I must have missed the joke. Did you read the article -- or just the title?

Tell me which was the punch line:

* The Nobel Peace Prize is intended to go to the individual who has done the most to further peace in the past year, although sometimes, as with Carter, the prize is more for lifetime achievement. By “peace,” the Nobellians do not, of course, mean any peace. The prize is not intended to honor the peace of the jackboot, the absence of conflict that is sustained by internal police forces and occupying armies. If such peace was worthy of honor, the committee would each year face a choice made impossible by the sheer number of worthy contenders.



* And in these terms, what, exactly, has Carter done? His great achievement as president, in this regard, was to broker a peace agreement in 1979 between Egypt and Israel. This was a good thing, but it did not — 617 Israelis dead these past two years, 1,909 Palestinians — actually result in peace.

* One day, occupied Kuwait was a place of grand-scale, state-sanctioned murder, rape, torture and theft. The next day it was not; it was, again, a country at peace. The sole reason for this peace was the war brought by the American president.

* The second President Bush marshaled an army that ousted the foreign-backed occupiers of Afghanistan and destroyed a tyranny whose entire philosophy and every action was a violation of all that is basic to human rights.

* Now, Bush proposes war again — to overthrow what the New Republic, in its current cover story “The Liberal Case for War,” calls “one of the most internally violent and repressive regimes on Earth.”





Well, I found this one to be humorous, in a truthful sort of way:
* To imagine American force was a force for good, one would have to imagine America was a force for good. And this, the Bourbons of Oslo will never, never do.

Dan (really, I'm usually not this dense when it comes to humor)