When Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, many questioned whether he deserved the international accolade while being involved in two separate, large-scale military actions. Now that he has brought America into a third war, Obama is forced to defend his decision to accept and keep the prize.
The president has come under increased scrutiny over the past few days in light of the military campaign in Libya. Some in the media, including a few world leaders like Boliva's Evo Morales, are calling for the Nobel Committee to revoke the prize. Others are taking the opportunity to say that he should never have gotten the prize in the first place.
The president responded in an interview with CNN En Espanol where he stated that "I think the American people don't see any contradiction in somebody who cares about peace also wanting to make sure that people aren't butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power." The president also mentions that he was in charge of two wars when he received the peace prize in the first place.
No one really thinks that Obama would return the peace prize, but if the Nobel committee wanted to make a stand for peace, revoking the prize could go a long way. It's almost certainly the first time that a Nobel Peace Prize winner had been in charge of three wars (since no one should really believe the Democratic establishment line that this isn't currently a war). Should the Nobel committee revoke the prize to return some of the luster to the prize? Does Obama's bombing of Libya somehow not go against the spirit of the prize? Or does the Nobel Peace Prize even matter anymore?
Image from Wikipedia