Advertise here: Contact FM.

September 25, 2001
6:51 AM Subscribe

Bush a posible Nobel Peace Prize winner?
That is, if he avoids war....so what do reckon?
posted by tomcosgrave (33 comments total)

There's no need to avoid war to win the win the Peace Prize. It has often been awarded to ardent warriors who eventually negotiate peace. (Although sometimes the peace lasts barely long enough for the laureate to make his flight to Oslo.)

Examples: Rabin and Arafat, Mandela and DeKlerk, Kissinger and Giap, and a long time ago, Teddy Roosevelt.
posted by MattD at 6:55 AM on September 25, 2001

I dunno... giving the peace prize to a guy sparking a war that has no end? It is impossible to eliminate terrorism. Impossible. But his good corporate friends (oil, airline, defense, etc.) stand to get gobs of handouts, contracts and turned heads. What is a human tragedy turns out to be a wonderful coincidence for corporate America in the long run.
posted by fleener at 7:16 AM on September 25, 2001

I love this. The group telling Bush in advance what he must do to qualify for their prize...or else. Sort of like the Boston marathon in which you have to come within time limits set by the group. Or you don't get to qualify. I am sure this will alter the Bush policies in order that he gets the prize.
posted by Postroad at 7:27 AM on September 25, 2001

"But WAIT... that's not all. If you catch those responsible without starting a war NOW, you get not only the Nobel Prize (worth eternal admiration and respect), but also the George Foreman grill. ACT NOW! Don't delay!
posted by geronimo_rex at 7:33 AM on September 25, 2001

Don't you think his role in executing hundreds (perhaps even some innocents among them) in Texas may be a factor working against him?
posted by mapalm at 7:36 AM on September 25, 2001

Nobel Prize is over-rated.
And if we are giving it to any American president, why not good ol' Jimmy Carter? He has literally given his blood, sweat and tears in promoting peace and democracy.
posted by tamim at 7:39 AM on September 25, 2001

It is impossible to eliminate terrorism. Impossible. But his good corporate friends (oil, airline, defense, etc.) stand to get gobs of handouts, contracts and turned heads. What is a human tragedy turns out to be a wonderful coincidence for corporate America in the long run.

What cynical, counterproductive crap. What's your proposal? How would you have reacted?
posted by norm at 7:59 AM on September 25, 2001

norm, Counterproductive? Of course opposing viewpoints are always to be minilized and trivialized. Gimme a break.

The obvious thing would be to get those responsible and bring them to justice. Note that we aren't headed toward justice, we are headed to war. Difference: trial vs. murder. Learn something about manufacturing consent because Bush has ramped up production. Given that we have no fucking clue who they are it is rather amusing that Bush is trusting the evidence conveniently left behind by the terrorists. Huh, they artfully pull off the mastermind crime of the century, but leave obvious rookie clues that incriminate Bin Laden, and yet Bin Laden refuses to take credit? Either the FBI is stupid or we are playing into Bin Laden's hands, or both.
posted by fleener at 8:24 AM on September 25, 2001

Big Deal. Clinton got nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and he didn't even have to rattle his sabre and call off a war to get there.

On the other hand, if Bush can honestly avoid war at this point (HA!) then he deserves a prize. Maybe a nice gold-foil wrapped chocolate.
posted by ilsa at 8:25 AM on September 25, 2001

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.

Kill me now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:29 AM on September 25, 2001

Of course it's "impossible to eliminate terrorism". Why do you think its called Operation: Infinite Justice?

Of course, true "Infinite Justice" could only come from the divinity of one's choice -- maybe this is just another "faith-based initiative." "I think, in his frame, this is what God has asked him to do," the acquaintance said. "It offers him enormous clarity."
posted by eptitude at 8:32 AM on September 25, 2001

Given that we have no fucking clue who they are it is rather amusing that Bush is trusting the evidence conveniently left behind by the terrorists.

We don't know yet what evidence has been collected since Sept. 11, so there's no reason to assume that the evidence left behind by the terrorists is the deciding factor in identifying Osama bin Laden as the mastermind of the attacks.

From Meet the Press this weekend:

TIM RUSSERT: Will you release publicly a white paper which links [bin Laden] and his organization to this attack to put people at ease?

SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL: Yeah, we are hard at work bringing all the information together -- intelligence information, law enforcement information -- and I think in the near future we’ll be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack. But also, remember, he has been linked to earlier attacks against U.S. interests, and he's already indicted for earlier attacks against the United States.

posted by rcade at 8:32 AM on September 25, 2001

When you look at some of the people who have won the Nobel Peace Prize, it kinda makes you wonder what it really means. Yasser Arafat? Rigoberta Menchu? Joseph Rotblat? The Dalai Lama is a good leader for a repressed people, but what has he actually done to bring peace to the world?

Where's Jimmy Carter on the list? Edward Teller?
posted by jaek at 8:35 AM on September 25, 2001

Meet the Press transcript. Powell's interview is worth a read if you're concerned about where all of this is going.
posted by rcade at 8:35 AM on September 25, 2001

The only reaction to an absurd world is ...damn I wish I could remember the rest of that.

But it's still drinking time in Korea as you in N. America wake up, so I won't even try.

Here's a thing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:36 AM on September 25, 2001

In other news, if I can discover a cure for cancer this year, I'll get the prize for Medicine. To quote Bush pere, "Na ga daat".
posted by jpoulos at 8:37 AM on September 25, 2001

rcade: FYI, in the latest statement (no link, sorry), the Bush administration said that no, after all, we won't be releasing details on the evidence against bin Laden.

