Pretty sure the guys in the orange jumpsuits down in Cuba would disagree about that whole “closed Guantanamo” thing…

Get your facts straight, Marty.

“Let’s remember Obama closed Guantanamo Bay and other secret prisons. Obama stopped the use of torture of inmates. Obama campaigned for diplomatic solutions to our nation’s and world’s problems while making promises for nuclear disarmament all before Feb. 11.”

Check the news: Obama has no idea what to do about Gitmo. Ever heard of prolonged detention? Look it up! Ask Russ Feingold/Glenn Greenwald what they think of Gitmo being “closed.” And how about Bagram Detention Center in Afghanistan? Don’t write a letter if you can’t even get the facts straight.

Ended torture? Where’s your proof? He’s not even being transparent and allowing us to see Gitmo Photos!

It’s easy to talk a big game about nuclear disarmament…but why do we still have nukes then? Why do we tell other countries they can’t have them, all the while, we have a huge stockpile of our own?

I hate to say it, but stop drinking Kool-Aid, and start looking at reality, buddy.

I’d give Obama a $50 Trader Joe’s gift certificate for what he’s done for world peace so far. Past recipients actually did something. The only thing Obama has done was that beer summit. Come on, the guy’s getting more credit than he’s due.

1) Why debate this? 2) George Bush was a total knob who gave 2 shits about the rest of the world. 3) Obama is open to diplomacy and working with allies.
4) Talk is cheap… sometimes. Some would argue that religious texts are just talk, but the call to action is clear.
5) Obama’s election sent a loud message to the world about America, and that simple change was enough to warrant the peace prize. 6) Why debate this? Don’t you have to derail universal health care or paint swastikas for your rally?

George W Bush freed millions from the cruel tyranny of Saddam and his sadistic sons.

PS. “swastikas” were the symbol of a socialist totalitarianism, nothing to do with Jeffersonian principles of the Taxed Enough Already movement.

A major difference between the efforts of the past award recipients listed above and the current recipient is just that: effort. All the President has done is talk about fixing things.

Don’t intellectually bend over backwards to try to justify the choice. It was foolish. He doesn’t deserve it…it’s so far out there it’s gonzo to think he does. I question your rationality. Let me pose a little thought experiment. Would you have nominated Obama for the Nobel after 12 days in office? Be honest. It will be interesting to ultimately learn who he beat out and what accomplishments those folks racked so we can compare to Obama’s conflicting promises.

Yo yo yo, I think Beyonce deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Sorry Taylor Swift and President Obama.

Thank you, Martin.

The defeat of communism 20 years ago was the most liberating moment in history. So why don’t we talk about it more?

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/12/the-unknown-war

And why didn’t Ronald Reagan receive the Peace prize? He won the cold war with out firing a shot and freed millions from the Soviet yoke.

Oh yeah, he was a Conservative.

So does Barry HO just set up a recurring appointment to receive the Nobel each year from now on? I mean I’m an optimist - he may eventually actually DO something, after giving it to him for nothing they’d have to give it to him again.

“An American just received the Nobel Peace Prize.” Enough said. It’s not as though Obama filled out an application to try to win this. He was nominated. An American in an influential global position has been recognized as trying to do things peacefully. Regardless of whether you think he actually deserved it or not, why not be proud of it? Would Bush have EVER been nominated for an award like this? No. Never. So take Obama’s humble acceptance of this and deal with it.

This letter is intellectually disingenuous (to be charitable).

1) Obama has not closed the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. He has “promised” to do so, but the administration has thus far been unable to construct a viable proposal for doing so (what do you do with a few hundred potential terrorists, anyway?)

2) The use of torture—if you consider it torture (I do, others have justifiable reasons for disagreeing)—was ceased before Obama was sworn in.

3) There is something that all those “unsuccessful” Nobel winners from the past have in common that Obama does not: they actually made tangible efforts to do something. Obama has not. In 11 days in office, he talked a lot and he talked well, but he hadn’t actually made “efforts” at anything, peaceful or otherwise. In fact, he has yet to do so. He has talked about nuclear disarmament, talked about persuading Iran and North Korea to abandon weapons programs, talked about closing Gitmo, talked about reversing America’s image abroad, ad infinitum. He has yet to do any of those (nor, really, has there been enough time to accomplish any single one of them, much less all of them).

In short, then, he did not deserve the award. It’s less a reflection on his character than on those of the Nobel committee members, though: he essentially received the award for not-being-Bush. Where’s my award? I’m perfectly happy and successful at not being Bush as well. Moreover, it was an insult to those—namely, the people you listed—who made diligent and legitimate efforts for peace in the world and to those who should have won the now-meaningless award (and it is meaningless if Yasser Arafat can win it) this year, such as human rights activists in China, etc.

In any case, at least be factually accurate when you are making an intellectually tenuous case in defense of a mistake.