Rep. Landry: Does Obama still deserve Peace Prize after “amount of people he has killed”?

posted at 7:45 pm on October 22, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) recently revived the question of whether President Barack Obama deserved the preemptive Nobel Peace Prize he received in 2009 “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The Hill reports:

After the death of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi at the hands of Libyan rebels, one Republican legislator wondered Saturday whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Prize he won in 2009.

“Well, I’m trying to see what the new criteria is for getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Remember they gave it to President Obama right when he took office,” Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) said on Fox Business Network. “And right now, I mean when you look at the, amount of people he has killed worldwide, you think to yourself, wow, what do they give it for? Maybe a new set of criteria. I don’t know, it amazes me as well.” …

Gadhafi’s death marks the latest foreign policy success for the Obama administration. Obama has also been credited for the killing of Osama bin Laden during a raid by U.S. Navy SEALS on a compound where the al Qaeda leader had been hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The Obama administration has also been successful in killing a number of other high level terrorists.

It was pretty evident when Obama received the award in the first place that it was given to him as much for inaction as for action. At that point, the only feather in Obama’s foreign policy cap was a measly one: The grand apology tour that left Americans assuming our president thinks America is only about as exceptional as Britain or Greece. Giving Obama the prize seemed as much an attempt by the Nobel Committee to influence the president’s foreign policy in a certain direction as an attempt to reward him for proven leadership or his actual diplomatic skills.

From where I sit, though, I’d say the “amount of people he has killed” (given who those people were) makes Obama more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, rather than less (and I kinda assume Landry agrees, even though I imagine the Nobel Committee wouldn’t). Obama called his receipt of the award a “call to action.” Since then, the Navy SEALS and a combination effort in Libya delivered the deaths of dangerous men — missions that, it must be admitted, partially redound to Obama’s credit. The world is presumably safer without them, even though their deaths open up the possibility for new tensions and trials.

Still, don’t misunderstand me: I didn’t think Obama deserved it in 2009 and I don’t think he deserves it now. Despite his few victories, with his many other FP decisions (most recently, the announcement of his decision to withdraw troops from Iraq), Obama has proved himself less committed to the protection of America’s interests abroad and to the preservation of what peace exists in the Middle East than it seems a Nobel Peace Prize winner (and especially a U.S. president) should be. As Hot Air commenter “georgealbert” reminded me, under Obama’s leadership, among other things: Iran is still nuclear; North Korea is an ever-present threat; Israel and other allies, including Britain and France, must necessarily doubt our friendship; and the Muslim Brotherhood have gained a foothold in Egypt. “If you want peace, prepare for war” doesn’t exactly seem to be Obama’s mantra. As a result, we could very likely be headed for less peace.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Put this on loop. Use it over and over again.

It is one thing to accomplish an objective. Its another thing to gloat over the dead body of a leader.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 8:03 AM

I agree. It makes me wonder if Hillary and Barack are returning to the White House to roast heads on a spic out back while they’re barbequeing on Sunday. They both sound like cretins, certainly blood-lusting of the cruelly cavalier kind.

Lourdes on October 23, 2011 at 8:07 AM

to roast heads on a spic

to roast heads on a spit…

Lourdes on October 23, 2011 at 8:07 AM

I agree. It makes me wonder if Hillary and Barack are returning to the White House to roast heads on a spic out back while they’re barbequeing on Sunday. They both sound like cretins, certainly blood-lusting of the cruelly cavalier kind.

Lourdes on October 23, 2011 at 8:07 AM

The issue here is contempt. They have utter contempt for their enemies. They rejoice in a man being bludgeoned and executed without first aid, or an imam present to issue him some last rites before he goes to Allah??? if they do that. What would their response be if any of their political enemies met their demise? same reaction…..?

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 8:11 AM

Her rejoice isn’t in justice, its in vengeance. You would think that she would be glad that a dictator responsible for the deaths of many Americans via terrorism was delivered, but no, she rejoices in his death. These are two completely different concepts—-justice and death. She cannot argue that she is rejoicing for justice when she uses the we came, we saw, he died. There is no room for justice in that phrase.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Despite their tenacity and the advantage of the initial advance, Pharnaces’ forces were likely exhausted from the up hill fight. Before long, their lines began to break and it was only a matter of time before the entire army was sent into a rout. Pharnaces managed to escape with some cavalry but his entire army was slaughtered or captured in the overwhelming Roman victory. Caesar claimed that the entire affair, including the rounding up of fleeing prisoners took no more than 4 hours.

