Ambassador Bolton Needs to STAY in the UN
It is one thing to have a "change in direction" in Iraq - most would agree that some fresh tactics and a revamped strategy are in order. It is another thing entirely to replace our stolid Ambassador to the UN who, in such a short and trying time, has done a fantastic job. In times like these, one who can stand up to an impetuous nuclear-hungry dictator like Kim Jong Il; or a sulphur-sniffing banana-republic bully like Hugo Chavez.
In times like these - we need John Bolton.
As stated recently in the New York Post:John Bolton has been too good an ambassador - at a time when America sorely needs an effective envoy at Turtle Bay - to be tossed on the scrap heap because of the Democrats' short-sightedness.Like it or not, the United States needs a man who can unflinchingly assert American influence on this fallible body of (mostly) hostile nations.
...Last week, Tehran called Tueday's elections a victory for Iran, Chavez called for Bush's execution, al Qaeda in Iraq said it wouldn't rest until it blew up the White House, and former Gitmo detainees moved to bring criminal charges in Germany against top Bush administration officials.
- It was Bolton who recently organized the majority coalition that blocked Hugo Chavez's Venezuela from winning a seat on the Security Council.
- It was Bolton who worked with France to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah (flawed as it was).
- It was Bolton who took the lead in pressing for comprehensive reform of the U.N.'s rotting institutional infrastructure.
- It is Bolton who has refused to play the game of diplomatic double-talk, refusing to participate in the new - and already discredited - Human Rights Council, which he memorably called a case of "putting lipstick on a caterpillar and calling it a butterfly."
Much of this, of course, is little more than a postelection pile-on against a president seen as a powerless lame duck. But it may also represent a genuine belief that the Democrats, who campaigned against every aspect of Bush's foreign policy, will go soft in the War on Terror.
But the emboldened majority, who has promised "no payback" seems to have anticipated an end to the honeymoon. The pile-on has begun, and for no good reason other than partisan revenge. Also from the Post:Democrats have an obligation to demonstrate conclusively to America's enemies that they don't have allies on Capitol Hill. By moving so swiftly to torpedo John Bolton, they've sent precisely the opposite signal.Apparently, if the President is forced to do another recess appointment that will give us another year of Ambassador Bolton, it will have to be without salary. Claudia of The Rosset Report has suggested that WE AMERICANS put together a fund to pay his salary. Not a bad idea - and what a mandate that would be for Mr. Bolton (and a slap to some of these heel-nipping Democrats)!