It has been said many times before: If Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace Prize, anyone can.

Al Gore’s recent work promoting global warming is to be commended. His congressional opposition to the Reagan administration’s support for the genocidal Hussein regime also warrants mention. These are the only significant, nice things that I can think to say of him.
The son of segregationists – his father, Senator Albert Gore Sr., participated in the Southern filibuster of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 – the dauphin’s record as a "public servant" is equally reprehensible. As Vice President he headed the hawkish coalition in the White House on Iraq, urging President Clinton to ceaselessly bomb the already brutalized country throughout the 90’s – to what end was never made clear. He was a stalwart supporter of the barbaric sanctions, which are estimated to have murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

In 1993, he famously debated lunatic Ross Perot on NAFTA on the Larry King show. Arguing that the legislation would be good for both American and Mexican workers, he likely managed to sway a few skeptical yet crucial Democratic congressmen. One million displaced Mexican corn farmers later, Mr. Gore hasn’t repented.

His record on the death penalty is nauseating. As Vice President, he oversaw the expansion of the federal death penalty, and, like his boss, could never bring himself to oppose the execution of youth offenders or the mentally handicapped.

By writing this, I don’t mean single out the former Vice President; he carries the typical baggage of a centrist Democrat. It is the obtrusive contradiction between his reception of the world’s most important humanitarian award and his egregious public record that warrants the above attention.

The question, then, must be asked: Why would the Swedes give their precious prize to such a figure? It’s purely political. Europe’s fashionable, liberal cultural elite will do anything to embarrass the Bush administration, and, as Christopher Hitchens notes in his most recent Slate column, the Nobel Prize is their most effective way to do it. Thus, Jimmy Carter (Peace Prize, 2004) and Harold Pinter (Literature Prize, 2005), two vocal opponents of the Bush presidency, were enthusiastically greeted in Stockholm. I wouldn’t object to the latter two, but it is, nonetheless, sad to see how the Nobel has become so corrupted.