I was saddened by an article I read this week calling President Bush a warmonger among other things during his time in office. Now, I am neither a Bush hater nor a broad Bush supporter. He had both failings and successes as president, but to call him a warmonger is just not accurate. Well, he put us in a war you say.
WWOD? Yes, what would Obama do? George Bush found himself in an unenviable position on September 11, 2001. The U.S. had just suffered it's most horrific loss of life on home soil since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It's amazing just how quickly our memories fade. This country was shocked and then outraged. The president did the only thing he could do, he struck out to defend this country. Would President Obama have acted differently? My guess is not substantially, and if he would have done nothing he would have opened this country up to sustained repeated attacks. You can't take a sucker-punch in the mouth and defend yourself by singing 'cum-by-ya' with your enemies.
It seems President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize simply because he was not George Bush. He is now hailed as changing the face of American politics and foreign policy. Applications for nominations were due two weeks after he assumed the office. At that point in time he had not affected policy in any way much less in a substantial way. It is a slap in the face to all the past recipients of that award to bestow it upon someone who has done nothing. He doesn't deserve it any more than I do. I could pen great passages of how this country should handle foreign policy and send them all over the world. But would that mean I actually accomplished something? In time he may establish himself as a leader to be hailed but at this point he has done nothing more than any other newly elected leader of any country.
The committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize has lessened the value of the honor and shown it has no true meaning on the world stage if indeed it ever had any meaning or value at all.