Caesar, not only erased the blemish of the earlier Roman loss on this very site, he erected a monument to commemorate just that event. He set about reorganizing parts of the eastern provinces and set up Mithridates of Pergamum as King of Pontus in recognition for his loyalty and service in Egypt. Caesar then crossed from Asia to Thracia, and set sail for Italy. In the meantime, in recognition of his overwhelming victory, he sent a simple, but powerful message back to Rome and the Senate: “VENI VIDI VICI”, I came, I saw, I conquered.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Why not give him a second one? He is in the same league as Arafat. He was a bloody red handed butcher who also got the so called “peace prize”…

Kuffar on October 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Fast and Furious should get Obama at least a peace prize…

Kuffar on October 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

And then add on top of this the fact that Obama went to war with Libya and was behind the killing of the Libyan leader all without the approval of Congress!

What other war in the recent history of the United States was engaged in with the final battle being the killing of the leader of the other country….and all unilaterally done without the approval of Congress???
There was no threat to the United States from Libya, Libya was not at war with the United States or Europe…and yet a war was started with another country (which offered no resistance against NATO and the United States) and the final battle ended with American drones attacking the leader of the country…and Congress never approved the war.

Guess that Nobel Peace Prize carries lots of gravitas with the members of Congress…
And why the near silence from the Republican party on all this???

albill on October 23, 2011 at 8:44 AM

And why the near silence from the Republican party on all this???

albill on October 23, 2011 at 8:44 AM

the sound of silence is deafening from the GOP boneless chicken ranch.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 8:50 AM

And why does Obama target the more secular leaders of the Muslim world? Mubarak, Gadhafi…and ignores the rabid Muslim leaders of Iran, Syria, Somalia, Hamas and others???
Who is Obama helping? From his actions one could say the more fundamental, conservative Muslim the leader is the more Obama approves of them.

albill on October 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM

He’s killed more people than Cecil B. DeMille.

chewmeister on October 23, 2011 at 9:01 AM

And why does Obama target the more secular leaders of the Muslim world? Mubarak, Gadhafi…and ignores the rabid Muslim leaders of Iran, Syria, Somalia, Hamas and others???
Who is Obama helping? From his actions one could say the more fundamental, conservative Muslim the leader is the more Obama approves of them.

albill on October 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM

That is a question no one has asked. Obama’s legacy will be a more radical Arab world, with the Muslim Brotherhood firmly entrenched in places it wasn’t before. One isn’t a wacky conspiracy theorist to ask, “Is that his plan?” And if so, “Why?” He has made the world a much more dangerous place, and those who come after him will be dealing with it for decades. And Israel’s future is threatened in new and stunning ways. Was that his plan?

Rational Thought on October 23, 2011 at 9:11 AM

The Book of What if Bush did it grows exponentially.

CW on October 23, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Obama did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place.

Phil Byler on October 23, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Obama did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place.

Phil Byler on October 23, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Ya think?/

CW on October 23, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Of course Obama deserves to keep his peace prize.

He brings about peace through through the barrel of a gun that he supplies to resistance fighters who brutalize and shoot after they capture their queries.

V-rod on October 23, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Lourdes on October 23, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Same here ted c and Lourdes. If George Bush or anyone from his administration had said something so crass, the media and the left would have called for their head.

hawkdriver on October 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM

the announcement of his decision to withdraw troops from Iraq),

Article in this morning’s St Louis Post Dispatch (liberal-Obama supporter) reporting Iraq would not grant immunity for our troops and Obama could make no other decision. U.S. wanted 30-40 thousand left in Iraq. Diplomatic failure not FP victory or campaign promise kept.

Herb on October 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Take a look at Drudge this morning.

Rational Thought on October 23, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Rep. Landry: Does Obama still deserve Peace Prize after “amount of people he has killed”?

Better question did he deserve it in the first place?

Dr Evil on October 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Gaius Julius Caesar[2] (13 July 100 BC[3] – 15 March 44 BC)[4] was a Roman general and statesman and a distinguished writer of Latin prose. He played a critical role in the gradual transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.

