Friday, October 12, 2007

Congratulations to Al Gore for his well-deserved award. At first, I was a bit puzzled. Al Gore? Peace Prize? I was unable to draw the connection. Then, I saw the history of this award and it all made sense. It's not a peace prize as much as it is a political prize. In light of that, I feel that Gore's award is very well deserved. If you disagree, then look at some prior recipients and you may reconsider:

Le Duc Tho (1973) - Founded the Indochinese Communist Party. Oversaw the communist insurgency in 1956 against the South Vietnamese government, planting the seeds for what would become America's Vietnam War.

Anwar Sadat (1978) - Egyptian president, launched the unprovoked Yom Kippur surprise attack against Israel in 1973, eventually agreeing to peace only after Israeli forces pushed him back.

Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) - Soviet leader who, in fairness, helped bring down the iron curtain. His award would be more understandable if Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were also given the award, but that's not what happened. Apparently, Gorbachev was solely responsible for ending the USSR.

Yasser Arafat (1994) - A key planner in the murder of 11 Israeli athletes in Munich. Established Fatah, a terrorist organization with the purpose of expelling Israel from the Middle East. Responsible for countless terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, as well as waging a continuous war with Israel for nearly 40 years. The number of deaths attributable to Arafat may never be known.

Kofi Annan (2001) - Leader of the UN. Was in charge during the largest global scandal in human history as the UN was fleeced for billions of dollars in the oil-for-food scandal. Many UN officials, including Annan's son, profited considerably from the suffering of the Iraqi people. Took no action to stop genocide in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of people were murdered. Failed to enforce UN resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament, directly leading to today's current war in Iraq.

Jimmy Carter (2002) - Betrayed the Shah of Iran, paving the way for a militant theocracy to take hold in that country, the same theocracy that is threatening to plunge the world into nuclear conflict and openly defies the UNs call for disarmament.

Al Gore (2007) - Peddles incomplete science and alarmism for the purpose of global income redistribution and keeping American power in check. Promotes misinformation and fear based on bad science. Attempted to cram the US Constitution into his desk-side shredder so he could become the US President.

Notable nominees for the "Peace" prize include: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini.

Those who have never won the award include: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mahatma Gandhi, Pope John Paul II

So, at first it seems like Gore isn't deserving, until you look at the company he joins.


Allisoni Balloni said...

You are 1.) ignoring the positive contributions of those you listed, and 2.) completely disregarding all of the other peacemakers that have deservingly won the award.

Many like president Bush and think he is deserving of praise, but I think he deserves to be removed from office for war crimes. Maybe it's all in how you look at it. Some people obviously have different ideas of what is peaceful and what is necessary.

BB-Idaho said...

I know your writing is non-partison as you stated earlier. But, can't help but notice that all the conservative blogs predictably lament Gore's prize,
predictably lament Thatcher & Reagan getting bypassed and predictably note the Norwegian
committee is a flock of know-nothing libtards & liebrals. Also
noticed that predictably all the liberal blogs counter with Kissinger (the carpet-bomber), noting that he was "too busy to attend the ceremony, just send the cash) and predictably, predicting
the reaction of the conservative blogs. Being the non-partisan type, perhaps you will agree that
every single minor irrelavent news item that crops up any more sends the mutts to one side of the yard, the curs to the other and they bark
loudly, ferociously and without effect. BTW, I seldon agree with the Academy Awards!


Yasser Arafat, that ugly little con-man, created Fatah, crippled the Economy in Palestine, set up Swiss bank accounts that bled his
poor people, and had his pretty wife stashed in a luxury suite in Paris for Years! The tab? Just a paltry Ten-Grand-A-Month!

What's So Noble About The NO-BEL?

I think our Global-Warming Czar is in his proper element. Jet-on Al baby! Hope you get the nomination. reb

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Dear Dr.W.

