes to fight to win? Stop the program, cancel the contracts, and if they holler strangle them with peace. Play footsy with Hamas, set up a mahjong date with Ahmadinejad, make cuddly eyes at Assad, and secretly decorate the private quarters of the White House with shahid posters, who would dare to protest?

Did you hear the latest? Anonymous sources have leaked to the press a flood of indignation from the peaceful Obama to you know who in the holy land. Aha! You thought he was fed up because his moderate ally Abu Mazen has reverted to PLO same o same o? Stirring up trouble on the Temple Mount because a bunch of French tourists got in the way of some irate Palestinian rocks? Which naturally led the Palestinians to go on a rampage in the narrow lanes of the Old City. How can President Obama call for the creation of a Palestinian state the day after tomorrow when his protégés are rousing a billion and a half Muslims to protect al Aqsa…from French tourists?

No. That’s not why the Nobelly anointed young man is indignant. He is pissed off because Israelis are badmouthing him. Big shots and little guys in the street and on the beach, officials and cab drivers and housewives and left wing columnists are criticizing him.

Watch out. Even a Nobel-Peace-Prizer can lose his temper and explode. But then, who would blame him? What’s more dangerous for world peace, a flock of Taliban or a gaggle of chuzpadike Israelis?

Hail to the Chief for reaching out to the Taliban and forgiving them for he knows not what they do, reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in all its forms and machinations, reaching out to the democratically elected Ahmadinejad and drawing a veil over the rape of the innocents, reaching out to Putin over the half dead body of Georgia…and trying to close Gitmo if only the jack-in-the-box would sit down and shut up.

And if he manages to push his health care revolution bill down US throats, they’ll give him the Nobel Prize for Medicine next year. On the other hand, if he can maintain double digit unemployment and bring the dollar down to parity with the yuan he could outdistance Mugabe for the Nobel Prize for Economics.

A Nobel Prize to the wise is sufficient: when you hear the word “peace” praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

Obama's Embarrassing Nobel Prize

 

Because nothing means anything anymore. Because good is evil and evil is good. Because we live in a morally bankrupt world.

Obama won what? This is embarrassing. Who's next? Bill Ayers? Stuart just pointed out this Nobel Fun Fact: This year's Nobel Peace Prize winner (Our Esteemed President, peace be upon him) recently refused to meet with the winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize (the Dalai Lama), in an attempt to suck up to China.

Obama has sided with evil, abandoned the Jews, the Iranians, the Hondurans, the Eastern Europeans, capitalism, individual rights, American sovereignty -- in under a year.

The world is careening to catastrophe. And they give him a prize.

Tundra's take: THE OBAMAS FAILED TO GET THE OLYMPIC GOLD SO THE NOBEL ACADEMY GIVE THEIRS INSTEAD......

"I'm going to propose him for next years Nobel Prize in chemistry. Why? because of his massive contribution to hot air. "Yes we can". That's it. Another states: They should rename the prize. "Appeasement Prize", that's more appropriate.

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize 

“He won what?” is the first universal reaction.

And second, at least on the Right: “Why did they do that?”

Even the Nobel committee’s citation does not pretend Barack Obama has actually achieved anything. Rather, it was given to him “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” That’s efforts, not achievements.

Reading carefully through the entire citation suggests that Obama is being celebrated for two reasons. Its chatter about “a new climate,” the United Nations, a “vision of a world free from nuclear arms,” and “great climatic challenges” points to his being the anti-George W. Bush.

Second, the prize committee hopes to constrain Obama’s hands vis-à-vis Iran. It lauds him for not using force: “Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” This is obviously gibberish: Whereas Bush did not use force against North Korea, Obama does not rely on dialogue in Afghanistan. But the statement does pressure Obama not to use force in the theater that counts the most, namely the Iranian nuclear build-up.

So, from the Leftist Norwegian point of view, it’s a twofer — bash Bush and handcuff Obama.

My prediction: The absurdity of the prize decision will harm Obama politically in the United States, contrasting his role as international celebrity with his record devoid of accomplishments. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, notes that Obama “won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.” Expert to hear much more along those lines.

Definition of worthless: "Irena Sendler saved 2,500 Jewish children during the Holocaust. In 2007 Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected. AL GORE WON, for a slide show on Global Warming. (hat tip Maureen via the Cincinnati Post blog)

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize

UPDATE: The Nobel Intentions Prize

UPDATE: Nelson snarks, "Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking. I am still wondering where or when the Obamanation brought peace, especially before February 1st."

Breaking news: "Cracker Jack just announced they are giving away Nobel Peace Prizes in every box!"

Atlas readers go wild:

PerVerse:

 

     Awarding this Prize to Obama

    Says not Peace but Shakespearian Drama.

        This Teleprompt Sage

        Made the Whole World his Stage

    Yet would hear no bell tolled by the Dalai Lama.

David


UPDATE: Jew haters never miss an opportunity to Jew hate