If you ever thought that the Nobel Peace Prize was truely meaningful - this should quell those thoughts.

The Peace Prize has become a chance for the idiots on the committee to smack around the US. The US is working to contain nukes in Iran and North Korea without the IAEA and suddenly, the IAEA wins the award. And don't get me started about Jimmy Carter.

Someone needs to step up and create a new peace prize. It would be awarded to the person who actually DOES something to improve the chances of peace not just someone who TALKS about it.

Yep, its the committee that needs to be strapped to a rocket.

Let's just call it the "No Balls" peace prize.

Arafat's was a true obscenity. Carter's acceptance of the snub to the U.S.? Well, it was Carter, so who could have expected more? When will Norway create an "Idiotarian Award"?

To be sure, the "Peace Prize" has devolved into an "anti-" award. I'm wondering if it is actually a grand scale, inside joke to lighten the mood from the serious awards.

Be prepared for B. Clinton's nomination for '06. He's trolling for money for catastrophe victims now while calling the U.S. presence in Iraq a "quagmire". That's some nice foundation work for his resurrection from the disgraced.

The only reason the IAEA got it is because Osama bin Laden, their first choice, didn't return their calls to confirm his acceptance and assure them that he would attend the award ceremony.

So, just for the sake of hilarity, who would you have given it to, instead?

Chris,

They should give it to themselves every year for the hereafter for their great insight to the planet's peace movements. And to spare us from their side-splitting sarcasm.

You're overlooking the reports that nuclear traces were found in Egypt during El Baradei's watch, but not followed up on.

And El Baradei was born in...

I don't agree with much of anything Michael Savage has to say, but I think his "Liberalism is a mental disorder" phrase is applicable and apropos in this instance.

What you toads fail to remember, or have blotted out of your memory with a painful wince, is that ElBaradei correctly assessed the Iraqi nuclear threat (non-existant) at a time when the Bushies were out speading lies and hype about imminent mushroom clouds, sinister aluminum tubes, and yellow cake in Niger. All of these allegations have been shown to be complete fabrications, as ElBaradei knew. He was the one who investigated the aluminum tubes and found that they were totally unsuitable for the centrifuge process CondiLiar Rice said they were for. ElBaradei and Blix called the Bushies out for their gross, serve-serving exagerations to justify invasion - which is more than I can say for the pathetic US press.

The bottom line is that had the Bushies listened to ElBaradei and Hans Blix - instead of rushing to war - and allowed the weapons inspectors the few extra months they were asking for to complete their work, then we could have avoided this idiotic, ill-conceived war that is bleeding our country dry and limiting our options to deal with real threats. I'd say that is very deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.

The work of the IAEA has done more to limit nuclear non-proliferation than any other ogranization. Meanwhile, the Bushies have no successes they can point to in that regard. On the contrary, their know-nothing cowboy approach to foreign policy has succeeded in making nuclear porliferation more likely. At every turn, this admin has undermined international cooperation designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and has diverted funds from programs to secure Russia's decaying, wayward nuclear arsenal. Instead, we find hundreds of billions to pour into a war against a country that was a secular enemy of Osama, which had no nuclear capabilty, and nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, with our forces pinned down in the predictable quagmire of Iraq, our options to deal with Iran and N Korea are severely limited.

You all go ahead and keep ridiculing the UN and all other forms of international cooperation. Meanwhile, our country is being wrecked by this monkey in the white house who has no knowledge of complex international issues, and apparently prefers to surround himself with people equally unqualified for their jobs.

One day, we will have a president who actually speaks English and reads. One day we will have an administration composed of people who are experts in their fields, rather than a bunch shit-kickers whose sole qualifications seem to be that they are loyal Bush buddies who have an arrogant contempt for a world they know nothing about. One day evolution will be taught in US biology classes. One day the adults will take over, and the US will once again be admired and respected instead of being a marginalized and despised laughing-stock.

Congratulations, Mr ElBaradei!

One day we'll have an intelligent liberal that can see through his blind hatred of the other side, and realize the over-the-top rhetoric makes him look like a classic liberal arts college student who thinks he's much smarter than he is.

"Hey, I've READ Chompsky, has this idiot Bush?"

Just because I have some time...

Aaron:

"...the Bushies were out spreading lies and hype about imminent mushroom clouds, sinister aluminum tubes, and yellow cake in Niger. All of these allegations have been shown to be complete fabrications, as ElBaradei knew."

Oh really? Perhaps you haven't read the Butler or SIC reports which detail, in fact, that the report of the absent-minded of just plain lazy Joe Wilson (your hero, remember) gave detailed evidence that Iraq wanted to buy uranium. It's all detailed quite nicely here.

Seems Joe wasn't really telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth now, was he? But I guess telling the truth in a highly touted NY Times column don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand if the goal is to bring down a President you don't like.

"...(had) the Bushies listened to ElBaradei and Hans Blix - instead of rushing to war - and allowed the weapons inspectors the few extra months they were asking for to complete their work..."

Afraid not, again. As detailed in Charles Duelfer's report, Iraq's deception program continued on even during the inspections of Resolution 1441. According to the report:

"IIS personnel accompanied all UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection convoys, according to a former senior Iraqi official. The IIS believed that all foreigners were spying on the security of Saddam Husayn or were seeking military or security information. The IIS believed that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was very tough and that it was important to engage in counterintelligence activities to protect against the loss of important information. IIS “minders” traveled with communications intercept equipment in their vehicles in order to listen to UNSCOM communications while on the move, though this strategy (the minders) was not used against UNMOVIC in 2002 and 2004 out of fear of detection."

But the deception was still active. And during his testimony to the SIC he said "...indeed deception continued right up until war in 2003." A deception that would NOT have been uncovered if not for our invasion. Again, read it for yourself here.

"Meanwhile, the Bushies have no successes they can point to in that regard (limit nuclear proliferation)."

And I suppose the US/British-lead disarmament of Libya doesn't count somehow. Right.

And now my personal favorite:
"...a country that was a secular enemy of Osama..."

Oh brother, this is one tired argument. Then please explain the formation of Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda and Saddam backed terrorist group in Northern Iraq, responsible for "keeping in line" the Kurds. Or how about the harboring and funding of Abdul rahman Yasin and Ahemd Hikmat Shakir who were connected to the 1993 bombing of WTC. Or how Zarqawi fled to Iraq after fleeing from Afghanistan in 2002. Or the open communications throughout the mid-90s between the IIS and AQ in the Sudan. or, how about this doozy from the 9/11 Comm. report: "The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support (anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan) and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Or what about Salman Pak, the terrorist training camp found just south Baghdad. I suppose that didn't exist until we arrived.

Oh, and Clinton also knew of the ties as well.

Or, the DoD's 2002 report which stated "An Oct 2002 [U.S. intelligence agency] report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that two al Qaeda members involved a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel."

And excuse me, but what does "no formal collaboration" mean? What? Iraq and AQ didn't have a formal signing agreement at EuroDisney, so it's not "official"? Do liberals any grasp of the word "clandestine operations"!? In a word, no.

Secularism? No ties? No connections? And it's a helluva a lot more than what I've outlined here. Are you freaking serious?

"One day evolution will be taught in US biology classes."

Um, since when has it NOT been taught.

"One day the adults will take over..."

Like, say, former cigar-stuffer Clinton? Now there's adult behavior.

As GOPers, we're always told by liberals to "put down our Kool Aid" and "wake up". Yet they can never outline how, without resorting to cheap, baseless and often hateful rhetoric, how we are to "wake up" or what dream we are exactly living.

Party of the "open-minded", "tolerant" and "diverse". It can't even put down the Great Book of Liberal Rhetoric long enough to actually look up the facts.

You folks are still mad that the IAEA was RIGHT and Bush was WRONG. GET OVER IT!

Maybe you should take your heads out from your own derierres long enough to look at FACTs instead of the neo-con's fantasies. Bush has cost us 1,950 dead and $100's of Billions of your tax money in Iraq. I'd think you all would be a little mad at the liars instead of those who told the truth.

I mean one thousand nine hundred and fifty of our children, brothers, sisters, parents, husbands and wives are DEAD because of George Bush's LIES about Iraq. There were no mushroom clouds waiting to happen, no stockpiles of chemical weapons, no tons of bioweapons, no connections to Al Qaeda or 9/11. EVERY SINGLE REASON George Bush gave us for going to war WAS A LIE. A concious, deliberate LIE. Doesn't that make you at least a little mad?

Oh - that's right. I forgot. You make up your own reality, regardless of the truth. That's all right. You can keep living your fantasies while DeLay and Rove and Libby and Abramoff and Safavian and Noe and Frist and Cunningham and Ryan and Fletcher and Taft and Rowland, etc. rot in real jails.

JFH is right. It has become hatred - at least on my part. Hatred of the lies. Hatred of the corruption. Hatred of the torture done in our name. Hatred of the stupidity masguerading as policy. Hatred of the contempt your heros have for our traditions, our history, and the sheer contempt they have for America as they use you idiots.

I really feel sorry for you all because you're getting scr****d up the a** and liking it while they rip off the nation's wealth and reputation. I only hope there is enough good left in this country to recover. If not, you can thank George Dubya Bush for the New China Century.

RE: Aaron's post (October 7, 2005 02:33 PM)

Or, with one of many alternate endings to the following, we could say:

"The bottom line is that had the Bushies listened to ElBaradei and Hans Blix - instead of rushing to war - and allowed the weapons inspectors the few extra months they were asking for to complete their work, then we could have avoided this idiotic, ill-conceived war that is bleeding our country dry and limiting our options to deal with real threats" and allowed Hussein & sons to restock their human kindling from the wood chippers. Ahh, peace... nothing like it.

Yes, three cheers to El-Baradei and his army of pencil pushers ridding the world of the most heinous - paper cuts be damned.

Today's Tangent:

Just curious: Why can't lefties/liberals/The Apoplectic Left speak without using swear words? I mean, I swear a lot, but I try not to use swear words gratuitously as they then lose their meaning and impact. Used at just the right moment, at just the right point in an argument, any swear word, particularly an f-bomb, can take on great power and meaning. But lefties, whoa, it's like having a conversation with a longshoreman. Or Tony Montana.

Percy tries to use it correctly, unfortunately he's so apoplectic that before he even gets to using "screwed up the ass" he's already helped the phrase lose its power. Nice try, though.

Moving on...

JFH

Blind hatred? What else does Bush have to do before you all finally give up on your blind love for him?

Speaking of blind hatred, this blog entry is devoted to a favorite pastime of the right: hating and ridiculing the UN (and pretty much the entire international community). So the logic here is basically that ElBaradei and the IAEA is to blame because a laundry list of countries have developed nuclear weapons "on their watch". By that simpleton's reasoning, Bush is to blame for 9/11 because it occured on his watch. Talk about "over the top"!

A slightly more detailed look at the list here is pretty embarassing for the US. Pakistan, for example, is an ally of the US, and received substantial technological assistance from the US. Its top nuclear scientist sold plans and weapon grade materials to N Korea. If that weren't enough, Pakistan supports the Taliban, shelters Al-Qaeda, and runs Madrassas where hatred for the US is preached. (so logically, Bush invaded Iraq!)

Iran did not start a weapons program until Bush's unfortunate "axis of evil" speech, which was meant solely to stir up domestic passions for his own political gain. This totally pulled the rug out from moderates and reformers in Iran and wiped out years of careful, and fruitful, diplomacy.

North Korea similarly threw out inspectors and switched off verification cameras in response to Bush swagger. The lesson drawn by N Korea from Bush's unilateral invasion of Iraq is that they'd be better off getting nukes as soon as they could, especially while US forces were being exhausted in Iraq.

Forgotten on Jay Teas list is Israel, another of our great "allies" which stole nuclear secrets from the US, and has more nukes than Pakistan, India, and N Korea put together.

Also missing from the list is the development of a whole range of new tactical nuclear weapons by the US, including "mini-nukes". With nuclear weapon production going full tilt here in the US, I guess you could say that ElBaradei has failed!

Also forgotten is the decimation under the Bush admin of a successful US program aimed at securing Russia's nukes and providing remunerated alternatives for Russia's unemployed nuclear scientists.

Also forgotten is this administration's unforgivable outing - for petty political revenge - of a CIA agent working precisely on WMD proliferation! And you all have the gall to attack ElBaradei's record in trying to limit WMD proliferation?!

Against this tide of an increasingly destabilized world, and hostility from the remaining "superpower", the IAEA has forged ahead. We should be supporting those efforts, not undermining them.

And finally, JFH, I don't care whether he president reads Chomsky, or Marx, or Darwin. I'd settle for him at least reading the newpaper, and occasionally reading his security memos.

I call it the Norwegian Badge of Uselessness

Jay, I share your distaste for some of the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. I agreed with last year's choice, but I hang my head in despair at the awards given to people who have been responsible for hundreds, thousands and - in one case - millions of violent deaths. Don't forget the Dalai Lama, though.

I was also a bit puzzled by this year's choice. But not for all the same reasons as you. The failure to prevent India and Pakistan (two countries that have already fought several wars in their short period of separation) from gaining the capacity to kill everyone on the subcontinent...that failure was shared with the United States. OK, I bow to the partisans at Wizbang - that was under Clinton.

But there's another country that demonstrates the total failure of the IAEA to fulfil its mandate. There is one - and only one - country in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons...and a lot of them, at that. The UN nuclear watchdog not only completely and utterly failed to prevent this - it continues to fail to even name that country. Which country is this? If I say the name, I will be called an anti-semite, without the accusers knowing anything at all of my background. But you already know the answer.

