In December 2008 I wrote this in [1] a column about the man who threw his shoes at George W. Bush: "Many in the Islamic world believe or hope that Obama will be the anti-Bush, and will craft a foreign policy more to their liking than Bush's -- that is, one involving concessions and appeasement."

Is it better to be given accolades for concessions and appeasement than to be derided and hated for standing up, however imperfectly, against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism?

"State Department Lauds Obama's Nobel Peace Prize by Making Jab at Bush," from
[2] FOXNews, October 9 (thanks to [3] Weasel Zippers):

In a clear dig at former President George W. Bush, a State Department spokesman compared President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to the flying footwear his predecessor faced in Iraq.

"From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum ... when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Friday.

Crowley was referring to a 2008 incident in which an Iraqi reporter hurled his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad. The act of protest struck a chord with millions in the Arab and Muslim worlds who had been captivated and angered by daily images of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Obama, who has publicly committed to improving America's image abroad, was named recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for, the Nobel committee said, his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.....