Time Magazine’s Massimo Calabresi wrote with a lot of conviction about “Why the Prize is Premature.”

“But the Nobel is Obama’s for effort only, at best…A premature accolade normally reserved for those who have accomplished considerable, tangible results in the pursuit of peace.”

Time Magazine’s Michael Elliott is capitalizing on the Nobel Peace Prize furor to write about something he has probably been itching to write about but couldn’t yet. Apparently humility is something we don’t want or need in a leader.  He says “Let’s be honest — as he was: he hasn’t earned the Nobel Prize yet.”

What bothers me is how these writers for Time Magazine who carry with them so much clout with their title alone, who have the power to influence what people think, speak with so much certainty. They add to the echo chamber that believes President Obama has not done anything.

These are the same columnists that completely and utterly failed us in their coverage leading up to the US invasion of Iraq. You’d think that they could employ whatever mystical device that helps them divine whether or not President Obama has earned the award could have been used in 2002 when the drums for war were beating nonstop. You’d think they were the few that got it right.

But here are Michael Elliott and Massimo Calabresi in 2002 completely failing us:

Working for CNN in 2002, here is Michael Elliott assuring us that the war will be over quick, and we will win.

“Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons.”

America did not win the war. Weapons of mass destruction were not found. But there is Michael Elliot, again, speaking with conviction and certainty. There is Michael Elliot failing us. The rest of that article goes on to further make the case for the war in Iraq.

In this article Michael Elliott and Massimo Calabresi team up to convince us that a shadow-war has already begun in Iraq and will help to give us an easy victory. The two interview unnamed sources and then-Bush administration officials and absolutely eat up words about how easy the war will be.

No words in the article at all about the the disastrous state of Iraq after Saddam was toppled. The people that still die in the supposed green zone. No word on the nearly 4,000 soldiers that have died since Saddam was captured.

Because of 24/7 news we can only remember what happened as far as yesterday. The finalists for the Nobel Peace Prize were decided in February. Think back to the sentiment of not only the country, but the world, when President Obama was inaugurated. It was in that spirit that the finalists were decided.

Step out of the echo-chamber, give it some individual thought and make your own opinion.

Let’s not even waste time on the fringe shockjocks that think President Obama should have declined the award. The Nobel Peace Prize comes with 1.4 million dollars. These provocative thinkers are the true elitists who can’t see how much even $1 can help an American, let alone $1.4.

Here is the reason straight from Secretary of Nobel Committee:

It is completely fair to call into question the judgment of journalists today that failed us in coverage of Iraq in 2002. But it is also relevant because President Obama is on the verge of making major decisions in Afghanistan. What we need are journalists prepared to step out of echo-chambers; journalists not so eager to eat up what they’re told by cabinet officials. We need journalists willing to do some show some due diligence. These journalists are too few.

Rachel Maddow also makes the case for why President Obama deserves the award:

Tweet This Post