The Nobel Peace prize *has* been devalued, sadly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

It would be lovely to believe that the nobel prizes awarded to Annan in 2001, Carter in 2002, El Baradei in 2005 and Gore in 2007 were not, at least to some degree, motivated by a desire to rebuke George W. Bush rather than by the specific merits of the laureates.

Sadly, I do not think this is a position one can hold for any reason other than because one *wants* it to be true so much that one is willing to ignore the evidence.

That's not (necessarily) to say that some or all of them didn't deserve the Nobel prize (my view, FWIW, is that one could make a case for Gore, and possibly Annan, but not really for Carter or El Baradei, and that one could make cases against any of them).

But it *is* to say that they were not awared the prize because they deserved it.

One could, of course, point to e.g. the 73 prize to argue that this decade is not the first time it's been awarded at least partly for political purposes, or to people who don't deserve it.

But, so far as I know, this *is* the first time the prize has been used 4 times in 7 years to promote a single, narrow, political rather than peace-related (and please spare me the claims that being disliked by George Bush is promoting world peace to a sufficient degree to merit a Nobel prize) cause rather than solely on merit.

And that saddens me.

[Bicoastal]

1. Perhaps....

Then again, perhaps we underestimate the degree of worldwide infamy that George W. Bush has achieved since taking office.

Picture yourself in any country other than this one. Within a short period of time, you see a dangerously incompetent individual seize an inordinate amount of control in his own country, and then instigate catastrophic events around the globe. You try to say something, but are shouted down by the individual's loyal followers in the media, who seek to portray YOUR country as an imminent danger.

Perhaps it's only natural that the Nobel Committee has reacted in this way, and we simply can't understand it because we live HERE...

[lvx35]

2. What?

But, so far as I know, this *is* the first time the prize has been used 4 times in 7 years to promote a single, narrow, political rather than peace-related (and please spare me the claims that being disliked by George Bush is promoting world peace to a sufficient degree to merit a Nobel prize) cause rather than solely on merit.

So because the award was given to non-republicans, its promoting a narrow political rather than peace-related cause? I'm sorry, but if you haven't noticed, politics does have a great deal to do with peace these days, and in fact always has!

[hlthe2b]

3. DId you mean to post this on another website?

I find it ridiculous and quite insulting to some very worthwhile Nobel Laureates.

[papau]

4. Sorry - but leading opposition to Hitler was promoting world peace - and Bush is today's

equivalent.

And if you don't agree (and I can tell if you don't agree because I hear everything) I have a waterboard for you - but don't worry, even the about to be our new attorney general will not say water boarding is torture - so "by definition" we won't be torturing you. By the way who do we attack this next spring - Iran perhaps - last chance and we know those that follow will be wimps. Is there any doubt that Bush let 9/11 happen - either on purpose or by incompetence? Is there any doubt about oil company empire being the controlling theme of the Bush presidency - or that our CIA and our military are assigned the task of facilitating American oil company's obtaining whatever they want as anything else occurring is losing the economic war against the U.S.?

Those Nobel's all had other solid reasons, and opposition to Bush policy did not mean the laureates needed less merit in other areas.

But opposition to Bush, in this era, would seem to be a minimum criteria for the peace award.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Another Global Warming denier heard from...

Flame bait.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I would suggest you either find a post from me denying global warming, or apologise.

I am all in favour of the work Al Gore is doing raising awarenes of global warming.

I do not think that it is the only, or probably even the main, reason he was selected for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Look for evidence to support your post, and, when you've failed, please apologise. Calling meaningless rude names is one thing; an objective insult like that which is clearly false is another.

[CJCRANE]

6. Bush is on the wrong side of history.

That is all.

[Orangepeel]

7. who does deserve it?

It's given every year. Not everybody is going to be Mother Theresa. (wait a minute... what did she ever do to promote peace? all she did was help people)

If anything is going to devalue the peace price, it's the fact that Henry Kissinger won it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Kissinger was a *far* less worthy recipient, but he was more or less isolated.

Annan, Carter, El Baradei and Gore are, unlike Kissinger, at least all good people. In at least two of the four cases, one could just about make a case that they deserved their nobel prizes, although one could also make cases that they didn't; my problem is that they were awarded for the wrong reasons.

However, the committee occasionally doing something spectacularly daft worries me less that evidence that they are systematically, consciously and deliberately awarding the prize on grounds not consistent with its ideals, because that will devalue it more for future recipients.

Kissinger was an isolated mistake. The last seven years looks deliberate.

[Evergreen Emerald]

8. yes donald. The world revolves around snubbing Bush

Why that Nobel group lives to make sure Bush is insulted at every turn. They are not considering that globel warming affects the GLOBE. They are not considering that Gore brought the issue into the consciousness of most people on this planet.

They are only thinking of georgie-porgie-puddin-pie

[yellowcanine]

10. Not that the OP was posted over 3 hours ago and nada since then. I think we fell for flame bait.

[yellowcanine]

9. Well, since you are not on the committee and were not privy to the deliberations, this is all

a bunch of meaningless speculation. The Nobel Peace Prize is nearly always controversial. I think it is quite disingenuous of many of the Gore naysayers to hrumph about how Gore is no MLK when many of them and their political bedfellows were highly critical of MLK receiving the prize at the time -for some of the same reasons being used now with Gore - that the committee was engaging in presidential bashing (in that case LBJ - MLK had split with LBJ over the Vietnam War).

I give the committee more credit than all that. And furthermore, to say that giving the prize to Annan in 2001 and Carter in 2002 was somehow related to opposition to Bush is, well, puzzling, to say the least. I think your "saddens me" tears are Crocodile tears.

[SaveElmer]

13. So what if it was...entirely appropriate...

If we were at peace...there wouldn't be a need for the peace prize now would there...

To me not only does the Nobel Peace Prize recognize those that are working for peace, it also highlights and implicitly rebukes those that are not...

Of course it is a rebuke of Bush, he is one of those opposing Gore's efforts, and therefore what the peace prize symbolizes...

[JeffR]

14. Bingo!

Well said.