Who Do You Give It To, Then?

Yesterday, the Bush White House demonstrated yet again its utter lack of class by its refusal to congratulate Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, all that it offered was a brusque dismissal by press spokesman Tony Fatto: "Obviously it's an important recognition, and we're sure the vice president is thrilled." Nice.

Proving that they can be just as crass, however, the Washington Post editorial board decided that this award was a good excuse to call Gore a liar again, and for bonus points, slam the Nobel Committee for its obvious partisanship, thus calling into question whether Gore legitimately deserves the honor.

The Nobel committee chairman said that awarding the prize to Mr. Gore and the IPCC was not meant to be "a kick in the leg to anyone." The White House said it didn't see it that way, either. But these denials are hard to take seriously from a group that has handed the peace prize to adversaries of President Bush in several recent years.

One has to wonder which "adversaries" the Post is thinking of. Mohamed ElBaradei in 2005? Yes, he was right about Iraq's (lack of a) nuclear program while Bush got it wrong, so one can see how he might be counted as an adversary. Jimmy Carter in 2002? Forget two decades working tirelessly for democracy, he's a Democrat, so that probably counts. The United Nations in 2001, otherwise known as "the world"? True, Bush isn't very popular around the globe right now, so another mark in the "adversary" column, I guess.

But really, if the Post is saying that the rule should be that you can't give the Peace Prize to critics of our warmongering President, there aren't a lot of candidates left. Gore has the virtue of being right on global warming, and if that makes him an opponent of Bush, who's reckless do-nothing policy has put us years behind the rest of the world in addressing this crisis, then more power to him.