The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons wins the Nobel Peace Prize, I say, and Meade says: "That's a slam on Obama."

"Why?" I ask, and he says, "Obama was going to go to war over chemical weapons. They're trying to say: Maybe we shouldn't have given you the Peace Prize." Hmm. I read the NYT article:

Urging the destruction of “an entire category” of unconventional weapons, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its 2013 Peace Prize on Friday to a relatively modest and little-known United Nations-backed body that has drawn sudden attention with a mission to destroy Syria’s stocks of chemical arms under a deal brokered by Russia and the United States.

"Don't we need to look at their explanation of why they gave the prize." I mean, it could be more of a statement about how bad chemical weapons are — which would align with what Obama's been saying. But it could be about how there are peaceful ways to go about eliminating chemical weapons, which might be phrased in a manner that disapproves of Obama.

But look what we are doing! It's what everybody's been doing for the last 5 years: Making everything about Obama. The sun rises in the morning, and what does it mean for Obama? A bird twitters in a treetop, and what is he saying about Obama?

The chemical attack outside Damascus initially drew an American threat of military reprisal before Moscow and Washington reached a compromise arrangement to seek the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks under international supervision.

Thorbjorn Jagland, the former Norwegian prime minister who is chairman of the panel, said chemical weapons had been used by Hitler’s armies in their campaign of mass extermination and on many other occasions by states and terrorists. He denied that the award to a body based in The Hague represented a Eurocentric shift after last year’s award to the European Union. “It’s global,” he said.

Nothing like denial to point the way to the truth?

What does this year's Peace Prize say about Obama?
	It's a slam.
	It's a mild rebuke.
	It's not about Obama, who can't be the recipient. It's about chemical weapons.
	It's vaguely supportive of Obama, who made chemical weapons his issue this year.
	It's solidly supportive of Obama, calling attention to his prime issue.
pollcode.com free polls