In 60 BC, Caesar entered into a political alliance with Crassus and Pompey that was to dominate Roman politics for several years. Their attempts to amass power through populist tactics were opposed within the Roman Senate by the conservative elite, among them Cato the Younger with the frequent support of Cicero. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, completed by 51 BC, extended Rome’s territory to the English Channel and the Rhine. Caesar became the first Roman general to cross both when he built a bridge across the Rhine and conducted the first invasion of Britain. These achievements granted him unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse Pompey’s standing. The balance of power was further upset by the death of Crassus in 53 BC. Political realignments in Rome finally led to a standoff between Caesar and Pompey, the latter having taken up the cause of the Senate. Ordered by the senate to stand trial in Rome for various charges, Caesar marched from Gaul to Italy with his legions, crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC. This sparked a civil war from which he emerged as the unrivaled leader of the Roman world.

he came, he saw, he conquered.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 10:22 AM

What about Fast and Furious? How many scores of people have died because of this Nobel Prize winner? Nevermind him KILLING the economy…

ProfessorTombstone on October 23, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Psalm 55:23
But you, God, will bring down the wicked into the pit of decay; the bloodthirsty and deceitful will not live out half their days. But as for me, I trust in you.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 10:26 AM

No. He didn’t deserve it when it was awarded to him and he most certainly does not deserve it now. You could say he’s a cold blooded killer.

scalleywag on October 23, 2011 at 10:35 AM

I wonder if Hillary cackled like this when Vince Foster committed suicide was found.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 10:48 AM

The Caliphate will rise (or at least make attempt). If “Islam” prefers this oppression, their loss.

Where Caliphate and US interests overlap and compete beyond the borders of either, the US (any nation really) should act vigorously in its self-interest.

Exporters of terror should experience terror. We have the technology.

Bad behavior must have consequences. Enough purchasing of peace (submission to extortion, doling out of bribes). The US cannot afford it and this is just one more way taxpayers get fleeced in order to support government crony interests abroad.

War with the Caliphate looks increasingly inevitable. It can only be avoided if the US will stand for freedom, not apologize and shrink. This begins when the US will stand for freedom within its own borders by throwing out cronies left and right.

To the Islamist fifth column which has settled in: Citizens within the US are armed and dangerous when stirred to action against enemies foreign and domestic. Terrorism committed here will prove terrible for you and yours. We are not France. Just sayin’.

exdeadhead on October 23, 2011 at 11:04 AM

He does not deserve it, although I’m not sure it means much anyway.
It went from having a great meaning for me, to becoming this little political trinket empty of worth years ago.
What did he ever do with that prize money?? Does anyone know??

bridgetown on October 23, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Does Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? That’s an interesting question concerning the Nobel Peace Prize, and no doubt both sides of the argument can be made vis-a-vis the Nobel Peace Prize.

I, however, am content to keep mentioning that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, because it. is. hilarious.

HitNRun on October 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Article in this morning’s St Louis Post Dispatch (liberal-Obama supporter) reporting Iraq would not grant immunity for our troops and Obama could make no other decision. U.S. wanted 30-40 thousand left in Iraq. Diplomatic failure not FP victory or campaign promise kept.

Herb on October 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM

It’s also obvious that this country has lost its influence in the world.

rplat on October 23, 2011 at 11:56 AM

From where I sit, though, I’d say the “amount of people he has killed” (given who those people were) makes Obama more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, rather than less (and I kinda assume Landry agrees, even though I imagine the Nobel Committee wouldn’t).

No, no, Tina. I understand where you’re coming from, but this isn’t the US military replacing Saddam or Clinton helping the Euros do their dirty work. The blood Obama has shed will result in tens of thousands more bloody deaths in the best case scenario. In the very worst case the instability could kill millions and lead to a nuclear showdown between the West and neo-Ottoman apocalypse worshipers.

Obama’s hit jobs have probably been in America’s interest – though we won’t know that for ten years – but America’s interest is not wholly synonymous with peace, either at the individual or “World” level.

HitNRun on October 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Interesting that The Hill author immediately lists the terrorists Obama has supposedly “killed” (Barack Obama… Master Ninja. POW!! BAM! THWACK!) and there is no mention of the people killed in action over seas… you know, those people called “soldiers”.

I mean, didn’t the NYT have a death count during president Bush’s time in office? Why aren’t we seeing those numbers now?

Book on October 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM

He never deserved the Nobel in the first place…so the answer is, “YES!, Take it away and make him give the money back, too.”

Jarhead68 on October 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM

This is a non-issue because even Obama commented that he had not really done anything to deserve the prize at the time. Oddly, he still accepted it.

But the purpose of the prize has nothing to do with international murder quotient (why do you think Arafat got it?).

The purpose of the Peace Prize was to let Obama know that he was expected to behave like a european liberal at all times (support global warming taxation, defer to international (european) courts, tolerate islamic and left-wing radicals, transfer wealth, etc).

Given that, he has more than deserved it.

virgo on October 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Congrats, Obooby.

You’re now the proud owner of the Patagonian Piss Prize.

Whoo Wheeeeeeeeeee.

hillbillyjim on October 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM

What do you mean, “still?”

