John Bolton
Yesterday, President Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The President certainly knew that by executing his Constitutional right to install Bolton in this position, he would anger democrats and would receive an avalanche of criticism, but so what? Everything President Bush does angers democrats and triggers criticism. However, after five months of deadlock, it was time to have the position filled.
The left have constantly been extolling the virtues of the United States working with the United Nations, yet they were willing to set still with this position unfilled since John Danforth left in January. Evidently, obstructing every move the President makes is more important to them than having the United States' interests represented in the U.N. Fortunately, the President took the right course of action.
Democrats' denunciation of Bolton has focused largely on three areas: mistreatment of subordinates, intimidation of intelligence analysts, and past criticism of the U.N.
On the charge of mistreatment of subordinates, I suspect that most of those making this charge really don't care, and in truth, it has nothing to do with Bolton's qualifications for the position of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. It is, however, good ammunition in a gun aimed at Bolton, and ultimately at Bush. Reminds me of Gitmo.
As for the alleged intimidation of intelligence analysts - investigations have yielded no proof of wrongdoing. It sounds like just another chapter in the "Bush lied" absurdity. (See "Bush Lied" - A Mindless Rant for my thoughts on that issue.)
What about the charge that Bolton has been critical of the United Nations? That allegation is accurate. He has been critical of the U.N. Why shouldn't he be? The U.N. is one of the most corrupt, ineffectual organizations on the planet.
The only real fear the left has of Bolton is his aggressive outspokenness and the danger that he will, from a position of strength, vigorously defend U.S. interests. This is unnerving for those who believe that better U.S. policy is to appease our enemies in hopes of making them like us.
Yesterday, after being named to his new position, Bolton said, "It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N." The words "for America's values and interests" are welcome words. We need someone who will stand up for America. Bolton looks like just the man to do so.
The left have constantly been extolling the virtues of the United States working with the United Nations, yet they were willing to set still with this position unfilled since John Danforth left in January. Evidently, obstructing every move the President makes is more important to them than having the United States' interests represented in the U.N. Fortunately, the President took the right course of action.
Democrats' denunciation of Bolton has focused largely on three areas: mistreatment of subordinates, intimidation of intelligence analysts, and past criticism of the U.N.
On the charge of mistreatment of subordinates, I suspect that most of those making this charge really don't care, and in truth, it has nothing to do with Bolton's qualifications for the position of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. It is, however, good ammunition in a gun aimed at Bolton, and ultimately at Bush. Reminds me of Gitmo.
As for the alleged intimidation of intelligence analysts - investigations have yielded no proof of wrongdoing. It sounds like just another chapter in the "Bush lied" absurdity. (See "Bush Lied" - A Mindless Rant for my thoughts on that issue.)
What about the charge that Bolton has been critical of the United Nations? That allegation is accurate. He has been critical of the U.N. Why shouldn't he be? The U.N. is one of the most corrupt, ineffectual organizations on the planet.
The only real fear the left has of Bolton is his aggressive outspokenness and the danger that he will, from a position of strength, vigorously defend U.S. interests. This is unnerving for those who believe that better U.S. policy is to appease our enemies in hopes of making them like us.
Yesterday, after being named to his new position, Bolton said, "It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N." The words "for America's values and interests" are welcome words. We need someone who will stand up for America. Bolton looks like just the man to do so.
posted by Bryan Alexander | 12:09 PM
1 Comments:
Betsy Newmark of "Betsy's Page writes about the recess appointment of John Bolton:
What gets me is the media and the Democratic senators acting as if the Senate had already rejected Bolton. Nope. The minority had filibustered the appointment, but Bolton would have been approved, probably narrowly, but approved with a straight up or down vote. And the Constitution gives the President recess appointment power, a power many presidents from George Washington on have used.Seeing as how the job of the UN ambassador is to vocalize the administration's foreign policies at the UN, the president has the right to pick his own spokesman. It is not as if Bolton will be making policy there. If Democrats have problems with what Bolton says while he's there, their problem is with the fact that Bush is the president, not John Bolton
Post a Comment
<< Home