Nobel foolishness

The idea of fighting so that you can live in peace baffles liberals, who consider it to be the ultimate oxymoronic statement.

But it is really no different than saying that you work so that you can enjoy leisure.

The war to transform the Middle East might just make the world a much safer place. I believe it is the best chance we have. Our actions in Iraq might save millions of Americans (and hundreds of millions of Arabs) from nuclear holocaust.

We may never know the answer. I hope it is always to be one of those unanswerables, like the conjecture about what would have happened if Hitler had gotten the bomb first.

At least somebody agrees with me:Bush, Pope are among nominees for peace prize

President Bush, Pope John Paul II, and the two U.N. officials at the heart of the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are among the nominees for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.

Hey, why not?

The Nobel Peace Prize has been an nominate-a-fool award for years.

At least Bush can make the case that if he hadn't acted, there would be 50,000 more dead Iraqis today.

What similar case can the Pope make? Or Chirac? Or Blix?

- posted by total @ 3/04/2004 12:40:00 PM .