Nytt

At Barack Obama fikk Fredsprisen fordi han ikke er George W. Bush har vært sagt at mange. Men James Taranto i Wall Street Journal tar det et skritt lenger. Han sier: Prisen var et slag i ansiktet på George W. Bush. Det er slett ikke tilfelle at antiamerikanismen er forsvunnet med Barack Obama. Tvert om. Tildelingen er en bekreftelse på at denne antipatien fortsatt eksisterer.

Er det noen som tror at John McCain eller Hillary Clinton ville fått prisen, spør Taranto.

Det er noe i resonnementet hans: I begeistringen for Obama skjuler det seg en nedrakking av det USA som Bush sto for. Fremstillingen av Bush sin politikk er i Norge en karikatur av en karikatur. Man tar overhodet ikke hensyn til Bush i annen periode førte en helt annen periode enn Bush i første. Det inntraff dessuten noen uventede begivenheter ….

Thorbjørn Jagland-partiet ser ut til å utelukke at Obama vil fortsette noe av Bush sin politikk, men det gjør han. Han finner det vanskeligere å stenge Guantanamo enn han trodde.

Det ble under Bush skapt en antiamerikanisme som på ingen måte er død. Tildelingen til Obama har en mørkere side, som bekrefter denne antiamerikanismen.

Not being George W. Bush was not a sufficient condition for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If it had been, anyone could have gotten it, with the sole exception of George W. Bush. More to the point, the combination not being George W. Bush and being president almost certainly wasn’t sufficient either. Does anyone think the Norwegians would have given the prize to President Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

What everyone, including this column, agrees on is that the prize was a rebuke to George W. Bush, now a private citizen in Dallas. That is why the claim that Obama has inspired a turnaround in the so-called world’s attitude toward America is not only false but laughable. When George W. Bush was president, the Norwegian Nobel Committee delivered three similar rebukes: in 2002 (by naming Jimmy Carter), 2005 (Mohammad ElBaradei) and 2007 (Al Gore). The Obama award is a continuation of, not a break from, the committee’s behavior of the past eight years.

Actually, it is an escalation. Whatever one may think of Carter, ElBaradei and Gore, each man at least had some sort of record on which the committee could plausibly claim to have based its decision. This Nobel Prize is a naked attack on the former president–and, by implication, on the country that elected him.

Obama’s record of accomplishment consists of nothing more than a successful political campaign against, as he put it in his convention speech, «the failed policies of George W. Bush.» At the time, we doubted whether running against a man who would not appear on the ballot made political sense. The outcome speaks for itself.


Blame the Victim

The Nobel Peace Prize is partly Obama’s fault.

Les også

-
-
-
-
-
-