Frankly I didn't know he was nominated. And why should he be? Only 12 days into his administration and the Nobel people nominate him because he "intends to" save the world from imperialist America?
I was surprised....and then not so surprised. After all, didn't they just give it to Al Gore? And before him wasn't Arafat the honored recipient? At least Jimmy Carter did things that qualified him to be nominated (not so sure if he deserved it, though), so how honorable can the prize be when you look at the list of recent winners?
Even so I try to make an effort to make some kind of sense of the situation. I speculate about what connection this strange event might have with other strange events ---like why Obama was dragging his feet on making decisions about whether or not to send more troops to win the good war. You would think by now he would have looked at the situation there in Afghanistan and decided that eight years was too many and pull our troops out,...OR send 200,000 troops over there and finish the job quickly. But instead, he sits and fiddles while Rome burns....while our troops continue to die in combat.
So did Obama intentionally drag his feet on sending troops to Afghanistan in order to insure winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Does this sound like an unfair question? Is it any worse than the nasty assumptions the LEFT made about the intentions of President Bush? Perhaps the Nobel Committee would have rebuked Obama had he escalated the Afghan conflict... And we can't have that!
The Joint Chiefs and Gen. Petraeus agree with Obama's own hand-picked Gen. McChrystal on the urgency of sending 40,000 more troops to do the job and beat the Taliban. But Obama hesitates. Got a better explanation?
Read about the nominees that were passed over by clicking HERE.