Here are a few you missed. I offer these by way of example and limitation:

2006 Muhammad Yunnu
2005 IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 Wangari Maathi
1999 Doctors without Borders
1998 John Hume & David Trimble
1997 International Campaign to Ban
1992 Nelson Mandela and Fredrik Wilhelm de
1991 Aung San Suu Kyi
1986 Elie Weisel
1976 Mother Teesa
1975 Andrei Sahkarov
1970 Norman Borlaug
1953 George Marshall
1952 Albert Schweitzer
1906 Theodore Roosevelt

I figure that anyone unfamiliar w/ any of these organizations or individuals will expend the time to look them up.

Just curious Dr. Do you tell your children when they do something right, or like most of your blog, do you only admonish them when they do somehing of which you disapprove?


Anonymous said...

Personally the awards a sham anyway. I dislike a bunch of people on every list brought up here. My main question is, what does global warming so-called, have to do with peace?!

John Washburn said...

BB, I don't think I lament Gore's award. I truly feel he was deserving, I wasn't being facetious. And I have made no illusions about my political leanings. This IS a conservative traditional blog - not a Republican blog (hence it is non-partisan). Gore is a socialist. So, naturally, I disagree with him on just about everything.

And even though I feel Gore deserved the award, that doesn't mean that I respect the award. I think it's a political tool used to criticize the US (why else would Reagan be passed over for Gorbachev?). Therefore, it lacks credibility and respect. I mentioned a half dozen people here who have no business getting cited for their contribution to peace. That alone is enough to discredit the award.

Reb, well said. Arafat was a monster, a murderer and a scam artis. He was also the foreign "leader" who stayed as a guest of the Clinton White House more than any other foreign leader.

Loop, I'm sorry but I missed your point completely. You noted some people who did some good things without commenting on the six that have no business getting a peace award. Is that supposed to add to the award's credibility? That they get it right MOST of the time?

And what does my parenting philosophy have to do with any of this? I think liberals like yourself create ridiculous comparisons for the purpose of distracting from the issue, and THAT was a ridiculous comparison. If the Nobel committee were my children, they'd be sitting in time out right now, and they'd get no pudding either. Is that what you wanted to hear? Just trying to play along.

Seriously, just so you don't miss the point, we're not talking about a child. We're talking about a committee of scholars in charge of assigning one of the world's most prestigious (supposedly) awards. They shouldn't make mistakes with that. They do it once a year. How hard can it be?


I.A.E.A. Mohamed elBaradei,"Watch-dog" over world nuclear production...(like N. Korea?) or was that "Watch-puppy"? reb

TexasFred said...

John, please contact me via email, I have apparently lost yours...

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Great back handed compliment DR. You believe that Al Gore deserved the award, youjust respect the award.

Love it.

Your position in a nutshell. The committee got it wrong a few timnes, therefore don't respect the award. How can you respect a committee that passed over Ronald Reagan whom the conservatives in this country would canonize as he is the anti Caesar. It was not the good he accomplished but his mistakes that were interred w/ him.

Just out of curiuosity, why was Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan desrving of the Nobel Peace Prize. RR despised Communism, for which I respect him. At best, he hastened the demise of the USSR by a few years. He was not responsible for the implosion oif a political system that never worked.

Mahatma Ghandi may have been an ommission except the prize is not awarded psothumously. Gandhi was killed in 1948. India did not become a sovereign republic until 1950 after his death.


The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Sorry. I am in a hurry. I meant to type: "you just don't respect the award."


Mr. Loop Garoo,

I Respect The Award...if its goal is to spotlight both the negative or the positive effects of a lifetime effort. The Nobel Certainly Does That!
If bloggers were allowed to place
names in nomination, in specific catagories, I would pick our own
Jimmy Carter to stand alongside Yasser Arafat, with my nominee to head this list for consideration:
The distinguished and honorable
Vladimir Putin:

Former head of the KGB, and a true friend of the Russian 'working-girl', and Glorious Symbol of the World Workers Party, WWP. reb

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


I suggest you check out the stated purpose of the ward. Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his actions after he was president, specifically "for decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to intrnational conflict, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote social and economic development."

History does not and will not treat his presidency kindly, but until recently, when he appears to have gone off of the rails, his efforts as described above have been laudable.

