The editors of the Sun need to look up "peace" in dictionary.com

So that's where the Weekly World News reporters are working now.

...add a Nobel Prize for dissembling? War crimes, maybe? Oh, I know, bootlicking! Dave's a shoo in.

...whose Machiavellian machinations helped extend the Vietnam War for roughly three years (and whose cynical agreement with N. Vietnam all but assured the downfall of South Vietnam), the Nobel committee basically made the award meaningless.

So what the hell, give it to Petraeus. I think he's devolved into the worst kind of stooge for the Bush Admin, but he still has a hell of a lot less blood on his hands than some of the other Nobel recipients.

This is just another in a long, long series of efforts of the fascist right in this country to undermine yet another institution it sees as opposition to its agenda.

It's stupid, sure. But since when did anyone lose anything underestimating the intelligence of the American public?

Once can hope, however, that this is a bit much.

And, by the way, since when did the Nobel committee give a rat's ass about "our policies"? The Sun acts as if the Nobel is somehow an American thing. Sheesh. What a bunch of losers.

...the odds are long for Petraeus because unlike most recent Peace Prize recipients, he "doesn't seem to hate President Bush."

Why should Nobel Peace Prize recipients be any different from the rest of the world?

Let's forget how much we love or hate the war and the General's role in it. Aren't Nobel prizes supposed to go to people who do something or discover something absolutely spectacular? Like, something new that advances whatever field they are a part of?

What has Petraeus done? His job. Forget the arguments about the legitimacy of his job, and forget how good a job he's doing. He's a soldier. He has his orders and he's executing them to the (presumably) best of his ability. Nothing hugely special, even if he's good at it.

Are we giving prestigious awards to people who are just doing their jobs? Do the writers of the daily police blotter in your local newspaper get Pulitzers?

More from the Sun editorial: "It has seemed to us that the American GI is the greatest force for peace in the world today, and we say that without the slightest bit of irony." And regarding certain past Nobel recipients, "They understood that true peace is earned in victory."

So, what do you mean by victory? Subjugation? Because that worked so well in Weimar Germany. Extermination? Like bombing Japan in Word War II? How about peace-keeping forces to prevent genocide? Because Conservatives have typically viewed this as a bad use of our military.

Look, at their best, soldiers do what is necessary. What the rest of us cannot do. And they sacrifice their own lives and liberties to do it. But "war" does not equal "peace."

Woodrow Wilson (though opposed at the time) advocated "Peace Without Victory." He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, and I think history proved the stubborn man right in many respects.

Anyway, wanna comment on the Sun's proposal on their website? Beware! "Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable."

Objectionable indeed.

Was Petraeus even nominated? And isn't that something of a requirement?

I do recall hearing, with some amusement, a right wing attempt to nominate Rush Limbaugh - I swear I am not making this up - and the would-be nominators had no standing to do so. Can Petraeus' "nomination" be any different?

I think the Sun lost whatever credibility it had when it pushed Cheney to run for president in 2008:

http://www.nysun.com/article/51783

Is a right wing rag that just gathers just on any news stand that even bothers to carry it. I just commented on their idea on their web site, I highly doubt that will ever see the light of day because, as, like all right wing boards, they edit any rebuttal that doesn't follow the daily wingnut talking points.

As I suspected, they won't publish my response. Cowards!

Haven't heard a murmur out of them for some time now, and not one single dead Iraqi has protested Petraeus's possible peace prize.

Hey Tim, have you not read or apprehended the Lancet report on "extra" Iraqi deaths? It's 650,000 at the low end, over a 1 million at the hight end.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Maybe you missed the ORB report,(I doubt it) which placed the number at around 1.2 million. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/orb2-s17.shtml

Do you get your figures from the dear leader who guessed it was around 30,000, not that he cared? Or are you quoting from the Iraqi Body Count site and can't be bothered to read the fine print that states they only count the dead mentioned in at least 2 media reports - media reports that are in short supply since no American ventures outside the Green Zone anymore except for the odd search and destroy mission.

In the future Mr. Grieve, I would hope that you give the dead the courtesy of at least counting them correctly.

Petraeus is a war criminal, and Gore is missing in action. He stood by with a smirk while America smashed a country - for no reason. And now he stands by again, refusing to serve, while the carnage in Iraq, and soon Iran, continues. A peace prize? What's wrong with you people? Where's the peace?

They're like the Flat Earthers, the Creationists, etc. They've always been amongst us.

Murderous Tyrants like Arafat.

Obscure third world women who do things in far way countries you don't care about.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

Cuz nobody could ever accuse me of not hating our little swagger monkey.

Looks like I have a shot...

Well, maybe he'll finally be embarrassed now.

More from the Sun editorial: "It has seemed to us that the American GI is the greatest force for peace in the world today, and we say that without the slightest bit of irony."

That can only be because their sense of irony has been surgically removed.