| |
I think that the truth of this year's Nobel is that it simply marks the fifth time that the real intended recipient of the award has been George W. Bush.
Who won in 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks? Kofi "oil for food" Annan and the UN (!) which set up the regime by which Saddam Hussein skimmed millions of dollars from oil sales which were supposed to be used for "humanitarian" purposes. The real reason this corrupt man and this corrupt organization "won" was to send a message to George W. Bush not to respond unilaterally to the 9/11 attacks.
In 2002, the award went to Jimmy Carter, again to signal George W. Bush that only his craven and ineffectual critics were worth moral praise, not he.
In 2005, the award went to Mohamed "Israel is the greatest threat to world peace" El Baradei and the IAEA for their efforts to stop George W. Bush from stopping Iran's nuclear program.
In 2007, the award went to that bloated, delusional George W. Bush critic and former opponent, Al Gore.
And the consensus is that the accomplishment for which this years "winner" (mm, mm, mm, Barack, Hussein, Obama) won the prize in twelve days was - you guessed it - not being George W. Bush.
Now I personally would probably not have awarded Bush the peace prize, although he did finally end the Gulf War and stretch the neck of a dictator who murdered millions of people.
Only the truly deranged, however, could make him a five time winner.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/20, 8:18am)
|
|
Ask the Norwegians who pick the Nobel Peace Prize recipient this question: “Which part of Europe are you from? The part whose butt we saved or the part whose butt we kicked?” They’d have to answer the former but only reluctantly because their answer would open a discussion about the ideology behind their bizarre choice of President Barack Obama as the 2009 prize winner.
