Trump, the Nobel Peace Prize and the NY Times

The NY Times remains true to its core beliefs in its editorial. Anything the incumbent President of the United States does must be condemned. If it can't be condemned , it must be damned for any reason that can be imagined. Contrast this to the praise of Barack Obama when he won the Nobel peace prize in 2009. In Obama's own words, he was commander in chief of the U.S. Army while it was engaged in two wars at the time. His speech in Oslo was all about the war in Afghanistan. He didn't make peace but he belonged to a political party that the Times will endorse come what may. (The last Republican the Times endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956). President Trump deserves praise, not only for the Israel-UAE-Bahrain normalization of relations, but also for bringing American boys and girls home from various residual adventures that he inherited. Whatever the Times thinks of him, we aren't in any wars and his foreign  policies have been beneficial for America, even if the EU is unhappy. For years they ignored their NATO obligations. So, our so called allies don't like him, but the question remains, is his foreign policy good for America, period? Maybe President Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, maybe he doesn't. That's up to the Norwegian Parliament's Nobel Committee. The NY Times and its editors have been in a state of war with him since he dared to run against the anointed Hillary Clinton.

Criticize when criticism is necessary, but praise when praise is required. Garry S. Sklar Las Vegas, NV Sep. 16,2020