Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Vern Green wrote:
Yeah Mike, we know all that,
this is what I was referring to:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/11/carter.nobel/index.html
"Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush,
Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position
Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of
the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq." In
fairness, Gunnar Berge did not speak for the entire panel, however, I
have a hard time believing that he is the only one that felt this way.
Typically, the Nobel Peace Prize is given to someone who is involved in a
struggle against some sort of tyranny or abuse of power or against a war.
Berge is saying that Carter was given the prize partly because he was
working against Bush's Iraq War. That makes sense. Bush's War might
spawn more than one Nobel Prize for his opponents. Time will tell.
Gore's prize is different, but Bush has long opposed Gore's approach to
the environment, so the Nobel for Gore gives an obvious message about
Bush's policies: they suck.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion