Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Judge Rules No Food, Water For Terri Schiavo: Who's Next? | Main | More Bird Flu(Avian Influenza) Concern In Vietnam Cases »

March 9, 2005

On Defending Bolton:

Topics: National News

From today's Democracy Project post on Bolton, we have:

In a prescient post yesterday, Brent Tantillo of Democracy Project called for bloggers to defend John Bolton, whom President Bush nominated to become the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

Today that process is underway, as Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post, Jacob Heilbrunn (no conservative) at the L.A. Times (registration), and the editorial pages of the Washington Times and New York Sun.

All of these make excellent points and are strong defenses of Bolton. All recognized that the U.N. is morally bankrupt, corrupt, and in dire need of reform.

If the left wants to pick a fight over Bolton's nomination, bring them on. This will be yet another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern left -- of its desire to avoid tackling tough problems, and of its incapacity for creative thinking on, seemingly, any important issue.

The "If the left wants to pick a fight over Bolton's nomination, bring them on," just might turn out to be as prescient as the recognition for a need to call for bloggers to defend Bolton, if the clamor we are already hearing from the relatively few loud voices from the left(the Village Voice calls Bolton a WMD) is any indication of the potential for a fray over his nomination as U.S. ambassador to the U.N..

But regardless of how loud the left wants to scream their discontent over yet another issue for which they have yet to offer any plausible alternative(of course in fairness they don't get to choose because they lost the election), that being more or less now a habit of the left in which they're just against and never for, Bolton will win confirmation and the left will be losers, yet again. But what kind of guy are we sending to the UN? Here's a hint:

Howard LaFranchi, in The Christian Science Monitor, thought "the key to understanding such a controversial nomination may lie more in Bush's own calls for the world body to become a more effective global forum - in particular by enforcing its own decisions - than in speculation that the Administration wants to antagonise what it sees as a stodgy talkshop."

He then quoted Michael Doyle, a professor of law and international affairs at Columbia University in New York: "If he's being sent to New York to throw rocks, it won't do a lot of good. On the other hand, if he's being sent to provide leadership for reform, that's a different story. He's the kind of person who could bring on board many sceptics in the Congress."

My bet is that he is being sent to New York to provide the much needed leadership for the reform of what has become a laughing stock of an international forum with absolutely no credibility among rational beings.

Posted by Hyscience at March 9, 2005 9:25 AM

Articles Related to National News: