ALFRED NOBEL WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIS AWARD TO GEORGE W.

by Steve Young

The news of Gore's Nobel Prize interrupted quite an entertaining week for the Lords of Loud.

Ann Coulter had gone anti-Semite all over Judaism and reason.

"We (Christians) just want Jews to be perfected."

Bill O'Reilly used Jimmy Carter to help define the First Amendment for the Folks.

"Jimmy Carter has the right to say anything he wants, but he doesn't right to change history."

What's the matter, Bill? Can't stand the competition?

Fox's John Gibson sought to bring us all together.

"I know the shooter was white. I knew it as soon as he shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again." Gibson added: "I know there's a few of you who want to call me racist. But when you do, remind -- let me remind you, African-Americans are dying in major cities because people won't face this problem."

Carter, African-Americans, Jews. Yes, they are a rich source on the demeaning propaganda menu. But those were only appetizers when you consider what Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize did for the LOL and the White House. A White House official said, "We're happy for him but suspect he'd trade places before we would."

Yes. Who wouldn't want the splendorific legacy President Bush has molded?

Sean Hannity suggested that President Bush was one of those who deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

Backing that up, interviewed about the Iraq War by al-Arabiya television last week, Bush said. "I believe the actions we have taken will make it more likely peace happens."

And they say the Right doesn't have a sense of humor.

Then again, Alfred Nobel did request his Peace Prize be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies."

Saying that Bush's invasion of Iraq created a world-wide "fraternity" against us would be facetious at best, but starting with the dissolution of the Iraqi Army through the slow abandonment of the Coalition of the More and More Unwilling, who but President Bush has done as much to reduce the standing armies in Iraq? When you count the dead and disabled along with the continuing crippling of own armies and National Guard to deal with further battle fronts and homeland emergencies, Mr. Bush should be a shoo-in for the Prize.

And who better than Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, Bush's former top American commander, to give the nominating speech?

This week, with his subtle reflection of Bush's Iraq prize-winning efforts, which he called a "living a nightmare with no end in sight," General Sanchez gave us some advance copy of what might appear in the speech.

"There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders."

Tell me Mr. Gore isn't chomping at the bit to trade places.

Sanchez added that civilian officials have been "derelict in their duties" and guilty of a "lust for power."

"After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism."

"The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder responsibility for the catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable."

What better way to hold Bush and his apologists accountable than to give Bush the Peace Prize as Nobel had intended it to be?

The inventor of dynamite would demand no less of his endowment.