February 13, 2004
Bush: Nobel Peace Prize?
That is right, President George W. Bush has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize according to this Associated Press article.
Would be interesting to know who nominated him. Anyway, just thought I would bring some levity to this column. Enjoy!
Posted by David R. Remer at February 13, 2004 08:09 PMMaybe it was that kid in Iraq with no arms. I mean, it has to be pretty peaceful not ever having to clean up your room or do your chores.
Posted by: SoL at February 13, 2004 08:59 PMInteresting. Pres. Bush was nominated last year as well for the Peace Prize. Of course, that was before the war in Iraq started.
Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 09:44 PMI’d like to nominate George Orwell for the new “Nobel ‘You Called It’ Prize”…
Posted by: ceejayoz at February 13, 2004 10:29 PMI guess Alanis Morrisette’s going to have to add a verse to that song.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2004 11:20 PMYeah, I heard about this a couple of weeks ago. There are some other odd nominations as well. I guess it is supposed to be a joke year?
If anyone is going to take it I hope it will be Pope John Paul II. To be honest, there have not been too many descent Popes throughout history and he has been a definite exception.
Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2004 11:35 PMI’ve heard that anyone within a government, can nominate persons for the prize, and that it was only one person…
Posted by: kashe at February 14, 2004 12:27 AMAdam, as pope’s go, I would agree with you. He was certainly one of the more educated popes and being non-roman, he had a huge potential for success or failure when took up the sceptre. Overall, the role of pope is largely an ineffective remnant, but, I do believe this pope has been effective on some issues for the betterment of humanity and posterity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2004 12:28 PMThe president is always nominated by someone for the nobel. remember clinton’s push to win one with arafat? but the reality is that bush will never win the nobel prize, if only because of who picks the winenrs. in selecting jimmy carter, many felt they doing it to give w. the middle finger.
Posted by: edrqe at February 14, 2004 02:13 PMIf Yassir Arafat got it, why not? By the way, the kid with no arms [SoL]: was he dropped into the meat grinder head first or feet first, as Saddam was wont to do?
By the way, the kid with no arms [SoL]: was he dropped into the meat grinder head first or feet first, as Saddam was wont to do?
It’s the kid who picked up cluster bomb that blew his arms off. I was being sarcastic.
Posted by: SoL at February 15, 2004 06:15 AMI propose Hitler for the “Lifetime Achievement” prize
Posted by: Germán at February 15, 2004 06:01 PMWow! Wouldn’t that drive the ultra-liberal loonies nuts if Bush won. If the war in Iraq leads to a change of regime in Iran and other Middle-East countries, then Bush might be a good pick.
Posted by: Jason at February 17, 2004 02:17 PMJason, it would drive anybody with a halfway consistent sense of logic up the wall. Here is a man who attacked a nation without being attacked first, only to fail to find the weapons and terrorists that were supposed to be the targets of this war. It only gets worse (and I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen) if the government in Iraq fails to get on its feet. Plus, what happens when when some other nation tries to make peace, Bush style?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2004 02:55 PM“what happens when when some other nation tries to make peace, Bush style?”
the good ol us of a will kick there ass!
