but what the heck does global warming have to do with peace?
Every year the committee goes further out of its mind in following its insane and paranoid vision of world politics.
If they ever had one shred of validlity (for example when they nominated Mother Teresa of Calcutta) this undermines it all. Anyone less deserving than Al Gore of such a prize would be hard to imagine. I'm surprised it wasn't awarded posthumously to Saddam Hussein.
Such a blatant and obvious attempt to influence the American Political scene should be soundly repudiated by any person thinking properly.
The question is, will they give it to Bill Clinton next year, or just go ahead and give it to the Democratic presidential nominee?
the uber-crunchies are gettin' nuttier all the time, good sir. i think this is what is called the "logical conclusion" of the loosey-goosey politics of the one-world vision.
Saddam, for all his faults, did a Tito-esque job of holding together an impossible nation in peace. He was quite possibly the ablest and wisest leader the Arab world had in the twentieth century.
Holding a nation as large and diverse as Iraq together is worthy of a Peace Prize, so long as we don't bother to ask the question: at what price this peace?