Harold Pinter speaks up. Is he right?

So, Tico, in your hilarious contention (you are never far from the idiotic when you start playing word games in order to avoid substance), how do you explain the award of a Peace Prize to Theodore Roosevelt, or to James Earl Carter?

Earlier this year, Carter visited Cuba and delivered a jaw-dropping speech at the University of Havana. He credulously praised Cuba's "superb systems of health care and universal education" and accused the U.S. of imposing the death penalty in a discriminatory manner. He offered perfunctory criticism of Castro's dictatorship--and then hastily undercut his few decent words by shaking Castro's hand and grinning at him as soon as he finished his speech.

Carter's record on the Middle East is especially contemptible. Jay Nordlinger of National Review describes the first of Carter's many meetings with Yasser Arafat: He said, "When I bring up the [PLO] charter, you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis." Arafat, for his part, complained about the Reagan administration's alleged "betrayals." Rosalynn Carter, who was taking notes for her husband, interjected, "You don't have to convince us!" which . . . "elicited gales of laughter all round."

What is worst about the Arafat story is not Carter's toadying to a tyrant and a murderer, but his willingness to undercut his own country in order to ingratiate himself. Carter took this disloyal behavior to an unprecedented extreme the following year, 1991, when the UN Security Council was debating a resolution to authorize the United States to use force to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Carter wrote a letter to the Security Council asking them to vote the resolution down.

The Nobel Committee audaciously cited Carter's eagerness to sabotage the foreign policy of his successors as a reason for his prize: "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."

Lest that be misunderstood, Gunnar Berge, the committee's chairman, commented at a press conference that Carter's prize "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. . . . It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

A patriotic American would indignantly refuse any foreign prize that came accompanied by insults to his country. But in Carter's character, patriotism has always taken a very distant back seat to vanity and malice. No prize can redeem his reputation--but this choice certainly mars the reputation of this prize.

So as far as you're concerned, all Nobel prizes are only awarded to those who criticize the Bush administration? Although i doubt that criterion applies in the science, medicine, economics and literature categories, i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong.

At least we've gotten you to refine your paranoia to it's most detailed point. And, if in fact Pinter were awarded his prize precisely because of his opposition to the Shrub and his dirty little war, I applaud the Swedes.

Of course, you can't use that criterion to explain awards to Doctors Without Borders, or the International Campaign to Ban Landmines--or can you? (That oughta be good . . .)

I like rutebega mashed, but not yer garden variety turnips.

Thanks for actually having posted something in this thread which is on-topic, Steve, it's really quite unique . . .

Those organizations have already been awarded the peace prize. So now we have your criterion limited to the past year. So you're now admitting that your contention is based upon a statistically insignificant sample. You also admit that you can't say--which arises from the fact that this is all bullshit that you've thrown out here as a distration (your favorite tactic) rather than address the specific criticism Pinter makes.

Care to tackle an actual analysis of Pinter's thesis, or would you rather continue to make hilariously idiotic contentions about the Swedes?

Please note that the original poster asks for comment on the content of Pinter's address.

Note that the original poster asks for comment once again after Tico makes his idiotic contention about the criterion for laureate nomination.

Poor little Bush. He needs applause so badly. I feel sorry for him.

He never speaks in front of an audience that might contain a heckler. Mostly he addresses soldiers or Republicans, guarantied to cheer him.

This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment.

That is your opinion. It proves nothing. You cannot argue against the truth, itis difficult.