But let's get back to Jay Tea's post - and the inaccuracies.

1) Libya's "highly advanced nuclear program". Yes, Libya announced it, but it was a hotch-potch mess of incompatible parts that couldn't be put together. Libya got a ridiculously good deal out of that announcement. Gaddafi wanted to get sanctions lifted - and he managed it by declaring his boxes of junk. Yes, a bunch of incompetent hacks called it advanced - the same frauds also said Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD. Evil as he was, that claim was no longer true.

2) North Korea "is unabashedly seeking nuclear weapons." Jay, the general international consensus (at least in public) is that North Korea already has nuclear weapons and needs to disarm. Well, OK, perhaps you share my suspicion that North Korea just might be lying to gain economic and political leverage. Then again, it might not.

3) There is NO evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. I'm not saying Iran isn't doing that - like everyone else, I'm not omniscient and cannot know anything 100%. Like everyone else I can only rely on the publicly available information - and that information does NOT demonstrate that Iran is pursuing the big bomb. The evidence suggests that Iran is doing exactly what it did in the 1950s when it refused to accept British ownership of its own oil reserves. Iran is proud - the more you push it, the more it will cut off its nose to spite its face.

Jay, you should be ashamed of yourself. You're not an idiot. Just take one day off your partisan pontificating and do some research. Find out the reasons Iran has given for initially keeping its nuclear program secret - takes a bit of looking in the English language, because hardly anyone in the west has ever bothered to do anything other than spout $#@* on this issue. Read the Non-Proliferation Treaty - written by the nuclear-armed powers of the 1960s - including the US - and find one part of that treaty that Iran has violated. And find out the results of the tests that were done on Iran's centrifuges.

But you should spend just a little more than a day and read Stephen Kinzer's book "All the Shah's Men". It won't tell you anything about Iran's nuclear program, but it will give you an idea about why Iran will not back down under the current pressure. Because, as I said, Iran will cut off its nose to....

Just one final thought - you criticize the IAEA over Pakistan. Fine. But why have I never seen a single criticism from you over President Bush's continued support for Pakistan.

As someone said in the early '90s - Hypocricy is the greatest luxury; raise the double standard!

"But there's another country that demonstrates the total failure of the IAEA to fulfil its mandate. There is one - and only one - country in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons...and a lot of them, at that. The UN nuclear watchdog not only completely and utterly failed to prevent this - it continues to fail to even name that country. Which country is this? If I say the name, I will be called an anti-semite, without the accusers knowing anything at all of my background. But you already know the answer."

Uh, cat... I'm not worried about Israel arbitrarily using its nukes to turn the ME into a crater. Everyone around Israel, though... well, let's just say I'm glad I live here and not there if nukes get into the wrong hands.

Seriously, I would think that if Israel was going to be a nuclear threat, it would've already dropped the big bomb on somebody by now. Hell, Israel has had a lot of provocation - far more than it should have to put up with.

And I am going to be nice and not say a word about your supposed "background".

And way back in the 80s when the idiots in the sandals were going around trying to deckair areas NUCULAR WEAPONS FREE ZONES what a bunch of nambdy pambdy idiots why dont they just sponsor a brains free zone becuase most of them have lost their brains

Hey Aaron, job for you

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/1068-Al-Qaeda-Job-Openings.html

Way to pretty much prove Aaron's point, jake.

Silverbubble, I offer my most profound thanks and gratitude for your not saying anything about my "supposed background". From now on, whenevever I am sad, whenever I feel down, I will always remember that Silverbubble didn't say anything about my "supposed background". You are so good. You are so kind. Thank you, oh thank you, oh great, oh good and oh so kind Silverbubble.

cat, your sarcasm is duly noted.

Silverbubble - as to your "backgroundism" ...likewise.

cat, excellent point about Israel. It's concise, accurate, and correct.

But incomplete.

The IAEA's authority extends from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- a treaty Israel has never signed. Hence the IAEA has absolutely no right and no business in Israel, as the agreement that is its empowering authority simply doesn't apply. Should Israel sign the NPT, THEN the IAEA can do its duty (with, I suspect, considerably more diligence than they showed in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, or Iraq, because they're more MOTIVATED -- hell, I suspect they'll find evidence even if they have to manufacture it themselves) and enforce Israel's compliance. Until then, they can sit and spin.

J.

It's a bit odd to suggest that the IAEA should be judged on whether any countries in the world have nuclear weapons, particularly in a forum where the prevailing opinion seems to be that the UN should have no right to effect how any country does anything. I suppose the land mine folks shouldn't have been recognized, either, because after all, there's still land mines in the world.