Thank you Mr. Huhn

We can (and have in the past) debate the turture issue in other posts. But to extol Obama for "following the Rule of Law" verges on the surreal. Certainly the bondholders of Chrysler have a different opinion on whether Obama's cramdown bailout plan followed the Rule of Law. And let us not forget his efforts to quell opposition to his health care plan by requesting that supporters report "fishy information" to a special White House email site. When did establishing a quasi-Stasi big brother program become consistent with the Rule of Law? Remember when Obama was against "domestic spying"?

This is not a close question, Professor. Obama did not deserve the prize. He received it for two primary reasons. First, as already mentioned, he is not George Bush. Second, and more insidiously, it is designed to influence future US foreign policy. The Nobel Committee, and the international liberal elite, hope that Obama will now earn the award that has been prematurely bestowed. They have correctly guessed that he is narcissistic enough to do so.

It has become common practice recently for awards to be given out for political reasons. Dixie Chicks and Al Gore are good examples of this.

You go back to your usual expansion of the definition of torture. You once stated that we must have known what we were doing was wrong because we had Doctors on site. By this definition, girls high school basketball must be considered torture. Add the OHSAA to your list of evil organizations. Any incarceration by armed foreign military personnel would inflict mental stress. So unless President Obama is going to release all the detainees on bail. He is still torturing them. You still have yet to resolve the fact that the Geneva Convention would allow us to try and convict people fighting a war, while not in an army's uniform, as spies. And then sentence them to death. Is what we did not better than that?

You then launch into some version of we went there to steal their oil. That fact we haven't taken any should puncture this myth once and for all. Then there is some thinly veiled imperialistic America argument. History alone shows how untrue this is.

Amazingly enough, you submit that Obama's agreeing to follow the Bush withdraw plan, makes him a man of peace. This is the sole peaceful achievement in your argument.

The award is a slap at Bush, nothing more. You agree with the slap so you grasp at straws to defend it. The pretend U.S. Attorney scandal. Even "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The problem with giving someone something they don't deserve, is that you keep it away from someone that does deserve it. Money and publicity was directed away from a legitimate peaceful effort. Obama may very well do something to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, but it is indefensible to pretend that he already has.

(I am sure this is a topic for another blog, but… The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule is something that Obama wants no part of. His Justice Department filed briefs in a Defense Of Marriage Act case comparing same sex marriage to incestuous couples. This is something that you cannot vote present on. It is something that you say to get elected, like we are going to be transparent.)