The hostage was not in any imminent danger, but the President had yielded his authority to the military. The military does what it does best: kill indiscriminately. The measure of 'collateral damage' being the perpetual double-standard, for a nation allegedly founded on laws bounded by self-restraint.
It seems to me that the winner of a Peace Prize should have had a better handle on how to solve that situation. What would the world's least peaceful person have done in that situation? The same thing.
Of course, the Nobel organization is full of the same hypocrisy as its founder, and is bound to reward hypocrisy. What glory is there in being lauded by the ignoble? People should not give a crap about prizes, but peace should be everybody's concern. We all benefit from peace.
President Obama is currently working on a strategy for Afghanistan. Bush's plan was war. War is the choice of an idiot. History is full of common idiots. Of course, if the idiot is victorious, then he is lauded as a hero. Herein lies the problem: the hero and the idiot are one and the same. For example, what is the difference between George Washington, Lenin, or Osama bin Laden? They all used violence to overthrow the current powers in an attempt to establish themselves in power. If revolution is a right, as Jefferson would argue, then those who fail to yield their power are to blame.
Obama is thinking about what to do in Afghanistan. What is there to think about? If you want peace, then talk to your enemy. If you want war, then refuse to negotiate.
I have known for at least seven years why we were attacked on 9/11. We were attacked because of the ways that bankers, insurance companies and Wall Street run the world. Wealth and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand with power. The hypocrite who wants power seeks to take it from the hypocrite who has power. This is commonly true in an election as it is in war. We are all hypocrites. We have a common enemy: our bad habit of self-righteousness. God Bless Pogo.