Because Bush didn't get one. And he was the great Crusader!
Oh, and because it's Barack Obama. He can't do anything right. They're blaming Obama for this.
1.) He didn't nominate himself.
2.) Nobody is going to turn down a Nobel Prize, not sure why people would expect Obama to. Though I would like to see him dedicate it to our men and women serving overseas, not the Teabaggers like Beck wants to see happen.
Obama could personally find the cure of cancer and personally kill Osama Bin Laden bare handed and people would still find a problem with him doing that.
More ignorance. It knows no bounds.
This year the Nobel Prize in Literature has been granted by the Swedish Academy to the French writer Jean-Paul Sartre for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age.
It will be recalled that the laureate has made it known that he did not wish to accept the prize. The fact that he has declined this distinction does not in the least modify the validity of the award. Under the circumstances, however, the Academy can only state that the presentation of the prize cannot take place.
Bush could have killed OBL and people would ahve accused him of torture. Bush could have found a cure for cancer and people would have accused him of putting doctors out of work.
But Bush actually did something. Obama did nothing. When the nomination was made, he had done nothing. The explanation of the award was clearly made up AFTER the nomination was received.
