i would like to read the nominating papers on this.

Ed Fitzgerald made a rather petty observation that it's not entirely clear that he can make the nomination. He's the former liberal party leader, isn't he, not the current leader?

Anyway, it's petty, and he possibly has other avenues to legitimacy in nominating Bolton since the qualifications are so broad.

He's most definitely the former party leader. He hasn't been in that position since 1978, IIRC.

Stanley "Tookie" Williams was repeatedly nominated for a Nobel. Nominations came from Mario Fehr, a member of the Swiss Parliament.(WIki)

Must be something about all that cold and the dark of winter.

It's the winning that's the hard part.

Man... talk about a sense of humor!

Someone's been smokin crack.

so, wanting to decapitate the u.n. building obviously has no bearing on the matter... nothing like being nominated for a nobel prize to confirm serial abuse as foreign policy...

http://www.blogger.com/publish.g?blogID=11864994&inprogress=true

Petty or not, there's more background on the Bolton nomination here.

History has shown, that in hard times ONLY hard men prevail. All the moral weaklings and nipple-fed intellectuals are cast aside.

John Bolton, as a strong uncompromisingly principled American, deserves every piece of the Nobel Price.

Blog: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com

any truth to this?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm

Ex-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran

Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent

By Brandon Garcia

02/06/06 (Santa Fe New Mexican, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."

"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.

I nominate Bolton to come clean my toilet.

Bolton a hard, hard man, Con-George?
You're not in possession of some videos from Plato's Retreat, are you?

Ritter is delusional.

Everyone knows Iran covets a nuclear weapon, they see it as a brinkmanship with Israel and valuable ploy against Europe and the US.

Iranian hard-liners have long envied being a member of the worlds few nuclear powers, and saw that while India and Pakistan were initially punished, the outcomes of the nuclear weapon buildup were positive in their solidifying of nationalist fervor and ability to garner major regional and political power.

For Ritter to say Iran just wants nuclear energy, not to make a bomb is like listening to a pathological liar.

Ahmadinejad is more than ever pushing for the clash with the West and the nuclear weapons, he sees himself as being able to do what few Arab leaders could ever do.

Should we be surprised? Consider others who have won the price: Elihu Root (responsible for developing vicious counterinsurgency policies toward the Philippines in the early 1900's), Henry Kissinger (Southeast Asia), and Yasser Arafat.

Nothing new.

Per Ahlmark also called Hans Blix "an incompetent dork" and wrote an article in Washington Times about "sending a naive fool to disarm Saddam". Interestingly , their memebers of the same party in Sweden...

Swedish TWN reader

Oh, please. Not this crap again.

The whole thing's a hoax. Any fool can write a letter to the Nominating Committee suggesting a name. That is NOT an actual "Nobel Prize Nomination," howevwer.

Perhaps y'all remember the Terri Schiavo circus, when Fox News host Sean Hannity and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough both promoted the noted quack Dr. William ("Terri Can Be Rehabilitated") Hammesfahr's as "a Nobel Prize nominee."
Turns out that guy who nominated him was Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) - who is, BTW, completely unqualified to nominate anyone for the Nobel Prize.

How are people really nomianted? The Nobel Assembly sends out invitations to approximately 3,000 people who are allowed to propose candidates. The 3,000 are "mainly members of the Nobel Assembly, previous prize winners, and a selection of professors at universities around the world."

You want to tell me which of those categories Per Ahlmark falls into?

This is what it comes down to: any damn fool can write a letter 'nominating' any other damn fool. It's about as meaningful as me putting on a crown and announcing myself as a claimaint to the Czarist Throne of Russia.

Gee Steve, lighten up. If Bremer and Tenet can get goosed with Presidential Medals of Freedom, than surely Bolton is equally as undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

"For Ritter to say Iran just wants nuclear energy, not to make a bomb is like listening to a pathological liar"

You're breaking ranks with Bush, are you? I agree, believing a pathological liar is sheer idiocy. In regards to IRAQI WMDs, who was "right", (or "honest"), Ritter or Bush??? Now, WHO is the pathological liar????

(Go ahead, JS, its OK if you need to talk about Clinton now.)

Well, there are loons in Sweden as well... As noted above, Mr Ahlmark hasn't been political active since 1978 and I surely hope that none of the elected officials in Sweden will redo this stupid mistake.

Cheers from Sweden

The Nobel Peace Prize doesn't really mean what it used to anymore. It used to be quite an honor, now it's just a political tool. It no longer really honors what it was intended to.

Scott Ritter destroyed his credibility permanently when he took money from Saddam cronies. As to what happened to the wmd Ira admitted to having? We don't know what happened to all of them.

It was Iraq, of course, that admitted to having WMD. Not Ira, sorry for the typo above...

"Scott Ritter destroyed his credibility permanently when he took money from Saddam cronies. As to what happened to the wmd Ira admitted to having? We don't know what happened to all of them."

Still blathering on about that piece of misleading spin, eh??? Well, it beats using a blow job as your standard rebuttal. Good for you, its actually refreshing when you rotate the lines of bullshit! I kinda miss the one about how the F-16s that were buried in the sand prove Bush's case. Can you please resurrect that one for our reading pleasure???

Being pissed off is one thing, being silly is quite another. Ritter, himself, doesn't even say that he didn't take money from cronies of Saddam.

I haven't a clue what your blow job comment refers to. And I wouldn't care if Scott Ritter got a bj from Saddam himself.

I'm a democrat, btw. Try to think a bit more broadly than you seem to be doing here. Everything isn't as black and white as you appear to think it is.

"I'm a democrat, btw."

Yeah??? Well so is Lieberman. You aren't fooling anyone here, troll.