Why … no, as a matter of fact, it isn’t.

The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama’s honour after the US attacked Libya.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honour bestowed on US President Barack Obama in 2009…

Bolivian President Evo Morales echoed the call: “How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defence of human rights or self-determination.”

Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006.

A few things here. One: Morales is a Chavez crony and famously anti-American. He has no problem with gangs attacking anyone, as long as they’re attacking for the “right reasons.” He’s spouting pro-Qaddafi propaganda here, pure and simple. Two: For what it’s worth, most Americans are firmly on Obama’s side so far. In CBS’s poll out tonight, fully 68 percent say they back the airstrikes and 50 percent say they approve of his handling of Libya generally, dithering and all (compared to 29 percent who disapprove). Gallup’s numbers are more equivocal but still supportive, with 47 percent saying they approve of U.S. military action versus 37 percent who don’t. (Interestingly, this hasn’t as yet translated into a bounce in his overall approval rating.) Third: Until the Peace Prizes for Arafat and Iranian nuclear stooge Mohamed ElBaradei are revoked, I don’t want to hear anything about Obama’s. He may have been undeserving of the award, but at least he’s not antithetical to it.

And fourth: Obama himself addressed the dilemma of using war to secure peace in his Nobel lecture — and did a nice job of it, too. To this day, I think it’s one of the better passages of any speech he’s delivered. Watch below starting at around 2:15. Whether war can achieve peace is a separate question from whether the war in Libya can achieve peace, but (a) the Moraleses of the world, I suspect, don’t worry overly about that distinction and (b) Morales himself, per his quote, seems to believe that Qaddafi steamrolling civilians better serves the cause of “human rights and self-determination” than intervention. But then, I guess that’s why he’s a “Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights” winner. And a mighty deserving one, too.