Ronnie on October 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Way to keep your eye on the ball, republic party!!! :)

benny shakar on October 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM

He never deserved a “Peace Prize” *before* he killed all those people. The Nobel Peace Prize has become a farce.

crosspatch on October 23, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Did he ever deserve a peace prize of any kind?

Aronne on October 23, 2011 at 4:32 PM

I think Obama absolutely deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s a worthless, meaningless, joke of an honor. When I heard that he’d won it, I was actually very happy that the people on the Nobel committee have absolutely no idea what a joke they are and that Obama had to accept it, knowing that he’d done nothing to deserve it.

It was the first of many cracks in the pedestal that his supporters placed him on and it only solidifies the absurdity of both the the Nobel Committee and Obama.

Make Obama give back his Nobel Peace Prize? Are you kidding? Give him another one, I say. He’s earned it.

otisframpton on October 23, 2011 at 5:33 PM

A report this week said we’ve spent $2 billion on Libya. GOP approved, don’t want to be ‘isolationists.’ ‘Everyone’ in Libya has a long standing hatred of blacks. Our tax money has given Islamic killers all the power, so now blacks are being tortured and killed more than ever. It’s a black holocaust. That’s ‘defense’ spending today. We’ve given $6 billion a month to ‘defense’ in Afghanistan every month for 10 years. Of course it’s not really a war, just some crony deals, and a huge mafia like system in Afghan. handing out US taxpayer dollars to pedophiles. No one keeps track of our money, they just know it must be spent. Then we had Iraq ‘defense’ spending. Every US soldier should be brought home tomorrow and all defense contractors should be closed down. The US is barely a place on a map today. No one wants borders. Without borders, there’s nothing to defend. Except of course Islam.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on October 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM

He did not do anything in order to deserve it, so nothing he does now would make any difference as to whether he still does not.

Siddhartha Vicious on October 23, 2011 at 9:07 PM

He never “deserved” The peace prise, but he does deserve a swift kick in the ass.

44Magnum on October 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM

I thought this question had been answered long ago when Arafat got one.

There’s no refund for dashed dreams.

unclesmrgol on October 23, 2011 at 10:52 PM

the sound of silence is deafening from the GOP boneless chicken ranch.

ted c on October 23, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Perhaps because some of us agree with Obama’s actions, as hypocritical as they are. There are those of us who remember the Belle Discoteque bombing, and remember when Pan Am 103 went down — and the sense that Kadaffi had moved the pawns behind these crimes and yet remained in power made the injustice of the situation stronger.

If it were American troops who had murdered Kadaffi in the way he was, it would be one thing. But it was one Libyan teenager, who was incensed that Kadaffi was going to be allowed to live, who did the deed. I can’t hold Obama responsible for the acts of a foreign national.

And something in me is happy that he’s no longer capable of ruling Libya, even as something else drove me to pray on the night I’d heard of his death for God’s mercy upon him.

unclesmrgol on October 23, 2011 at 11:08 PM

I don’t think Obama deserved the Peace prize, but Landry is a fool to make those remarks. As much as I dislike the Democrtatic party and its members, I have to say the Republican party obviously has its share of idiots too.

zoyclem on October 24, 2011 at 7:38 AM

unclesmrgol:

Perhaps because some of us agree with Obama’s actions, as hypocritical as they are.

So from now on if a murderer is caught in America lets just have the local vigilante group beat and execute him on the spot???…The heck with laws and justice.

Gadhafy was a bad guy for sure, but since when is letting a mob be the judge and executioner the American way?
Gadhafy was caught. He was not going anywhere. He was not fighting back. Arrest him. Put him on trial, then hang him…if judged that way. (And the US should have put out the word that he should be captured, not assassinated by a mob. Or was Obama worried about Gadhafy being put on trial for some reason?)

And if it is okay for Obama to go after Gadhafy for involvement in terrorism in the past, why hasn’t Obama targeted the leaders of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and on and on and on for their involvement in terror related plots?

America is supposed to do things at a higher standard, not facilitate the mob in a lynching.
And if Bush would have done the same thing, the media would have been calling for war crimes brought against him and that he resign.
The left screamed about Bush going after Saddam on faulty intelligence that he had WMD. What was the reasoning for going after Khadafy? Where was the Congressional approval for the US going to war against this country???

Obama was wrong in this.
And now the new Libyan government has announced that it will be a fundamentalist Muslim state. Hurray!!!
The means did not justify this end.

albill on October 24, 2011 at 8:35 AM

He already got his Presidential Affirmative Action Award. The rest is just gravy.

Scrappy on October 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM