Here’s Senator Boxer commenting on the reactions of Michael Steele, Hamas, and the Taliban to the news that President Obama had won the Nobel Prize fior Peace:
Notice how she just lops all three under the single heading of “Negative” without any examination *of the actual remarks* made by each of the three. Amazing! This is rather like simply throwing filet mignon, cotton candy, and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich all under the general heading of “Food” and implying that they’re all the same thing. Hmmm. Let’s see. According to this article
this is what Hamas had to say:
“Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh in the Gaza Strip on Friday said his group heard Obama’s speeches seeking better relations with the Islamic world but had not been moved. “We are in need of actions, not sayings,” Haniyeh said. “If there is no fundamental and true change in American policies toward the acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people, I think this prize won’t move us forward or backward.” “
According to the same article, this is what the Taliban said:
“According to Reuters, “The Taliban mocked the award, saying it was absurd to give it to Obama when he had ordered 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan this year. ‘The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the “Nobel prize for escalating violence and killing civilians,” ‘ said Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman.” “
According to this article here
Michael Steele said:
“”The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights.” — Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.”
Let’s take these three statements – one by Hamas, one by the Taliban, one by Michael Steele – and place them one after the other to see if they’re making the same statement:
If there us no fundamental and true change in American policies toward the acknowledgement of the rights of the Palestinian people, I think that this prize won’t move us forward or backward. (Hamas)
The Nobel Prize for peace? Obama should have been given the Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians. (Taliban)
It is unfortunate that the President’s star power outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. (Michael Steele)
With utmost respect I ask: What sentient being could claim, with a straight face, that these three statements are making the same criticism? The Hamas statement is saying that, unless Obama helps the Palestinians specifically, the Prize is meaningless. The Taliban statement is making the outright accusation that Obama is complicit in the murder of innocent people. The Steele statement is saying that Obama is Paris Hilton and that there are many others in the world more deserving of the peace award.
All negative toward Obama? Mosr definitely. But “the same”? Come on. Let’s be adults.