Posted on 07/30/2006 4:20:20 AM PDT by knighthawk
For the past year, Ambassador John Bolton has more than ably represented the United States at the United Nations, forcefully articulating U.S. policy and pressing for much-needed reforms in the calcified world body. On the merits, Senate confirmation of the redoubtable Mr. Bolton should be a cakewalk - but it's not. Democrats, chief among them Joe Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, are using the vote to conduct guerrilla warfare against President Bush, whose policies they despise. Since they cannot find a valid reason to deny the President his choice of ambassador, they stoop to caricaturing Bolton as lacking the tact necessary for successful diplomacy.
Their hogwash would be comical except for the fact that, by filibustering, the Democrats could remove Bolton from the UN. This must not happen. And New York's Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton must not participate in such a senatorial hissy fit. Better yet, they should give Bolton a straight thumbs up when his nomination moves from the Foreign Relations Committee to the Senate floor.
During his career in international public service, Bolton helped design the U.S. action that pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and was part of the effort persuading Libya to drop its weapons program. Yet the Dems and one Republican filibustered to block his nomination last year. Bush slipped him in as a recess appointment. His term expires at the end of the year. Thus, he is up for formal confirmation again.
Bolton has a superb record and to deny him would send a dreadful message to the world that the President is not in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Even uglier, it would be doing the bidding of Kofi Annan and the secretary general's enforcer Mark Malloch Brown, who has cozied up to the Democrats in the hope of dumping Bolton. This is the same MMB who intruded grossly into U.S. politics last month by telling a gathering of Democrats that Washington had allowed "too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping."
In his 12 months at Turtle Bay, Bolton has shone the spotlight on the crisis in Darfur, Sudan - which the international community had done its best to deny - and worked ferociously against international terrorism and tirelessly for reform of the dysfunctional UN itself. He also stood courageously against the cosmetic "replacement" of a Human Rights Commission peopled by despots with a Human Rights Council peopled by same. No wonder Kofi and Pals feel threatened.
Bolton's lone Republican opponent has seen the error of his judgment. But the Democratic brief continues to depict Bolton as a man incapable of building consensus. What the Dems mean is that he doesn't go along with the same old, ineffective, same old. And what they leave out are hard-fought gains, such as nudging the Security Council toward acting against Iran's nuclear program. And when it suits them, the Democrats say that Bolton is not, well, assertive enough.
Cynical case in point: Biden's accusation that Bolton had failed to get the UN to enforce Resolution 1559, which demands the disarming and disbanding of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Security Council passed the thing with no intention of following through, and the UN in general would sooner give up its diplomatic plates than defend Israel's right to exist - and Biden puts the onus on Bolton. Beautiful.
Much as his foes would like to paint Bolton as a loose cannon, the facts prove otherwise. He is a silver bullet following a trajectory into the heart of what ails the UN. And America needs him there.
No more UN for US-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
Rats want to please their moonbat base? How many of them are even register to vote or are literate? This is a maneuver that is at best catering to a segment of their constituency that can only be described as the lowest common denominator of America society (if the word "American" can be used at all here.)
Another pointless political maneuver for the rats. Let them spend as much time, money and resources on it as possible.
I had some reservations about Bolton myself, but was cautiously optimistic that he was the kick in the rear the UN needed.
Bolton has completely gained my support, and I think he is among the best - if not the best appointment President Bush has made.
I still don't like his moustache though. The carpet just doesn't match the drapes. Don't they have Grecian formula for moustaches?
Hellaceous Hilary and Chuck the Schmuck are going to vote AGAINST Bolton.
Jean Kirkpatric, Daniel Moynihan and John Bolton, and the best of these is John Bolton. I would like the US to withdraw from the UN, but since that doesn't seem realistic, at least at this time, it is a great comfort to have John Bolton there.
The Democrats have proven time and time again that they do not stand for what is right, nor do they mean to do anything to help this country while President Bush is in office.
Imagine Bolton as Sec. of State, and Condi at the Useless Nations.
Either keep Bolton or kick the UN out of the USA and abandon it.
Face it. In his 12 months at the UN Bolton has accomplished exactly nothing. No reforms have been enacted, the Human Rights Council has the same group of human rights abusers on it, no new alliances have come forth, it's been business at usual. And the reason for this is that the UN doesn't want to reform, it prefers that the issues Bolton tries to raise remain swept under the rug, and nobody believes that Bolton or Bush have the best interests of the UN in mind anyway. Nobody the administration sends there, not Bolton or Rice or Jesus Christ Himself, will ever make a difference. So when faced with that, the question becomes why bother to send anyone at all? Leave the position vacant and send a message to the UN that way.
Wow! This from the New York Daily News. Common sense from a liberal quarter. Will wonders never cease?
He should be the new Secretary of the UN .
Is this written by Mort Zuckerman?
I say file an eminent domain claim on the UN property and allow the city of NY to put something useful there like another Starbucks or perhaps a Hooters , what say ???
Thanks for the ping.
Well,anything else in place of the U.N. would bring in more tax money,and isn't increased taxation the purpose of eminent domain?
Condos
No author was given.
Yes , political capitalism , expanding the tax base . All good reasons for claming eminent domain over the UN property .
Condos are already an eye sore , there everywhere , but a hOOters now that's a real eye pleaser .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.