They say it's because they don't want to tip off the "terrorists" as to what the administration knows...I say it's because they don't have any info.

Both opinions are equally valid in the absence of hard evidence.
posted by mapalm at 8:44 AM on September 25, 2001

and I think in the near future we’ll be able to put out a paper...

Maybe not. It looks like Powell has yet again been publicly smacked down by his boss (bottom of article).
posted by nikzhowz at 8:57 AM on September 25, 2001

Bush appears to think that military action is required when in this spot--he clearly doesn't give the impression of personal commitment
posted by timetostepback at 9:04 AM on September 25, 2001

It would be a mistake of epic proportions for the White House to think it can keep the evidence against bin Laden to itself. There's no way to build (and keep) a multinational coalition together without selling the people in those nations on bin Laden's guilt.
posted by rcade at 9:05 AM on September 25, 2001

Oh come on, you silly people!

They can't release the evidence to the press because if they do that, it'll be a lot harder for Osama to get a fair trial! Geez, don't you remember what happened to OJ? And he turned out to be innocent.

I hope Court TV gets the exclusive.
posted by Jart at 9:05 AM on September 25, 2001

Average userosity (= total of usernums/# of posts) thus far : 4324.

Not quite sure what that means, but I reckon it's more or less as germane as some of the the comments so far.

(Apologies for sarcasm, really. It's damn near bedtime now.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:16 AM on September 25, 2001

Actually, Bush won't release Bin Laden evidence. "Most of it is Classified," Powell now says.
posted by cell divide at 9:37 AM on September 25, 2001

Auuuuuuuuugh. If the U.S. doesn't give the countries we're demanding help from something to point to, it's just going to look like we're only getting cooperation by bullying the reluctant.

Which plays into the hands of bin Laden and company.

Please, please, Powell, talk to your people.
posted by sacre_bleu at 9:48 AM on September 25, 2001

Iran is going to be shown the evidence, according to the British foreign secretary. Maybe Iran could tell the American people.
posted by rcade at 9:52 AM on September 25, 2001

Huh, they artfully pull off the mastermind crime of the century...

Eh, thats a bit of an overstatment. Assuming this act was really many months (or years) in the making, the only hard part to succeeding is keeping your mouth shut about it.

These guys were not masterminds, in any sense of the word, but rather fanatics with a skewed perspective on reality.

Look:
Its not hard to smuggle a box cutter onto an airplane.
Its not hard to steal a pilot's uniform.
Its not hard to learn how to fly a plane that had already taken off.

It's not hard to do what they did, all it takes is an unconscionable will to destroy, and a credit card.
posted by dcgartn at 10:42 AM on September 25, 2001

My proposal

1) accumulate sufficent evidence against those responsible for the attacks
2) be willing to present it as need be

America has done neither. If the American government is unwilling to present to the world it's case against Bin Laden & the Taliban why should we believe them? It becomes easy to fall into cynicism.

We are doing #1, and will do #2. I heard the same things you did, and know that even if we don't release fully the evidence we have that we are prepared to share with our allies and prospective allies to persuade them. My point is entirely that those who are against our policy at this point are knee-jerking it. I am not a huge Bush fan, but I recognize that his handling of the crisis so far has been spot on. 1. Launch the largest law enforcement investigation in history. 2. Mobilize an international coalition and not act unilaterally. 3. No lashing out without said coalition. 4. Utilize intelligence and financial means to strike first and 5. If established that there are "high value targets" to hit, hit them.

norm, Counterproductive? Of course opposing viewpoints are always to be minilized and trivialized.

Your viewpoint is not opposing, it is merely a factless conjecture cynically designed to devalue the response -- what evidence do you have that Bush is responding based on political favors? And how does your factless conjecture work to achieve your aims of establishing peace and a consensus against senseless violence? I guess it doesn't. To properly trivialize your position I would make fun of your misspelling of "minimalized."

Again, to those against our current policy, what would you have us do instead? Is there a course that Bush could take that you would support, or do his election debacle and allies hopelessly compromise his legitimacy as president?
posted by norm at 11:01 AM on September 25, 2001

Would you really want a "Peace Prize" that had been given to scum like Kissinger?

I sure wouldn't.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:35 AM on September 25, 2001

The Dalai Lama is a good leader for a repressed people, but what has he actually done to bring peace to the world?

He lives and teaches a path of peace all around the world, prays for the Chinese in spite of what has been and is being done to his people and culture, unwaveringly encourages non-violence... He's the closest thing to a living embodiment of peacefulness that I've seen. He encourages people to seek peace actively and find peacefulness within themselves by whatever method is suitable to them. Sounds about right to me. I follow the same path though, so draw your own conclusions.
posted by zangpo at 11:38 AM on September 25, 2001

Since this conversation has degenerated into random outbursts, I'd just like to add that I should be nominated for a Nobel Prize in Physics if I discover the secret to faster-than-light travel. Thanks.
posted by owen at 11:51 AM on September 25, 2001

"Thank you, I am pleased to be a Nobel Medalistic Bearer"
posted by benjh at 9:04 PM on September 25, 2001

1) accumulate sufficent evidence against those responsible for the attacks
2) be willing to present it as need be

How can #1 be done if #2 hasn't yet been done? Do YOU know they accumulated sufficient evidence? No you don't.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 4:17 AM on September 26, 2001

« Older On the art of Propaganda... | Bookmark Sync ... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

September 25, 2001 6:51 AM Subscribe

September 25, 2001
6:51 AM Subscribe