By my count, which may be off by a few, since 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded on 88 occasions to 111 individuals and institutions. The good Dr. identified 7 w/ whom he disagreed. That is < 6.4%. If the committee were doctors, getting the dx wrong that many times would be intolerable, but the committee is not in the dx business.

So read the list and determine where else, if anywhere, you disagree.

Doctor, Le Duc Tho was given the award w/ Henry Kissinger, for his efforts to bring about the end of the War in Vietnam. He did not start the Indochinese Communist Party to plant the seeds of war w/ the U.S. Remember, the War in Vietnam was a war of Vietnamese self determination that was going on b/f the U.S. entered Vietnam and after we left.

Anwar Sadat made war on Israel. He also made peace w/ Israel, something unthinkable for an Arab at the time for which he ultimately was assassinated.

Doctor, it is possible that Al Gore peddles junk science. On the other hand it is certain that peddle junk history. Your characterization of Mr. Gore attempting to the shred the Constitution is much less accurate than George W. Bush and the Republican political machine in Florida stealing the election. He is the only president to have been annointed by the Supreme Court.

Time and time again I have read your words that you are bipartisan. Your problem is not partisanship. It's reactionarism.

reb. What does Vladimir Putin have to do w/ the Nobel Peace Prize?


BB-Idaho said...

Le Duc Tho refused the Nobel Prize.
Pasternak and Satre were the only others to turn down the honor and cash. So perhaps in an obtuse way, they agree with some that the
Prize is hollow....

Dan Trabue said...

I think history will judge Carter to be easily one of our best ex-presidents. (and fair historians will not judge his presidential performance very harshly).

John Washburn said...

Dan, I can't imagine history outside of Boulder, Colorado judging Carter's administration positively.

Loop, You choose once again to mischaracterize me and I can't yet you get away with it. NEVER on this site have I claimed to be "bipartisan". I am 100% non-partisan, but I do nothing to hide my traditional conservative political positions. As far as the "Bush stole the election" stuff, you've obviously been drinking the kool aid again. We could talk about Equal Protection and the illegality of Gore's recount requests, or the ACTUAL independent recounts that were done after the election, but what good would that do? Something tells me that no matter what evidence you're confronted with you will always be of the "Bush stole the election" crowd.

Name-calling will always be part of political debate for those on the Left. If confronted with someone of different opinion, that someone is immediately a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, a redneck, an Islamophobe, intolerant, or "reactionary".

Bring it on, I've been called them all.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


I apologize. You have said "non partisan" rather than "bi partisan."

As for name calling, if the shoe fits... "Reactionary" at least in my mind is a perjorative term but it is not like calling someone a Nazi or an Islamofascist or whatever.

As for your Kool Aid remark, try reading Kevin Phillips' "American Aristocracy." You don't have to read the whole thing unless you wish to become disillusioned w/ the House of Bush. Just read the chapter on the 2000 election. Kevin Phillips is a former speech writer for Richard Nixon. He's not Al Franken.

Stop finding the facts that fit your theory even if they are readily available on Fox News. Find the facts and make up your own mind.

As for history and Carter, it is hard to say. Fifty or one hundred years from now, all the presidents will be afforded somewhere between a few paragraphs and half a page in a HS American History text book. Carter will be considered a minor figure. What will there be to mention except inflation was high and the Iranian hostages? You may think that Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran but I doubt that is how HS text book writers will see.

Currently, I am fascinated by Republicans yearning for the second coming of Ronald Reagan. My bet is that his accomplishments, once put in historical perspective, will seem rather than less than his admirers currently deem them to be. Perhaps this is merely a function of historical perspective which smothes out the highs and the lows.


Anonymous said...


Cater is never going to be seen well by history. The man was a fool economically. What part of his legacy (gas lines, interest rates, high taxation) do you think will make him one of the best?

1389 said...

Here's my take on al-Goracle, Kofi Annan, the UN, and the "Peace" Prize:

Dissecting the UN Debacle in Kosovo